 What potential drawback does the author acknowledge regarding the popularity of Creative Commons licenses?
Just another free soul In his foreword to the book, Lessig writes that you understand your subjects “by learning to see them in a certain way.” To me, uploading a picture that is not an easily recognizable picture of that person defeats the point, which I’m working toward, to try to express who they are. And then, it also has the meaning that you are unencumbered legally, that you are free, as in ‘free software.’ There’s a paradox: with many people’s Wikipedia articles to which I’ve contributed, when it comes to the picture, many of these people don’t have any free photos of themselves on the web, so while they are “notable” on Wikipedia, their images aren’t free of the copyright of the photographer, or the institution who hired the photographer to take the picture. Often, even the subject of the article can’t make an image available to the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community. This means that a lot of people who have a Net presence have a legally encumbered Net presence. By making these pictures available under a Creative Commons license, now they do. The third part of the pun is that, since I’m asking for a model release from the subjects, I’m asking everyone to be much more open and giving about their image than most people typically are. Of course people can abuse that, just like they can abuse anything. In a way, giving up your image and allowing anyone to use it: it’s the ultimate gift.
 Corporations can potentially take advantage of people who use Creative Commons licenses
 If everything becomes free, then no one can make any kind of profit  Too many people will not pay attention to when Creative Commons licenses expire  Corporations can potentially take advantage of people who use Creative Commons licenses  The Creative Commons license will eventually be replaced with something more equitable