“We have built upon the “all rights reserved” concept of traditional copyright to offer a voluntary “some rights reserved” approach.”
Lawrence Lessig
Introduction
Nowadays community moves from the industrial to the digital era, the ease from which extensive quantities of information can be stored, manipulated, be controlled and transferred, has led to technical rules concerning the copyright and authorship in general. Such changes have amounted to creators and owners of copyright enjoying extensive powers over the protection, use, and exploitation of their works. According to the Creative Commons (CC) website, CC is a nonprofit corporation with the main aim to making it easier for people to share and use work of others legally, consistent with the rules of copyright. Also it provide free licenses and other legal tools to mark creative work with the freedom the creator wants it to carry, so others can share, remix, use commercially. There are different views on work of CC because it can be a both a solution and a failure to deal with authorship and copyright on the internet.The CC influence, therefore, should be assessed in terms of elements that positively affect copyright and authorship, and elements that negatively affect copyright and authorship on the internet. Firstly we will consider is CC a solution to deal with authorship and copyright on the internet, and in the next part it will be the opposite view on it.
Creative Commons is a solution to deal with authorship and copyright on the internet.
Due to the fact that CC was established in 2001, the impacts of CC licensing are still being discovered and identified. So, the first positive aspect to deal with authorship and copyright on the internet is marketing opportunities available to artists and creators. For instance internet music distributor the founder of Magnatune said that:”CC is like a marketing tool, free distribution generates exposure, and that builds commercial demand, which is where the real money is.” (A.Raskin, 2004), Therefore, CC is the solution to deal with authorship and copyright on the internet is the marketing opportunities which are available to people who create the things.
The less important but also valuable aspect in terms of CC is a solution to deal with authorship and copyright on the internet is the licensing simplicity of its operation. Simplifying annual dynamics of changes of indication of permissions and reusing material, licensing CC uses what K. Weatherall underline in her report ‘optimal standardization. The theory by means of what you allow certain number of the property rights to satisfy most people. It means, that this allows users of CC licences to confidently contribute work to the commons without engaging in excessive legal consultation. Moreover, while the legal enforceability of the licences is questioned by some, it must be noted that on the two cases is international, where profit licences have come before the courts, they have been supported. So, another aspect which support that CC is the solution to deal with authorship and copyright on the internet is the licensing simplicity it employs of its operation.
Creative Commons is a failure to deal with authorship and copyright on the internet.
The first aspect in terms of CC is a failure to deal with authorship and copyright on the internet is moral rights that have been happened with many creators.
The moral rights remain unaffected by CC, the practical implications of CC licence suggest differently. Professorial Fellow, Victorian College of Arts Richard Jones states: “This is a political decision; it is a social decision; it is an issue of control. But it is control sought for reasons other than ego or money.” (B Fitzgerald et al, 63, 70.) This loss of control of moral rights is further aggravated by the fact that a CC licensed work may later make it “more difficult than necessary to establish that someone doing what the licence allows has infringed that creator’s moral rights.” (McDonald , 3, 229.) Columnist John C. Dvorak said several interesting concerns about Creative Commons Initiative in term of moral rights and issues.
“Creative Commons actually seems to be a dangerous system with almost zero benefits to the public, copyright holders, or those of us who would like a return to a shorter-length copyright law, “he said. “If I write something on my blog, for example, and decide not to cover it with the general copyright notice, I can simply say that it is in the public domain and be done with it. I do not need permission from Creative Commons, nor do I need to mention Creative Commons or anything else. It's in the public domain by my personally allowing it to be so. This is my right! I don't need a middleman—a Creative Commons Commissar—to approve my decision. And yet there is this perception that I do, “he added.
Thus, Creative Commons is a failure to deal with authorship and copyright on the internet because of moral rights, it means that people can decide by themselves what they should do, and how to use the information. Also, there are another problems or failures in CC, one of them is disclaimer of warranties.
