Creative Commons is a corporation dedicated to making it easier for people to share or build upon the work of others, with compliance to the laws of copyright. That is, it allows others to skip the “step” of having to ask permission for the use of their work, because CC explains exactly what the creator indented for the use of their work. Creative Commons mostly applies to such creativities constructed with digital technology such as pictures, music, or software. The licenses allowed to the creator are much more flexible than that of copyright, but also protect the creator by giving credit where it is earned. Such license flexibilities include “attribution,” which allows others to copy, distribute, display, work or derivative work, if they give credit to the creator, “Share Alike,” which allows others to distribute derivative work only under the same license that governs the original work, “Non-Commercial,” which allows the copy, distribution, display, or performance of work as long as it is for non-commercial purposes, and lastly, “No Derivate Works,” which allows the copy, distribution, and display, of only verbatim copies of the work. In recent years, CC has dedicated themselves to exploring the internet’s fullest potential for open learning with the purpose of simplifying and minimizing the legal, technical, and social barriers to the sharing and reuse of creative material.
Before Creative Commons was established, if a person wished to create a derivative work from a previously created copyrighted work, that person would have to consult copyright lawyers and ask the author for permission. Creative Commons allows an author to choose whether to have his or her work available for free for sharing or remixing, eliminating the intermediaries and thereby simplifying the process of creating a derivative work. Moreover, the Creative Commons is constantly growing and improving. Over the course of eight years, different versions of the Creative Commons have been released, each an improvement over the previous. Creative Commons creates a shared culture where existing works can be utilized and improved upon to create a more enriched culture.
One of our greatest concerns about the Creative Commons is that although it provides licenses to creators, it avoids the bigger problem that we face of changing the current copyright law to reflect our changes in technology and authorship. Is too much energy being fueled into the Creative Commons? Would it be better to focus this energy on reforming current copyright law?
Another issue that has been brought up with the expansion of the Creative Commons is whether or not published works under Creative Commons licenses can be used for financial gain. While there is a handful case studies of artists who have made a considerable amount of money off of work published under a CC, we question: Has their use of the new progressive CC license fueled their works popularity? While popular bands have succeeded, can a start-up artist or author live off of a CC published work?
Questions
Is CC an improvement to copyright laws?
Do CC licenses ultimately avoid the question of what U.S. copyright should be in the 21st century, and how the law should best serve its citizens?
Is too much energy being fueled into the Creative Commons?
Would it be better to focus this energy on reforming current copyright law?
How much is it worth in publicity, for creators to use Creative Commons license vs. copyright registration?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Creative Commons is an improvement of the copyright laws. It still allows people to be creative and create new works, but it also allows people to build off of another person’s work. By allowing authors to decide whether they would like their works to be open to the public, open only to read/redistribute, etc., Creative Commons is protecting authors’ ownership of their work. Because creative commons still does not allow for people to simply copy a work and call it their own without recognizing the author (if he/she wishes to be given ownership), it still forces a little bit of creativity on society. New works would still have to have some creativity or something new to be published. In a way, this is appears to be society’s way of not amending the copyright laws. Because Creative Commons appears to be improving the copyright laws (or at least evading them), I do not think too much energy is being fueled into this idea. It gives authors the choice of what to do with their works. I do not think it is necessary to completely abandon this new energy to fix the old copyright laws. Both still force society to be creative and both allow for the author to choose what to do with his or her work. I see no reason why they cannot coexist to balance each other.
ReplyDeleteI think CC is an improvement off copyright laws. The time spent improving CC is simlar to the time spent in improving our current copyright laws. Since CC is much newer than the ideas behind our copyright laws it acts as a way to determine if our copyright laws should be changed to something more similar to CC. CC improves our current copyright laws by elimating the "middle man" between the orginal creator and the derivative creator. Even though the monetary value returened may not be as high, our capitalist system is still intact. CC still encourages invention and new creation, but it accounts for many of the technical andvances made in society. I almost feel that Creative Commons can act as a test run to see if our copyright laws should be changed to something more similar. So I don't believe too much effort is wasted in CC. CC is an alternative that compensates for technological invention but does not forget our capitalist system.
ReplyDeleteCreative Commons, like Copyleft is based off of the copyright laws. Both use the author's copyright protection to create a new method of distribution and editing. Copyright just gives the author permission to decide what to do with his work. To change copyright would mean taking the author's rights away from him. If people want to give stuff away and allow it to be distributed freely that is up to them. Copyright does not prohibit free information trading; people who don't want to share their stuff prohibit it. Copyright is just the law that they use to protect their stuff.
ReplyDeleteCreative commons is an improvement off of Copyright Law for it acts as an allowance for original thought, in terms of the work created. Copyright prevents the public from advancing a work because of legal protections on that work. Creative Commons allows for freedom in thought and also the advancement of a work. Sometimes we may find problems with already copyrighted works, but through Creative Commons people can contribute input and enhance the original work.
ReplyDeleteSince the legal system and the laws found within are always changing, I think Creative Commons does agree with what Copyright Law should look like. In my opinion, Copyright law, in a sense, hinders the expansion and bettering of works. The goal of bettering society is especially prominent in the 21st Century, so in essence I think Creative Commons fits well in present-day society. It is also an advancement of freedom which is always desired by people.
