DISQUS

John from TheDisneyBlog.com · 1 year ago

I too have been concerned with this issue recently. Mostly as a hobby publisher of blogs. But my definition of hobby may be someone else's definition of commercial. So I've been searching only for CC that allows commercial use recently.

If I were licensing my stuff via CC and wanted to make the distinction you are suggesting between hobby sites and (let's say) companies earning over $x a year, I would use the noncommercial license and then provide a link back to a page on my personal site that set out additional qualifications for free commercial use. Perhaps a registration form indicating how it will be used and where, an example of proper attribution, and contact info. Set the barrier as low or as high as you want it.

Just because you're using CC doesn't mean you still don't control the other aspects of your copyright.

Ben · 1 year ago

I just contact the publisher and ask if I may use their photo. When you get their explicit approval you have nothing to fear, and they're always flattered that you thought enough of their work to ask.

Jake McKee · 1 year ago

Ben, that's often what I do to. But that's the problem, right? Why bother using CC at all if you have to contact the creator? If CC is meant to "express intent", and I have to contact the creator to get clarification, CC is fundamentally flawed, IMHO.

Gordon Haff · 1 year ago

Hi Jake,

I've been thinking about this quite a bit since I wrote my original post on the topic. I've come to the conclusion that what we really need is one simple CC license. http://www.cnet.com/8301-13556_1-9849881-61.htm... Dan Heller has been writing about this in detail as well. I don't agree with aall his points but he raises a number of good ones about CC as it relates specifically to photography.