Creative Commons In the News

An anonymous reader writes "MSNBC is running an article on a new licensing scheme being used to bring civility to the world of copyright." From the article: "Interest in Creative Commons licenses comes as artists, authors and traditional media companies begin to warm to the idea of the Internet as friend instead of foe, and race to capitalize on technologies such as file-sharing and digital copying." At the same time, mpesce writes "Boing Boing is reporting that the Australian equivalent of the Screen Actors Guild, the MEAA, has forbidden its members to work in Creative Commons productions. 'The MEAA Board decided that it could grant none of the dispensations sought by MOD Films, on the grounds that these would be inappropriate.'"

Comments

Australia?

[HyoImowano]

Does anyone really care what Australia thinks anymore?

Re:Non-commercial elements of the Creative Commons

[seifried]

Problem is if I as a content/whatever creator have no rights regarding my work why should I distribute it at all? I'm better of getting a job at McDonalds. First off your analogy sucks, the car you purchased, the architect you hired, there is contract law at work there as well, and in some cases you would be restricted from say painting your house, if you agreed to it. However in the majority of cases with Creative Commons licensing you are getting something for nothing, in the classic sense of contract law, which is based on the parties both having negotiating and exchanging something you are actually the party consuming the content (if you will) has more power in many senses then the content creator, but this is balanced by the content creator being able to choose a license of their liking, and in theory it should be enforced by the signatories of the Bern Copyrgith Convention (basically everyone).