Development of Creative Commons licenses

[wolfgang wander <wwc AT lns.mit.edu>]

Javier Candeira wrote:
> > drew Roberts wrote:
>>> >>> Another solution would be to change the law, or the doctrine, so 
>>> >>> music in a
>>> >>> movie *doesn't* trigger share-alike, and is considered "mere 
>>> >>> aggregation".
>>> >>> We need less strictures, not more.
>> >> Ah, not all of us agree with that. I like the way it works for songs and
>> >> movies. I would like it to work that way for more types of things. Can 
>> >> you
>> >> tell me the problems you see arising from my desires?
> >
> > [...] The way you and Erik want it to work, readers
> > would not have less exposure to by-sa photos and their authors, as
> > commercial non-free newspapers would not be able to print them. Commercial
> > non-free newspapers would also have less freedom to print and use those
> > photos according to the wishes of their authors.

This is certainly a good argument.  But seriously, commercial non-free
publications can always ask and pay for the images anyhow, can't they.

You should also keep in mind that people who contributed to The Pool in
the past had a completely different understanding of the strength of
derivativeness (just search the flickr discussions like this one
http://www.flickr.com/forums/help/26686/?search=cc-by-sa on this topic).
Now with more people becoming aware of Creative Commons interpretation of
cc-by-sa The Free Pool will likely no longer grow at the pace it used to.

Since learning of Creative Commons interpretations I have stopped
releasing my images under a cc-by-sa license.  I've taken
the cc-by-sa licensed images from the locations where I had the right to
do so. This has no effect on any copies people have created but hey,
I made a mistake to not consult a lawyer and trust that the CC FAQ would
explain the issues to me, it did not.

See it this way: for the wildlife images I take I need equipment that
costs me in the range of several thousand dollars.  Now contributing
images to The Free Pool is a real charitable giving, as much as
contributing GPL code to a GPLed software product.  If I know that my
contributions can only be used by people who share my belief in Free
content am glad to give my work away.  What I happen to see though is
that many commercial, all-rights-reserved web sites pick up my content
and seem to have every right to do so.  And by doing this I cut directly
into the income stream of commercial photographers who like me have to
pay for their equipment to take these photos.  Thats a game I am not
willing to play.

Yes - you will get more exposure to CC-by-SA content and thus for
the Creative Commons but the quality of this content is likely not
going to be the same as if you allowed for a more strict interpretation
of the copyleft part of the license.

          Wolfgang