As of October 2011, 200 million images bore the CC-licensed photo mark.
Flickr keeps tabs of which of the six CC licences its photographers are opting for and, at last glance, it was one demanding attribution for the photographer, non-commercial use and the passing on of this licence for any further use that was proving most popular.
For photographers, the choices are fairly simple: Do they want their images only used non-commercially to preclude their usage by organisations that could profit from them; do they want to stop any derivatives being made; and do they want to pass on their level of licensing onto any further usage of the image. All six licences ensure that the photographer gets attributed for their work.
However, while the uptake has been huge among amateur photographers, there are those within the professional community who are not only sceptical of the licensing model but believe it is damaging their livelihoods. We spoke to photographers representing both sides of the argument.
Lawrie Phipps -- Amateur photographer
WIRED: I'm not a professional photographer, but I do take my work seriously. Using Creative Commons (with an attribution) allows me to get my work out in the public space. My images have been used by sports magazines, an environmental organisation's publication, bird watching publications and the RSPB as well as local newspapers. Some have also been used by universities for teaching materials. On the back of this, I have sold prints and been commissioned to do photos shoots.
The advantage of using CC is that is well known, understood and a lot of search engines allow people to filter CC work, which means they can find your work easier. The disadvantages are that not everyone will attribute.
The model is customisable, but when it comes to more complex issues I looks for advice elsewhere (such as the web2rights website).
**Pete Boyd --
Enthusiast photographer**
WIRED: My photography is mostly documentary photography, candid people photography and "street" photography. I put all my photographs out using CC licences. I use the Attribution, Noncommercial, Share Alike licence. Flickr only has version two of the CC licences, I'd prefer to use version three as they're more legally robust.
I use it because I believe in the principles of allowing people to have more rights over my images than the default copyright licence allows them - such as being allowed to reproduce them in their blog, or manipulate (remix) them and republish them. Art is an iterative process with people building upon one another's work, and it doesn't happen in a vacuum, so it's good to put a legal footing to base that on so people can be confident they're not going to get into legal trouble. Look how sample licensing has killed so much creativity in the music industry.
I also use CC because I want my photographs to get as much exposure as they can, to travel around the web without people having to spend time asking permission. They just have to give me attribution. The only way I'm going to seriously use my work is in making books in future. I don't see any disadvantage in using the CC licence because, even though I put out high quality JPEGs, people aren't going to make a great book out of those as they'd need the TIFFs for that. And if a photographer was worried about people selling their work, all they need to do to alleviate that is put lower quality versions of their work on the web under a CC licence. Personally I prefer to have as good a quality work as I can on the web so that people get the best picture I can make.
We live in changing times with relation to photography and the internet. People who hold their work back, don't put it on the web, put it out under standard copyright terms, I believe are holding themselves and their work back from the potential it could have with the distribution power of the internet.
David Shankbone -- Amateur photographer whose images of the Occupy Wall Street movement were published worldwide
WIRED: I use Creative Commons licensing to give something back to society and to make the statement that there is more to living than just the pursuit of money. There are clear advantages too including more use of your work. More people see and appreciate it. The disadvantage is that you spend a lot of time working on something knowing that your perspiration won't help you pay rent. Despite the advantages, I don't think CC should be adopted by photographers worldwide because then only hobbyists would photograph the things that struck their fancy. No volunteer form of information should ever replace a professional class that adheres to professional standards and ethics.
Damian James -- Senior Digital Designer at marketing agency RPM
WIRED and TIRED: Creative Commons images give greater access to more varied content. It allows the artist to provide additional usage rights to their work, beyond the automatic 'All rights reserved' copyright, giving artists greater control over their content usage rights. This in turn makes usage clearer for users and recipients wishing to reuse or share content and it encourages the users to credit the artist providing some recognition. CC is also free to implement, which is a huge advantage.
From my perspective, I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, however one disadvantage could be for artists willing to sell their work commercially, without having the chance to. For example, an artist could find that his images have been used by a global corporation that might otherwise have paid a fair reward for it. Brands also need to be careful though. One particular image could be used multiple times by different users, so it might not be as unique in the public realm; this brand identity is something brands are always keen to protect.
With the likes of big brands such as Google, Flickr and Wikipedia using Creative Commons, it is definitely beginning to gain more recognition. However it would be good to see the benefits of Creative Commons discussed more throughout the media and creative industries.
Peter Meade -- Professional photographer
TIRED: I briefly used a creative commons licence on a few of my photos, at about the time I started posting
photos on Flickr. I thought that it may be a useful way of raising my profile as a photographer. However, I saw no benefit and quickly found that photos were rapidly spread across the web. Cricket shots were being used on gambling web sites and by ticket agencies. On one occasion, I received an email from a publisher saying that they had put one of my photos in a book and did I want to buy a copy.
The link they sent showed a very badly edited shot in a London guidebook. I also noticed that, as shots were being reproduced, the photographer's accreditation for the shot was being dropped.
The CC standard says that photographers should get credit, but I discovered that I was not being credited and that there were occasions when the photos were being ascribed to other photographers. On another occasion I found an all rights reserved copyright photo being used. It had been taken from Flickr. The photo was removed and the people who took it told me that they thought it was available for use, even though it was marked. There are people out there who think Flickr equals free to use.
I decided that the model may be OK for some people, just not for me. I regret using it. If it could be improved? Well yes, if you want to put an image back to all rights reserved, there ought to be a mechanism that disseminates that information and stops people from using the works.
Andrew Wiard -- Professional photographer speaking on behalf of the British Press Photographers Association (BPPA):
TIRED: If Creative Commons could devise a system guaranteed to protect our intellectual property rights, we would be prepared to look at it -- until then it's best avoided.
Creative Commons licences are unnecessary because photographers have always been able to licence their work free of charge if they so wish by issuing a straightforward licence accordingly. Releasing work to all comers with a CC licence is very dangerous, because, however sophisticated and detailed its terms might be, the medium is the message -- the CC symbol is mistaken to mean "I can do whatever I like with this".
Pete Jenkins -- Professional photographer and member of The National Union of Journalists
TIRED: Working professionals like myself find that CC is totally pointless, as it merely serves to confuse the marketplace, and loses the photographer control of their own work, thoroughly undermining the entire reason for licensing in the first place.
CC does not replace conventional licensing, it is a deceptively simple form of licensing, which gives users a far wider remit than by simply asking for permission from the creator, as in conventional rights managed licensing. CC in itself is not even particularly simple as there are at least six licences although in the past I have counted more than this.
The biggest single problem is that by taking away the need to contact the creator, the creator has no control over who uses the work. For example how would a creator feel if a non-profit making organisation such as Oxfam used their work in their brochures versus a non-profit organisation such as the Labour party or Conservative party doing the same? Or the BNP? Under Creative Commons licensing, the BNP could use any work licensed in this way, and the creator would have allowed it.
Creative Commons comes from a good place but in reality is totally daft. There is nothing that Creative Commons allows that cannot be granted under conventional Rights Managed Licensing, which protects both the creator and the user. Conventional licensing can still allow a user to use material free of charge should the licence holder wish it. Creative Commons prevents the licence holder from restricting use and controlling their own work, and that has to be a bad thing.
What does CC mean for: Science, Software, Music
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/3.0/88x31.png" alt="Creative Commons Licence" style="border-width: 0;"/></a>
This work is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License</a>.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
