As someone who loves sharing information and links to worthy sources I’m pretty casual about it, although I do strive to give appropriate credit.  And never claim someone else’s efforts as my own.  Just following some vague human respective doctrine of my own… guess it’s called the Golden Rule.

In any event, recently for the fun of it I looked up the CC logo that’s showing up on more and more websites to read some of its fine print.

Creative Commons
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/
You are free:
  •  to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  •  to make commercial use of the work
  • 
Under the following conditions:
  •  Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
  •  No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
{There’s more}

“No Derivative Works”  - how is this supposed to work? 

Isn’t the whole point of sharing information to digest that information and if it’s worthy it will naturally be incorporated into ones own further endeavors?... and if worthy others will absorb that info in their own ways? 
We add our bits to the stream, but they are no more under our control as the children we may have sired… evolution takes over after that.

What do you think?

We have a legal ownership of what we create, which includes the right to say what’s done with it.  I think it’s laudable when creators make their work available under CC - they’re not obligated to, yet they’re giving up their rights for a the common good.  Seems a little ungrateful to criticize them for not giving up every right they possibly could.  If they only want to grant some rights under CC, that’s their decision…and CC explicitly incorporates such a position into its standard model.

Erik Davis - 19 June 2011 10:36 AM

We have a legal ownership of what we create, which includes the right to say what’s done with it.  I think it’s laudable when creators make their work available under CC - they’re not obligated to, yet they’re giving up their rights for a the common good.  Seems a little ungrateful to criticize them for not giving up every right they possibly could.  If they only want to grant some rights under CC, that’s their decision…and CC explicitly incorporates such a position into its standard model.

No I wasn’t meaning to dis ‘em or anything.
I was just wondering about it.
You know like the old time artists went on their pilgrimages to stare at and copy the masters, while searching for their own unique style.

Your comment did force me to think more about the commercial aspect - and to an extent I would agree that incorporating someone else’s creative product into one’s own effort could really be crossing a line.

For myself I guess I take refuge in the fact that all my sharing is done in a totally non-commercial personal educational effort.

But, on the other hand, great minds think alike, we echo and resonate off each other, etc., etc. Like, once the light bulb goes off, even if triggered by someone else, the revelation stays with one.
And then there’s that aspect of anything you create being out there in the world like a child, off on their own, beyond one’s protection, isn’t all together inaccurate…

But, yes I understand and respect the need for copyrights and an artist or thinker to earn their bread.