Disclaimer: I’m not pretending to be a lawyer, so read the following article as editorial commentary.

Two nights ago, Jim Goldstein posted an article titled “Creative Commons: A Great Concept I’ll Never Employ“. It’s a great discussion about the Creative Commons and a few of the pitfalls from a photographer’s stance, but (to me) the article seemed somewhat biased against the Creative Commons. With as many items that I wanted to respond to in Jim’s article, I feel that my thoughts are better suited in a post of their own. Some of what you’ll see here is me playing Devil’s Advocate, but in general these are the opinions I’ve had for some time now. And in no way is this an attack on Jim Goldstein, his article, or his opinions.

Subscribe to the Feed

Want more great projects, amazing photos, Photoshop tips, and articles on photography? Subscribe to Epic Edits today so you don’t miss a thing.

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE CREATIVE COMMONS?

Creative Commons provides free tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry [from creativecommons.org]. Basically the Creative Commons defines the licensing opportuinites of creative works in a spectrum between Copyright and Public Domain.

The Creative Commons is not a replacement for Copyright protection. All original creative works (photos in our case) are protected under Copyright law, whether you register the works or not (though it can be helpful in the event of a dispute). The Creative Commons does not remove or replace copyright protection from your work — it’s more of an addendum that allows non-copyright holders exercise Copyright rights as specified by the specific Creative Commons License applied to the work.

I can’t help but relate the Creative Commons to the Open Source Initiative for programmers, which has been around for a while and it’s quite popular. Open Source allows programmers to distribute their work with an attached license that then allows others certain rights to the work — such as redistribution, derivative works, monetization, etc. The Creative Commons works much the same way in that for the license to be valid it must remain attached to the work as specified within the licensing terms of agreement.

WHAT’S IN THE FINE PRINT?

Jim pointed out that many who apply the Creative Commons Licensing to their work don’t fully understand what they’re doing. I tend to agree, and I don’t claim to be an expert on the topic myself. But then again, most of those same people don’t fully understand the rights and restrictions associated with Copyright law.

I’ve read through the Creative Commons Documentation in the past, but I took another look at things over the last couple of days. It’s quite a bit to digest, but still nothing in comparison to Copyright documentation — it’s actually quite readable. Some places to start are the Creative Commons homepage, the about page, the before licensing page, the licensing page, and the frequently asked questions page. I’m not going to go through all the details, but understand that they are there and they are readable.

In summary, before applying a Creative Commons License to a work you must be sure that it is something protected by copyright to begin with, and that you have the authority to apply that license. It’s pretty simple for us photographers — if it’s a photo and you shot it, you’re good to go. If you decide to apply a Creative Commons License, be sure to read through the descriptions of each license carefully — don’t just assume you know what it means.

GRAY AREAS IN THE CREATIVE COMMONS

Not everything is cut-and-dry in the Creative Commons. Some documentation is worded vaguely and has room for interpretation. One point Jim brought up was the Virgin Mobile misuse of a Flickr photo licensed under the Creative Commons for commercial use. The problem is that no model release was in place to allow the use of that photo for commercial use. This is where I’m a little fuzzy on things — Is it the responsibility of the photographer or the publisher to ensure that photos licensed under the Creative Commons also have a model release to go with them in the event that the publisher uses a photo for commercial purposes? My gut tells me that the publisher is responsible, since they’re the one monetizing the image. What publisher in their right mind would use a photo of a person in an advertisement without acquiring the model release?

Another thing Jim mentions is that Creative Commons Licenses are non-revocable. I think this statement has been at least partly misunderstood by some. What it means is that if someone acquires your work under a Creative Commons License, they have the ability to exercise the rights granted to them by that license even if you change your mind and revoke the license. This also means that they can use it and redistribute it with the Creative Commons License. But it doesn’t mean that you can’t revoke the license on your original work, because you most certainly can. This makes me wonder though, how would a licensee prove that the work was acquired under the Creative Commons? Is this information contained in the file? Is Flickr (or somebody else) keeping track of the license history for every image?

One last thing that I’ve been unsure about is the noncommercial condition. A license utilizing this condition just states that the work can’t be used for commercial purposes. That leaves a lot to be interpreted. Luckily, there’s a draft guideline on noncommercial use on the Creative Commons website, and it helps clarify some of the questions I’ve had as a publisher.

