5 thoughts on “CC-PRO!”

  1. If the “CC-PRO” label is just the CC-BY-SA with some better publicity behind it, I would welcome it.

    Now, would Creative Commons themselves back it up?

  2. why should professionals be better protected from censorship than anyone else?

    i’m sure there are important ideas showcased and points to glean from this fictional cc license, there’s nothing wrong per se with it, but it would seem likely to confuse the purpose of cc licenses in the first place, which is to facilitate a more open culture- a culture that (despite things like cc-nc,) is less divided between “consumers” and producers. “cc-pro” would reinforce the divide that cc purposefully weakens. other than that (minor?) thing? it seems like a fine idea.

  3. why should professionals be better protected from censorship than anyone else?

    They shouldn’t be. Which is why everyone could use CC-PRO. It doesn’t divide professionals from non-professionals; it divides good licenses from bad ones. Anyone can still use a shitty -NC -ND license, and anyone could use CC-PRO.

  4. yeah, nc-nd is only useful in a world where people actually think things like the dmca make sense. i avoid collecting stuff that uses it, though i’ve made the rare exception for some work i see as a groundbreaking addition or expansion of cc adoption- like when allison crowe used it for her albums.

    this resulted in the nicest comment from her mananger, updating me on her recent decision to upgrade to either nc or nc-sa. can’t expect everyone to see the value in letting other people sell your work, it’s easier to understand if you’ve warmed to gpl / gdl for software and docs. big fan of sita, qc.org, and (ce) marks, by the way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *