And goodbye to the Creative Commons license for Lethe. The experiment didn’t last long, and to be honest it wouldn’t have even got off the ground had I done more research first instead of listening to the techno utopians. (Sidenote: Wikipedia is particularly prone to techno-utopianism, especially when it comes to copyright. It’s understandable as Wikipedia is, as a whole, a techno-utopian project, but it’s not very encyclopaedic when there is no criticism to be found of techno-utopianism or the Creative Commons idea, while there is much criticism of traditional copyright.)
So I did a little more research with the help of The Register and Google. The key problem with the CC license is that a) it is irrevocable, meaning that it can never be fully copyrighted in the future and also that it can never be fully released into the public domain; and b) that the author loses control of who references the work and under what circumstances. An example from a Reg article:
Take this example. A Linux advocacy group emails me to ask permission for a reprint of an article, and I’m delighted to grant it. The Daily Express asks for permission, and I tell them where to shove it. Now that’s a freedom I don’t have by adding an unnecessary license to my work. Now let’s say the Linux advocacy group has been taken over by people I don’t like. It asks for another reprint. I can change my mind, of course, but that’s because I haven’t signed over my rights under an irrevocable license. (And very few people tagging their work with Creative Commons licenses seem to realize that they’re irrevocable).
In other words, if I copyright Lethe, not only do I retain control of what people do with it, but it is my decision if I ever release it fully into the public domain or, (and I’m under no illusions that this is likely, just so we’re clear here) I enjoy some kind of commercial success.