Why Creative Commons Licenses Help Rather Than Hinder Struggling Artists

from the exactly-wrong dept

Creative Commons (CC) has been with us for nearly a decade, so you would have thought people might understand it by now. Apparently not, judging by the title of this blog post: "How Creative Commons Can Stifle Artistic Output."

The author, George Howard, begins reasonably enough:

Now, the servicing of the muse is not compelled by money, but, rather, other impulses. However, absent some type of financial return for the artists’ work, bad things happen: artists begin to believe that their work is without value, and they stop; or, artists have to subsidize their artistic income by working a soul-crushing job that eventually diminishes their ability/desire/time to create…and they stop. In either case, art stops being created. This to me is unacceptable. I defy anyone to give me a good argument against the creation of more art.

Clearly from that description Howard is concerned mainly with artists that are relatively unknown and/or struggling, and his point about their need to make money is a fair one. But from that premise he then makes this extraordinary leap:

All of this is why I react negatively to proponents of the so-called “copyleft” movement.

He goes on:

As a bit of background, the copyleft movement originated from software development, where hobbyist programmers desired to make software free (or very cheap) in order to reduce/eliminate piracy.

That is wrong in just about every respect. Copyleft, which actually depends upon copyright in order to work, was invented in 1983 by Richard Stallman. Far from being a "hobbyist", Stallman was one of the best programmers of his day. Moreover, copyleft – specifically the GNU General Public License – was devized not to "reduce/eliminate piracy", but almost its polar opposite: to encourage and facilitate sharing.

The author's understanding of how Creative Commons licenses work seems equally shaky:

There are several justifications for an artist or songwriter to give up copyrights. The first is reasonable: that by providing a means for artists to more easily exchange rights, reduces transaction costs, and thus encourages collaboration.

Artists employing Creative Commons licenses do not "give up copyrights": they always retain them. But they grant additional permissions to others – to share, to adapt, to sell. That's not about "exchanging rights" – there's no quid pro quo required, and rarely does this result in any artistic collaboration; instead it's from a desire to see your work enjoyed or re-used more widely.

The second — that current copyright law enforces and encourages a restrictive permission culture to the detriment of the public good — is not. By this I mean that the idea that copyright somehow impedes creativity and artistic development is just plain wrong.

The idea that copyright on a work impedes "creativity and artistic development" refers to its effect not on the original creator, but on other artists, since by definition copyright is a monopoly that forbids them from building on the creations of others unless they ask permission – often expensive or impossible to obtain. Creative Commons licenses, by contrast, encourage this kind of activity by granting permissions upfront to everyone, making them particularly beneficial for those rising creators with limited means but plenty of ideas.

Despite this, Howard insists the problem lies not with copyright itself, but elsewhere:

what really impedes creativity and artistic development is the artist’s perception that his or her music is valueless/the inability of the artist to monetize his or her output.

And yet it's copyright that exacerbates this perception among struggling and still unknown artists that their art is valueless, not CC licenses. Copyright places obstacles in the way of sharing your enthusiasm for a creative work by passing it on so that it can be explored and enjoyed by others. All CC licenses permit this, and it is precisely this spreading of the word that is likely to lead to the creator becoming better known and appreciated.

Nor does making works more freely available preclude the possibility of earning money from them. Fans may buy the work in other formats – for example as a book, CD or LP as well as a download. People may want to make direct contributions to support the artist to encourage them to produce more. Techdirt has devoted many posts to the different ways in which revenue can be generated from CC-licensed goods that are made available online.

Howard concludes:

Artists tend to have — at best — an uncomfortable relationship with the monetization of their work, and need no encouragement to devalue it. Rather, artists need to be reminded that their contribution to this deeply troubled world is valuable. The exchange of value between an artist and his or her fans, is a means to allow the artist to continue creating art, and thus is crucial.

