An artikle wot I dun rote about photography and copyright, has just been posted on The Register website.
The article is based on my personal experiences over several years. Despite all the hype about 'Creative Commons', 'copyleft' and such, being the way forward on the Web, I have to admit I havent really seen it's use as an improvement for us, and a lot of entities seem to be very keen on convincing us that our copyright is almost meaningless (especially on the Web), while simultaneously making great efforts to seize that copyright for their own utility or benefit.
The Creative Commons idea seems to be based on a different perception of authorship (inspired by the open source software movement) which in many ways is simply incompatible with some forms of artistic works and authorship - especially photojournalism, where image manipulation is a major taboo.
It's also based on a false premise IMO, seeing an authors work as somehow appropriated from a mutually owned 'creative commons'. I see it differently - not as the authors property, but a manifestation of their labour, and we've arguably undergone a similar process of disenfranchisement that 19th Century artisans underwent when they were driven from their workshops into factories by the commodification of their skills.
I'd like to think I'm not a Luddite, so maybe I'm simply getting the wrong end of the stick - but if anyone can enlighten me as to how Creative Commons (which is simply an arbitrary licensing system and not a law), can work as a business model for photographers on the Web right now, I'd really like to hear it...