As I have often claimed, Creative Commons is of most benefit to unknown artists. Bands, photographers, and painters (to name a few) will remain unknown if they charge for their work. Why? Because human nature is not to purchase something if you are unsure if you will like it. When an artist places their work under the CC license, they allow others to experience and use their work and share with others without financial risk. Later, the happy customers will very likely donate money or pay for that which they receieved and enjoyed. (Just ask Magnatunes)
Now take myself. I am a photographer and, like most hackers, I get the most joy out of peer appreciation and use. I don’t care so much about money, although I wouldn’t object being paid for my photographs (and I have already sold one of them) However, what magazine (online or otherwise) is going to pay for my material when they don’t know me? On the other hand, let’s say a certain NY online radio station needs a photograph of young adults in line for a concert. They look under the creative commons licensed photos and find this one. Well, now both our purposes have been served! I gain fame because they honored my license and get me attribution! They gain a picture without having to dig out of their bottom line.
This is what the RIAA and MPAA don’t understand! The world is changing and so are the ways of thinking about revenue and exposure. I am so happy to see this! (and it was a while ago – I only found out now!)