Update

creative_commons.md

@@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ Here is a comparison of the Creative Commons licenses/waivers, from most free (b
 |Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs| CC BY-NC-ND| NO! :(((   |yes but|yes but|NO! :( | yes :/ |forced :(  | yes :(       | [proprietary](proprietary.md) fascist license prohibiting commercial use and even modifications, DO NOT USE                                     | 
 | none (all rights reserved)                        |            | NO! :(((   |NO! :( |NO! :( |NO! :( |FUCK YOU|FUCK YOU   | FUCK YOU     | [proprietary](proprietary.md) fascist option, prohibits everything, DO NOT USE                                                                  |
 
+There Creative Commons "paradox": there seems to be a curious pattern noticeable in the world of Creative Commons licensed works (and possibly [free culture](free_culture.md) and [free software](free_software.md) in general) -- the phenomenon is that **the shittier the [art](art.md), the more restrictive license it will have**. { I noticed this on opengameart but then found it basically applies everywhere. ~drummyfish } Upon closer inspection it doesn't look so surprising after all: more restrictive licenses are used as a slow and careful transition from "all right reserved" world, i.e. they are used by newcomers and noobs who fear that if they don't enforce attribution people will immediately exploit it. More skilled people who have spent some time in the world of free art and published more things already know this doesn't happen and they know that less restrictive licenses are just better in all aspects.
+
 ## See Also
 
 - [free culture](free_culture.md)