What is Creative Commons
How is it different to other forms of copy right?
Copy right laws have one basic goal - protecting the authors of intellectual property from illegal redistribution of their work. Therefore this property cannot be shared or adapted without permission from the rights holder. In order for a potential user to access material with ‘All Rights Reserved’ they must ask permission - a process that is often difficult and costly.
The issue surrounding permission of use was a key reason for the existence of The Creative Commons (CC) in the first place. CC, instead of keeping ‘All Rights Reserved)’ to the permission holders, allows the creator to identify which rights they chose to carry, giving them greater creative freedoms. Therefore the creative ability of online media has been increased, while lowering the associated costs.
The cost associated with the redistribution of Copyrighted material poses a large threat to the creativity of individual authors and artists. In a recent documentary film, the filmmakers discovered a 3 and a half second clip with the character Homer Simpson, from The Simpsons, in the barely distinguishable background of a key informative shot. Homer Simpson is an ‘All Rights Reserved’ personality. In accordance with the strict Copy Right laws, the filmmakers were required to ask Fox Broadcasting for permission to use the footage they recorded which after a length of time was granted - at the price of $10, 00. (1)
Obstacles such as this are common, causing a massive threat to the authors and artists of creative material. Instead of being able to accurately depict the world in which we live - full of cultural products and copyrighted material - creators must painstakingly consider and remove any infringements to Copyright laws, if they wish to avoid these exorbitant fees and delays in procedures.
Before the invention and mass popularity of the internet it was not economically feasible for intellectual property to be fully protected or persecute those who do not adhere to the Copyright laws. Now, with most material available online, the content industry can easily see breaches in Copyright and have been attempting to prevent any infringements. In the past they turned a blind eye to small or unintentional infringement.
While industries and authorities are simply protecting their vested interests with strict Copyright laws, the All Rights Reserved concept has created an imbalanced enforcement of Intellectual Property. Creativity is restricted instead of stimulated, but without any protection the creative industries would suffer. Only a select minority benefit from All Rights Reserved and, in the long term, no one would benefit from the total abolition of copyright.
In attempt to rebalance Intellectual Property laws the Creative Commons was devised. New licenses became available, that allow more options in which rights are reserved, and which are not. ‘Some Rights Reserved’ has become a counterstroke to the restrictive standard ‘all rights reserved’ slogan.
There are various examples where the usage of creative Commons licensing has been a benefit to the creators and audiences alike. Musical group ‘Chuck D and the Fine Arts Militia’ released their single in 2005, “No Meaning No”. However it was not released in the traditional format. Instead of trying to legally protect their work from being circulated free online, they encouraged it.
“They posted the entire 3-minute, 12-second, in length song and its various vocal, drum and guitar components online and invited everyone to view, copy, mix, remix, sample, imitate, parody and even criticize it.” (2)
This resulted in masses of derivative work and interpretations of their song, and in accordance with CC, acknowledged of the original source. The band were so pleased with the result and publicity gained, they published their entire album in the same way, becoming the first major artist to do so.
In the same way, any worthwhile cultural product or idea will benefit from being disseminated widely, in a manner which is much better suited to the modern electronic age “Any idea or cultural product worth its salt can withstand parody and pastiche - drawing a moustache on a reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, for instance, does nothing to diminish the worth of the original.” (3) This is something that the Nine Inch Nails were also aware of, encouraging their fan’s to engage with their music, rather than passively listen. They distributed their Intellectual Property under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Making sure users could clearly understand their right in relation to this album on the download site: (4)
“we encourage you to
remix it
share it with your friends,
post it on your blog,
play it on your podcast,
give it to strangers,” (5)
It’s not just music and creative industries that benefit from Creative Commons licensing. Another great example is its benefits for educational purposes. Specifically developed Creative Commons Open Education Resources. In their website they discuss the benefits in detail:
“Creative Commons provides the legal and technical infrastructure essential to the long-term success of OER, making it possible for educational resources to be widely accessible, adaptable, interoperable, and discoverable.” (6)
When Intellectual property is used in an educational setting, it is not commercial, distributed purely to improve the education of the students. For this reason CC enables;
“translation of educational resources into different language
educational resources to evolve and be improved through peer and student edits
easier discovery of educational resources on the web” (6)
None of this is possible if the creator choses to keep ‘All Rights Reserved’ instead of ‘Some Rights Reserved’.
The Creative Commons has taken the very important figurative ‘first steps’ away from the issues that surround the current ‘All Rights Reserved’ excessive model of Copyright laws. It has many benefits that Copyright do not provide. It is important to remember that Creative Commons, however helpful, simple obscure the Copyright issues rather than solving them.
In an electronically based society, we need to “settle on the proper parameters of digital information use, access, retrieval and preservation in the 21st century”. (7) CC has created an decent alternative to Copyright, without addressing the original issue. Creators can achieve a sense of correct moral conduct by simply placing a CC badge on their work without a real understanding of the issues, in much the same way a person will purchase a hybrid vehicle to appear environmentally conscious without understanding the basic issues behind global warming.
(1) http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA401.htm
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35297-2005Mar14.html
(3) http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA401.htm
(4) http://theslip.nin.com/physical/
(5) http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/Nine_Inch_Nails_The_Slip
(6) http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Creative_Commons_and_Open_Educational_Resources
(7) http://www.copycense.com/
Additional Research Sources:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/DeviantART
http://www.actnow.com.au/Issues/Illegal_downloading.aspx
http://www.copynot.com/
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:UTBV_ugENrQJ:www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Copyright%2BLaw%2Bin%2BAustralia%2B-%2BA%2BShort%2BGuide%2B-%2BJune%2B2005.pdf/%24file/Copyright%2BLaw%2Bin%2BAustralia%2B-%2BA%2BShort%2BGuide%2B-%2BJune%2B2005.pdf+copyright+laws&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh480hn-TAOoO4r_4-mXaNYre63PezvDjjQJo_KZwCScVuRqD8Qhmv_6C3PWlIHDB_oPVWNecGSkxNwI7QRiMiK7dWRN5Jis6GZ4fCPxMzPAqSrWtfTa82B16d1Pq-Y9aVsBkPr&sig=AHIEtbQirVYwAzABkaad2_87NlUEIIuwoA
