4 ms·

Which goes right back to "yes, but...". There's an enormous pattern of "it's okay to use X if I say it's not mine" both individually and commercially and it's

by Groxx 3y ago

Which goes right back to "yes, but...". There's an enormous pattern of "it's okay to use X if I say it's not mine" both individually and commercially and it's not okay. The whole point of these licenses is to have a lever to turn that around and enforce payment, to try to keep the ecosystem as a whole healthy so individuals can live off it. Commercial entities that don't hard-require every image posted to their blog to be either new or come from e.g. Getty are willingly playing fast and loose and hoping they don't get sued. Not-for-profit individuals (e.g. personal blog posts) making an attempt at attribution: yeah I think the vast majority are entirely fine with that, but would lightly prefer accurate attribution, and targeting them is a troll act. Is that a majority of violators and CC creators? ... I don't know. Possibly? Should trolls be targeting them? Heck no. Does the 30 day grace period allow companies to willingly violate this and only fix it after they've made their profit and have nothing to lose, and the creator nothing to gain? Yes absolutely. If you actually don't care about attribution, distribute under Public Domain and ask for attribution when you think it's worthwhile. Many will likely say yes - I've seen loads of public domain images used with attribution. People like public domain contributions. If you do care, legal teeth are kinda required, and choosing CC means explicitly choosing legal teeth.

ghaff 3y ago
>The whole point of these licenses is to have a lever to turn that around and enforce payment, to try to keep the ecosystem as a whole healthy so individuals can live off it. I mostly disagree. As I recall early discussions, it was more rooted in enabling remix culture while ensuring creatives received appropriate credit. If direct monetization is the main consideration, I don't know why you'd use Creative Commons at all.
- Groxx 3y ago
  That remix culture is definitely what it turned into and possibly what it was intended for and tons of that is a great success... but then why have violation terms at all? Seems like that "remix, please attribute" is just signaling intent, and then there's no need for a license dictating how violations are handled. It'd just be public domain with an unofficial request tacked on. --- I should probably clarify that I think a lot of these are coming from people who want to do more of their art, and that requires money, and many of them have been tricked into exposure rather than payment and that leads to them not doing more art because they're too busy with other stuff that does pay so they can live. It's a time bomb that isn't generally recognized until it explodes, and it almost always does, and then they care deeply and go looking for legal teeth. Exposure can be great. It's overwhelmingly exploited by companies that are capable of paying but choose not to. Changing that is why licenses have terms like this, otherwise what's the point of the license? Make it Public Domain.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    >tricked into exposure rather than payment Fully agree. In a prior stint as an IT industry analyst, we eventually started a non-paywall blog and (rarely) did free appearances at industry conferences. But people tried to get us to do free stuff all the time for the "exposure." Especially starting out it can be really tempting. But you have to really keep it in check if you're running a business. >Seems like that "remix, please attribute" is just signaling intent, and then there's no need for a license dictating how violations are handled. Viewed from the distance of 20ish years the CC licenses (other than CC0) look way too complicated. And it's not like CC works are routinely credited, even if imperfectly, anyway. It's not even clear to me that the MIT license couldn't just have been used (or extended) for non-code use.

by Groxx 3y ago

ghaff 3y ago

>The whole point of these licenses is to have a lever to turn that around and enforce payment, to try to keep the ecosystem as a whole healthy so individuals can live off it. I mostly disagree. As I recall early discussions, it was more rooted in enabling remix culture while ensuring creatives received appropriate credit. If direct monetization is the main consideration, I don't know why you'd use Creative Commons at all.

Groxx 3y ago
That remix culture is definitely what it turned into and possibly what it was intended for and tons of that is a great success... but then why have violation terms at all? Seems like that "remix, please attribute" is just signaling intent, and then there's no need for a license dictating how violations are handled. It'd just be public domain with an unofficial request tacked on. --- I should probably clarify that I think a lot of these are coming from people who want to do more of their art, and that requires money, and many of them have been tricked into exposure rather than payment and that leads to them not doing more art because they're too busy with other stuff that does pay so they can live. It's a time bomb that isn't generally recognized until it explodes, and it almost always does, and then they care deeply and go looking for legal teeth. Exposure can be great. It's overwhelmingly exploited by companies that are capable of paying but choose not to. Changing that is why licenses have terms like this, otherwise what's the point of the license? Make it Public Domain.
- ghaff 3y ago
  >tricked into exposure rather than payment Fully agree. In a prior stint as an IT industry analyst, we eventually started a non-paywall blog and (rarely) did free appearances at industry conferences. But people tried to get us to do free stuff all the time for the "exposure." Especially starting out it can be really tempting. But you have to really keep it in check if you're running a business. >Seems like that "remix, please attribute" is just signaling intent, and then there's no need for a license dictating how violations are handled. Viewed from the distance of 20ish years the CC licenses (other than CC0) look way too complicated. And it's not like CC works are routinely credited, even if imperfectly, anyway. It's not even clear to me that the MIT license couldn't just have been used (or extended) for non-code use.