Therefore, something called the Creative Commons have been established as an alternative to Copyright. Work created using Creative Commons go straight to the public domain.
Incorrect. From the Creative Commons website itself:
"Creative Commons licenses are not an alternative to copyright. They work alongside copyright, so you can modify your copyright terms to best suit your needs."
While the standard copyright symbol is a 'c' in a circle, the Creative Commons symbol is two 'c's in a circle. Under the Creative Commons, artists still maintain the right to their work, however, other artists are free to use/manipulate/interpret the work as they wish.
No, others are free to use only to the extent that the copyright owner allows.
This helps creativity and innovation to progress. Imagine a world in which you can be sued creating a work, just because it's too alike another, even if you have never seen the other piece before. Would that be a world you want to live in? Not me.
Nobody lives in such a world. You have not infringed copyright if it cannot be proven that you copied. Say you lived on a deserted island for the past 5 years without any contact with the rest of the world, and one day you come back and try to promote this new song that you wrote, and everyone tells you, "Hey, that's Michael Jackson's This Is It!", you have not infringed his copyright simply because you did not copy.
In conclusion, copyright has its own purpose and use but personally, it's the Creative Commons for me, even when it comes to my own work
There would be no Creative Commons without copyright.