Today I’ve been looking into Creative Commons licensing, a very interesting alternative for regular oldfashioned copyright. You can read more about why this is good for the world here.
Almost everybody licenses their content on a “non-commercial” basis. I don’t understand why actually: What’s wrong with commercial use? Your work will get more attention. That’s what it’s all about, right? Luc van Braekel (in Dutch) says he doesn’t mind content he publishes will be used commercially. I fully agree with him.
And what is “commercial use”? If I have Adwords on my blog I can’t use a Flick photo that is published under a non-commercial license? I’m not sure… I think there is a big grey zone.
This guy on a bulletin board says offering a non-commercial option is the biggest mistake Creative Commons ever made. I do think that Creative Common’s mission of “freeing culture” would have a better chance of succeeding!
Update: Just found a great post with same conclusion
hey there,
one of my good friends is the creative director for creative commons, eric steuer. if you’d like to get in touch with him, let me know. i’m a very big fan of creative commons and the ideas it promotes.
take care,
jeff
Hello Jeff,
Thanks for your comment. I’m a big fan of Creative Commons too!
I just have some question marks about the effect of “non-commercial use” licenses, which are in my opinion obstructing a lot of potential creativity. I wonder if Creative Commons has thought about this when they “invented” these licenses.
Would be interesting to have a discussion about this with the people of CC themselves! If you would like to share Eric Steuer’s contact details, that would be nice! My e-mail is bart@vanpoll.net. Thanks!