What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
82 Comments
- cyberdork, on 12/20/2007, -5/+59I hear professional photographers complain about amateurs giving their photos away for free. All I can say is, maybe you have the wrong job and equipment if amateurs manage to make photos just as good or even better photos than you.
- Angostura, on 12/20/2007, -3/+48Next week: Why Proprietary Software Vendors hate Open Source.
- Lewisham, on 12/20/2007, -0/+26Short version: Don't license your work with a license you don't like.
This guy is an idiot; there is nothing wrong with the Creative Commons, it is clearly readable. It is up to the copyright holder to actually do some diligent work to find out what permissions the license affords others. He makes it sounds like Lawrence Lessig comes around to your house and puts you in a headlock until you license your photos under CC. If you don't like the terms, don't use it. - antivibe, on 12/20/2007, -3/+27the same thing is happening with music. its just the effect of the internet. they should get together with the anti-piracy guys and have a pity party. or, we could accept it and move forward. i mean, isnt it kind of inevitable?
- zirconx, on 12/20/2007, -0/+14Thats exactly what I was thinking as I read the article. If you don't want corporations using your images, use the non-commercial use only CC license. If you don't want anybody using your stuff, don't use the CC license.
The article is wrong - CC doesn't remove copyright. CC is a license. Its a prefab license for releasing your copyrighted material. - arbulus, on 12/20/2007, -1/+15I don't agree. The creative commons is great if you want to use it. If you're ok with people sharing your work and giving you attribution for it, then that's wonderful. You don't have to choose that. you can choose a standard copyright - it's totally up to you. But people taking your pics and posting them on blogs is going to happen no matter what license you have, the matter is whether or not you explicitly allow it.
If you want to get paid for your creative work, that's fine and dandy. I'm not opposed to that. You as the creator have the choice as to what license to use. I simply cannot see how the emergence of a set of licenses has hurt people who use standard copyrights. There just isn't any theoretical or practical evidence of it. - blueZhift, on 12/20/2007, -0/+14While I am sympathetic to the plight of professional photographers trying to earn a living, the problem is not really with Creative Commons at all. This is happening because of cheap, easily accessible digital cameras, coupled with the rise of the web. Whether CC existed or not, people would be snapping digital photos and putting them up on the web, thereby competing with professionals. The genie is out of the bottle, and as RIAA and the MPAA are learning, it can't be put back. If one's business depends on products that can be easily digitized, it's time to come up with a new business model.
I have no good answers for professional photographers, other than the very obvious, keep you best stuff off of the web. Even if they do that though, making money is a heck of a lot harder when you have to compete with millions of amateurs...an infinite number of monkeys plus an infinite number of typewriters... - inactive, on 12/20/2007, -2/+16Just because you are a professional, doesn't mean you are a better photographer than an amateur. It just means you get paid for what you do. There are thousands of highly skilled amateurs who are photographers by hobby. Doesn't mean because they are not getting paid for their work that they suck as photographers.
- pabloD, on 12/20/2007, -0/+11Exactly. The article basically boils down to the author complaining that CC licenses are not practical because they're 'too difficult to understand/interpret'. . . . well, sounds to me like he's being intellectually lazy. If you're not interested in actually thinking about your licensing scheme, then slap a regular ol' copyright on it, and be done with it. But don't attack CC just because you're too lazy to figure out how it works. Meh.
- gamerage, on 12/20/2007, -0/+10Where is the problem here. Select a non-commercial license and be done with it. The only situation in which this 'problem' occurs is when the photographer does not select the appropriate license.
Here are the problems listed in the article. Your work will be safe and you will be paid for commercial use if:
1. You are informed enough to make the correct license choice;
2. The publisher of your photo is informed enough to know the differences among the various licenses; and
3. You, the publisher and the rest of the world can all agree on what "noncommercial use" actually means.
I) is a literal no-brainer. The CC site makes this incredibly easy so I can't accept this argument.
2) is actually good. If they steal it you can make them pay and since they have already used it, the negotiations are in your favor already.
3) It is tricky to understand fair use but not impossible. For most cases your image will be purchased for advertising or as art. Both of those uses have established value so I don't see the problem. - MikeonTV, on 12/20/2007, -4/+13Your right about 'fair use' being a broad topic. Because who is to say what is commercial and what isn't in the world of blogs. They all have ads. I do disagree with corporations using CC'ed images though not the former.
