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

One sentence license:

[Anonymous Coward]

Any one can use this free of charge for anything, forever.

What's so hard about that?

Re:One sentence license:

[tmasky]

I love people. I hate corporates.
These "things" have far too many bloody rights and leeway as it is. They aren't "natural people" but are treated as such too often.

Providing them further opportunities to increase their profit margins without giving anything back is simply not good. It ultimately benefits nobody but shareholders and overpaid directors. IMHO =)

Anyway, more on-topic, these actions in the industry make me question how far the balance of money and love for the art is going to be pushed. It's pretty sad.

Re:One sentence license:

[Siniset]

i don't think you understand what the liability is in the public domain copyright notice: it is that if the work of art is not in the the public domain, the person publishing it can be held accountable. It's not liability if something breaks, but rather if you don't have rights over it in the first place.

Re:One sentence license:

[SydShamino]

One downside of public domain is that it doesn't nothing to avoid the implication of plagiarism.

What if I write something truly insightful in one of these posts? Then, later, I use the same words in a speech when I'm running for some government office?

If I release the text into the public domain, others can take those words and reuse them without any credit required. I could take Tom Sawyer and republish the novel without listing the author at all; neither he nor his descendents have any rights to the book.

But, if I reuse the words later in another context, I could be accused of plagiarism. It might be difficult to prove that I was the original author of text that had been passed around through the public domain for X years. By retaining copyright on my posts, I can force those that wish to quote them to attribute them to me.

(This did happen. Someone from a public domain advocacy website wanted to use quotes from one of my slashdot posts on his site. But he had released all text on his site into the public domain. I had to decline unless he could change his license, not because I care where my words were used, but because I care that they be attributed to me. /shrug)

Re:One sentence license:

[ortholattice]

So plagiarism of Tom Sawyer is a serious problem these days? Get real. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Most people (even assuming they are unethical in the first place) don't plagiarize not because of copyright but because it would damage their professional reputation if found out (or in school, get them expelled). But hey, if you're so paranoid someone's going to "steal" your words, please copyright the hell out of them; even better, don't release them in the first place. I notice, by the way, the public domain guy seemed perfectly willing to acknowledge you and even asked your permission. That's what most reasonable and honest people do. I just don't understand the big deal here - how are you going to suffer if someday, somewhere someone quotes your slashdot post without attribution? Copyrighted or not, it's pretty easy to prove you originated the words with a search engine, if it becomes an issue, and probably embarrass the person who plagiarized them. Would really take them to court though (the only benefit of copyright I can see)? To me people who obsess with the copyright of the most trivial minutiae seem to have hair up their ass.

Re:One sentence license:

[Qzukk]

Forwards this time!

No, copyright does not cover the "idea" which your song expressed, it covers the exact embodiment of your song. When I convert your song to another embodiment I'm making a derivative work of your embodiment, which is why it is also covered by your copyright.

The copyright isn't about the paper I put ink on or the canvas I painted on or the floppy disk I saved my thesis on then stapled to the submission form. It is about the text in the floppy, the image on the canvas that matters. Your logic is flawed (calling a copy in a different format "derivative work" indeed. The term is applied to works where you add some small value such as a translation or typesetting or performance or additional text or notes, where the original work makes up a basis for the derivative too large to dismiss as fair use or quoting. Ripping your CD to mp3s adds no literary or other artistic merit to the work, it simply copies it to newer, more convenient "paper" with "better" ink) yet the outcome of your thought process is still valid: the song/picture/movie/document is still copyrighted.

Yes, you are responsible for the damage an mp3 does to my equipment.

So if you download an Aerosmith mp3 from kazaa, and your ipod freezes up, you're going to sue Aerosmith? You ignore the fact that beyond my song being present, there is no control over the container with certain CC licenses that allow re-encoding or re-distributing (hell, with "All Rights Reserved" copyright in effect, they still can't crush all illegal copying. Are you going to go to court and insist that you thought the mp3 was an authorized Aerosmith good being given away by Aerosmith for free because copying is illegal so therefore the mp3 must be legal?). If A records a song, B re-encodes it in a malicious format and sends it to you, you can try suing A, but the judge will call you to the bench, slap you, tell you to sue B, and dismiss the case. If you somehow win, A will appeal, and appleals court judges slap harder.

present something as factually correct when it is not you open yourself up to litigation if your claims cause damage.

