Open Source is Unnecessary and Dangerous

https://www.asmp.org/strictlybusiness/2010/06/creative-commons-licenses-are-unnecessary-and-dangerous/#.VXn2slWqpBc

I hear lots of people say how CC makes “sharing” possible and promotes the “democratization” of creative culture. Really, it is the emperor’s new clothes of IP licensing–false, dangerous, and unneeded.

For centuries (there is specific references to licensing in docs dating as far back as 1474!), traditional licensing has permitted creators and users to work together to develop new innovations, new art, new technologies. As the text book we used in my Licensing class in law school puts it (Licensing Intellectual Property: Law and Application pp. 3-4, emphasis added):
[...] it enables creators of information, technology, and intellectual property to do the sharing and collaboration that lead to the creation of new information products, from the production of an epic motion picture to the development of complex software. In other words, licensing underlies technological and creative innovation. [...] licensing enables parties of all sizes and from all sectors to bring information products to market in a multitude of ways. In other words, licensing also underlies business model innovation.”

Think about all the innovations of the 20th century alone, these were all done under the traditional system of licensing. No creativity or innovation was suppressed. The internet was created and grew, very successfully, under traditional licensing!

Moreover, the ability to share (free) has always been inherent in the traditional licensing system. If someone took IP from a creator and the creator didn’t have a problem with it, the creator simply did not pursue the user. An implied license could be said to exist. No problem.

So, I urge all creative professionals not to get sucked into the rhetoric of “remixing” and “democratization of culture” etc. that is promulgated by CC. Did you know that if you license a work using CC, you can never revoke that license later? And that each user under that license can sublicense your work (same terms)? It’s like a virus-license! You lose all control, forever.

You have all the tools you need under the traditional licensing system. You can give and share on your own terms, but you can protect and monetize efficiently as well. The language of the CC is seductive and sounds ever so good, especially to the creative mind that loves collaboration and working with others, but its a siren’s call to your professional doom.

Leslie Burns is a creative/marketing consultant and not a lawyer (yet). She is taking the summer off from law school to work on a 2nd ed. of her photo biz book. Follow her at burnsautoparts.com/blog, facebook.com/burnsautoparts, and twitter.com/LeslieBAP.

Nothing new here, just the old and busted ``IP causes innovation'' nonsense.

An implied license could be said to exist.

This person wants to become a lawyer?

>>2
No. She is a "marketing consultant"

>>2
She is already a copyright lawyer:
http://www.burnsautoparts.com/BAPsite/Index.html

The reason she doesn’t do much marketing consulting now is that Leslie is also an attorney, licensed in the state of California, who works primarily with artists on issues of copyright, contracts, and related small business matters. For legal matters, you can learn more at burnstheattorney.com or, better yet, photoattorney.com, as Leslie is a part of the Law Firm of Carolyn E. Wright, LLC. By the way, Carolyn has some great articles published on photoattorney.com you should probably read, too.

https://www.asmp.org/strictlybusiness/2010/06/creative-commons-friend-or-foe/#.VXotG1WqpBc
I encourage photographers to read up on what is behind CC, its founder, and what its backers really stand for. I’m not generally a tinfoil-hat wearing person, but this gets very complex and, well, intriguing.

"And for me it is not so much that they are given away for free (personally couldn’t care less) it is that they leave control of the image to others… relinquishing that which made it special. The control of the image is passed on without any further personal involvement with that so lovingly created."

http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/creative-commons-and-photography.html
The benefits of free. What benefit is there to giving away something that one can otherwise control how others use it, especially if a profit can be made?

The reason is because the Creative Commons -- and the entire concept of "free access" -- simply doesn't work for photography as it does for other things. In fact, it is such a bad fit, that the deteriorative effects harm everyone it touches, including the objectives (and the credibility of) the Creative Commons itself. Explaining why involves understanding how copyright law works, where liability and culpability lie for infringements, and how photographs can be easily and massively misappropriated in ways that can catch someone unwittingly off guard. This all can happen in very large proportions that become far too unmanageable to maintain integrity of the system.

Here is a very simple example:
- A pro photographer places a copyrighted photo on a website for sale (his own, or a stock photo agency's).
- A random 12-yr-old internet surfer finds the photo and places it on his Flickr photo stream, removes the copyright text, and gives it a Creative Commons attribution.
- A photo researcher at Big Company Inc. sees the photo and the Creative Commons license, and uses it in an ad.
- The original photographer sees the ad, files an infringement claim.
- Even though Big Company Inc believed it was acting in compliance with the license, the law doesn't allow for this defense. It is still culpable, and is subject to fines ranging from $750 to $30,000.
- The 12-yr-old is technically liable for Big Company Inc's misfortune, but let's face it--no one's going to go after him.
- Big Company Inc's lawyers now institute a policy of never trusting a photo having a Creative Commons license.

One can say that the scenarios -- and thus, risks -- exist for software as well. That is, let's say that 12-yr-old "stole" some application, gives it a CC license, and then starts giving it away. He isn't going to get very far for a number of reasons, all of which illustrate the primary differences between photographs and software and other technologies where CC succeeds.

Technology takes a very long time to develop, and usually requires the collective work of many people. Therefore, a product isn't "stolen" and distributed for very long before the authors or other users in the community find out about it. What's more, there isn't billions and billions of applications that are copied as quickly and easily as photos can be, which could essentially provide cover due to sheer volume. Furthermore, anyone who evaluates and buys software has heard about it some time before running across it and picking it up -- usually, they read about it, or hear about it as a recommendation. End users are aware when they're using pirated software, unlike photos, which you never really know about.

there is specific references to licensing in docs dating as far back as 1474!

Constantinople had already fallen, so who cares.

"remember this: 50% of people in the United States cannot identify either Mexico or Canada on a map. These people gather in discussion forums and have arguments with one another on their respective interpretations of what CC licensing means and how it is applied. In short, CC is just not the best model for the general public"

BUILD YOUR HATS WITH ROCKS

*PARKS MY CAR IN THIS THREAD*

The Little Boy Who Hacked the World: Starring >>12

dumb thread with dumb replies

>>13 INSTALL DENTINE /g/nee-can

Open source is good for bitches. Are you someone's bitch? Good, license your work under GPL then.

It blows my mind that people would actually want to work for free. Do artists work for free? Musicians? Fuck no they don't. They get pissed even if you ask, despite the fact that the garbage they make isn't half as good as any given program.

So unless you enjoy working for free for entitled dipshit idiots who resent you for your intelligence, don't release anything as open source. Make the normies pay if they want you to do anything for them.