- OpaqueMurdock, on 12/20/2007, -1/+9Skilled amateurs should also probably get paid for their skill and creativity. They should be informed that their work has value. They just assume it doesn't and others take advantage of that. Maybe thats the real issue.
- slimjim5811, on 12/20/2007, -2/+10These days, everyone is a photographer. You don't need to know how to mix chemicals in dark rooms anymore. There are millions of tutorials that can walk any dumbass through using their pirated copy of Photoshop.
- superkendall, on 12/20/2007, -1/+9Totally disagree - for people that do want to attach a license to their work that goes beyond the simplest case possible, CC makes that possible. And it gets people to think more about what they really want from a license...
- goblindegook, on 12/20/2007, -0/+8"I think CC was a nice idea but there isn't a way to legislatively protect people who want to share their works non-commercially."
Yes, there is: you can sue them, just like you can sue them for good old-fashioned copyright infringement. - gamerage, on 12/20/2007, -0/+7You still can get paid for being creative. You can't get paid if you are creative and then tell the world they can use your work for profit without paying you which is what you do if you select the wrong CC lic. So select the correct one and boom everything is fine.
I'm sorry but I can't see the problem here. - bitterbug, on 12/20/2007, -0/+7It's interesting to see the jump this made from coding to photography. I've know people over the years who despise anyone that would give away perfectly good code for free. Granted, they made their living off of selling their coding abilities.
I've got a couple of pictures on Flickr that could probably be sold. But I only took them for personal enjoyment and don't really care to deal with the business aspect of it. Sometimes the reward is in the action itself.
This is going to happen in all media eventually. People who make money doing something are always going to have a hate-on for the people who do it for love. - AtomBoyz, on 12/20/2007, -9/+15It's seems like the Creative Commons hasn't quite lived up to what they envisioned when they first got started.
- nicoladimaria, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6I was trying to sell my photos to agencies, but they didn't pay me enough. So I licensed them all cc and I got them published evrywhere (national magazines, great website).
You know what ? I'm happier now. Agencies don't pay you a dime, trust me - beornottobe, on 12/20/2007, -5/+10Right on target. Also the use stock photos has killed value. Check out and digg article directly above this one. When I went to the article on the site that links free certificates its full of stock photos when we use to be paid for creating originals.
- Dankoozy, on 12/20/2007, -3/+8Most of the time I will just put my pics in the public domain. that way I won't have to worry about people or corporations "stealing" my stuff
- zealeus, on 12/20/2007, -2/+7You're. You can do it!
- thcobbs, on 12/20/2007, -4/+9Welcome to the difference between theory and reality.
- ordig, on 12/20/2007, -2/+6true that.
- superkendall, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4Some people like being creative just for the sake of it you know. Or at least, I do - I hope there are still a few people like that left.
My philosophy is, if I can't figure out a good way to make money on something i produce why should I be mad at someone else who can? After all, if they are really onto something that makes money, I can steal the idea, use my own content, and sue them to stop (or at least slow them down). Suing optional. - stalefries, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Next time, if you want to reply to someone, please hit the "reply" button first.
- cmpalmer, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3For a while, I put all of my Flickr photos up with a CC-attribution-non-commericial-sharealike license (I think that is all the right terms) thinking that (a) if someone wants to use my photos on their web pages or blogs, I want a photo credit, and (b) no one would ever want to use my photos anyway. Since then, I've had one of my photos (of the Hollywood sign) used for promotional posters for the Los Angeles AIDS Walk (non-profit use), a few used here and there for spicing up a blog, and several used in quasi-commercial applications (like in video podcasts which aren't sold, but are used to drive ad revenue). In all of the cases that I know about (such as the ones listed), the persons using the photos found them by doing CC searches on Flickr, but all of them e-mailed me to ask (or at least inform) me before using them and all of them followed the rules on attribution and stuff (while maybe stretching it a bit on the non-commerical side, which I interpreted originally as "don't sell my picture as a poster or on a stock photo CD or use it in a commercial advertisement".
I thought most of those experiences were very cool and it wasn't a case where I could have sold the same photo and I still apply that license to MOST of my Flickr photos, but lately ones that picture family or friends or ones that I think are really good photos, I've applied a more restrictive license to. - geminitojanus, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3This is the sad fact of people not reading and understanding something before they do it.
