Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 7th Sep 2010 10:25 UTC
Multimedia, AV Every so often we publish here at OSNews articles about copyright, about the war of the "old media" establishment against everyone else. Many, myself included, have argued that the way to get out of this mess -- short of changing the law -- is to have more artists release their work under a Creative Commons license. However, after a few years it became obvious to me that CC would never be able to change the industry all by itself. Offering a Free license, and having 30,000 albums released under it, was still not enough. Until the Summer of 2009, that is. Update: Added audio samples.
Permalink for comment 439655
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Several of my photos have been released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. But I'm starting to have second thoughts about releasing more work under a CC license. Every now and then, I search for my photographs to see whether they were used by others according to the license (that is: reproduction/manipulation is allowed, provided the author, source and license are explicitly stated).

What if I find a CC photograph is used without accrediting me?

Well, all I can do is send an email, point out that it *IS* under a copyrighted license, and that this entails stating the copyright holder. I can usually expect the recipient to respond curtly. Mostly the picture is taken down; apparently mentioning the source is a bridge too far.

What if I find a copyrighted photograph is used without accrediting me?

Well, I can actually "fine" the perpetrator by charging double standard tariff because I own full copyright over this creative work. Hence, I have more power. (Of course if some 14-year-old would do this, I'll be easy on him/her. I'm talking companies and sane adults here.)

Reply Score: 2