Free Culture is yet a new trend heavier promoted since the rising of the digital revoltuion's age. We could kind of agree that this trend started with the logic of applying the software 4 freedom's rules proposed from the gnu.org for a free software license into other cultural digital works.
For long time, the FSF was proposing to use, if you wanted, their license for other cultural works, but they didn't promoted much and never wanted to treat the specific cultural issue of software different than primarily. The FSF also soft recommended the use of a license similar in spirit to the GPL one, but much crappier in terms of robustness.
This was the base, one empty niche, which the popular creative commons' foundation tried to fill freely.
The GNU FDL
and its invariant sections an etcs.... !
Creative commons example
Creative Commons has been a big propeller of the free culture movement. They offer one license which can be considered almost similar to the GPL for free software(CC-BY-SA) and another one which can be considered similar to the spirit of the BSD license for software (CC-BY).
They are also offering other licenses which are more restrictive, especially the CC-BY-NC-ND.
If in the
freedom on the product or freedom on the owner's debate
...the conclusion is
freedom should be in the owner as used by the creative commons' foundation.
Free culture can produce non-free cultural works.
One very psicotic behaviour is also produced by this fallaced logic:
If you give a free cultural works promoting's option to an author, he is free to don't choose it
Why then an author still and redundantly call himself free? Am i saying opposite? 
Why he/she still needs to call free cultural work to something he doesn't allow to modify it?
If freedom is just in the author, then Free culture = Free unculture = Unfree culture