Christopher Sprigman discusses this shift in the Introduction of his article advocating for a reinvigoration of certain copyright formalities.
 Section 106 of the Copyright Act creates exclusive rights to reproduction, creation of derivative works, distribution, and in the case of certain classes of works, performance, display, and digital audio transmission.
 As with, for example, the exceptions for “fair use” and production of materials for the blind under US copyright law.
 The seed for these ideas comes from Sprigman’s proposal (see page 564) to incorporate Creative Commons-type designations into a reinvigorated system of copyright formalities.
 The nc license prohibits uses that are “primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” The appropriate boundaries of non-commercial use have been the subject of considerable study by Creative Commons, but the precise limits are subject to legal interpretation by courts.
 It is possible to encumber licensees with restrictions beyond the scope of copyright, if they also rely on the license to make other uses of the work that are within the scope of copyright. The Creative Commons licenses do not attempt such restrictions, but some free software licenses take this approach to restrict licensees’ exercise of patent rights, for example.
 This anti-plagiarism instinct was, for example, part of the justification for the “reverse passing off” claim in the Dastar case.
 As described above, this is the result of the elimination of formalities from the copyright system.
 By way of example, the author of this note has been attempting for six months to get in touch with a Wikipedia user to discuss licensing his work.
 The VARA, a U.S. law offering moral rights to visual artists, is similarly limited; however, these rights are granted in addition to the traditional economic rights granted by the Copyright Act, rather than as a package of rights that can be selected instead of traditional economic rights.
 The Creative Commons and similar free licenses deputize the licensee to distribute the work to downstream recipients with the guarantee of a license from the copyright owner. Issuing a license to an organization organized for the public benefit guarantees availability of the work under the originally-chosen license regardless of the future choices of the copyright owner. The availability of termination of transfer rights may frustrate this scheme, however.
 Because some Creative Commons licenses reduce an author’s opportunity to profit monetarily from her work, registration may prove too costly unless reduced fees are offered. In the U.S., the Copyright Act requires that fees reflect the actual costs of processing an application but provides that fees be set giving “due consideration to the objectives of the copyright system.”