Sticky 

cc license

*n3wjack's world in pixels 12:21pm, 8 November 2010
Being geeks I bet you guys and galls love open source. Right?
Well, I'm still seeing a lot of copyrighted images posted in this pool. That surprises me since I'd expect an open source loving geek to rather pick a more copylefted Creative Commons license for his images.
That way your images can be used freely in blog posts, web sites, newspapers or travel guides (seriously, I've got one of mine in a Brussels travel guide somewhere).

If you're picking a cc-license, do give it some thought which one you pick. At first it might sound like common sense to pick one with a non-commercial clause in it, but if you're not planning on making any money on it, why be so restrictive?

The non-commerical clause is a bigger limitation than you might think. For example it limits your picture from being used in a commercial presentation. That might not be what you're looking for. I wrote a blog post on that topic if you're interested.

Of course the choice is totally yours. Just give it some thought.
What do you have to loose if someone else can find an alternative use for that picture?
instinctive humor [deleted] 8 years ago
But many people grab whatever they can get hold of -- with no respect to CC or ARR. So small size plus visible (c) note seems to be the only deterrent.

That still doesn't stop porn stars to raid flickr for use on their commercial site. And flickr confirmed that they aren' t violating any TOS.
That's an different matter. No matter what license you use, there will always be people who will violate it. Look at all the copyrighted content being used & copied without consent.

The only way to stop that is by not publishing your work on the internet.
But that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about giving people an easy to use way to use your content without having to ask for explicit permission to do so, by using a CC license.

It's about making it easier for the good guys. Not stopping the bad guys. Cause you can't.
Even that (c) notice embedded in the image can be cropped out for example.

Btw: raiding porn stars? WTF?
instinctive humor [deleted] 8 years ago
The difference is the SIZE -- with CC flickr grants everyone access to the high-res images. Good guys & bad guys.

Without it, they'll have to do with the 500pix (now 640pix) image the grab from the photopage. I know that size seems to be sufficient for most non-print applications already
I don't see the point. If you're sharing the pictures under a CC license, why wouldn't you share the full size?

"Oh you can use it however you like, but you can only use the crappy version".
Sounds a bit like Microsoft really. :)
falconn67 PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by falconn67 (member) 8 years ago
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/n3wjack/ Let's say that Bill Gates decided he wanted the default desktop wallpaper for Windows 8 to be this:
www.flickr.com/photos/n3wjack/3005705027/

Would you be happy to let millions of people associate your work with Windows without you seeing a dime? You weren't going to make any money on it anyway, so why not?

And yes, porn. Here is a 14 yr old who had her self portrait used for the cover of a porn, without her permission. Granted, it is a couple years old, but still:

www.flickr.com/photos/larajade/513641346/
jjackowski PRO 8 years ago
I've been using the non-commercial CC license for a while now, at least since I've had a decent camera and lens. I doubt I'll make money from the pictures, but I figure that if some group is going to profit from my work, it should include me. At least a little.

Stargazer, what do you mean about size? I thought anyone with a pro account could put up high-res images, and then anyone could see them. Do you mean the way the download link is broken on some images? If you're looking at it, you've already downloaded it.
Groups Beta