Creative Commons Should Not be a Moral Issue

Creative Commons licenses are built on traditional copyright. They may be free, but they are proper legal documents and are enforced using the same proceedures as traditional copyright law. They are simply a way to allow creators to easily communicate which rights they reserve, and which rights they waive for the benefit of other creators.

There are some basic clauses that enable this:

Attribution. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work — and derivative works based upon it — but only if they give credit the way you request.

Noncommercial. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work — and derivative works based upon it — but for noncommercial purposes only.

No Derivative Works. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.

Share Alike. You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.

Interestingly, when these licenses are applied to online works, they contain meta-data that describes them and allows the works to easily be found online. This is why the CC search functionality built into Firefox is so useful - it helps  people easily find works (e.g. pictures) to re-use legally.This can enhance the pass-along (aka viral) effect of some creative works.

Lastly, the fact that these licenses are free should not be overlooked. Hiring a lawyer to license a work appropriately can be expensive and complicated. When you apply a CC license to your work, you're bringing to bear some of the most outstanding legal minds in the world today. These licenses were designed to work in today's hyperconnected world.

Comments

[Jonathan]

The licenses themselves are free, that doesn't mean that the licenses are free content licenses though. Many of the Creative Commons licenses are proprietary licenses, and so is one of the clauses listed above.

[Dave]

Right, these licenses allow certain freedoms but their fundamental premise is that some rights are reserved. Thanks for the comment.

[Gustav Bertram]

You say that the fundamental premise of these licenses is that some rights are reserved.

However, the only right that people almost universally agree on is the right to attribution. In some cases, Creative Commons don't even make non-attribution licenses available any more, because the demand for them was so low.

If there is any fundamental premise to these licenses, it is that the right to attribution is fundamental.

[Dave]

Hi Gustav. You state your comment as if you disagree, but if I understand you correctly we're on same page here.
Attribution is a right that you reserve, CC allows you to keep that while relinquishing others. i.e. Some rights reserved.
Thanks for your input.

[Paul Jacobson]

The one big caveat with CC licenses is that they are not always appropriate and there is still scope for those costly customised licenses that lawyers tend to encrypt in 256bit Legalese.

I am in the process of finishing off an article on CC licenses in the commercial world for BizCommunity so it was quite a synchronicity to find your post, Dave. Thanks!

[Dave]

Thanks for this input Paul.

Looking forward to reading your BizCom article!

BTW: I came across this article on business applications of CC called "Sharing for Fun and Profit" - old, but good:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2004/05/01/368240/index.htm

[Shane Smith]

The tone of apathy towards this tool is understandable, but circular unto itself.

In my understanding of't, the principle & requirements of CC is an idealistic sense of altruism and co-operation throughout. Based on open source principles: the greater number of participants, the better it works.

Take Ubuntu operating system, for example. I've been using it for a long time now - probably better than Windows. A fine hour for the open source community and Mark Shuttleworth.
Conservative corps naturally won't go near it, as it isn't as well rounded, supported and stable as Windows is. Again, the more users involved, the better it works. People stand back and say: ah, not many people use it - therefore I probably shouldn't. Look at all the problems. If you can bare my metaphor a tiny bit more - take a look at the many problems that Windows has that can never be fixed, simply because it can never be as strong and powerful as a blooming Ubuntu can be.

Or relate it to the Matrix. The agents operate in a world based on rules and limitations - which is why Neo will always have the advantage over them. It's about bending and breaking the rules. The rules of business, the rules of interaction, the rules of sharing and copyright.
By learning to adapt to the new boundaries and change, far more can be achieved. Viva Creative Commons!

[Dave]

Thanks for your inspirational comment Shane.

I could draw a parallel between your Matrix Agents vs Neo analogy and a lot of enterprise software vs. plain old email:
Because so much enterprise software has rigid, pre-defined ways of using it, most people tend to carry on using email, which is far more flexible. I think email's adaptability is what has made it the killer app.

Viva la Customization - especially wrt content use:)

[grants for single mothers]

Great information. Thanks a lot!

[filme online]

I have been scouring the Internet for such info and i wanted to thank you for the post. Also, just off topic, where can i get a copy of this theme? – Thanks