It’s an interesting question. I use the attribution-non commercial licence both for the blog and everything I post on Flickr, just to retain some minimal control over how my work is used.

And I think of myself as being very easy-going about it, but recently I got a message through Flickr from someone who had taken two of my pictures (of a long-finned pilot whale) and used them to illustrate a site they were developing about mammals of North America. And on the site, he’d given me credit and specified the CC licence. But his site carried advertising, which put it in breach of the non-commercial aspect of the licence, and I asked him to take them down.

In some ways I feel it shouldn’t have bothered me; at least he contacted me, he had given me credit, and it’s not like I expected to make any money from those pictures ever. I think it’s the fact the whole thing was presented as though he was making use of the CC licence and in fact he had ignored the terms. As though all the different CC licences could be lumped to together as de facto permission to use the work. If he’d asked me in advance, or even mentioned when he contacted me that he knew he was in breach of the licence, I would probably have said he could use the pictures.

And all my taking offence at what he did was completely hypocritical because the photo of a scallop which I used as the basis for my current blog header was found somewhere on the internet and I didn’t ask permission to use it.

In some ways the CC licence options have it all backwards from a poetry collaboration perspective; there’s a non-derivative works licence where what you really need is a ‘derivative works only’ licence. I don’t mind someone using one of my poems to make something else: it’s if they reproduce it as I wrote it that I want some control.