Due: Friday 23 Oct 5pm
Creative Commons vs. Copyright.
In a battle for supremacy, is it really all or nothing?
As a general rule Australia copyright laws state that the creator of the product is entitled to all rights and profits associated with that work[2]. Published works that are protected under copyright stay so until 70 years after the death of the creator[3]. Standard copyright does allow for other creators to use the works however this is only if it is licensed to them by the original creator[4]. CC was formed in 2001 by Stanford University law professor Lawrence Lessig with the goal of creating a more versatile copyright scheme[5]. Meng (2009) explains CC was created to combat the
"all or nothing’ approach to the granting of rights (where monopoly rights could be the default position), CC has engaged in what seems to be a compromise, a more community-oriented sharing approach which sets forth terms on which copyright holders may grant partial rights to the public while retaining other rights[6].” (pg 194)
The licence lets creators stipulate how much ownership they wish to share with the public (Appendix A.) The licences are issues, expressed, in three ways, common deeds, legal code and metadata[7](Appendix B.) The following video from the CC website explains the CC in an easy to understand way[8]
Table 1. The six types of CC licences.
CC licensing can be used on any creative works including music, movies, books, photographs, journals and articles. All over the world specifically designed downloading sites were created for consumers to acquire CC licensed works. An example of this is Canadian sci-fi author, Cory Doctorow who released his novel in 2003 Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, simultaneously in a hard copy in book shops and online under a CC licence where it could be downloaded for free[10].The novel sold 10,000 copies in bookstores but over half a million copies were downloaded[11].One popular criticism with CC is the difficulty many have in understanding and defining the terminology. An example of this is found when defining the non-commercial (NC) use. Initially CC did not create a definition for NC, instead allowing individual communities to generate their own understandings and rules associated with NC. This idea has created trouble for the CC community with different sub-groups conforming to different expectations of NC use. For example 'free and open source software communities' which involve the sharing and modification of software[12], believe NC means absolutely no money can change hands anywhere in connection with licensed work[13]. A recent survey found that most participants could not adamantly define NC use[14]. Figure 1 shows the findings of the study.
Figure 1. Participants definitions of Non-commercial use from the Creative Commons Cooperation 2009 Defining "Non-commercial "study.
There are lots of different terms created and used primarily for and in CC licenses. Without clear and concise definitions it is challenging for users and creators of CC licensed work to understand their arrangements and difficult for the legal system to settle CC related disputes.
The sustainability associated with CC licensing is another topic raised by critics and supporters alike. Currently there is an ever expanding market for free and illegal creative works. CC licensing in theory can be used to combat this problem however the reality of getting all of the world’s creators to publish their works for free is very slim. Some doubt CC licenses will ever take the place of current copyright as major production companies won’t license their work under the scheme as they make too much money off the current system[11]. For many the publicity associated with CC licensing isn't enough to warrant the possible profit loss. There is a belief that if works are available for free online there hard copies will not sell, resulting in no profit for the creator. Corey Donohue address this idea stating,
"is there anyone here who really believes that no-one would have picked up Harry Potter and the sequel of great profitability if they'd gotten a free electronic copy; that was driving people to the store at midnight in costume was the fact that they couldn't lay hands on a digital copy? [15]”
Would people still buy Harry Potter if it was released for free on the internet? Of course. The free copies would be downloaded but there would still be more actual Harry Potter fans purchasing the hard copies. Furthermore it has been found that Electronic literature doesn’t actually hold a large niche in the online market, with most people having no idea it even exists[16] and when online books are downloaded the losses from free internet downloads are so small they are hardly missed[15]. The obscurity of online works strengthens the notion that CC may not have the staying power needed to seriously take on current copyright laws.
It is important to note the seriousness of CC licenses. CC license are non-revocable, that is work can stop being distributed but pieces that have already released and downloaded cannot be recalled[17]. This allows consumers and other creators, even professional companies, to exploit their works. An example of this arose when entrepreneur Richard Branson's company Virgin used images obtained from a CC website in mobile commercials for free. The photographer received no payment for the images however Virgin was sued by the parents of the children in the images on the basis of invasion of privacy [18].
The biggest criticism with CC is the way in which it is run. Because it is a new idea the legalities of it have not been defined, creativing many loopholes and grey areas as seen in the Virgin mobile example. Creators are the only one who define what is uploaded resulting in an abundance of somewhat mediocre works being available[11],[15]. In order for CC to become a profitable idea it needs to be run with more direction and form, including strictly defined and outlined licenses and rules. If CC could generate a formula in which both consumer and creator benefit financially and professionally it could be the solution to internet copyright.
____________________
APPENDIX A
Creative Commons Licensing form
Source: Creative Commons. License your work. 2009 http://creativecommons.org/choose/
APPENDIX B
Three different Creative Commons Licensing Formats.
Adapted from: Schloman, B. Information Resources Column: "Creative commons: An opportunity to extend the public domain”. 2003.
APPENDIX C
Standard Rights and Obligations for creative commons consumers
Source: Adapted from http://creativecommons.org.au/materials/whatiscc.pdfThe four basic elements in creative commons licensing
Source: Adapted From http://creativecommons.org.au/materials/licencesexplainedcontentcreatorsinfopack.pdf ______________________________________________
REFERENCE LIST
1. Commons. What is Creative Commons? 2009 [cited 2009 Oct 14] Available from: http://creativecommons.org.au/materials/whatiscc.pdf
2. Bein W. Copyright, an incentive or a burden? Revista Informatica Economica 2007 [cited 2009 Oct 15]; 3 (43) 83-86
3. Australian Government. Copyright and Classification Policy, What are the rights of a copyright owner? 2008 [cited 2009 Oct 15] Available from: http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Copyright_Whataretherightsofacopyrightowner
4. Watt, R. Licensing and royalty contracts for copyright. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues. 2006 [cited 2009 Oct 15]; 3 (1) 1 - 77
5. Lessig, L. Dunwody Distinguished Lecture in Law: The Creative Commons. Florida Law Review. 2003 [cited 2009 Oct 18]; 55, 763-777
6. Meng B, Articulating a Chinese Commons: An Explorative Study of Creative Commons in China. International Journal of Communication. 2009 [cited 2009 Oct 20]; 3, 192-207
7. Schloman, B. Information Resources Column: "Creative commons: An opportunity to extend the public domain". Online Journal of Issues in Nursing [serial online]. 2003 [cited 2009 Oct 18] Available from: www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/ANAMarketplace/ANAPeriodicals/OJIN/Columns/InformationResources/CreativeCommonsAnOpportunitytoExtendthePublicDomain.aspx
8. About creative commons. [video on the internet] [cited 2009 Oct 14] Available from: http://creativecommons.org.au/learn
9. International commons. Australia. Creative commons licences explained for content creators 2005 [cited 2009 Oct 14] Available from: http://creativecommons.org.au/materials/licencesexplainedcontentcreatorsinfopack.pdf
10. Cory Doctorow, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom [weblog on the Internet] c2003 [cited 2009 Oct 17] Available from: http://craphound.com/down/?paged=1111. Eunjung Cha, A. Creative Commons Is Rewriting Rules of Copyright. The Washington Post 2005 March 15
12. Syamlal M, O'Brien TJ, Benyahia S, Gel A, Pannala S. Open-source software in computational Reseacrch: A case study. Modelling and simulation in engineering. 2008 [cited 2009 Oct 18]; 2008, 10 pages.
13. OCER Africa. Criticisms of the non-commercial clause. No Date [cited 2009 Oct 20] Available from: http://www.oerafrica.org/CriticismsoftheNonCommercialClause/tabid/873/Default.aspx
14. Creative Commons Cooperation (2009) Defining "Noncommercial" A Study of How the Online Population Understands "Noncommercial Use"; 2009 [cited 2009 Oct 20] Available from: http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/defining-noncommercial/Defining_Noncommercial_fullreport.pdf 15. "Creative Commons" [radio broadcast] ABC Radio National Law Report; 2007 Nov. 20 16. Rettberg S. Communitizing electronic literature. Digital Humanities Quarterly. 2009 [cited 2009 Oct 18]; 3 (2)
17. Australian Copyright Council. Information Sheet G094V03- Creative Commons licenses. 2009 [cited 2009 Oct 14] Available from: http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets_pdf/g094.pdf/view
18. KOŠČÍK M. Creative Commons - Will it do good in the Czech Republic? Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology. 2008 [cited 2009 Oct 18]; 2 (1) 62-74.
