3 ms·
CC-NC is still really useful for music. Nobody wants to release their music for free, and then hear it in the soundtrack of a multi-million dollar blockbuster.
by empressplay 12y ago
CC-NC is still really useful for music. Nobody wants to release their music for free, and then hear it in the soundtrack of a multi-million dollar blockbuster. Or maybe they would, but then they'd sure as heck still be kicking themselves that they didn't get paid.
CC-NC prevents large-scale exploitation. I'm not sure the drawbacks of confusion over trivial use, or small-scale exploitation, outweigh the benefits of not having a large corporation save money by using your stuff and not paying you.
- dingaling 12y ago> Or maybe they would, but then they'd sure as heck still be kicking themselves that they didn't get paid. I see this argument frequently in the photography world, but it doesn't make sense to me. As an amateur making art for enjoyment, as a hobby, with no expectation of financial return, does it matter if some corporation makes money from my work? I'm no worse off than I was beforehand, in fact I might be in a better position because my name will be out there. I have no love of corporations, but if they want to use my photograph to sell a product then go for it. Trying to prevent that sounds to me like muddled principles.
- Spearchucker 12y agoThat I think its the elephant in the room. Many artist have an expectation of financial return. In fact many do it to make a living. And open source doesn't support that.