SHOULD PHOTOGRAPHERS USE THE CREATIVE COMMONS?

I honestly think that a majority of us should use the Creative Commons Licensing as a way to promote our work, as long as we understand what the license means. It opens up an opportunity for our work to be distributed (and attributed) under certain rules and restrictions that are somewhat less restrictive than fully Copyright, while still reserving our core rights to the work. Of course, preventing misuse of our photographs relies on those using them to adhere to the license — but the good news is that if the terms of the license are broken, that license dissolves and the image is then under full Copyright for that licensee.

I’ve always been a proponent of things like the Creative Commons and Open Source, and I’ll probably continue to be. I may change my mind some day if I ever become a highly sought after photographer, but the thing that may have helped get me there could be my use of the Creative Commons Licensing… you never know. I license all of my Flickr images under the “Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives” license, which is the most restrictive license available short of fully Copyright. This reserves my right to prevent others from monetizing or changing my work, while allowing them to share it with proper credits. A side note on the Open Source thing — I also released a piece of software under the Apache License V2.0 several years ago. It was a program I wrote for my Master’s Thesis (which is an amazingly good read).

So the “sharing” licenses are nothing terribly new to me, and I enjoy being able to have that extra level of control and openness to my work. If you’re thinking about using the Creative Commons with your own photography, I urge you to read the fine details of the terms and conditions associated with the license of your choice. If you’re still unsure about the whole thing, then stick with Copyright — it’s your safest bet.

52 responses


Do you want to comment?

Comments RSS and TrackBack Identifier URI ?

Hello,
What do you think about the editorial use of the noncommercial CC license? I looked at the draft guideline on noncommercial use, but they are not addressing this issue.

November 14, 2007 3:37 am

That’s a good question, and a good point. Personally, I would lean toward being against any use of a noncommercial licensed photo that would (under Copyright protection) otherwise be a source of revenue for the photographer. This would include most forms of editorial use, but then there’s always the whole “Fair Use” thing that further muddies the water.

November 14, 2007 3:45 am

I didn’t mean “Fair Use” in this case, but generally my opinion is similar. I don’t use any noncommercials to play safe, since even if I could, I can still get trashed by the photographer, which is not worth the risk.

November 14, 2007 3:55 am

As a publisher, I take the same precaution. If I have time, I even contact photographers of commercial use photos before publishing their work in an article. In the case of this article, I didn’t have time to do that prior to posting, but I did contact all of the photographers immediately after and told them I’d take down the image if they had any issues with me posting it.

November 14, 2007 3:59 am

That’s interesting. I was thinking about doing that for the sake of promoting my site to them, but I am curious to know what are the most prominent issues one can encounter after publishing a photo? Missing model release?

November 14, 2007 4:02 am

Very interesting read, Brian. I’m for the use of Creative Commons as well, but then again, like you said, this may change if I ever become a sought-after photographer. Who knows. Anyway, I’m off to read the links. Thanks for this.

November 14, 2007 4:56 am

I am a fan of things Open Source and see CC licensing as an important derivative. With my photos, I tend to put them on Flickr with a (c) licence to begin with and then consider changing that to (cc) (normally non-commercial, attribution, share-alike) a few months down the line.

That gives me exclusive rights to the pictures to begin with but also means others can benefit from them later. I have certainly found Flickr’s CC search to have been a rich resource when looking for things like backgrounds for presentation slides.

I am scrupulous about observing the terms of the licence and feel that, on balance, I have gained just as much as I have given. I could keep all the pictures to myself (and not do anything risky like publish them on the web) but both I and the world would be poorer for it.

November 14, 2007 5:01 am

I could keep all the pictures to myself (and not do anything risky like publish them on the web) but both I and the world would be poorer for it.

Awesome statement. This kind of thinking really gets at the core of things like the Creative Commons and the Open Source Initiative.

November 14, 2007 5:03 am

Yes, you are right Lisa. I think this is the typical “no loss, no gain” situation. If you become famous photographer in the future, your past CC licensed work will propably have no commercial value. But on the other side, your CC work now can allow you to promote your work quicker.

November 14, 2007 5:04 am


I’m sick of the disinformation and attacks against CC coming from the photography establishment.

November 14, 2007 10:06 am

The problem with Creative Commons isn’t in how the photographer inteprets it; it’s in how the audience inteprets it.