These photographers who think they're losing money /agreed/ to lose money, in trade for their work being open for the world to use, including corporations. That's the whole point of Creative Commons. It's an Open Source license for Content. The brilliant thing about CC is that they made it simple enough for anyone to read and understand the terms, while co-creating legally binding terminology. Licensing then becomes as easy as saying BSD vs GPL; CC-BY-NC quickly spells out Association and Noncommercial licensing, without having to know the specifics of how this is implemented. If these people are really afraid of losing money to companies, this is how they'd license their work.
Furthermore, this site is known for rallying against Creative Commons, and has posted many a post against it. I guess it just stands to show you, everywhere you attempt to spread freedom, you will have people resistant to it. - superkendall, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3So what are you going to do? Withdraw all your photos? If you leave photos out, companies will use them. Why do you care? Why would you rather hide all your photos away so no-one else can see them... that "sticks it to the man" but also sticks it to all mankind.
- jaythree9, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4little smelly dog - you're saying that creative endeavors have no value? intellectual property has no value? you know, being creative isn't just making visual or aural art. it's also the people who spend countless hours dreaming up that new XBOX game or car or house or gadget or whatever you want to buy. stop being such a douche.
opaque, you sure rolled over quick. - bossm4n, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4I think it has more to do with people accepting mediocrity because they technically do not have to pay royalties or usage fees for an amateurs CC licensed image.
- Radan, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4Photographing has become easier yes, but there's still a gigantic difference between someone who simply takes photos and a professional photographer. Firstly, just to cover the basics, there are quite few people who actually know how to take a good photo. Yes, they might be able to simply run around and snap photos like a maniac until they finally get a photo which does hold somewhat professional standards, but that isn't enough. When you get a job, you often only got a limited amount of chances to take that exact photo you need. Photographing is still some dirty work, you have to wait, work hard and always be on alert for the precious selling moment that you need. If you don't get that photo, then too bad, you are not getting paid tonight.
And speaking about money, there's very, very few amateur photographers who have the economy of paying for the required gear (not that photographers are particularly rich, or anything) . Even though I personally only got some slightly above average lenses and equipment, the set up which I mostly use costs around 2 000 euros.
This is similar to the fact that anyone can drive a car, but only a few is capable of racing. - DulcetTone, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2re: It's taking money out of the pockets of working photographers
Prostitutes hate when women give up sex out of love. - MrUnderbridge, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2You're assuming 1) they care about trying to make money from their photos, and 2) that they wouldn't rather share what they have as widely as possible. Same reason people contribute to Open-Source projects. Some people don't understand it, but it doesn't mean that other people's motivations are wrong.
- coffeebot, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2I'm a professional photographer and... oh, crap. Just take your own damn wedding pics.
- huertanix, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2This guy is obviously unaware of the fact that there are MULTIPLE types of CC licenses available, including one that restricts your work being used for commercial purposes. Besides that, why on earth would anyone looking to make professional money for digital photography put their photos on Flickr, for frack's sake? If your photos are worth a dime, put together a portfolio.
- hottechy, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4Agree with above comments. Especially beornottobe which is the answer (not the question)
- ramedia, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Why a guy named Scott with apparently no last name dislikes the creative commons license and presents himself as some sort of authority, in an article with an ironic and bold title.
- OpaqueMurdock, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2I am not sure that CC is really working to foster and protect creativity. Actually, I have not seen much work done as it relates to the web to promote a photographers ability to earn fair compensation for what they do. Honestly, I think we have a deeper problem here, as reflected in these comments. Creativity is losing value in the minds of people.
The line between pro and amateur is the real outdated concept here... We had a great opportunity to bring in hordes of new contributers and content generators and allow them to be good at what they do while earning a modest income from...*shock* art! There is no reason people shouldn't make some portion of their income from creativity even if it never becomes their main source of income. Saying a work has no value depending on who the creator is and what title they have is ridiculous.
Talented people should be informed that their work has value. Often I think they just assume it doesn't and others take advantage of that. Maybe thats the real issue. Even if you take one great image in your whole life... its still a great image. - lengau, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2So dual license it. Use a CC NoCommercial license on one side, and allow people to license it from you for money for commercial use.
