As you’ve stated in this article, CC is not for everybody. Ultimately, it’s up to the photographer to choose and understand their licensing options as a creative artist.

For example, the Creative Commons organization is a listed defendant in the ongoing legal proceedings involving Alison Chang. I’m sorry, but I can’t see how anything that Virgin Mobile or the photographer in question did could be the responsibility of the Creative Commons!

I hope that as our digital culture matures, artists will realize that reading licenses and terms of service on the websites they participate in is just as important as reading and understanding freelance contracts or the other legal devices they’ve have had to fiddle with since the beginning.

Fundamentally, Creative Commons licenses were developed for creators who wish to allow uses of their work that typical “all rights reserved” declarations prohibit. If you never want anyone to use your work for anything without asking you, you probably don’t need the Creative Commons. You should probably also turn around and walk straight back through the last few decades because you would be ignoring everything that has changed since about 1980.

“All Rights Reserved” prohibits use with out permission. Content designated with an “All Rights Reserved” license can be used in the same fashion as content marked with a Creative Commons license as long as permission is granted beforehand. I’m not sure what the big deal is about this, but somehow “All Rights Reserved” and copyrights in general have been demonized as a byproduct of the fall out of P2P and music sharing disputes.

As for your last sentence I challenge you on this. What has fundamentally changed since the ’80’s that would make it a problem to use “All Rights Reserved” vs. Creative Commons? The fact that there is the Internet? Do bloggers cite articles any differently than they would in print? A hypertext link hardly justifies as broad a claim as you’re making? VHS, DVD, music, written word, photographs, etc… its all the same… the difference is format, means of delivery and for the sake of this discussion permission of use. In the end it comes down to the courtesy of permission of use. I’d hardly expect that if I left my keys in my car that I’d be ok with someone using it with out asking first. Car, bike, skateboard, plane, etc… its property and has an inherent value. The same is true of these other pieces of intellectual property. By all means it is with in your right to put a sign on your car and give people permission to use the car as long as they read the fine print. Car or Photos… when it comes to a license or agreement that Creative Commons outlines you’re right it is the property owners responsibility to know what they’re getting into and that was as much a part of my post as anything else, but… its a mistake to think that you’ll not be impacted by what happens downstream. Even Creative Commons had to burn time and money to get themselves out of being included in the lawsuit you mentioned. If you’re a small time photographer you’re likely not going to have the same resources as Creative Commons.

The point… when using Creative Commons or any license a photographer needs to be well educated and weigh the pros and cons. Much of Intellectual Property law in relation to Internet use is still being defined and challenged in our courts. That has to be factored in to what you choose to do with your photo licenses.

I suppose I should provide some clarification for the first paragraph you cited. You’re absolutely right that any creator can grant whatever rights they wish on a case-by-case basis if all rights are formally reserved. Creative Commons aims to remove some barriers from certain works that a creator wishes to make available unfettered to particular people under particular circumstances and for particular uses, and of course that approach isn’t for everyone.

I agree with you 100% that “a photographer needs to be well educated and weigh the pros and cons.” One point that I wanted to make abundantly clear is that it is the creator’s duty to practice due diligence, whether it be with regard to a license such as those offered by Creative Commons or the terms of service agreement on a photo sharing site.

What has changed since 1980 is not only the format that our media takes but how much easier it has become to copy, remix, and distribute media. That statement had less to do with Creative Commons specifically than it had to do with the philosophy that our culture benefits greatly in the long run from the kinds of remixes and derivations that most creators get defensive about. I have summed this up as “sharing is caring” in previous articles.

My point is not that artists should throw their work into the street and let the crowds have at it. Rather, Creative Commons offers a legal alternative to those of us who do wish to “give back” now and then without writing up our own licenses or doling out terms of use on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps that’s the idealist or the hippie in me talking, but I believe in the power of the remix to shape culture and I believe every artist should recognize the significance of derivative works even if they are opposed to their own work being a source.

When Robert Rauschenberg created “Erased de Kooning Drawing” by spending about a month literally erasing most of an original de Kooning, he was paving the way for modern art in his time and creating something significantly derivative. What is unique about Erased de Kooning Drawing is that its influence is built on the fact that it was derived from another piece of art. Rauschenberg tried erasing some of his own drawings, but to do that wasn’t meaningful.