5 votes alexgleason — 5 votes, 6 commentsSource

Why, though? Attribution-SahreAlike is a perfectly fine, free license. What difference does it make releasing this now in the public domain?

She’s a copyright abolitionist. ShareAlike is not suitable because the film contains copyrighted music. It’s all from the 1960’s and prior - stuff I think most people should be public domain anyway. Check out her talk, Copyright is Brain Damage.

Here is my unpopular opinion: this is all nice and good, but it is not a valuable example of how public domain benefits the artists, that can justify other artists do the same. To prove herself, she should release work that has real commercial value. Everybody can release free (even public domain) “samples” for promoting ones work; it’s called advertising. But nobody will release their main works in the public domain.

It’s a feature-length film, and one of her “main” works.

Is the book, as well as all the artwork at the PaleGray store, also in the public domain?

I love her work! And of course I love Seder-Masochism too!