His own words emphasise that what is crucial is an "exchange of value between an artist and his or her fans". Copyright, with its ever-expanding range of restrictions and harsh punishments for those who overstep the mark – even unwittingly – hardly promotes that exchange. Creative Commons licenses are the true allies of artists who are struggling for recognition and remuneration, thanks to their broad permissions and explicit encouragement to share and enjoy, which promotes and enhances that exchange - and helps to generate that crucial financial return too.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: artists, creative commons

Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'

from the just-'cause-your-horse-is-high-doesn't-mean-your-road-is dept

Whenever you hear someone talking about "taking the high road" in regards to a controversial issue, it normally means they've got something to sell you. In the case of the Burns Auto Parts Blog (not associated with auto parts in any way), what Leslie Burns is trying to sell you is a one-way "discussion" peppered with sidelong swipes at the "anti-IP crowd."

She desperately wants to claim the high road, but she can't even make it into the second paragraph before it all falls apart:

Although it is incredibly tempting to want to, oh, smack freetards upside the head (or worse), we have to keep our fight above such tactics. Leave the bullshit attacks to them and rise above it.

"Freetards?" Really? In a post about the name-calling leveled at Jay Maisel for his legal scuffle with Andy Baio, it seems a little suspect to toss out "freetard" so quickly. But we'll give her the benefit of a doubt and see if she can still locate this "high road":

What can we do? Calmly and articulately post comments and blog posts everywhere we can, defending Maisel and intellectual property rights in general.

That's better. Everyone likes a calm, articulate discussion. Even those of us who've "agreed to disagree" can get behind that. What else should we do?

Fight against CC and the Lessigites (including groups like Public Knowledge and EFF) and call on your professional organizations to come out 100% against these IP-weakening "tools" and the groups which support them!

Holy blindside! What was that? "IP-weakening tools?" "Fight against CC?" It's odd that a post that starts out decrying the name-calling leveled against Maisel would suddenly veer into an attack on Creative Commons licensing, but I guess Leslie feels that attacking something unrelated out of the blue is clearly warranted and in no way "a bullshit attack."

Back to the debate about the debate:

Don't call names (okay... "freetard" is acceptable I think, but not much worse) but instead focus on the importance of IP in the global economy and on your personal economy. Make the case-you only can make your art if you are paid and IP rights are how that happens, etc.

Really? "Freetard" is "acceptable"? Since when? The only reason it gets a pass here at Techdirt is because we've completely co-opted it. But seeing as "freetard" is simply a modified "retard", it still offends some readers when it gets used. Check out this comment thread to see just how upsetting it can be.

Obviously, this isn't the only thing wrong with this paragraph. "You only can make your art if you are paid?" Well, Leslie, my condolences to all your readers who will be unable to enjoy the thrill of creating unless someone happens to be standing nearby waving money. I'll go inform all the artists who create for the joy of creating that they're "doing it wrong." Not only that, but these artists might also like to know that the IP laws you're so fond of are often known to hamper artists.

But Burns continues, adding insult to injury to stupidity:

These people, the freetards, the anti-strong-copyright people are tough enemies. They hide often behind anonymity. They are adept at spinning the rhetoric to make it sound like any strong copyright laws are an attack against free speech.

Yep. All of us "freetards" hide behind our "anonymity." Why, look at that Mike Masnick guy. Or Chris Rhodes. Or Timothy Geigner. Nina Paley. Marcus Carab. Glyn Moody. Bas Grasmayer. Blaise Alleyne. Take a look at our comment threads, filled with named accounts.

And as for attacking free speech? It's been pointed out here time and time again that these laws, which are being put into place to protect certain industries, are exactly that: attacks on free speech.

And what do you care about "free speech," Leslie? Because as far as I can tell, you're only interested in listening to the choir:

I will not approve any anonymous and/or freetard comments. I give you no space on my blog to "share." Don't even bother trying, okay? Thanks.

Nice. Say what you will about opposing opinions being "shouted down" or whatever here at Techdirt, but at least the opposing opinions are allowed to get in the front door. Over at the Burns blog, opposing views are locked out, which makes a complete mockery of the post's claim of taking the high road in this debate.

Having a discussion does not mean locking out dissent, Leslie. What happened to the "calm, articulate comments" you were encouraging your readers to leave? Is that something only those you agree with are welcome to do? This street doesn't run both ways?

If that's the case, then your attempt to "raise the level of debate" is every bit as disingenuous as your favored industries' attempts to "level the playing field." And your frequent use of the word "freetard" indicates that you've already written off those opposing opinions as unimportant at best and mentally challenged at worst.

