Many people on DA seem to be a bit confused about what a Creative Commons license is.  

I make that assessment because I've looked at many pieces of art that are listed as being licensed under a Creative Commons license and in the comments the artist will say something like "you can not use my art without my express written permission".  When an artist release a piece of art under the Creative Commons license they have given express written permission for someone to use their art without asking additional permission as long as they adhere to the license.

All Creative Commons licenses requires them to give the artist credit as the creator.  So no creative commons license allows someone to just use a work of art without crediting the creator.

There are Creative Commons licenses that allow the work to be used commercially and licenses that forbid it.  The artist can choose which they feel comfortable with.  There are also licenses that either allow or forbid derivative works.  If the artist chooses to allow derivative works they can require that the derivative works be released under a compatible license, thus continuing the sharing.

If you don't want people to be able to do any of these things do not release your work under a Creative Commons license.  Standard copyright with no license will legally prevent someone else from taking your work, claiming ownership or creating derivative works.  Standard copyright with no license is simply the most restrictive set of rules you can get.

On the other hand if you want people to be able to use your work to create new art, on web pages or similar places while giving you credit and directing people to your deviant art page, I recommend you go the creative commons website and spend a few minutes educating yourself about their licenses. [link]

I have also seen people releasing works under the Creative Commons license when they lacked sufficient ownership to do so.  If an artist draws a picture of a Disney character they own a copyright on the piece of art they just created.  However, the work is (probably, lots of case law here) a derivative work and so Disney also owns a copyright on the work.  Since the artist lacks sufficient ownership, they can not license the work under a Creative Commons license because Disney hasn't agreed to waive their rights to the original copyright.  

The entire Fan Art category except fair use for satire or review pretty much falls under this situation.

Though my biggest head scratcher of late is where people create brushes and release them with a no derivative license or no license at all.  For some brushes that is fine as a work used creating the brushes would likely be enough of a transformation that the use of the brush would be covered by fair use.  It just seems really weird that people are releasing brushes with the idea that people can't use them to create derivative works.  

If there ever was a product that should allow derivative creation it would seem brushes would be the poster child.