Creative Commons sounded like a good idea, but now I'm starving

If you pay your rent and feed yourself with intellectual property, you should read this article to find out who is taking away your clients!

read entire article at www.pdnpulse.com Why Creative Commons is bad for people who publish photos: If you're working on a collaborative project that could benefit from photography, you might be inclined to trust the Creative Commons logo. That would be a mistake. There's no safeguard against someone taking a picture owned by somebody else and tagging it with a Creative Commons license. From the Flickr discussion boards, it's clear that some members aren't sure what the various Creative Commons designations mean and sometimes re-tag their photos, or just apply the same tag indiscriminately to everything they upload. And as we saw in these mobile phone ads, even a legit Creative Commons license doesn't always permit the use of the things depicted in the image, like people or logos or other intellectual property. It's a ridiculous gamble for a publisher. Better solution: Ask the photographer person-to-person if you can use their work, and get it in writing. Also, quit being so damn cheap.