Yet there are millions of idiots in this world all claiming things that are flagrantly, even intentionally incorrect. Yet aside from claiming incorrect things about someone (ie, libel or slander) I don't see a lot of lawsuits over how Jane told Billy she had a headache that night but was really just turned off by the fact that he ate a garlic sandwitch after dinner. If I have a page reading "On Formally Decidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems" consisting of a thesis that at every turn attempts to disprove Godel's law, with no text beyond the title and the body of the thesis and a CC license at the bottom, with no other statement indicating that in reality, I stapled my Mathematics PhD to my application form and failed to get my Doctorate, can you sue me for that? Even though I make no claims claiming I am a math whiz? Does the CC license matter? What if I marked it "All Rights Reserved"?

A formular for making styrofoam cups is indeed an invention Yes, and I explicitly stated that inventions are separate, as they can blow up and kill people. Shakespeare does not blow up and kill people, no matter how long you cook it. Brittney Spears does not blow up and kill people.
Mona Lisa secretly blows up when noone is looking, the rest of the time she smirks about what she's getting away with. The formula for TNT can be used to blow up and kill people. See the difference? Literary work, musical work, artistic work, invention.

And now we're on rat poison on a playground which has nothing to do with copyright, and even less to do with creative commons licenses for copyrighted works.

Re:One sentence license:

[Anthony Boyd]

Someone from a public domain advocacy website wanted to use quotes from one of my slashdot posts on his site. But he had released all text on his site into the public domain. I had to decline unless he could change his license, not because I care where my words were used, but because I care that they be attributed to me.

Yes, that was one of my Web sites. However, since my interaction with you is getting lumped into a discussion of plagarism, I would mention that I do not plagarize -- everything I put up there is extensively cited and credited. The reason I didn't change my license for you was simply that other people were more easy-going, so there was no need to pursue your writing.

Anti-Comeptitive

[PepeGSay]

Does anyone else see the MEAA's decision as anti-competitive?

Re:Anti-Comeptitive

[IntelliTubbie]

Does anyone else see the MEAA's decision as anti-competitive?

Of course. They're a union; it's their job to be anti-competitive. (That is, to protect their members from competition with non-members.) Essentially, the MEAA is a labor cartel, placing restrictions on members' output to boost the asking price.

Cheers,
IT

Non-commercial elements of the Creative Commons

[QuantumG]

The part I dislike the most about the Creative Commons set of licenses is the advocation of non-commercial restrictions, as if they were a good idea. This thoroughly reduces the distribution of the work. Suppose you make an icon set and place it under one of the Creative Commons licenses that has the non-commercial restriction. This means that Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake and all the other commercial Linux distributions can't put your icon set on their CD. It means that only people who contact you directly can use your icon set. That's hardly freedom.

On a totally different note. I was thinking about the part of the GPL that most people really don't get: the offer to supply source code at a later date. More than any other part of the GPL that section really confuses people. Maybe we should make a GPL-lite, where source code simply MUST accompany all binary distributions. That'd clear up the confusion for programs licensed under it at least.

Re:Non-commercial elements of the Creative Commons

[Da_Biz]

I disagree. I've written several prose pieces where I have used Creative Commons to limit how it's used. As the creator and copyright holder of the piece, I believe I have the right to say how it's used.

In my case, I permitted free distribution of the piece, restricted anyone from selling a reprint of it without my permission, and did not want anyone to build upon to work to preserve it's artistic integrity. I'm not entirely sure what's wrong there.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0

Re:Non-commercial elements of the Creative Commons

[MindStalker]

Well honestly you don't want every joe blow calling you waisting your time. But how hard is it for a corperation to call you up and say "Hi, we'd like to use your icons?".

Re:Non-commercial elements of the Creative Commons

[schon]

the advocation of non-commercial restrictions, as if they were a good idea.

Maybe it's because people believe that they *are* a good idea?

Suppose you make an icon set and place it under one of the Creative Commons licenses that has the non-commercial restriction. This means that Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake and all the other commercial Linux distributions can't put your icon set on their CD.

First of all, no it doesn't. What it means is that Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, etc can't put your icon set on CDs that they *sell*. They're perfectly free to include it in a downloadable ISO, or some other means.

Second of all, if someone's making money of something *I* made, why should it not be me? (Or, why is it such a big deal if they have to contact me first?)

It means that only people who contact you directly can use your icon set.