All of my photography used to be CC with attribution, no derivs, and non-commercial. However, what was happening is that people were taking my photographs and doing whatever they wanted with them. They got used commercially because commercial enterprises didn’t look at the fine print. They got changed and tweaked because people who downloaded them didn’t look at the fine print. With searches like FlickrLilli (which is a popular CC search, http://flickrlilli.org.uk/), you can’t see the license as you’re searching. You can designate what attributes you’d like but it doesn’t seem to always get them right.

I love sharing my photography. I do give it away for free all of the time. In fact, a not-for-profit contacted me yesterday and asked if they could use one of my photographs and I gave them permission.

In the end, that’s really all I want — to know how and why it’s being used. Because I really don’t want it being used for companies and/or causes I don’t support. I also don’t want it being mangled (especially since I can put hours into one photograph).

November 14, 2007 11:29 am

… people were taking my photographs and doing whatever they wanted with them.

Good point, Dawn. A lot of the responsibility lies with the end-user. Though, according to the terms of the CC license, if the image is being used improperly and breaking the terms of the license, the license is no longer valid and you’re back to full Copyright. So if you deem your image as non-commercial and somebody uses it commercially, you have full power to pursue it as a Copyright infringement.

November 14, 2007 11:31 am

>>> In the end, that’s really all I want — to know how and why it’s being used.

That’s fully understandable, but the question remains if CC is the right license then.

>>> Because I really don’t want it being used for companies and/or causes I don’t support. <<<

Just a small rant: I know a few people from non-profits, and it always seemed to me that how they operate is very similar to a company. There really isn’t that much of a difference.

November 14, 2007 11:38 am

Brian I’m glad my post struck a nerve with you. This is a great counter balance to my post.

Two things that you discuss in relation to my blog entry that I need to re-emphasize:

1. “All original creative works (photos in our case) are protected under Copyright law, whether you register the works or not (though it can be helpful in the event of a dispute).”

Here is the rub. This is true, but formally filing paperwork with the Library of Congress to formally register your copyright is critical. Few if any lawyers will work with you to enforce your copyright with out this critical step being taken. If a lawyer has a choice between a case that will enable him to secure $150,000 per violation versus $0 what do you think they’re more likely to do? Formalizing copyright protection allows you to seek damages not just claim copyright ownership. Yes once you take a photo you are the copyright holder, but that doesn’t mean that the copyright carries as much legal and real world weighting as it could. With out financial incentive most violators will not move as quickly as they should to recognize and abide by your copyright and/or licensing terms. A perfect example of this is with Chase Jarvis’ notable case. Look for his blog posts on his case with K2 and you’ll quickly see what impact a formalized copyright affords you as a photographer and I’m not talking in strict financial terms.

2. “Creative Commons Licenses are non-revocable. I think this statement has been at least partly misunderstood by some. What it means is that if someone acquires your work under a Creative Commons License, they have the ability to exercise the rights granted to them by that license even if you change your mind and revoke the license.”

A fine clarification, but one that really makes no difference to be honest. Photography is like every other business… it is hinged on supply and demand. If you let loose your work that you later plan on selling then you’ve undermined your ability to create demand with limited supply especially if someone wants an exclusive license. I understand that those using CC may not be out to leverage supply and demand to establish a photography business. More times than not it is to raise awareness and visibility… a noble effort. BUT it is absolutely critical that if you do this you understand that you lose control of your work. Control that will never ever be regained. Proving that someone used an image while out as a CC license versus a more restricted license becomes a nightmare both for the publisher and the photographer. Even if you hold the copyright and you formally file it with the Library of Congress if you were to get into a dispute about the use of an image the fact that an image were previously licensed as CC could easily diminish ones ability to collect reward for a violation. The flip-side of the loss of control issue with CC licenses is that your photo could be used in ways you never imagined.

One other thing is that I’m not saying don’t use CC licenses. I’m merely being a realist that if you have aspirations to do something more with your photos then one should be as conservative as possible.

Funny thing is that I just had lunch with a developer friend of mine yesterday and we discussed the open source view point of software development versus open source photography. CC is not evil and should be avoided at all cost, but photographic licensing needs special attention with a long term view. Copyrights have a purpose and the means of employing them are different for an individual versus a software consortium versus say Disney who is out to never lose control of their cash cow, Mickey Mouse. I have more in the pipe to help people learn more about this. Stay tuned and keep the great dialog going.

