3 ms·

I think many free content creators would disagree with you on what the spirit of cc-by is.

• shawn-furyan 12y ago
  Hmm... that very well may be, and it even strikes me as probable. The nebulousness of the expectations regarding what CC means, and should mean is central to this entire episode. Part of the reason that CC exists is that copyright makes it difficult to share your work without either just giving it completely away, or striking explicit deals on an ad hoc basis. CC was a partial solution, but it's not really high resolution enough to satisfy everyone's needs and/or expectations in such dynamic and diverse areas as the pursuits of art. That's why I say that social norm is an appropriate companion to CC here, because the formation of social norms allow for nuance that one size fits most CC licensing really doesn't. Further, independent artists are typically going to be at a large disadvantage when trying to enforce licenses against large institutions, so to the extent that it is used by small independents, it's in many ways a system that relies on generally charitable intentions all around. I'm sure there are examples of independents taking on larger organizations, but I suspect that if it becomes clear that the only way to get what you want out of a CC license is to adopt a litigious stance, then it's adoption would decline pretty dramatically.