# Your thoughts on Creative Commons?



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

I'm kind of afraid to ask, considering what happened when I brought it up on DeviantArt (okay, I was a bit too zealous about it, there ). I personally believe that Creative Commons is a great idea. If you've been following my philosophical posts about the nature of art, you probably figured out that I wholly subscribe to the idea that art is meant to be shared, and that once it's shared, it belongs just as much to the viewer (or listener) as it does to the creator.

Of course, that's not to say that the creator doesn't deserve money, fame, credit, etc... I actually think that most artists (i.e. excluding pop artists, graphic designers, experimental artists, and concept artists) deserve much more than they usually get. That's where Creative Commons and a team of lawyers comes in.

I'm sure your thoughts will differ somewhat (or might be completely opposite of mine). Please share, though. I promise to be civilized.
:tiphat:

(Oh, and you should probably read up if you're unfamiliar with it.)


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Some very rambling disorganized thoughts on the matter, as it's past my bedtime.

I love the whole idea of the creative commons license ever since I started listening to podcasts, especially fiction magazine podcasts (Escape Pod, Pseudopod, and Podcastle). The stories are every bit as good as those found in the dwindling paper magazines, someone reads them to me while I'm walking to work, and I support those podcasts I really enjoy.

I also support the idea of musicians and creative people of all types promoting their own work on the web, which is a completely different thing from creative commons. But I hear that Radiohead sold an album on line for whatever the downloaders thought it was worth and still made a gazillion pounds or some such. Why have a middle man dictating what you can have available to you? Sure they can filter out the wheat from the chaff for you, so you don't have to wade through a lot of garbage to get to the good stuff, but do they really? That's what reviewers and word of mouth is for. And we've all seen how quickly word of mouth works on the web.

Back to creative commons. I'm not entirely sure how to make it work for art and music, but I'd guess you just put it out there for all to enjoy, and if someone wants to commission something unique from you to use commercially (a book cover for instance) they have to pay for rights.

I've been enjoying a lot of electronica music from Netlabels, all released under Creative Commons. Most of it is junk, but it's relaxing to search for the uploads you want to keep.

So, yes, I'm in favor of it and think it will offer an exciting new way to spread creative works. So call me a socialist.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

I think it is a great way to get people interested in classical music, by allowing them to share and express themselves with it. I have started another topic for sharing creative commons finds here.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Sure if the artist him/her self wants to use the "creative common licence" then sure, but if not he/she has a right to make as much money as he/she can make from her/his art.
But generally i won't subscribe to the " it belongs just as much to the viewer (or listener) as it does to the creator.".
Because of the effort it usually takes to create quality art. 
I think that the artist deserves all he/she gets from his/her work because no one forces you to buy hi/her art.
People use money on it because they reacted to his/her art on some kinda way.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Stepping back to look at it rationally (i.e. taking the philosophy out of it), I still think Creative Commons licenses are a great idea. To have a set of licenses pre-made for nearly all combinations of usage makes things a whole lot easier for artists, who often don't have the resources to craft a legally-binding license of their own for their work, and for (patrons? viewers?), who then will have a very clear explanation of what they're allowed to do with the work. The only combination they're missing is to allow derivative works but not distribution of the original, but it's so rare for anyone to want to use that that it doesn't matter. (If the artist doesn't want to allow anything, including distribution, then a license isn't needed and the traditional "All rights reserved" can be used.)

I'd still like to hear more views.


----------