- inactive, on 12/20/2007, -5/+6People just want to get paid for being creative. Is that so bad? Or, I guess we should all shut up and go work for some corporation doing work that slowly kills us (mentally or physically) on a daily basis?
- superkendall, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2"keep your best stuff off the web"
Yes, it's sure to be good for business to only publish the most mediocre of your work!!
The actual solution (or at least a way better one) is to put only the best of the best up, and actually register it with the copyright office so you can really get some good damages... - geminitojanus, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Okay, then here's what you do:
Add two letters to your license: NC. That means no corporate entity can use your work, and nobody can remove it except you. Then, if a corporation really wants to use your work (it's exceptional in some way, in other words), they simply come to you and ask for commercial licensing terms.
Perhaps the real deficiency here is Creative Commons not having a "Negotiable" clause and two-letter sticker, but that's been fixed with CC+.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Ccplus - Solis, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Thank god.
- centran, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1This revolves around the same legal problems of getting people you shoot to sign a Model Release Form.
If you are just giving away the photo's then it doesn't matter. They can't sure you.
If the photo's are used in a newspaper or magazine and is deemed "news" worthy then they can't sue you... well maybe they can.
It is a very legal gray area. The CC license very much is in that legal gray area. I think the only thing that is not in the gray is a blatant advertisment such as a billboard but if it is for a non-profit then you are back into a gray area. - pkonink, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Perhaps the real problem is that if you are media coporation X and need a shot of a woman lifting weights you can go to a stock site or flickr and find 3 gagillion suitable images for free or fairly cheap. I.e. there are too many photographers or what-have-you out there right now to support the sort of system you would like. So for professional photographers to once again be payed top-dollar there needs to be some shaking-out of the stock photography market. When there are fewer professional photographers, a higher premium will be placed on their services.
If you love your craft so much then you will do it paid or not. Besides, if someone is only doing art for money then they probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place, no? - lukasmach, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Exactly, you have to defend your rights - CC licences can help, but they won't do it by themselves. I heard about an experienced photographer who lived his later years off browsing printed catalogues and just sending out letters like "You used my photo without my approval, pay or get sued." And of course 90% of companies just paid to get rid of potencial troubles.
- OpaqueMurdock, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Thats an encouraging post. I like that you had good experiences with it but I wonder if a (very) modest payment would have been in order for the "quasi-commercial applications" Like maybe they should have offered I guess... I just don't see why people seem so opposed to the idea that having a good eye should be less important than being a plumber for example.
- cmpalmer, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1The way I view it is that a small shop or individual doing a blog or a video podcast and looking for a photo is going to either find something in the public domain, look for CC licensed stuff, or just steal what they want to use out of ignorance or malice. The "quasi-commercial" use I mentioned was a video podcast about giving to charity and there was a segment where they were talking about buying Christmas gifts for different people and for each one they mentioned, wife, kids, friends, family, they flashed a picture. For "family" they picked one of my Flickr photos and it was onscreen for a 1/10th of a second or so and I got my name in the credits. The site that hosted the podcast had banner ads, so that is what I meant by quasi-commercial. I am pretty sure that there would have been no circumstances where they would have payed for a picture.
For the AIDS Walk poster, which had about 4,000 copies plastered all over LA, the designer of the poster e-mailed me and asked if they could use the picture as a "donation" and I had to explain the CC licensing (that they could use it for non-commercial use without even asking as long as they put my name on it). I did ask them if they would sent me one of the posters and they actually sent me two of them plus a cardboard brochure holder, so that was nice. Plus, I visited LA when the posters were up and it was neat to walk down the street and see my picture in the window of Amoeba Records in Hollywood. Again, if they couldn't have used my picture for free, they would have asked a company that wanted royalties to "donate" the picture for a good cause. Failing that, they would have used something else entirely, so I don't think anyone lost money (me, them, or any pro-photographers). - mrxenon15999, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1The problem isn't really CC, that's just a definition of what uses the creator will allow.
The real problem here is that the cost of photography and reproduction has dropped considerable because of new technology, but professional photographers want to keep raking in the same take. Even worse, the technology allow amateurs to produce work almost as good as profession work. The existing professions don't really know what to do about it. Things are changing quickly, and business likes stability. Blaming CC is easy, but futile - it's not the real problem.
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is