Yes, well let's see: there's Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse... who else? I can see how difficult it is for *all these people* to contact me - man, how could I ever manage the time to talk to them all? There are clearly tens of people who are selling Linux commercially.

That's hardly freedom.

Bullshit. They're perfectly free to make their own icons.

Re:Non-commercial elements of the Creative Commons

[iminplaya]

I believe I have the right to say how it's used.

That's like telling me where I can take my car, or what kind of tires I have to use. It's like needing the arquitect's(sp) permission the paint my house. The closest thing you have to natural rights on a work is to have your name attached. Everything else is fair game. The "artistic integrity" is in your eyes only. Your rights to property are determined by the society you live in. They are NOT absolute or inherent.

Re:Non-commercial elements of the Creative Commons

[Peter La Casse]

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.

Because you enjoy it? (Rhetorical question; the answer is "yes".)

If you don't enjoy it, then don't do it; nobody's forcing to you be creative. Get a job at McDonald's if that's what floats your boat.

Re:you know

[QuantumG]

Yep, and America is full of gun totting Christians.

Oh, and Denmark is full of clog wearing porn stars who own chocolate factories.

And, France is full of stuck up arrogant smokers who.. (oh wait, that one's true)

Can you at least try not to generalise an entire nation?

Re:you know

[schon]

Denmark is full of clog wearing porn stars who own chocolate factories.

Why am I just being told this now??!?!?!

Over a barrel

[Stumbles]

has forbidden its members to work in Creative Commons productions.

I think the above phrase is being overlooked by most people. I mean that's a pretty strong statement, to paraphrase, "I/We forbid you to do any work that does not make us money."

The question I have, is that part of "the members" contract or is this "a new policy"?

Either way I have to wonder just how far they can go at curtailing a members outside activities.

Re:you know

[ReverendLoki]

From the CIA factbook:

Area - land: 7,617,930 sq km
Area - comparative: Slightly smaller than the US contiguous 48 states
Population: 19,913,144 (July 2004 est.)

This tells us that there are only approximately 2.6 people per square km, and thus, unless these are really enormous people, Australia is most definitely not full.

Therefore, you are proven wrong.

Suggestion

[ta bu shi da yu]

There is an email form to register your disgust.

Re:not just money

[ackthpt]

Or you could come up with your own new characters and go from there, with no licenses, no lawyers, no oversight. Of course, you'll have to work harder to build a brand from the ground instead of buying your way into .. I Robot (was any oversight involved there?)

Precisely, yet observe how many horrendous works come out after an artist/author dies. Think Dr. Suess would have stood still for the trashing of The Cat in the Hat?

For some utterly bizarre reason people feel they must retain absolute control of an idea, even if it means killing it. Michael Critchton was rather pissed with the treatment a couple of his books recieved, when made into films. IIRC Rising Sun was one of them, all the suspense was stripped out of the story and it became a tired showcase for actors everyone was supposed to be dying to see in another film. His mistake, for the money he signed away rights (or maybe signed them away to his publisher who then sold them to the motion picture ship of fools.) When you sell your ideas, don't look back.

Whoa

[Anonymous Coward]

"What if I write something truly insightful in one of these posts? "

Dude, stick with the realm of possible here for just a few minutes. I can't get past this line.

Artitsts?

[k-zed]

According to quite a number of articles here and on The Register, most (true) artists, authors and musicians were never really against file-sharing - it helps by spreading their work, lets more people experience their talent. It's just the traditional media company that doesn't like it's N-approaches-infinity percent profit margin diminished.

Re:Union Ideal Gone Sour

[werdna]

Its more reasonable than it seems. Actors own a right to publicity, the commercial use of their image, which is only granted in part to the production company for certain conduct related to the sale of the film. They negotiate this reservation of rights with the production companies, who then do not overreach with individual actor agreements on the point. Thus, folks who want to use a commercial film clip outside the scope need to negotiate with the actors to do so. This provides some residual rights for all actors in the film.

The problem is that the standard provision gets in the way of the CC license. There is no obvious or practical solution here. The actors are asked to donate their right to publicity, which is simply outside the scope of the deal. The reason this provision is collectively negotiated serves largely to benefit the union members, but it does limit the scope of flexibility actors in the union have to give broader rights. And it does this by design.

Now, I'm a US lawyer, so I may just be guessing what is going on down under. But that would be the problem if the issue came up here.