Creative Commons; Why don't furry artists use it?
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
It's not too hard to understand (see Wikipedia about it) and I suggest most halfly serious artists at least try to look into it and try to understand it.
As a example, I believe most furry artists probably would use a by-nc-nd license which means "spread it, but do not mess with it". It would give other people permission to share the artwork however they like as long they don't mess with it. It's one of the more restrictive licenses, but is more free than just "plain" copyright notice, and wouldn't make reposting it on sites like f-chan a copyright infringement. At the same time, it would still make it illegal to take someone's artwork and claim it as your own (infact I believe all creative common licenses requires credit to the original author). And the "No Derivative Works" clause would stop people from photoshopping the picture for example.
A example of where a furry artist would use a "derivative clause" in the artwork would be in art memes of course. Or maybe a background picture of some kind. Or you just don't mind people photoshopping or remixing it or whatever.
The main purpose of creative commons is to clarify the personal wishes of an artist in a better way on what he wants and not want to happen with his personal art. Of course, if you don't want to share your art at all, just a plain old copyright works. Here's even a simple guide for deciding what license to use.
Creative commons was made for artwork, because people started to find GNU/BSD/GPL unfit for artwork (since the legalese refers to a "source code"). Plus those licenses were a bit hard to understand for most people...
As a example, I believe most furry artists probably would use a by-nc-nd license which means "spread it, but do not mess with it". It would give other people permission to share the artwork however they like as long they don't mess with it. It's one of the more restrictive licenses, but is more free than just "plain" copyright notice, and wouldn't make reposting it on sites like f-chan a copyright infringement. At the same time, it would still make it illegal to take someone's artwork and claim it as your own (infact I believe all creative common licenses requires credit to the original author). And the "No Derivative Works" clause would stop people from photoshopping the picture for example.
A example of where a furry artist would use a "derivative clause" in the artwork would be in art memes of course. Or maybe a background picture of some kind. Or you just don't mind people photoshopping or remixing it or whatever.
The main purpose of creative commons is to clarify the personal wishes of an artist in a better way on what he wants and not want to happen with his personal art. Of course, if you don't want to share your art at all, just a plain old copyright works. Here's even a simple guide for deciding what license to use.
Creative commons was made for artwork, because people started to find GNU/BSD/GPL unfit for artwork (since the legalese refers to a "source code"). Plus those licenses were a bit hard to understand for most people...
-
Purplecat - Site Admin
- Posts: 2067
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:49 pm
- Location: Sweden, Höganäs
Until they implement it on FA (there was talk about it last I checked... from last year. I was just gonna make a suggestion, but I don't feel like reposting or bumping the thread), it probably works well enough if you put a statement about the license with link in your description.
Supposedly the CC license already been proved in court in Netherlands when a corporation used someone's photos for commercial purposes, despite wishes of the opposite.
Supposedly the CC license already been proved in court in Netherlands when a corporation used someone's photos for commercial purposes, despite wishes of the opposite.
-
Purplecat - Site Admin
- Posts: 2067
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:49 pm
- Location: Sweden, Höganäs
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests