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.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
This morning I had to deny a scientist permission to use my photos of her ants in a paper headed for PLoS Biology. I hate doing that. Especially when I took those photos in part to help her to promote her research.
The problem is that PLoS content is managed under a Creative Commons (=CC)…
I don't like getting into blog back and forths, but this post from the Information Research folks really deserves a reply of its own. I believe this is an honest piece of confusion, and it's likely the result of FUD from the traditional publishing community. I invite the Information Research folks…
The rise of microstock photography has many established photographers wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth over how microstock companies are destroying the business.
What is microstock? It is a relatively new internet-based business model that licenses existing images for scandalously low…
My last posts on why I don't like the open source metaphor for science have generated a lot of good comments, here and in my email, twitter, and in person.
They've forced me to think about what exactly it is about the meme that makes me so uncomfortable, and raised some good objections and points…