I have no major beef with Creative Commons. To the best of my knowledge those that make their works available through CC are good, well-meaning people. I have used a few CC images and I am grateful for them. I do have a Creative Commons quibble though …
From the official CC FAQ:
What is Creative Commons and what do you do?
Creative Commons is a global nonprofit organization that enables sharing and reuse of creativity and knowledge through the provision of free legal tools. Our legal tools help those who want to encourage reuse of their works by offering them for use under generous, standardized terms; those who want to make creative uses of works; and those who want to benefit from this symbiosis. Our vision is to help others realize the full potential of the internet.
It sounds very altruistic. But wait – there has long existed a legal tool to enable “sharing and reuse of creativity and knowledge”. It’s called public domain, and it works really well. If I legitimately want to share my creative works, I can simply release them into the public domain, and CC is pointless. So, there has got to be more to it than that. And there is. I sincerely believe that CC is partly about sharing, but also very much about control, restrictions, and placing in legal jeopardy anyone who takes CC at their noble, misleading words without very carefully reading and following every aspect of the fine print.
‘Incorrect’ attribution, that places me in legal jeopardy: Image by Bryan Mathers, CC by ND
For a time, for a mere $50, I could even get a “I Love to Share” CC t-shirt. Apparently CC loves to share too, but only after I donate $50. Make no mistake, CC does some good stuff, and I am better off with them than without them. It’s just … I have never been a fan of arrogance and hypocrisy.
WPPOV supports freedom from Net Neutrality and the GDPR. The Internet of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.