While I appreciate the posts from eg shane selman and paul jacobson because they actually address the matter and try to explain differing p.o.w.s I still don't understand why NOT ONE SINGLE exchange of opinions remains free of the usual "you all idiots" posts.

BUT this time "anon"'s post hit me so hard that I didn't even get angry, I just thought: Has anybody yet thought of making an exhibition of those comments?

I imagine those usually one-liners like the one from "anon" ("your am iodiot") printed b on w on 20x 30 canvases and a caption quoting the URL and the subject of the actual matter.

I think it produces two results: it draws attentions to the articles that often as in this case try to come up with solutions to problems of our ever-changing technology in a society of never-changing human beings (because still instinct driven - as we where some thousands of years ago)

AND it may change the way "these" people think of themselves. Just because there is nobody that will "punish" them, they just "piss" everywhere instead of using this "freedom" to express their thoughts freely. I don't get it.

BUT what about my idea with the exhibition?

I don't care if it is my grandson, the neighbor's dog, or a professional photo shoot, EVERYTHING is strictly copyrighted. And I have been able to successfully "prosecute" copyright infringement (most recently on Facebook) by doing so. That being said, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." If you want it to stay yours, and be profitable, don't share under CC.

"If I take enough photos and post them everywhere, someday I'll get paid..." And in the meantime, because of this, the business of photography is getting less and less lucrative...

In order for technical progress to happen, research must be financed. Capital must be moved away from established businesses and into risky new technologies. This only happens, if the established businesses start to reject capital, because they start to produce cheaper.

In other words: The rate, at which we develop new technologies derives from the rate at which older technologies are devaluated. Thats why i love Creative Commons, Open Source and similar philosophies.

I suffer no illusions that I can protect my work from being snipped from the web, but I can control the license.

CC is a fake invention of the commercial market in an attempt to break through the solid copyright by it's rules, the more rules, the more abuse, growing tremendously.

CC tends to mediocrity, the selfish amateur who is rich enough to give it away, affording himself on top free publicity in disfavor of starting photographers hoping to get some support for their heavy investment.

CC is in no way a threat to professionals, the true amateur is a nightmare to pro's as he knows no limit in creativity kicking trendy pro's against their empty acrobatic images while photography becomes a total art, the time of the nice Marilyn Monroe's is gone to make place for concepts in depth.

CS as common sense puts CC in their polluting context beyond any expertise.

Apparently I am an evil person that should be struck dead, but I consider it a derivative work; you know, taking someone's good and making more good with it. Or are you suggesting we all tightly grip our precious photos and everything we've created selfishly, hoping that no one can build off of it?

Those who believe in making things available under Creative Commons licenses
use them because they choose to do so.

I like CC licensing. It's okay if someone else does not. Someone else can even "hate" those licenses--so long as they don't try to keep me from using them.

Some photographers are going to like the licenses, some not. I reckon its better ecology if budgets are reduced as a result of using CC licenses, (although are open licenses being used often?) why shouldn't/can't these licenses be used? What sort of photographer is going to complain about CC licenses being used? Photographers have to also consider changes in technology, how many people on the planet now have a 5-7 mega pixel camera and an internet connection? Creative Commons might create better conditions in the long term.