I'm in two minds about the issue of creative commons: on the one hand, I feel I ought to receive some form of payment for my hard work and creativity, when someone uses a piece of my art. On the other hand, I can't afford expensive stock photography, so often make use of free sources.

Photo District News, in an article on photo site FlickR comments on the sorts of fees bandied around by people seeking to use FlickR images - and the fact that some are looking to take advantage of amateurs by asking for free use (which I'm guilty of), or not even asking. stock.xchng at least is a genuine free stock site, with most photographers donating their work and just requesting a link and notification; at some point, I'll add some photos as a payback for the ones that I've used. But still, its often a one-way street, with free stock photography making it harder for freelancers to make a living out of their craft.

Jacci Howard Bear makes a good argument for finding a middle ground, in her article Campaign Against Royalty-Free Art. This has got to be a better way: photographers and artists make some income from their work, without blowing our project costs out of the window. The article has given me plenty of food for thought. It is ironic that we think nothing of paying substantial sums for factory-made objects of poor design, with a cost largely lining shareholder's pockets, while we resent paying even a few dollars for an image (or computer program, or musical composition or recording) that is the product of years of training, experience and expertise, (not to mention expensive equipment) for an artist.

Related Article:
Copyright for Artists