People occasionally ask why I don't assign my photos a Creative Commons license. Dan Heller explains. And adds a horror story here.
The short of it is, while Creative Commons was established with the best of intentions it is easily abused in the photographic setting. Users unknowingly open themselves up to large legal risks, and I find photo licensing by traditional means to be both more secure and more professional.
More like this
Larry Lessig reports some exciting, huge and important news: free licenses upheld:
So for non-lawgeeks, this won't seem important. But trust me, this is huge.
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Toda_Hut.JPG">
class="inset"
alt="Flickr. By Chickenboots. Creative Commons License"
title="Flickr. By Chickenboots. Creative Commons License"
src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/148054501_759fdbdd9b.jpg"
(note - I have edited this post to add in Rufus Pollock, who I left out primarily because I wasn't sure he would endorse the ideas in this post - Peter notes that he was not only at the meeting but essential, so I'm happy to add these edits!)