Amazon.com Widgets

Do you think that only work released under a creative commons license should be funded?

  • released under a creative

    If it's funded by the government. Yes, I think that only work released under a creative commons license should be funded, because if a person's work is funded by the government, the work is funded by the people. Essentially, the person is working for the public under a salary. The person should understand they owe a duty to share the work. If a person wants to own their work, they must fund it privately.

  • If it's funded by the government.

    Yes, I think that only work released under a creative commons license should be funded, because if a person's work is funded by the government, the work is funded by the people. Essentially, the person is working for the public under a salary. The person should understand they owe a duty to share the work. If a person wants to own their work, they must fund it privately.

  • Fund it all

    I think that work in a wide variety of fields should be funded, not just the work that is released under a creative commons license. I think there is a lot more important things alongside this that need to be funded to, and make a well balanced system of funding.

  • No, the availability of a work is the artist's prerogative.

    Work should be funded on the basis of the quality of the work or the artist. It is up to the artist to decide the level of copyright protection to give the work. The artist invests time and effort in creation and deserves to reap the benefits of financial gain in any way he or she sees fit.

  • No, unlicensed work should be funded.

    There really is no reason why unlicensed work can't be funded. There are other ways around this, such as contracts. There are far too many great opportunities that are denied outright because of a lack of licensing. It's silly, and that system of doing things should be obsolete by now.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.