Page:Culture.vs.Copyright 01.pdf/133

 The following are advantages applicable in different combinations to different CC licenses:


 * Freedom of use depends on the specific license. The only common feature of all exclusively CC licenses, apparently, is free noncommercial use of a work of art, but this is never directly stated, so it is in question.
 * They are not limited to a specific art.
 * They expand the legal base internationally.
 * Although never expressed directly, it appears as if CC licenses themselves are CC licensed thus, presumably, they can be used to build other licenses.

The following are limitations of the licenses:


 * Some of them do not require attribution to an author.
 * Some of them do not require reference to a publisher.
 * Some of them do not allow creative use of a work, such as modifying, building upon, sampling, performing, etc.
 * They are based on copyright law only.
 * They do not prevent the sale of rights.
 * They are applicable only to the arts.

Public Domain No entity using a work in the public domain owes anything to anyone in terms of money or attribution. For example, under current law, anyone can rewrite the Star Spangled Banner or the Bible word by word and announce them as his own creation. Such a legal situation seems total nonsense and reveals that the concept of public domain, as it is ingrained in current law, is as twisted as copyright itself. False claim to authorship must not be legal. In my view, it is just another side to the coin that can be called misconception of culture.