It depends on your goals.
If you're a professional photographer, for example, and your goal is to make a living and put food on the table by selling and licensing images, Creative Commons would be a bad idea for you. If you're a hobbyist and just like the idea of your images getting out there, Creative Commons is perfect.
The argument could be made, then, that it's tremendous for competition: in order for Joe Pro to license his image for $100, it has to be $100 better than Fred Flickr's comparable CC image. Ideally, Joe will challenge himself to improve, leading to better options for the consumer. The more likely outcome is that Joe will complain a lot and eventually start teaching Photography at the community college.
One side problem of CC is that users have become used to getting anything they want for free and right now; when Flickr doesn't give them what they need and they end up at istockphoto or whatever, they're flabbergasted by rates which are, in the grand scheme of things, entirely reasonable.
The long and the short of it is, as with just about any copyright question, it depends.
You will have something in writing giving you permission. This can range from a simple Creative Commons notification on the work itself, to a very specific multi-page contract prepared in triplicate.
The GNU General Public License was originally written by Richard Stallman for the GNU mass-collaboration software project. Like Creative Commons and other copyleft systems, it is a broad license that allows users to freely use, copy, and modify software. Copyright automatically gives the creator of a sufficiently creative work, including the author of computer code, the exclusive right to copy, alter, distribute, or perform/display the work, or authorize others to do so. It's the automatic aspect that unintentionally makes it awkward for creators wishing to freely share their works, but it's the right to authorize others that makes these extremely broad licenses viable: the GPL, Creative Commons, etc. work alongside copyright. Licenses such as the GPL encourage sharing and collaboration by allowing users to distribute and modify programs without constantly having to seek additional permission from the copyright holder, and they let the copyright holders spend time on new projects instead of constantly responding to licensing requests.
Yes; but the vast majority of uses would require licenses from the copyright holders.
There are a number of copyright holders, but most uses can be licensed through Warner Bros. Television.
Once your work is fixed (written down, recorded, etc.) it is automatically protected by copyright.
With a license from the copyright holders, yes.
The images in Monopoly are copyright, which means you will need legal permission from the games copyright holders to publish the image.
Depending on the journal's copyright polices, it may be Rhodes and McDaniel, or the Oncology Nursing Forum.
There are at least three copyright holders, but for most uses I would suggest starting with Universal.
Not for people with copyrights!
It came in 2006 world cup in Germany, holders Brazil had to qualify.
Blu-Ray