All Rights Reserved. . . to waive. . . in some cases

Creative Commons is a non-profit organization that allows creators flexible copyright management for their works.  Though it was primarily created to ease the process of sharing educational/intellectual information, its buzz spread quickly and Creative Commons was soon being utilized by artist of various types as well.  Most people seem to prefer Creative Commons over the traditional copyright, because it allows for easier sharing of creative property.  Creative Commons makes sharing easier mainly by changing "All Rights Reserved" to "Some Rights Reserved" (there are six different licenses that offer different levels of creative protection).  Though I do see the good in this organization, I personally have mixed feelings about it.  I love the fact that there is a place you can go to find pictures, music, knowledge, etc. for free; however, there is another part of me -- the current writer and former musician that doesn't understand why an artist would want their work up for grabs without receiving any monetary gain from it.  Unless these artist crave attention more than profit, then Creative Commons makes no sense.  I can understand sharing the educational information, because most scholars do indeed share the information that they learn or discover; but most artist on the other hand, are involved in their craft so that they can make money from their work.  I think I love Creative Commons and hate it simultaneously. 

Creative Commons, the people's champ, is 'Terminating' the traditional copyright

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/d_vdm/

In rare cases, like that of Josh Woodward, I can understand why he would allow people to use his work freely.  Mr. Woodward appears to be a pretty well-established independent artist, and he seems to now be at the point in his career where he wants maximum exposure.  Maximum exposure would eventually allow him to catch the attention of "the machine" which is the major record labels.  So in Josh Woodward's case, there is a method to his Creative Commons madness. 

http://www.joshwoodward.com/

So how do you walk that thin line where you share your craft with as many people who are willing to receive it and not go bankrupt in the process?  I don't know, maybe that is why this concept is so hard to grasp for me.  It will definitely help indie artists gain exposure, but there's just that minor detail of getting paid that keeps popping up.  I guess artists are going to have to start being more savy when it comes to marketing themselves and advertising their products.  I know there are still ways they can make a decent living -- it will just take more work.  However, if I put on my non-artist lenses, I think Creative Commons is wonderful for creating visual aids, special projects, web pages/sites, etc.  You can go to Creative Commons and find whatever you need for you particular endeavor. . . Just make sure that you give credit to the original artist for any material that you reproduce.   

There are many government agencies getting on the Creative Commons bandwagon.  Here's an article about The Australian Bureau of Statistics getting with the common folk:

http://abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/4a256353001af3ed4b2562bb00121564/8b2bdbc1d45a10b1ca25751d000d9b03?opendocument?utm_id=HPI