Autumn

6 Responses to Autumn

1. ReinoutS says:

   Thursday October 15, 2009 at 11:38

   Ik heb deze maar even als bureaubladachtergrond ingesteld. Mooi hoor! :)

   Reply
2. Eugenia says:

   Thursday October 15, 2009 at 11:59

   Nice picture. However, why licensed under the restrictive CC-BY-NC-ND? Why not CC-BY?

   Reply
3. RubenV says:

   Thursday October 15, 2009 at 12:16

   @ReinoutS: Cool!

   @Eugenia: Because I do not want commercial work based on my photography without my prior approval. As an artist, I like to have some control over my work.

   Note that this is opposite to my view on sharing in software: there I highly prefer f/oss, because I believe that the added contributions of other developers will result in higher quality software.

   In photography, this will not be the case, I will not become a better photographer, nor will my photography workflow improve, by giving my work away for free commercial publishing.

   Reply
4. RubenV says:

   Thursday October 15, 2009 at 12:19

   But that does not mean that I am very strict in handing out exception licenses. Permission is almost always granted freely, if I like the cause :-)

   Reply
5. michele says:

   Thursday October 15, 2009 at 12:43

   Wow, really nice photo!

   I’m using it as my background now and it looks great! ;-)

   Thanks!

   Reply
6. Eugenia says:

   Friday October 16, 2009 at 00:04

   I respect your opinion about the non-commercialism, however, I don’t share the same opinion about the ND clause. With the ND clause, you don’t let non-commercial artists, or artists-wannabe to build and remix your photo.

   You spoke about “added contributions” regarding source code, but the same can apply to art. For example, check my tutorials (http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/?s=creativecommons) about video color grading, based on a single frame (I usually use CC-BY pictures for that). If your picture was CC-BY-NC instead of CC-BY-NC-ND I could have used this picture as a TUTORIAL, to TEACH other people about color grading.

   So please reconsider at least the ND clause. I understand the need for NC, but the ND, is a bit too restrictive.

   Reply