I am a big believer in the idea behind creative commons but I feel it is a little flawed.
My main issue is with commercial use and identifying who really benefits in the long term. In effect commercial companies can and are really benefiting from these ‘free’ photographs. Before CC, a corporation or ad agency that wanted to use your photo would have to contact you or your photo agency for permission to use it. You could negotiate a price based on the particular use, making sure you got a fair deal.
Through CC, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of photographers have thrown this right away forever. As we know, CC says that once you choose a license for your work, it’s irrevocable. Photographers are generally doing this with good intentions or for idealistic reasons. But the end result is that you are building a system enabling commercial buyers to use your images without paying for them.
How would you like to see your Facebook display picture on a billboard advertising Herpes medicine? Imagine the money a Herpes medicine company is going to save now they can just pick a face off Flickr and not have to pay the person a phenomenal amount to ruin their sex life.
I’m sure CC’s defence would be the ‘non-commercial use’ license. A few of the many flaws with this license include; A) you are informed enough to choose the right license and B) You and the rest of the world can actually agree on what 'non-commercial use' actually means.
Great post. I guess the necessary step forward as CC grows is make sure lack of information isn't the reason why someone's face is on a herpes billboard, and the real reason is that they're just so darn passionate about it..
ReplyDeleteReminds me of this article about 6 people with famous faces only they didn't know about it..
Anyway, as of 2009 there were over 100 million photos under the CCs license on Flickr (though most of these listed under non-commercial) but over 5 billion have been uploaded overall. Crazy.
I agree with you that many people have released their photos to the public (such as through Facebook), without really knowing how they could be used and abused. There are definitely plenty of horror stories about people's personal photos being used to advertise a product they never endorsed.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't think the fault lies with the Creative Commons Licences, but rather with people who don't know how to use them. This is because Creative Commons actually have a wide range of licences dictating how the content can be used.
Yes, many state that commercial use is not allowed, but there are also licences in which the author of the original work must always be credited, and which only allow distribution of the work in its original form. The Non Commercial Licence is not only the most common, but also the most useful. The truth is, it is not difficult to define non commercial, as this simply means the user cannot make any money from the work.
The real issue, as you have noted, is that people understand which licence they should use. Thankfully, people are more aware of CC's existence now, and are becoming more informed. I think that to keep up with the growing amount of people making use of this resource, the range of Creative Commons Licences could expand.
This actually happened to one of my friends. She was with 4 other girls in a really nice photo of them at the beach and Facebook sold it to a travel company. It was a small company and they used it on their website but not in any advertisements. She wouldn't have ever known if one of her family members didn't find it by accident.
ReplyDeleteIt's scary to think that all of the photos on facebook are now owned by them and even though more people are becoming aware of this, it isn't exactly common knowledge.
Really interesting post :)
best photo ever. poor paris.
ReplyDeletei think i agree. i feel like creative commons was supposed to be this big 'up-yours' to large corporations, but it's almost like we're handing them a whole new avenue to increase their profit margins. irony iron irony.