The aside i would make tho is that licensing under creative commons is a very good way of getting “seen” and building up your profile in the early stages, you just have to live with some people ripping you off (which can make you a little money if you politely threaten them with legal action if you find them . I’ve licensed a number of photos that people have found via creative commons, the downside is they’ll generally email you angling for free usage, and you have to haggle with them to get them to pay – a bit of a hassle (and when you’re starting out in photography, coming up with how to price things is a terrifying concept as there’s little advice – im only *just* getting used to how to deal with it)

It’s worth pointing out that by /not/ making a photo creative commons, that still doesn’t fix the problem – people who don’t care will still nick your photo from flickr regardless of it being creative commons or not :-/

For the moment i’ve left all my older photos as creative commons, and all the stuff i’ve shot in the last 6 months or so are all All Rights Reserved, I’m undecided as to whether i’ll pull my back catalogue or not at the moment – after all, it’s all a numbers game – the more people who see your work, the more chance of licensing stuff and getting commissions.

(for an example of why many of us gave up on creative commons, check out this blog post (i’m one of the photographers they’re talking about, and you can see my comment further down trying to get through to them – really, I don’t need this kind of hassle for doing something benevolent, hence everything now is full All Rights Reserved):

http://givingsomethingnew.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/when-the-cow-hits-the-fan/

The other thing I’d say is – CC is well drafted legal documentation; most good publishers understand it. I doubt ‘All Rights Reserved’ will actually stop those who don’t follow the law. (I may, of course, be wrong!)