November 14, 2007 12:31 pm

“CC is not evil and should be avoided at all cost”

should have read

“CC is not evil and isn’t something that should be avoided at all cost”

November 14, 2007 12:33 pm

1. Good point on the Copyright registration, Jim. In fact, the Creative Commons folks actually suggest that you do the appropriate paperwork with the Copyright office to help protect your photos. When I mentioned the Copyright ownership thing in the post, I was merely pointing out that you have Copyright ownership regardless of your intents or actions to further license your image through the Creative Commons.

2. One thing that I forgot to mention about how I license my photos is the physical size and quality of the image. I post to Flickr at 500px in the largest dimension (though I’m considering moving it up to 800px). If somebody gets my photo under a Creative Commons license, they’ve got a really low resolution representation of the image with restricted uses. There’s not a lot they can do with that image. In my mind, the image that’s worth something is the full resolution representation, and that low-res image that got distributed under the Creative Commons License is kind of like a viral business card.

If you take the idea of being conservative as possible to an extreme, that means that you should avoid posting any image at any size to any website where people could download it. Photo sharing sites like Flickr are a networking tool for photographers — as is the Creative Commons.

And I agree… there’s some great discussion here and on your article. I’m really interested to see how thing progress.

November 14, 2007 12:36 pm

“>>> Because I really don’t want it being used for companies and/or causes I don’t support. <<<

Just a small rant: I know a few people from non-profits, and it always seemed to me that how they operate is very similar to a company. There really isn’t that much of a difference.”

I think the term non-profit is misinterpreted by most people. Dawn was essentially referring to pro bono causes, as opposed to the tax classification.

“I could keep all the pictures to myself (and not do anything risky like publish them on the web) but both I and the world would be poorer for it.”

Jim and I both only license our work as rights-managed, but our photos are all over the net as well. How you license your work has nothing to do with enriching the world or having your work seen. Let’s not be delusional as toward our own self-worth. We just take photos. Some people sell their photos, some don’t. We’re all the same at the end of the day. I know I haven’t saved any lives with my work. Have you?

November 14, 2007 2:32 pm

hi brian
[offtopic]
i think the font size used is too small.
it really makes it annoying to read a longer post.
[/offtopic]

November 14, 2007 5:51 pm

Thanks, I know. I’m trying to get that adjusted, but it’s being stubborn. Don’t worry, it’ll happen eventually.

November 14, 2007 8:38 pm

I think lawyers are naturally against things until they’ve spent alot of thinking time analyzing every legal aspect of it and if there are any loopholes they or others can/will exploit, and understand who all benefits from the whole process. I know some amazing lawyers and some slimeball ones… they just have a concentrated focus on things most people wouldn’t ever think about.

November 15, 2007 3:42 am

Creative Commons is certainly a great find for all of us bloggers.For me it’s great simply…I love the way it reduces the head ache involved in copy- rights.

To be frank,I’m still confused abt the copyright concept….:D

November 15, 2007 4:54 am

Lets face it, most of the time it dosn’t make a blind bit of difference. Ive had a couple of photos stolen off flickr and put on another site, no attribution given, and even a claim of copyright watermarked over the top, but what can I do about it? Mostly, sweet FA.

November 15, 2007 5:29 am

As a debut author, I’d never have gotten over 4,000 readers in the first quarter if I’d found myself a traditional publisher. I released my novel online under a CC license; the online release creates the readership, and the CC license guarantees that the novel can sustainably be kept free.

November 15, 2007 8:01 am

Hi,

I’m wondering about one question.
1. Since Creative Commons is not a law what if someone breaks it? To me CC is more like a footer saying “Don’t do this, and that”.

November 15, 2007 11:38 am

Creative commons actually overlays Copyright and lifts some of the restrictions rather than imposing new restrictions. In order for those lifted restrictions to be applicable, the user must follow the terms of the license. If those terms are broken, the license ceases to exist for that user and full Copyright applies. At that point, it’s very much in the hands of the law.

November 15, 2007 12:43 pm

@m3kw9 This is the part that growingly frustrates me… (nothing directed at you of course)
Creative Commons is often mistaken as something other than Copyright protection.

Creative Commons licenses are a specific license under the umbrella of Copyright law. You wouldn’t be able to have CC with out the over arching Copyright law in place.

