- James wrote about its reluctance to use creative commons licenses for his professional photographs
- Tim then explained how one of his photographs that he uploaded on Wikipedia (in a compressed size) under Creative Commons licenses was chosen to be a book cover and that he got paid for the full size version
- James then replied with additional food for thought
At the moment, I upload my photos on Flickr under an "Attribution, Share Alike" Creative Commons license. I do not take photos professionally but if people would be interested to use them in commercial products, I would like to get paid for their use.
Tim's proposal to use different licenses depding on the resolution is a good idea:
- use a creative commons licenses for low-to-moderate resolution and make them available liberally (on Wikipedia, Flickr, etc.)
- keep a more restrictive licenses on the full resolution