As reported in Mashable.com, like Flickr yesterday, the photo site 500px is adding an option to tag your images with a Creative Commons (or as we like to call it, Creative Confusion) license. We again will say we find this a terrible option for photographers. That is unless you have a large trust fund or a multi-million dollar winning lottery ticket in your pocket, then a CC license might make some sense to you.
In our opinion, using a CC license to “help spread your photo and/or name” around does nothing in our opinion, other than allow others to use your images for free. Between us we know of very, very few photographers who made a living, secured a decent account or made any real money on “exposure” or as CC calls it, “attribution”. Our landlords and our corner deli sure don’t take “exposure”, compliments or attribution for a sandwich or rent in lieu of cold hard cash.
But photographers seem open to this type of deal. They do in fact drink the Kool Aid. There is no deception except in the photographer’s own mind. He/she thinks that this type of “free PR” will be great for the budding or even established career. Companies of all kinds who seek to obtain your work without paying you for it know that. They simply feed the dreams many budding photographers already have in their head. Frankly, we think you have a better chance of getting a winning lottery ticket than making any real money via CC license. People in the ad world get to know the names of those photographers who give their work away without charge. Not exactly a great way to convince those who write checks that your images are worthy of payment.
Instead of uploading your photos to these sites with a “take what you want” license, just send us, Ed and Jack, $5, $10, $25 or more and we’ll give you credit and put it on our site. Sound silly to you? Good, it should. Giving away your photos is a great deal for those who use your photos. But for you, buying a lottery ticket is in our opinion, a much better bet than using a CC Trojan Horse license.
#1 by WMS on November 23, 2012 - 2:33 pm
As Nancy Regan once said “just say no…” to the drug of CC.
#2 by Steve Bottoms on November 25, 2012 - 5:49 pm
Just curious, but is the stance of “no creative commons licensing!” essentially negating the possibility of getting punitive awards in court for STEALING an image clearly marked with CC licensing (such as those on Trey Ratcliffe’s website) and using it for profit? One version of the license clearly states that it’s not for commercial purposes, but I get the impression that that stance taken here is that it will essentially invalidate the registration of the image (according to US laws): is that true? And if not, what’s the harm?
Just curious…
Steve
#3 by Jack and Ed on November 25, 2012 - 6:12 pm
Steve:
Thanks for your note, but you have some big misconceptions.
You said – “essentially invalidate the registration of the image”. How did you come to that conclusion? No, it can not invalidate your copyright registration.
You also said – “..is the stance of “no creative commons licensing!” essentially negating the possibility of getting punitive awards in court for STEALING an image..”
Again, no.
The point about CC licensing is that there is no advantage to you as a creator, unless you buy into the myth that “exposure” by letting everyone utilize your image without payment is a good thing. We don’t. We feel it’s entirely to the advantage of those using your image for free. We feel, in our opinion, it’s a fool’s game. We don’t see any advantage in any way of having a CC license on your images. Unless you’re independently wealthy and can forgo any payment for your work to help pay for camera equipment and photo education.
You state you “clearly state” it’s not for “commercial use”. OK, define commercial use. Believe me, a user’s definition and my definition of what constitutes “commercial” use can be vastly different. AS we’ve said, vagueness does not help you and CC licensing can be extremely vague. And we believe it is on purpose.
There is no better protection to your images than copyright registration. Period. That’s Federal law and adjudicated in Federal court. It is not vague.
Also having good paperwork is huge in protecting yourself. I carefully license all my images. Registration and my paperwork protects me and has in cases where I’ve been infringed.
What a CC license can do is muddy up what rights you are licensing and anything that muddies up the waters to your rights does not help you.
Hope that helps clarify what we’ve been saying for a while.
Jack
Pingback: Beautiful Flower Pictures Blog – Links – November 30, 2012
#4 by GS on January 31, 2013 - 11:43 pm
The great thing about standard copyright is that you can issue whatever kind of license you want, based on location, time period, size, number of uses…
The most worrying aspect of Creative Commons licenses is that they’re non-revocable.
I’ve been making money from my photography since 1987 and I agree that Creative Commons is a terrible option for photographers.