Creative Commons licenses are templates of licenses giving specific instructions/permissions to the person using the photo. If one were to not employ a Creative Commons license and to say “© 2007 , All Rights Reserved” then someone would have to ask permission and get something in writing from you for each use. Creative Commons licenses put the permission up front with certain parameters. In that sense someone could abide by the license using it in areas or ways you’ll never know about.

I hope that helps clarify.

November 15, 2007 12:47 pm

@Brian Auer
As mentioned Copyright is the umbrella legislature that CC falls under. Its not the other way around.

If a license is broken the license doesn’t cease to exist. If the constraints in which the license is in place are not abided by the person is in violation of that. There is no over arching protection that will trump that license term. They can only be held accountable for breaking the terms of the license you have them agree too. That being said the fact that there is nothing in writing really makes it questionable how enforceable the license is. If there is a disagreement to the terms of a specific license you do have copyright law to back you, but only to enforce the constraints that you put forth in your CC license. There are a lot of loopholes for people to get out of penalties for copyright violations. The less clear who the copyright holder is, what the terms are, how to find out about the terms, etc. make it that much easier for someone to defend themselves and get out of punitive damages… assuming you’ve filed your work with the Library of Congress.

November 15, 2007 1:00 pm

You’re right Jim, my choice of the word “overlay” was incorrect. CC falls UNDER Copyright.

For the termination part, check section 7 of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode

As far as I can tell, this is in writing and it states that if the terms of the license are broken, the protection of the license will terminate for that user. Are you getting at something else, or am I misunderstanding something?

November 15, 2007 1:17 pm

@Brian Auer
One thing that I forgot to mention about how I license my photos is the physical size and quality of the image. I post to Flickr at 500px in the largest dimension (though I’m considering moving it up to 800px). If somebody gets my photo under a Creative Commons license, they’ve got a really low resolution representation of the image with restricted uses. There’s not a lot they can do with that image.

Always be aware of the possibilities. People lift and upsize small images all the time. This happened recently on Flickr with Rebekka (see my post on this where she later reveals in the comments that the images were low resolution) and others. This is why people go seemingly overboard with image watermarks.

If you take the idea of being conservative as possible to an extreme, that means that you should avoid posting any image at any size to any website where people could download it.
Well by now you should know me well enough to know that is not what I’m saying. Photographers need to take the appropriate safeguards to avoid problems. As you know I’m quite the conservative person with my work, yet I post my photographs on several sites. My argument against CC has nothing to do with telling people not to put their photographs on the Internet.

Photo sharing sites like Flickr are a networking tool for photographers — as is the Creative Commons.
Actually Creative Commons is a means of allowing publishers to use ones work more freely under templatized terms. To say it is a networking tool is interpretive and not necessarily 100% factual. CC can result in a variety of outcomes (benefits or detriments). It is this interpretive portion of our back and forth that troubles me. In many regards at this point in the conversation people see what they want to see. I can list half a dozen instances on Flickr where CC licenses were violated. How those photographers now interpret CC would run the spectrum. On the other end of the spectrum there are numerous people that have yet to have a problem and to your point it has been a networking opportunity.

November 15, 2007 1:21 pm

The phrase “networking tool” doesn’t necessarily imply only benefits without detriments. In my eyes, CC is a networking tool because it requires attribution. If you didn’t want the attribution, you could set your image free under the public domain.

November 15, 2007 1:31 pm

@Brian Auer

Regarding the termination I’m no lawyer, but that is a pretty standard clause. That just puts a stake in the ground to let the person know that the CC permissions are revoked upon violation. Further violations then speak to the larger protection afforded to general copyright protection. If you were to take the dispute to court, assuming no other violations were made, legal proceedings would revolve around the CC license and violations to it. That clause wouldn’t retroactively remove the permissions granted to the person. it’s a matter of semantics and I can see where we might be seeing this differently.

The thing that is assumed here is that this would even go to court. CC licenses have yet to be proven in court as far as I’m aware.

November 15, 2007 1:40 pm

I always thought you should be able to create your own license – sometimes the while attribution, no derivatives, etc. is just limiting and sort of confusing to some people.

November 15, 2007 7:18 pm

Markus, after visiting your post, I came across that really neat article from the past about the Creative Commons on Flickr. A lot of it talks about our buddy Kris Krug, and how he’s used CC to get his name out there. It’s a pretty powerful article.