One of the major drawbacks of CC licences operating within the internet industry and important failure to deal with authorship and copyright is the fact that all the licences contain a disclaimer of warranties. Actually, it means that licence CC does not provide a guarantee that the licensor has all necessary rights to permit reuse of the licence work.Also, the user of material CC is effectively taking it on confidence that the licensor is allocated by the right to licence such material. Without compensations or warranties, CC licences appear, therefore, very difficult to incorporate into the internet industry as there is no guarantee or protection concerning validity of the licensors rights to the material being licensed. (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ) Columnist John C. Dvorak said about Creative Commons in terms of copyright and other issues.
“Years ago, to gain a copyright, you had to fill out a form and send in the material to the Library of Congress. Now you just use the word "copyright," add your name and a date, and publish it. Apparently simplicity was more than some people could handle, so they invented Creative Commons to add some artificial paperwork and complexity to the mechanism. And it seems to actually weaken the copyrights you have coming to you without Creative Commons.”
So, there are many different views on work of Creative Commons connected with copyright and authorship.
Stanford law Professor Lawrence Lessig states: “we’re a bit skeptical of the Creative Commons initiative because it moves copyright issues into the realm of contract law. … Instead, we think copyright should remain firmly a federal public policy debate.”
(http://www.copycense.com/2007/06/on_lessig.html)
Thus, from these statements it is clear seen the view of people on Creative Commons and their opinion on copyright and authorship, and we can see that there are many critics and failure in terms of copyright and authorship in CC.
Conclusion
It can be deduced that, CC is an international ‘open content’ movement aimed at increasing the volume of, and access to, creative works in the intellectual commons of society. CC licensing allows for the relinquishment of some or all rights previously protected by copyright. In my opinion there are more drawbacks or failures in terms of Creative Commons to deal with authorship and copyright on the internet rather than solution to deal with it. I agree that we should be clear to recognize that Creative Commons and efforts to really rethink copyright are two separate things, but that doesn't mean that Creative Commons is necessarily bad for copyright and authorship policy issues. There are also impacts which can be a solution to deal with authorship and copyright on internet.
Bibliography
A Raskin, “Giving it Away (for Fun and Profit)” (2004) 5(4) Business 2.0
B Fitzgerald et al, “Cultivating the creative commons: Perspectives from the creative industries” (2006) 11 Media and Arts Law Review.
B Fitzgerald and I Oi, “The Australian Creative Commons Project” (2005) 22(4) Copyright Reporter 138.
Lessig, The Future of Ideas – The fate of the commons in a connected world, 2001
McDonald, “Creative Commons: just say ‘CC’?” (2006) 24(4) Copyright Reporter
Electronic, Internet sources
Creative Commons,official web site:
http://creativecommons.org/ , access at 16 October 2009.Creative Commons, Creative Commons – Frequently Asked Questions
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ access at 18 October 2009.
Creative Commons, About Creative Commons.
http://creativecommons.org/about/ access at 19 October 2009.
"Creative Commons a useful development in New Zealand"
www.nzipa.org.nz/SITE_Default/x-files/96312.pdf, access at 20 October 2009.
"Copyright Law,New Media and the Future"
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/2357/1/CopyrightAsiaPacific_Ch9.pdf, access at 18 October 2009.
"Does Creative Commons free your content?"
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2004/05/01/368240/index.htm,access at 20 October 2009.
Interview with Cory Doctorow, Part 1: Copyfight and Creative Commons.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3000_7-6357305-1.html access at 19 October 2009.
K Weatherall, “Would you ever recommend a Creative Commons License?” (2006) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIPLRes/2006/4.html access at 19 October 2009.
Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture (2004).
http://www.copycense.com/2007/06/on_lessig.html access at 20 October 2009.
McDonald Creative Commons: just say “CC”?
www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/articles_pdf/a06n13.pdf access at 19 October 2009
+twitter.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment