Sta.sh
Theme
.
.......... The design MUST HAVE ONLY 2 COLORS; BLACK AND WHITE
this journal 
EDIT1 (february 11): Disclaimer
This journal entry solely and entirely relates to issues about Creative Commons.
Please stop saying 'if you don't want people to lucrate on your efforts'. If that's your way of reasoning, you should stop reading this now. Creative Commons are about sharing ideas instead of limiting their use. The latter is something Copyright is there for. Creative Commons are an alternative to Copyrights. Please stop wasting my time with that. There has been not one single reply to this entry so far that is in topic. I won't answer to offtopic any longer.
The ever increasing use of Creative Commons instead of Copyright is to be commended and admired, but there's still a huge portion of people that include the Non Commercial clause, something whose existence itself is controversial. Why? Stop and think about it.
It's contrary to the very essence of Creative Commons! If you don't want people to commercialize the stuff you put in CC, then you're obviously taking CC's essence the wrong way, and should use (C)opyright instead!
The NC clause should not even exist because:
-It makes your work incompatible with a growing body of free content, even if you do want to allow derivative works or combinations.
-It may rule out other basic and beneficial uses which you want to allow.
-It supports current, near-infinite copyright terms.
-It's unlikely to increase the potential profit from your work, and a share-alike license serves the goal to protect your work from exploitation equally well.
And last but not least, it does not have a clear indication of what 'commercial' means, leading to further controversy.
Think about it!
Or read more here: [link]
| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
Simply put if the first creators of a rep rap 3d printer design had chosen to not be open about it's desings and share freely than it would be a horrible choice for the 3d printing future.
But at the same time if there came along a commercial 3d printer that was simply a reprap and they sold them for profit with out credit and then patented the designs to restrict access to anybody else...
what you get is people profitting from the work of others without credit and restricting the free access from others. Thus negating the open nature of the work in the first place.
A hobbyist who has a new spin on a work, an art trade or an homage are one thing. Making money off anothers work without compensation while also taking business from the actual creators is just parasitic. It doesn't further artistic creation and actually withers it.
But we may just disagree on this, shrug.
You put something in CC, it means you want people to reshare and build on it. The NC clause has a ton of controversies, explained in a nutshell here and in detail in the link I provide. End of the story.
Whatever lies outside of the CC discourse is offtopic.
There is a difference between cooperative artist cultural growth through sharing, and gluttony and coopting the works and efforts of others.
I like to share many of my stories in another forum for free. Recently many of the communities stories have been showing up for sale on amazon under a single authors name and he's proffitting from them. And because he's gotten paid for and is listed as the seller of those stories, if at some time the original author were to seek to publish a game based on their characters it would be considered plagerism by any company they might try to get to produce the game, despite being the original creators.
So somebody is proffiting off the work of others and preventing expression and use of the creation by the original creator and anybody else in the process.
If it's free to share, it's free for all. That's how I see it. and that requires that nobody make their livings or otherwise claim ownership and restrict access either.
Wether or not that cases can be won in a court, it will be a long fought legal confrontation that may be revisited multiple times before resolution is reached.
It points to people being able to restrict access to works they neither created or shared in the use of from being open works.
It's like getting through a hole in the fence of creative effort, then boarding it over and shooting any one trying to get through after you from your position of advantage earned by the efforts of others.
"hey don't want others to artificially restrict that ability of others by claiming the work as their own."
that's what Attribution is there for. Share-alike further deepens the thing by sharing what you're using the same way it was found. It's viral. You MUST put your thing for free if it's derived from something that was for free and allowed derivative work. You don't want derivative work? There's a clause you can select for that, too, in CC.
"There is a difference between cooperative artist cultural growth through sharing, and gluttony and coopting the works and efforts of others."
so remakes of movies or anything should be banned?
"So somebody is proffiting off the work of others and preventing expression and use of the creation by the original creator and anybody else in the process."
That is what Hollywood does every day. Because copyrights belong to, say, Warner Bros or Disney and never to screenwriters, directors or actors.
"If it's free to share, it's free for all. That's how I see it."
And you see it wrong. Read CC clauses and think again.