I usually have this discussion with people who are stealing music, but the same principles apply to images.

"Computers make copies of everything...That's what computers do."

Actually, no. Computers play with ones and zeros. All else is the work of man.

"Legal restrictions on image use makes the web so much more boring and bland than if we had no limits on using images for non-commercial purpose..."

To the contrary, without the ability to control and commericialize images, professional photographers and graphic artists would not be able to earn a living. They would have to do something else to make money instead of creating new images. So the result would be fewer images and the web would truly be diminished.

"Imagine the time involved in me getting permission for every single picture I use?"

Yes, your convenience is so important that we should simply strip people of their property rights and deny them their chosen profession. Instead of being thankful for the 1000's of photographers and artists who allow you to use their images free of charge, you whine that it is too much trouble even ask for permission.

"And after over 1,000 posts using any picture that I can pull up (copy) off my computer screen, guess how many people have complained? Answer: Only one!"

With all due respect, how many of these people do you think search your web site every day to see if your are using their images? You should not mistake their lack of response with tacit approval.

"My point is people who fight for copyright protection in the age of digital images / computers is the same predicament as Ice and Salt salesman shortly after the invention of refrigeration?"

Unless people started stealing ice and salt when refrigeration was invented, your comparison is invalid.

The problem with people like you is that you want to use the work of artists, but you are unwilling to even acknowledge they have a right to their work. How would you feel if someone wanted to deny you the right to control what you produce?

All this to say, it's a little like Facebook. I found out several months ago that Facebook owns all the rights to everything you put on their site (including this post as it's through Facebook Connect)...and so anything I put online I consider it Stealable even with a BY-NC-SA-FU-ETC license.

PS - feel free to copy and paste this post anywhere and put your own name on it. I don't even care.

Control is very important. Consider for a moment some of the big copyright firestorms over the years. There was the Yahoo! & GeoCities terms issue in 1999 which was recently repeated by Facebook. A lot of the people I know were pissed about the companies "taking" their photos and using them for insidious purposes. Most importantly, few accepted the company-line about needing licenses (which is true,btw) because they don't understand the legal mumbo-jumbo about copyright licensing and also they felt they would lose control about who, when, and where their property would be used.

When it comes right down to it, Creative Commons is all about control. Creative Commons allows for more permissive use of copyrighted material without forcing a person to give up their copyright altogether. In other words, it provides different levels of control.

Look at the licenses attributes in the most popularly chosen CC licenses:
Attribution (BY) - this is a no brainer. Everyone wants to be recognized when their work is used.
Noncommercial (NC) - a lot of people do not want companies to use their photos without paying for it. If you want it that badly, pay for it.
No Derivative Works (ND) - "You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work."
Share alike (SA) - "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."

A lot of people I know do not want others to have license to modify their photos. It is almost sacrilegious to even consider it. I personally don't care if someone modifies the photo as long as my license follows the photo.

I know a few less sophisticated Flickr users who use Creative Commons. They understand and get the licenses but choose to retain some level of control over their personal work.

Now, the next thing CC will need to work on is getting Congress to make damages and lawyers fees available for copyright infringement when the work is not registered with the copyright office. Currently, you need to register your work before you are entitled to get your lawyer's fees paid by the other side if they willfully infringe. I can then pursue the several companies I've caught using my photos on their commercial web sites, despite my by-nc-sa license.

Control is very important. Consider for a moment some of the big copyright firestorms over the years. There was the Yahoo! & GeoCities terms issue in 1999 which was recently repeated by Facebook. A lot of the people I know were pissed about the companies "taking" their photos and using them for insidious purposes. Most importantly, few accepted the company-line about needing licenses (which is true,btw) because they don't understand the legal mumbo-jumbo about copyright licensing and also they felt they would lose control about who, when, and where their property would be used.

When it comes right down to it, Creative Commons is all about control. Creative Commons allows for more permissive use of copyrighted material without forcing a person to give up their copyright altogether. In other words, it provides different levels of control.

Look at the licenses attributes in the most popularly chosen CC licenses:
Attribution (BY) - this is a no brainer. Everyone wants to be recognized when their work is used.
Noncommercial (NC) - a lot of people do not want companies to use their photos without paying for it. If you want it that badly, pay for it.
No Derivative Works (ND) - "You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work."
Share alike (SA) - "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."

A lot of people I know do not want others to have license to modify their photos. It is almost sacrilegious to even consider it. I personally don't care if someone modifies the photo as long as my license follows the photo.

I know a few less sophisticated Flickr users who use Creative Commons. They understand and get the licenses but choose to retain some level of control over their personal work.

Now, the next thing CC will need to work on is getting Congress to make damages and lawyers fees available for copyright infringement when the work is not registered with the copyright office. Currently, you need to register your work before you are entitled to get your lawyer's fees paid by the other side if they willfully infringe. I can then pursue the several companies I've caught using my photos on their commercial web sites, despite my by-nc-sa license.

a) The licenses should include 'real world' examples for the sake of understanding the implications

and

b) Flickr should do more to encourage greater open use (or at least awareness of the option)

What I'd like to see most is pointers to the "free enough for Wikipedia" licenses. I thought I'd made most of mine free enough for Wikipedia, but that turns out not to be true. I think more people would use freer licenses if the help it provided to specific projects like Wikipedia were made clear.

Go CC!

to be honest, i kind of figure that most people who go searching around the internet for images are going to take them anyway, and i'm just not all that concerned about that possibility. so, logically, it is time for me to loosen up on my licensing, because there's no reason to create a virtual 'crime' over something i figure is happening anyway and don't particularly care.

so, thanks for this food for thought.

i also agree with many of the above commenters that this 'majority' has just never bothered to dig that deep into their settings, and accepted the defaults.

i think it would be nice for flickr to make more of an effort to educate users about their options and encourage them to consider sharing.

People don't know to go to the right place to find out what the license means, and what you need to do in order to be in compliance with the license. Also, those licensing their images never check to see if they are bing used improperly.

And I also agree with Deane, sort of. For me, I feel that anything I put on the web is now open to the internet. Of course I would like the attribution, but really if you don't want someone using it, get it copy written. No one does that though because its a pain in the ass. So stpo complaining.

In the end, I just hate lawyers, really. I keep my cash at home, F!@# the banks. I keep my important information on my computer with encryption. If someone uses a photo I created, great! Enjoy it....

And by these statistics, only 33% of users choose the most restrictive license. So the headline could also read "Overwhelming majority of CC licensers on Flickr do not choose the most restrictive license".

That's what computers do.

Legal restrictions on image use makes the web so much more boring and bland than if we had no limits on using images for non-commercial purpose...

That's why I created a blog where I use a half dozen images per post and sometimes I post as much as 32 times a day!

Imagine the time involved in me getting permission for every single picture I use?

And after over 1,000 posts using any picture that I can pull up (copy) off my computer screen, guess how many people have complained? Answer: Only one!

My point is people who fight for copyright protection in the age of digital images / computers is the same predicament as Ice and Salt salesman shortly after the invention of refrigeration? I mean maybe we should of just banned refrigeration so the salt and ice salesman wouldn't go out of business right?

Your thoughts?

1. most people I around me irl aren't simply *that* literate, computer literate, and would just take any default over any other non pre-canned

2. for now a year I've asked all copyright owners their ok on displaying Flickr ©shots on personal page - none has ever refused [and I'm nothing of a web influencer or anyone of the kind :)]

Possible simple settings issue there?

Using the restrictive option is not necessarily a sign that a user will not allow distribution. In most cases I get a quick positive response if I request to use a restricted photo.

Perhaps those who created the descriptions of these licenses feel they are simple to understand. I'm going to admit here that they aren't to me and if you check out the FAQ it should be pretty clear that they are not to many others either.

I was fortunate because I know blogger/musician Adam Singer and I asked him for his advice. Most people don't personally know someone they can ask who has this type of knowledge.

Before you dismiss this comment I want to mention that I have a college degree, tested in the top 99 percentile in my college entrance exams, and could join Mensa if I was into that kind of thing.

I share this for only one purpose: to illustrate that just because something may be easy FOR YOU that does NOT mean it SHOULD be easy enough for everyone else! The general public should not be dismissed as not intelligent - all of us just have different knowledge and are better at some things than others.

It is up to those who DO have expertise in any subject to provide explanations that make sense to as many people as is humanly possible.