Since this is the case, I do not think that too much energy is being fueled into Creative Commons. In my opinion, it in itself is bettering Copyright Law. Copyright Law has a lot of unavoidable loopholes and also vaguely determines if a work is Copyright infringement. I think that Creative Commons eliminates some of these loopholes by allowing for freedom to enhance already published works. Furthermore, I believe that if people have more freedoms, they will have less incentive to break the laws that are already enacted.
There is probably, because of monetary reasons, less of an incentive for publishers to use Creative Commons. Yes there is more freedom for the public, but I feel that the majority of people want some sort of reward for their effort.
Creative Commons is a very good thing because it gives authors the choice to join the free information movement, and this really shows the market at work. Enough authors, computer programmers, etc. were interested in free information sharing and collaboration that Creative Commons decided that it would be feasible to start their corporation. This doesn't change copyright law and, thus, take away protection that some authors want, but, rather, it gives authors the choice to do with their work as they wish, while still offering some protection if wanted.
ReplyDeleteCreative commons is not truly a change of copyright law. It merely allows the overall process to be more efficient. In that way this is an improvement. Some people do want to engage in a less restrictive copyright environment, and this allows them to do that without having to jump through hoops. It gives people the option of going with a new system, or sticking with the old system if they think it will work better for their product. This does not truly avoid the issue of what copyright should be in the 21st century because it allows us to experiment in new untested versions of copyright without giving up the reliable method of standard copyright. Current copyright law is currently working out just fine, so merely changing it based on theories is not really a good idea. However, this method allows us to test those theories in a real environment, thus facilitating later changes to copyright laws.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think too much energy is being fueled into creative commons. Creative commons bypasses most of the problems people had with the copyright laws in the first place. One of the major concerns people had with copyright was that it was stunting the growth of ideas because everything was over-protected. With creative commons, this problem decreases greatly because this allows others to freely use the works of others in their own research without having to ask for permission or pay loyalties. Thus, making the whole process far more efficient than before. But, if some so chooses, they could still use the old copyright laws to protect their work. This allows for the maximum number of people to be satisfied. With the creative commons, other media aside from literature start to become more relevant as well. With the creative commons, computer programs can be protected by law while still being open source like before.
ReplyDeleteYes I would definitely agree that CC is an improvement to copyright laws due to the fact that it allows people to be more creative in the way the express their ideas.
ReplyDeleteCC allows everyone to use the copyright laws and build on them. This increases the freedoms, and agrees with the copyright law so no rights are taken away.
I do not think too much energy is being fueled into CC because it gives the people opinions of what they want to do with what they produce. It would not be a good idea to drop the idea of CC to fix copyright laws when CC is just expanding upon the idea.
It is not worth much to use CC over copyright because with copyright you are rewarded money and even thought there are more freedoms with CC you do not get the same reward.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCreative commons is a very effective supplement to the reform of copyright laws, however it cannot be an outright replacement for their revision. The more that the copyright laws fall behind, the more difficult and tedious revising them will be. That being said, it is easy to see how creative commons could be used as a basis for such reform. The great success it has had in its implantation can attest to this fact [TED, wikipedia, Flickr, etc]. The future of copyright law should not be ignored as it currently is, both legislatively and in the public eye, and the creative commons corporation is taking responsibility to fix this.
ReplyDeleteI feel that The Creative Commons is nto an improvement to Copyright Laws, for it is not a law, but they create an effective means to disperse work. The work is categorized by the authors intentions and wants for the work, allowing for others top legally use the creative work, with out having to ask permission directly form the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not see how an creator of a work can gain publicity by obtaining a Creative Commons License, it is in fact a license, and there is not real public appeal in knowing you have a Creative Common License or a Copyright Registration. For example a creative common license does not get in the newspapers.
Like I said in class today, Creative Commons, in addition to copyleft, Students for Free Culture etc, all are more or less reformations of the Copyright Law. They all have some aspect of the copyright law attached to them in that they too allow creators to impose certain restrictions on their work, and even give the author the option whether to even allow or disallow restrictions. I think therefore instead of beating around the bush for lack of a better expression, they shuld focus on incorporating all the ideas supplied by Copyleft, Creative Commons etc into the copyright law instead of having totally separate entities altogether. I think as it stands by itself, the Creative Commons license will attract people initially due to its novelty but that will soon wear off and we will be back to the same problem. Are we to continue forming new licenses and ideas about how to distribute our works instead of dealing witht he probelm itself? That would just be completely inefficient.
ReplyDeleteI think Creative Commons is a great idea however it should be incorporated with copyright law, not as a separate entity. Essentially instead of having all these conditional licenses that CC allows then having copyright, instead have the a license that has no allowed conditions and allow that to be copyright.
ReplyDeleteCreative Commons has been described as being at the forefront of the copyleft movement, which seeks to support the building of a richer public domain by providing an alternative to the automatic "all rights reserved" copyright. David Berry and Giles Moss have credited Creative Commons with generating interest in the issue of intellectual property and contributing to the re-thinking of the role of the commons in the information age. Beyond that, Creative Commons has provided "institutional, practical and legal support for individuals and groups wishing to experiment and communicate with culture more freely."
ReplyDeleteCreative Commons works to counter what the organization considers to be a dominant and increasingly restrictive permission culture. According to Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons, it is a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past. Lessig maintains that modern culture is dominated by traditional content distributors in order to maintain and strengthen their monopolies on cultural products such as popular music and popular cinema, and that Creative Commons can provide alternatives to these restrictions.