Skip to main content

3. Towards Creative Commons License

Since we promote the open source mindset and reduction of Big Tech  in any sector of life we would like an open source equivalent for artworks. Luckily that already exists for a long time and it is called the Creative Commons License. Just to quote  from there official website they state that 

Copyleft vs Creative Commons License 

Without CC licenses, copyright offers only two extremes: “all rights reserved” or “no rights reserved.” That doesn’t reflect the many ways creators want their work to be shared.

Creative Commons licenses offer a standardized, legally-sound way to grant permission in advance, so that creators can clearly communicate how their work may be used, without negotiating individual permissions every time. This enables access to knowledge by offering a “some rights reserved” option for content that would otherwise be closed off.

Most creators share a basic belief: that knowledge and creativity grow through sharing, not locking it away.

Creators choose CC licenses for many reasons:
  •  Share their work widely while keeping credit
  • Encourage remixing, collaboration, and learning
  • Reach global audiences more easily (

    In essence, CC licensing transforms your work from something people must ask permission to use into something people can freely share and build upon, dramatically expanding its potential audience.

    )

  • Support open education, research, and culture

  • Build visibility, reputation, and impact

For the public, CC licenses:

 

 

Without copyright, someone could:

  • Sell your art commercially without paying you
  • Incorporate it into their own products
  • Modify it and claim it as theirs
  • License it to corporations without your consent

You're describing a situation where your work spreads freely, but that "freedom" cuts both ways—it's free from your control too.