Creative Commons Licensing - Item 1

When offering any work you have done under a Creative Commons licence, it doesn't mean you are giving up your copyright. It means allowing more use of your materials through other means, under certain conditions.

There are four Creative Commons Licences and more than one can be used on the same piece of work.

Attribution (BY): Whenever work is copied or distributed, the original creator must be credited and the source linked to.

Non-commercial (NC): Lets others copy, distribute, display and perform the work for non-commercial purposes only.

No Derivative Works (ND): Lets others distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work. They may not adapt or change the work in any way.

Share Alike (SA): Allows others to remix, adapt and build on the work, but only if they distribute the derivative works under the same license terms that govern the original work.

The photo sharing website, Flickr, uses these licences. It is understandable why Flickr gives many options for people to license their products. A lot of users have different views on their products. Some would rather let their pictures be shared and used for free rather than being paid for its use. Others would rather be paid or acknowledged in the use of their products.

But does Flickr promote Creative Commons Licensing enough?

I honestly would like to be acknowledge and paid for it if it's an image I'm to use for a company, or personal use. If it was for viewing pleasure, I'd definitely want to change my licensing to public.

So I do agree that Flickr does enough to promote Creative Commons Licensing. Let's face it. A lot of users who use Flickr are people who rarely use or know much about permissions with products online.