marja-leena – I’m glad this resonated with your experience. You write, “if they are using my work to make money for themselves, then I think that’s illegal.” Of course it is – unless you are crazy enough to stipulate otherwise, as I have done. What my new Creative Commons license does is uncouple the matter of requiring attribution – which is still in force – with the question of whether money is made by someone else, which I realized I really don’t care about. But a license like mine still forbids incidents such as you describe, with people selling another’s work as if they had created it themselves.
SB – Thanks for the response. It sounds as if we’re pretty much on the same wavelength here – and yes, your poem dances have been outstanding examples of internet-fueld collaboration. I wish you would agree to come do an issue of qarrtsiluni with that sort of approach.
Harry – Come to think of it, I still have the attribution-noncommercial-noderivs license in lace at Flickr; maybe I’ll change that to at least allow remixes.
I suspect that the conflicted emotions you express here are probably the norm for creative bloggers. I love your last point! Let me just repeat it for the benefit of skimmers:
… there’s a non-derivative works licence where what you really need is a â€˜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.
Very interesting perspective.
paisely – You’re saying you don’t really mind if others claim your works as their own? That too strikes me as an interesting and valid perspective, although I personally feel rather strongly about the need to impose a “share alike” or copyleft condition, as I’ve said, in order to properly defend the freedom of all potential users.
CGP – Thanks for weighing in. I’m glad to hear that renga has established a foothold in at least one part of the english-speaking world.