Is Creative Commons anti-copyright?
Is Creative Commons anti-copyright? It is a question that is normally proffered, considering the rationale of Creative Commons licenses departs from strict control of copyright rights and leans toward the legal sharing, reuse, and remixing of copyrighted works. The reality of the matter is that Creative Commons cannot be anti-copyright — in the context towards the negation of the protection of rights under Copyright laws.
Creative Commons licensing does not try to wrestle from the copyright owner the rights thereof so as to allow the sharing of copyrighted works to the public. Neither does Creative Commons coerce anyone to share their works to the public. What Creative Commons licensing provides is an avenue for the copyright owner to allow sharing of his copyrighted works to the public through standardized forms of permission, attached to the work itself so as to release the copyright owner from individually granting licenses to those who would request permissions, if he/she desires so. Clearly then, one has to be the copyright owner to validly license (which is non-exclusive licensing) a work to others using Creative Commons licenses.
Copyright laws provide provisions tackling exclusive licensing and assignments of copyright. Permission requirements are implied in their provisions, since rights are explicitly reserved to the copyright owner, and the common mode is explicit permission requests to the copyright owner. Copyright laws, however, are silent as to the mechanism for a copyright owner to grant permissions as embedded in the work itself.
The usual resort, on this point, is for the copyright owner, who is willing to share his/her work in such a manner, would muster a few sentences as to his intent. This could prove to be vague when the meaning of such stipulations become in focus later on, especially when the manner of the use of such work becomes contentious. The problem with vague stipulations, however, is that it inures against the one who has provided for the doubt in the intent of such stipulations, i.e. ironic it may seem, doubt inures against the permission provider not the grantee.
The next option is for the permission to be drafted by a lawyer to flesh out one’s intent accurately in legal terminology. If gratuitous legal services are unavailable or the intent is to resort to commonly used permission schemes to allow interoperability of autonomous permissions, the other option is alternative licensing. Alternative licensing provides for lawyer-drafted instruments that could embody the allowance and limitations in the use of such work to flesh out such intent.
The unported/generic Creative Commons licenses use the terminologies and the tenor of copyright treaties (such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works [as amended on September 28, 1979], the Rome Convention of 1961, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 and the Universal Copyright Convention [as revised on July 24, 1971]) in their stipulations. The Philippine ported licenses use the terminologies and tenor of the Philippine Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act 8293) and the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act 386). If Creative Commons is anti-copyright, it would negate the efficacy of its licenses.
To share, reuse and remix legally; one has to observe the law, whether they may be under statutory provisions or contractual stipulations.
Creative Commons cannot be anti-copyright.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
CC can be a blessing or a curse. What do you do when the kind of art comes along that you do NOT want to be available? For example, Charles Manson is releasing a new album from jail. And its CC-ed. Is that a GOOD thing?
http://blog.limewire.com/posts/1616-Even-Charles-Manson-Digs-Creative-Commons
April 20th, 2008 at 2:52 am
Zab,
My opinion on the matter is that “unless there is a law that would prevent any expression by a ‘notorious malefactor,’ there is not much that can be done when such works would be released to the public. The CC component is merely incidental to the issue that you have presented since the reaction would still be applicable even if the work was not CC licensed. Further, CC merely provides enforceable non-exclusive licensing agreements for use by authors and/or copyright owners. It must also taken into mind that CC does not necessarily endorse the work just because the author/copyright owner has opted to use CC licenses in the distribution of his/her work.”
July 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Dear Berne,
I was looking for Creative Commons licensing and copyright issues and found your blog.
Probably you can give me a hint concerning the problem I have with reusing a picture, copyrighted under CC.
I published a photo in my blog. The photo was under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 Germany and I properly attributed it with the author’s name. Exactly as the author stated on his website. However, I did not specify in my blog that this photo is under CC.
Some month later I received a letter from the author saying that I have violated CC conditions and he wants to sue me for 150 euro.
In case I do not pay, the court proceedings will be held in Germany.
My question: is this a common behaviour of copyright owners, when CC is violated?
What is your opinion concerning this? Should I go to the court or it is better just pay this money?
Sincerely,
July 16th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Sergey,
As to your inquiry as to whether the reaction to CC term violation is “a common behavior of copyright owners (when CC is violated),” is subject to cultural and personal factors relevant to the specific author/copyright owner. It would be difficult to provide a generalization in this matter; and even if I have to muster a definitive opinion on the matter, I have to support that with empirical data, of which I have none.
A CC BY-SA license has both attribution and share-alike conditions, which would distinguish itself with CC BY license, for example. By the limited information provided in your comment, it would appear that the ShareAlike condition was not complied with inasmuch as the work was not provided a similar CC BY-SA license when it was replicated in your site (i.e. it was not specified that the photo was licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 DE).
As to the inquiry as to your next course of action, I am precluded from providing an opinion pertinent to this inasmuch as such opinion could be construed as a legal advice, and could further be construed as an unauthorized practice of law in certain jurisdictions/countries inasmuch as I am only allowed to practice law within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines.
Leaving thus the determination of the proper course of action unto you, which would be proper under the present circumstances, the least that I could proffer on this matter is this inquiry: “If the issue revolves around pecuniary considerations, would an analysis of the cost-benefit ratio as to the two apparent available options lead you to a determination of which option is best suited for you?”
I hope I was of help, even in light of existing limitations.
June 7th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I view CC as a tradeoff–giving up some intellectual property rights an author would otherwise possess over his or her work in exchange for a wider distribution of that work. What good is the copyright if no one reads it? As the article says, there is no coercion. I just don’t think the title of the article frames the debate properly. It’s not about being “anit-copyright” but, rather, conscious collaberative sharing.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
@Joe … RE: “I just don’t think the title of the article frames the debate properly. It’s not about being ‘anti-copyright’…”
I get the question “are you anti-copyright?” quite frequently before, when some people hear that I support open source and that I am affiliated with Creative Commons. Hence, the title.