6 ms·

No way, this only affects remixers who can't be bothered to shoot their own references.

by nnash 8y ago

jeena 8y ago
Not true, I release all my photos under a CC license out of principle.
- jaysonelliot 8y ago
  What is that principle? I'm a fan of CC, and I see how it is valuable to people, but what is the core principle involved with not being paid for your work? Honest question. Creative Commons is a wonderful thing. I'm just wondering what you mean by stating that you have a principled reason for releasing everything under CC.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    > but what is the core principle involved with not being paid for your work? I doubt their core principle is to not be paid for their work, and they never said that it was - you've imagined that from a silly twist of what they've written. They said their core principle was to licence as CC. Do you think charity volunteers have a core principle to work for free? Of course not - instead they have a core principle to contribute towards a cause and they accept not being paid for it in order to achieve that. I would imagine this person's core principle is the same - they want to contribute their photographs for other people to use without licensing problems and they accept not being paid for it.
  - namibj 8y ago
    Err, you can use CC-BY-NC the same as AGPL can be used for semi-commercial software like CockroachDB et al. Yes, a plain CC-0 or CC-BY makes it hard to sell licenses, though they are still possible, due to not being able to make it look endorsed by the original creator, which is somewhat hard in e.g. submarine ads, like those where billboards show something you don't understand for a few weeks/months, followed by a reveal that links the brand to the campaign. There are probably other usecases that are blocked/made hard by CC-BY alone, without even going to CC-BY-NC.
  - lsiebert 8y ago
    You can dual license, CC non commercial attribution or something, and a regular commercial license.
  - jeena 8y ago
    It's mostly: I use other people's software/media/services which give me a lot of freedom, so it's the least I can do, to release the photos I already took under a license under which I also give those freedoms to other people. I'm mostly an amateur photographer and only occasionally do payed work anyway. Most of my work with models is TFP (Time for print), and then I negotiate that those pictures become CC too.
jonknee 8y ago
Or anyone who wants to put up images for talented remixers to create new works with...
whyenot 8y ago
Nonsense. I publish all of my photos on Flickr using a CC license. My picture of California’s Martins Beach has been used in several publications, my pictures from state parks have also shown up in quite a few places. I don’t need to monetize this aspect of my life. That people are enjoying and using my artwork is great, more than I was expecting.

No way, this only affects remixers who can't be bothered to shoot their own references.

by nnash 8y ago

No way, this only affects remixers who can't be bothered to shoot their own references.

jeena 8y ago

Not true, I release all my photos under a CC license out of principle.

jaysonelliot 8y ago
What is that principle? I'm a fan of CC, and I see how it is valuable to people, but what is the core principle involved with not being paid for your work? Honest question. Creative Commons is a wonderful thing. I'm just wondering what you mean by stating that you have a principled reason for releasing everything under CC.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > but what is the core principle involved with not being paid for your work? I doubt their core principle is to not be paid for their work, and they never said that it was - you've imagined that from a silly twist of what they've written. They said their core principle was to licence as CC. Do you think charity volunteers have a core principle to work for free? Of course not - instead they have a core principle to contribute towards a cause and they accept not being paid for it in order to achieve that. I would imagine this person's core principle is the same - they want to contribute their photographs for other people to use without licensing problems and they accept not being paid for it.
- namibj 8y ago
  Err, you can use CC-BY-NC the same as AGPL can be used for semi-commercial software like CockroachDB et al. Yes, a plain CC-0 or CC-BY makes it hard to sell licenses, though they are still possible, due to not being able to make it look endorsed by the original creator, which is somewhat hard in e.g. submarine ads, like those where billboards show something you don't understand for a few weeks/months, followed by a reveal that links the brand to the campaign. There are probably other usecases that are blocked/made hard by CC-BY alone, without even going to CC-BY-NC.
- lsiebert 8y ago
  You can dual license, CC non commercial attribution or something, and a regular commercial license.
- jeena 8y ago
  It's mostly: I use other people's software/media/services which give me a lot of freedom, so it's the least I can do, to release the photos I already took under a license under which I also give those freedoms to other people. I'm mostly an amateur photographer and only occasionally do payed work anyway. Most of my work with models is TFP (Time for print), and then I negotiate that those pictures become CC too.

jonknee 8y ago

Or anyone who wants to put up images for talented remixers to create new works with...

whyenot 8y ago

Nonsense. I publish all of my photos on Flickr using a CC license. My picture of California’s Martins Beach has been used in several publications, my pictures from state parks have also shown up in quite a few places. I don’t need to monetize this aspect of my life. That people are enjoying and using my artwork is great, more than I was expecting.