Yes, I do only use a standard copyright, and not a creative commons license. I do endorse the free distribution of certain works, like Dangerous Rainbows, however that doesn’t mean I’m going to give up the power of a standard copyright, just in case. Until there is a truly powerful copyright that allows works to be freely distributed while authors still have clear power over their works, I’m retaining the one that protects me from not just possible piracy (which isn’t an issue with Dangerous Rainbows, since it’s free), but from other entities modifying my work without permission. Standard copyright is good for “just in case” scenarios. There is an excellent discussion on the Self Publishing Review in one of their posts. Also, though it isn’t as flexible, a standard copyright is up to the rights-holder to enforce. For example, I want Dangerous Rainbows everywhere. But I don’t want someone creating a audio-book version of it without my permission. Note that CC does have provisions to disallow that. But since there are several parts to the CC licenses, and several versions of them, it’s simpler to have a standard copyright. Yes, at times it appears copyright needs to be reformed. It probably does. But until it is, it can serve a self-published author very well. I have discretion. I can exercise noblesse oblige and see where I can let others copy my work in certain areas, and restrict it in others.
Much about self-publishing is having complete creative control over your own work. This is just another part of maintaining appropriate control.
269 words I could have used in a novel.
