Creative Commons (CC) founded in 2001 is a not for profit organisation that works to increase the amount of creativity available to the common person, hence Creative Commons. It was inspired by GNU (GNU's Not Unix) and their free software, also known as open source software. CC licenses create “free and legal sharing, use, repurposing and remixing” (CC, 2009). It was designed to avoid the hassle of Copyright, by creating a new license, this however can be just as painful as Copyright. CC offers six types of licenses, which move from the extreme no rights reserved to the less dramatic some rights reserved, however to fully understand CC, we must have a basic understanding of Copyright.
Copyright gives authorship to the owner, the classic all rights reserved is Copyright. For instance, if I take a photo, as soon as the shutter takes the imprint of light onto the film, it is declared mine. If I were to upload it onto the internet, people would have to seek my permission before using my photo. This is fine if I want full attribution, however, should I not care who uses my photo, constant asking for permission would eventually get annoying. This is where CC steps in, all those poor people who are sick and tired of the constant asking for permission, instead, they take out a CC license, that "integrates with Copyright laws" (CC, 2009) to have the desired effect.
Now that we understand Copyright and its flaws, we can discover the background and the same flaws in CC. In 2008 CC estimated to have 130 million CC licensed works. The only compliment that can be made about CC is that the licenses come in several versions; the lawyer version for lawsuits, the computer version for search engines, and the common persons version for the average person. The common persons license version means that literally hundreds of millions of people understand how the licenses work. CC has licenses valid in over 80 countries around the world, they do not overrule fair use. The main flaw with CC licenses is that if I take someone elses image and edit it, I am bound to their terms and conditions, stated in the license, which may force me to relicense my remixed product, so that it can have the same effect. The following video explains in laymans terms what CC licenses are.
It sounds good doesn't it? "Creative co-authorship... It's what the internet is all about" (CC, 2009). Why do we need to license everything that we create. It is your intellectual product, you know that, yet it seems that this is not enough. Hypothetically speaking, can I not feel happy, knowing that I invented the iPod, that Apple stole from me and has now earnt billions from. In the end, it comes down to money, if my intellectual products are worth money, then I want to recieve what it is worth. CC believes that in the technological world that we live in, we should be able to create something, not for money, but for the benefit of mankind, so that others can develop our ideas, and we should be able to have the choice between all rights reserved, some rights reserved and no rights reserved (CC, 2009).
CC offers some rights reserved and no rights reserved. To completely understand the licenses, I created all six licenses in Australia through CC. All licenses have one thing in common, attribution, any work I use that is not my own, I must attribute back to the author. Sounds like Copyright doesn't it. The first license is a no rights reserved license, the rest are forms of some rights reserved.
The following license allows you to share and remix, however you must attribute the work to the author or licenser.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia License.
The following license allows you to share and remix, however you must attribute the work to the author or licenser, and you must redistribute your work under the same license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License.
The following license allows you to share, however you must attribute the work to the author or licenser, and you may not make derivatives of the work.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.
The following license allows you to share, however you must attribute the work to the author or licenser, you may not make derivatives of the work, and it may not be used for commercial purposes.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.
The following license allows you to share and remix, however you must attribute the work to the author or licenser, the work or your alterations may not be used for commercial purposes, and you must redistribute the work under the same license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License.
The following license allows you to share and remix, however you must attribute the work to the author or licenser, and the work or your alterations may not be used for commercial purposes.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 Australia License.
The result is that most of the licenses are a slightly altered version of Copyright, you must attribute to the author, however some offer more strict rulings than Copyright. For example, the following license allows you to share the item, however you must attribute the work to the author or licenser, you may not make derivatives of the work, and it may not be used for commercial purposes. The only difference between this and Copyright, is that with Copyright, you cannot share the item without seeking the authors acceptance.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.
The purpose of CC, was to “skip the intermediaries”, “refine the rules of Copyright” and “exercise your Copyright” (CC, 2009). CC wasn't created to work against Copyright, but alongside with it. However, by "exercising your Copyright" through CC, you are potentially creating a new set of stricter rules that apply to any user that; remixes or shares any of your work.
While CC is an excellent concept on paper, and for the time being it seems to work, why should we bother with CC and Copyright? It is just another solution and failure to deal with Copyright on the internet. Ultimately, the choice is yours. If you think Copyright is old fashioned, or you would like to have limited or no control over your work, then CC is for you. Otherwise, don't change a thing.
References
BOYLE, J. (2008), 'The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind', Yale University Press, London.
LASTUFKA, A. & DEAN, M. W. (2009), 'Youtube: An Insiders Guide to Climbing the Charts', O'Reilly Media, Inc. United States of America.
LAURENT, A M. ST. (2004), 'Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing', O'Reilly Media, Inc. United States of America.
LESSIG, L. (2008), 'Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy', The Penguin Press, London.
LESSIG, L. (2004), 'Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity, The Penguin Press, London.
NATIONAL ACADEMIC PRESS. (2003), 'The Roll Of Scientific And Technical Data And Information In The Public Domain', National Academic Press, Washington.
WATRALL, E. & SIARTO, J. (2009), 'Head First Web Design', O'Reilly Media, Inc. United States of America.
