So according to you, not exercising a right means it's okay for someone to take that right for themselves. So if I have a pool but am not swimming in it, that means it's okay for others to come swim in it does it? I mean it's only trespassing after all.
You don't understand the concept of harm it seems, let's break out the examples you've overlooked in your myopia, if artist's don't protect their work or have the right to protect it removed from them, these can happen:
Brand damage:
The work gets associated with something that is harmful to the artist's reputation or which reduces the work's value.
Artist reputation dilution:
Loss of income because companies don't want to hire an artist who would turn a blind eye to the reuse of work for hire/personal work being reused in a manner the customer might not appreciate.
I'm sure a great many people wouldn't want to hire an artist who would ignore someone posting the result on a site that say promotes racism.
If the right to prevent it being taken is removed, you get more cases of private work, where work will specifically not be shared at all by artists because they wouldn't want someone stealing their customers work, which again REDUCES the creativity available to inspire.
Failure to protect:
Artist's lose their work after an unscrupulous individual sues them because he's selling their work and their sales of it interfere with his money making which they haven't stopped.
I could go on but if you don't get the picture by now, you never will, losses is more than just simple money losses ergo can you kindly stop talking nonsense now because you're really starting to aggravate those of us who have done our research and who are offended at your attempts to insist that OUR rights should be given away, go slap creative commons crap on YOUR work if you believe that rights shouldn't belong to artists, put YOUR work in public domain if you support this, but don't tell US what WE can do with OUR work!
no subject
So according to you, not exercising a right means it's okay for someone to take that right for themselves. So if I have a pool but am not swimming in it, that means it's okay for others to come swim in it does it? I mean it's only trespassing after all.
You don't understand the concept of harm it seems, let's break out the examples you've overlooked in your myopia, if artist's don't protect their work or have the right to protect it removed from them, these can happen:
Brand damage:
The work gets associated with something that is harmful to the artist's reputation or which reduces the work's value.
Artist reputation dilution:
Loss of income because companies don't want to hire an artist who would turn a blind eye to the reuse of work for hire/personal work being reused in a manner the customer might not appreciate.
I'm sure a great many people wouldn't want to hire an artist who would ignore someone posting the result on a site that say promotes racism.
If the right to prevent it being taken is removed, you get more cases of private work, where work will specifically not be shared at all by artists because they wouldn't want someone stealing their customers work, which again REDUCES the creativity available to inspire.
Failure to protect:
Artist's lose their work after an unscrupulous individual sues them because he's selling their work and their sales of it interfere with his money making which they haven't stopped.
I could go on but if you don't get the picture by now, you never will, losses is more than just simple money losses ergo can you kindly stop talking nonsense now because you're really starting to aggravate those of us who have done our research and who are offended at your attempts to insist that OUR rights should be given away, go slap creative commons crap on YOUR work if you believe that rights shouldn't belong to artists, put YOUR work in public domain if you support this, but don't tell US what WE can do with OUR work!