The Problem with Creative Commons...

...is their 'no derivative works' option.

As soon as that condition gets slapped onto a piece of work, then it might as well have been full out copyrighted. No derivative works means no remixing- it's a restriction that is directly oppositional to e-culture.

It mostly annoys me because I do a lot of graphic design and all of my images are complex layers of other people's images. I take whatever the hell I need off of google images and then work it into my current project, and usually, it's not possible to demarcate the original images afterward.

For example, that horrible thing in the wine glass is an art project I did in grade twelve¹.

It contains 3 images 'stolen' off of the web: a wine glass, a decorative carpet, and a stone wall. But look, the carpet and the wall are just supporting background texture, and the glass has been distorted and smudged beyond recognition.

But according to creative commons, this sort of thing is a 'derivative work'- a remix of other people's work. Sure, the original images aren't recognizable, but does that matter?²

I appreciate what creative commons is doing- allowing copyright to be self-assigned and negotiable is critically important. But if they really wanted to align with the spirit of web 2.0, derivative works would be encouraged, not optionally restricted.

¹ Please don't read too much into it... It was about under-aged drinking, or something.
² Incidentally, my process of learning graphic design that I've written about here was based on manipulating copyrighted images.