> If you actually wanted people to use your work freely, you'd release it into the public domain. The photographer explicitly didn't want it to be used freely.

> If you actually wanted people to use your work freely, you'd release it into the public domain. The photographer explicitly didn't want it to be used freely. He wanted it be used for free only by people who gave him credit for his work, which is why he used a license that said so. Per the article: “I’m happy to see my photos spread around, but I demand proper attribution. It’s not much for a free photo.” > This incident shows that CC evangelists can be just as controlling and litigious as the conventional copyright holders they inveigh against. So much for making the world more equitable and accessible. Why are you railing against people who fight for CC licenses? Surely it is better than conventional copyright holders, who charge you for any use of their work? Are you against copyright law as a whole, and believe everything should be in the public domain?