Choosing a License for Publishing

After researching the most common licensing found on the Internet, I decided that if I were to produce something, most likely text or teaching audio and/or video that I would publish it under a Creative Commons License.  I also researched the GNU Documentation License, which is basically an outgrowth of the GNU General Public License used for software.  The biggest difference being that the GNU Documentation License applies to any form of text, including published books in printed form. The GNU license gives everyone rights to print, copy, alter, re-publish, etc...  The reason that I do not like this license is because I do not like the idea of someone altering my work and then republishing it without my knowledge.

The Creative Commons License allows people to print, copy, and distribute as well.  However, if someone is going to alter the work the creator can place stipulations on what can be changed and how.  The new author cannot change the moral integrity of the work either.  In essence, it is freely distributable like the GNU License except that the creator can control how the work will be used by others, thus maintaining the integrity of the work. So, when I publish I will publish using  lithe Creative Commons License, unless I write a book and decide to make some money off of it.

A great advantage to either of these licenses is that the right to freely distribute and modify the work to adapt it to individual user's needs enables the work to spread quickly.  In other words, the info. gets out and a lot of people can see it quickly.  Copyrighted works can only be referenced to...one can't simply post the work again for others to read for free.  The disadvantage being, of course, that you don't receive money for the GNU license or the Creative Commons License.

Here is a beautiful photo by Evgeni Dinev. It was released under a Creative Commons License. However, if the user wants to print the photo at a high resolution then the user has to purchase the photo.  Otherwise, website use and even corporate use is O.K.

The artist most likely released his work this way because he wants to share his art more than he wants to make money.  However, his work was released under certain restrictions and he still may make money off of it.  Stores, for instance, can't print this photo, frame it, and sell it.  Basically, in order to sell it, they would first have to purchase it.  This type of sharing is wonderful because people can preview his work and even use it on the web, but they can't steal it and sell it themselves because they don't have the high resolution copy. I feel the same way. I want my work to be seen and freely used, but I don't want others to make money off of me and I don't want my work to be butchered.