Filed Under: attack, copyright, creative commons, freetards, leslie burns

Does It Make Sense For Governments To Make Their Content Creative Commons... Or Fully Public Domain?

from the they're-not-the-same dept

One of the few good things that the US government has done on the copyright front was the decision decades back that nearly all works produced by the federal government automatically go into the public domain, and don't receive any form of copyright protection. This makes perfect sense, considering the whole point of copyright law is supposed to be to encourage learning and progress, and to create incentives for that to occur. When it comes to government information, there is no such incentive necessary. I still find it odd that other countries haven't followed suit. Many countries -- especially British Commonwealth countries -- have a special form of copyright for government documents, called Crown Copyright. At times, such Crown Copyright rules have been used to censor dissent.

So, it's certainly nice to hear, via James Firth, that the UK Parliament may consider moving away from relying on Crown Copyright on the works it produces. Apparently, at a discussion concerning the "digital agenda" and making information more open, the Director of Programmes and Development at Parliamentary ICT, Richard Ware, suggested that copyright didn't make sense for Parliamentary content:

"We're not looking to make any kind of return from this content. For us it's more important to open up the information and see what people can do with it."

Now, that's sort of a vague statement, but it at least indicates the direction that they're looking in. What struck me as interesting is that Firth took this statement to mean that Parliament is looking at using Creative Commons for its content. To be honest, it's not clear to me from the coverage of what Ware said that he was, in fact, discussing Creative Commons or some alternative solution. Firth has a nice discussion about the different CC licenses and which might make most sense for Parliament, but I wonder why it doesn't just make sense to go fully public domain on such material.

As much as I like and respect Creative Commons, it does seem that, all too often, people think either that Creative Commons is the public domain or that it's a replacement for the public domain. While CC has introduced a public domain license, I think it's important not to confuse the two. And, while CC licenses certainly make sense for different creators in different arenas, I would worry that for government-produced works, it would just create confusion, as many people seem to assume all CC licenses say things that many do not.

So I'm curious: is there any reason for a government to make its works covered by Creative Commons? Or should they just go public domain? Or, since we want all bases covered, can someone explain why governments should retain some form of copyright on their works?

Filed Under: creative commons, parliament, public domain, uk

Youtube, Creative Commons And Why It's OK For You To License Your Artwork Any Way You Want

from the it's-still-yours-isn't-it dept

Youtube (finally) introduced a Creative Commons licensing option for uploaders on June 2nd, allowing users to make their original works freely available to others to remix and build upon without worrying about infringement charges down the road. At this point it's only implemented a CC-BY option, but it expects to introduce others further down the road. The key to this license is that it allows others to use these licensed videos commercially, which has proven to be a sticking point for certain parties with a vested interest in keeping uploaded contributions licensed solely to the creator.

Two dissenting opinions appeared nearly immediately. The first argument against the CC-BY license appeared at the Viralfier blog, where Scott Burke has decided that CC licensing is the worst thing ever (or "evar"), running down 6 reasons why you shouldn't use this new option:

Take another example. MasterCard wants to use your sweet snowboarding video in a worldwide advertising campaign. Great! Except you already gave the rights away, when you tagged it with a Creative Commons license. You might get a brief attribution at the bottom of the ad — but wouldn’t you also want a licensing fee?

Well sure, Scott. Who wouldn't? But it's not as if the video was doing much on its own, all locked down and whatnot. And hindsight, while having perfect 20/20 vision, is hardly what one would call a "business model." There's also exposure and the fact that the original video still belongs to you.

His next point deals specifically with the "exposure" aspect, showing how that doesn't work either:

klaatu42‘s recent hit viral video, Ultimate Dog Tease (you know, “The maple kind?”), has received 35 million views to date, and his channel has 385,000 subscribers. The source video that it’s based off of, is by IcePrincessXXIV. klaatu42 gives her about as prominent a link as you can get in the video.

How many subscribers did that translate into for IcePrincessXXIV? 600. A full 0.15% of the action.

Those are admittedly terrible numbers, but is counting subscriptions really a viable measurement? I watch tons of videos (and see tons of overlaid ads) on Youtube and I think I'm subscribed to maybe two channels. (And that's just me. Add in my family and everything goes exponential.) Does this mean that someone's successful use of your video instantly translates to jacksquat on your end? I hardly think so.

