Creative Commons licensing.. good or bad idea??

FatNakedGuy

I've been shooting for 5 years and of those years I've made maaaaaaaybe a couple thousand bucks on images.. doesn't cover the cost of my gear by a long shot..

Subject matter tends to be musicians and for the most part they want/expect images for freeeeeeee (the more famous the act the worse it seems to be!).. I've stuck to my guns and only allowed folks to link to my watermarked galleries and have not given anything away save for a couple of friends..

Recently I heard someone talking about creative commons licensing where images can be used free of charge by anyone so long as the watermark remains intact and the images are not used for commercial gain. I really enjoy shooting concerts but am totally frustrated at not being able to make $ to refresh my gear (I have a day job so am not looking to make a living at it).

My question is...

If I release my images under a creative commons license, would the exposure be worth it (name recognition, etc) and possibly lead to paid gigs? Or am I shooting myself in the foot by allowing the images to be distributed without compensation.. FOREVER ? Presently my images sit on smugmug without many views.

Interested in hearing from folks on both sides of the fence.

Thanks!


Rick
http://weller.smugmug.com/music

angevin1

FatNakedGuy wrote: »

Recently I heard someone talking about creative commons licensing where images can be used free of charge by anyone so long as the watermark remains intact and the images are not used for commercial gain. I really enjoy shooting concerts but am totally frustrated at not being able to make $ to refresh my gear (I have a day job so am not looking to make a living at it).

My question is...

If I release my images under a creative commons license, would the exposure be worth it (name recognition, etc) and possibly lead to paid gigs? Or am I shooting myself in the foot by allowing the images to be distributed without compensation.. FOREVER ? Presently my images sit on smugmug without many views.

Interested in hearing from folks on both sides of the fence.

Thanks!
Rick
http://weller.smugmug.com/music

No. I don't think so. I know when I go to the creative Commons, I am looking to find a piece to use for another project, I rarely give a hoot about who created the image.

Also you may want to delve deeper into the licensing before deciding.

From one of my images there:

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license.

You are free:

• to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
• to remix – to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

• attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
• share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one

EDIT: Yes, they can use it commercially!