November 15, 2007 9:09 pm


@Jim Goldstein: Creative Commons licenses have been proven in court. See the Adam Curry case here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5823 where the “NonCommercial” clause of the license was argued over and the court found the license to be valid and subsequently that Adam Curry’s copyright was infringed upon by a tabloid using the photo.

Also consider a court in Spain recognizing the validity of a Creative Commons license here : http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5830

November 15, 2007 11:40 pm

I’m only a law student taking a copyright course, but my understanding is that creative commons licensors should also register their copyrights with the Copyright Office in a timely manner, because if somebody violates your license, you’re going to want a lawyer, and the same rules about timely registration getting you lawyers’ fees apply.

November 16, 2007 1:01 am

Very good point. I think I saw that mentioned on the CC website somewhere too.

November 16, 2007 1:29 am

Nice post! It’s been long since I have been using CC license and have seen my friends using it too without completely understanding what it’s entirely about. I concur your thoughts that photographs should be released with CC license attached to it.
I have seen numerous incidents where someone was sues for copyright infringements but yet to see one incident where someone broke the CC license and got sued. Is it not supposed to be a law just like other copyrights are considered as?

November 16, 2007 8:59 am

Thanks for the comments. As for the question, refer to Fred’s comment above. He’s posted links to a couple of cases where a CC license has been involved with the law.

November 16, 2007 10:28 am

@Scott Caplan: While legal restitution is certainly an option using Creative Commons licenses, its not always the quickest and easiest path. Many times a community recognizes the value (and legal implications) of violating a Creative Commons license and their actions prompt the violator to do the right thing. There are too many examples to name of this, but I think Lessig describes one of the best ones here:

http://lessig.org/blog/2006/09/autoweek_on_come_on.html

and here: http://lessig.org/blog/2006/09/update_on_autoweek.html

F

November 16, 2007 11:25 am

@ mr.bad eye

[chop]…
i think the font size used is too small.
it really makes it annoying to read a longer post.
[/chop]…

If you are using a browser other than the now infamous Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 6 and under, you can simply hit ‘control’ + ‘+’ key. Conversely, font sizes can be shrunk using ‘control’ + ‘-’ keys. Just be warned that some browsers (like Firefox) will simply boost the font size but retain the other website structure’s size and integrity (which is what I personally prefer). Other browsers (like IE 7 or Opera for example) will scale everything (graphics included!).

@ Brian,

Great article. I really enjoyed it. Being paranoid, I simply keep images I shoot (and graphics I create) under complete copyright protection with all rights reserved. And as you mentioned, by posting images that are far less in resolution that their native maximum in-camera size, it makes ‘theft for large printing purposes’ more limiting. As far as I am concerned, if you don’t want people making large prints out of images, don’t offer them access to full sized shots posted on the net.

I see many images posted in all their full resolution glory. This is simply an invitation to trouble IMHO. Being responsible on your end to help minimize potential damage is just as important as ensuring your work is properly protected from a legal standpoint.

Great article! Keep’em coming!

Cheers,

NRG

November 20, 2007 4:26 am



Hi,

Cool post. The laws and regs around this area are a nightmare and most non lawyers could easily be caught out. However, at least the CC tries to translate this. As for the gray area re: who has to have to have rights to publish, I would have thought the photographer should ensure this is sorted? They create the picture and made it publicly available so I maybe that is where the onus is?

I’m lawyer but just thinking about it. E.G in the UK the person in the photo eseentially owns all the copyright unless they sign a release form because it is their image and they own that.

Could easily be wrong so interested in other UK thoughts on this??

Cool post

Ed

December 14, 2007 9:30 pm

Err that last post should read, ‘I’m no lawyer’

December 14, 2007 9:31 pm

Looks like you are in good company. The nature magazine are CCing now: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7171/full/450762b.html
- udi

December 15, 2007 9:29 am

Hey, wow, that’s pretty cool stuff!

December 15, 2007 1:50 pm


Thanks for the great post, as usual.

February 6, 2009 1:24 am

As long as people are lazy and do not want to make their own content, I guess we could throw greed in there as well, you will always see content and copywritted material being stolen. I do not really think there is any way around it.

February 7, 2009 2:26 pm

Good post, very thought provoking. I am all for CC, but its really hard when someone rips stuff off your site and you cant do anything about it.

March 4, 2009 4:19 pm

Comment now!