Creative Commons - why don’t more people “get it”?
Posted by: dnorman in Uncategorized, tags: creativecommons, memeAlan wrote up a post on "linktribution" (the concept of providing attribution for a link to a web page, flickr image, etc…) and in the comments, Scott replied that (perhaps a more broad concept such as) Creative Commons would be a better Big Picture meme to propagate.
Which got me thinking about my experience with CC. I'm a firm believer in it. All of my stuff is licensed using a simple CC-Attribution license. Anyone is free to use any of my blog posts, any of my Flickr photos, however they wish. As long as they provide attribution to say that I created it. My photos don't even have a non-commercial clause, and as a result they've been included in a board game, books, travel guides, and (soon) the cover of a magazine. Sure, I'm not getting paid for any of that, but it's not like I'm losing out by contributing to the pool. Karma's a good thing, and if I want to use items in the CC pool, it's only fair that I contribute what I can.
I've tried mentioning Creative Commons in some workshops, and it seems like many (most?) people have a vague awareness of some strange subversive counter-culture movement called "Creative Commons" - but it doesn't seem to apply to them, and certainly not to their own creative works.
At which point I'm often left stumped, scratching my head and wondering what else I can do to show how CC applies to everyone. I model it, walking the walk every day. I show samples of works that couldn't have been created without CC. But then clients ask me how to ensure their content is locked down so nobody can even see it without their approval, never mind reusing and remixing.
People get confused about the difference between CC and Public Domain. They're quite different. Under CC, you retain "ownership" of the thing, and people are free to use it only as long as they abide by the clauses you select for the CC license. Under PD, everybody owns it, so nobody controls it. Subtle difference.
Also, people worry that if they release a work under CC, they won't be able to later sell it. Release it under a CC-NonCommercial license, and you're covered. You're free to later release your work however you like (commercially, or under a different license, as you deem fit).
Perhaps this is a side effect (intentional or otherwise) of the huge blitzes by the MPAA, RIAA, Disney, etc… in protecting copyright at all costs by suing 3-year-olds and grandmas. People are (rightly) scared of accidentally violating copyright and incurring the wrath of a well funded team of legal beagles.
I dunno. I strongly believe that CC is one of those things that has the power to change the nature of the game. It's not about gathering the most intellectual property, and staunchly protecting it through threats of litigation in the microscopic chance that you might make a buck off it. It's about freely sharing, contributing to the greater good, and all that jazz.
Entries (RSS)
I am good with the CC but I can see many potentials for abuse, especially for gain, so I use the attrib/no-commercial/no-derivs… The reason I use that is that remixing might be used by some other individual to defame a picture or something as such, so I am not really comfortable with having pictures of my self or people in my pictures being remixed… Also, I don’t think it to be fair for someone to make financial gain off of my work, if they want to work in the “free” domain, then their work should be free as well and therefore non-commercial. That’s my stand on it, however I will make exception if someone were to e-mail me… You had that problem before D, where some guy copied your site and your pictures… Imagine if he didn’t relent, there isn’t much you can do about it… In fact if I take your pictures, pop them on a CD and sell them for a profit, there is still nothing you can do about… So I see plenty of potential for abuse, however if you’re really an artistic person and the work doesn’t have much potential for abuse, you can license it with derivs, also if you mind not being compensated for your IP, go ahead and let people make commercial use… But in business especially, it’s difficult if you don’t have control over your work, it opens up a potential for abuse of your company, etc.
yeah. my problem wasn’t that someone used the images, just with the perception of ownership. Sure, there was a small fine print “some images by D’Arcy Norman” disclaimer or something, but he was cycling the banner images (initially) directly from my server, placing them in the banner of his blog. To me, that banner image screams “this is my image. it means something to me” - that’s what I had problems with, not the fact that he used them. Sounds contradictory, but it’s not always easy making this black and white (which is part of the problem).
I’m not sure embracing CC opens a company to potential abuse. Copyright violations have always occurred. People have simply photocopied and cut-and-pasted for decades. All the CC license does (with application of appropriate clauses) is make it clear how you want it used, reused, and remixed (or not). Scumbags will always go around licenses anyway, and a company would have legal grounds to go after a CC license violator just as effectively as if they’d used a commercial license.
That’s half the coin, guys. CC allows us to figure out which degree of sharing we are okay with. And yes, I’d say it is a much different situatioh with a compay’s or organization’s assets versus a personal level.
Frankly, I don’t create media to get rich, famous, or to be a quote unquote artist (nothing even close has happened). I don’t really place any monetary value on what I create (keeps me humble), so I have nothing to lose. And yes, there is nothing to stop “abuse” since on the re-use end, it is again on the individual to abide by the allowances in a CC license.
But it seems another instance where it is much easier to focus on the intances where people may use a service in a negative or abusinve manner, leading us to want to have more restrictions, and forgetting that there is a far, far, far, far greater number of instances ( am guessing, hoping), that do not make news, where people are using it for good.
But like I said, y’all are on the creator’s side of the coin. My wonder, and Scott’s too, I think, is why there is not much more awareness of the potential of things one can do on the re-use end, by seeking, finding CC licensed materials. It has been out for several years, and while people like D’Arcy are rather clear in demonstrating it, perhaps our field has not done nearly enough advocation. I am stumped, as I have never failed to find a compelling CC licensed graphic in flcikr to demo an idea, metaphor, concept. Never.
messy business. you know we can’t even use freeware fonts in our video games because legal has a fit over the license. for that matter, an inexpensive (shareware?) font can’t be used despite the fact the license states it can be used commercially because it never explicitly mentions it can be used in video games. apparently, we can be sued.