Points 3 and 4 deal with two familiar "arguments," the first being that if you give something away for free, you obviously think your artwork is worth nothing. This fallacy is hardly worth arguing but can anyone out there think of anything valuable that's being given away for free as part of a hugely successful business model? (Try Googling it.) The other has to do with your limited legal recourse in cases where your video has been misused or infringed upon. Good point. Regular copyright holders never have these problems and their legal battles run very smoothly because of that fact!

The real reason for this post emerges in point 5, where Scott encourages readers to join Viralfier's closed beta. Because Viralfier is "a startup which is developing a 'game-changing toolkit for creating and marketing viral videos.'" Hmmm. Suddenly, this advice seems a tad off. (Point 6 seems to have something to do with making an 8-bit cat "cry." Double-hmmm.)

The second opinion is more of the same, but much briefer: Won't work. Too crowded. Not interested. I ingested several grains of salt (80% of my RDA for sodium) when greeted with "ReelSEO: The Online Video Marketing Guide" upon opening this link. 

Of course, anti-CC sloganeering and misinformation-spreading is old news at this point. Another conflicted and interested party, ASCAP, spent part of last year trying to build a warchest to fight Creative Commons. The Portuguese Socialist Party attempted to outlaw CC licensing, thus making it illegal for artists to give their work away for free. Several others have also stepped up to the plate to take a swing at Creative Commons, claiming that it is "anti-artist" and that Creative Commons licensing "has put a large number of creatives out of business."

Why do they care? Or, more realistically, why do they pretend to care? 

Two reasons:

1. In their minds, art is always zero-sum. If someone takes your artwork and builds on it successfully, then it must logically follow that no one but this "someone" will ever be able to make money from that particular piece of art. Apparently, artwork can be "used up."

2. The gatekeepers and artists tied to these systems can't compete with free. This isn't necessarily the kept artists' fault. They often have no say in the matter. But because the industries aren't interested in competing with free, then the free option needs to be removed.

It gets uglier when you, as an artist, go head-to-head with this mindset. The accustations will fly. "You obviously feel your artwork is worth nothing." "Don't you care what happens to something you created?" "There's no legal recourse with Creative Commons." "You must be an idiot/untalented hack if you don't do things the way they've always been done."

I wonder why they just can't let artists distribute their art the way they want to, rather than using hyperbolic statements to FUD-up the debate or humiliate underinformed artists into doing things their way. Is creative work inherently "worthless" if you can't immediately apply a price tag to it? Why does it all boil down to "price" and "control"?

But the most irritating aspect of this so-called "debate" is the hypocrisy. All this effort on "behalf" of artists is nothing more than a completely condescending effort to save "ignorant" artists from themselves. And for what? A chance to play ball with a bunch of gatekeepers who care more for their profit margins and quarterly sales than they do about 99% of the artists they "represent?" It's one thing to run your own industry into the ground. It's quite another when you disparage other options solely to benefit your own system.

That goes for you, too, Viralifier and ReelSEO.

Filed Under: commercial use, copyright, creative commons, culture, videos
Companies: youtube

Russian President Proposes Creative Commons-Style Rules Baked Directly Into Copyright

from the interesting-move... dept

Well, this is getting interesting. Last week, we noted that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, alone among the other G8 leaders, questioned today's copyright laws, suggesting that they did not fit with the times, and pointed out that these century-old laws don't seem to fit with today's internet. Glyn Moody now points us to the news that Medvedev appears to be going even further than just condemning today's copyright laws. He's now looking to adjust Russia's copyright laws in the other direction:

In a statement released on the Kremlin's website on Thursday, Medvedev instructed the country's communications ministry to draw up amendments "aimed at allowing authors to let an unlimited number of people use their content on the basis of free licensing."

The proposed copyright system is on a par with the initiative launched by Creative Commons, a San Francisco-based non-profit organization that has created copyright licenses that allow owners to share their content for free with certain restrictions.

This could be interesting. To be honest, I'm not sure why such things need to be baked into copyright law (as we've seen, it appears to work with it being built on top of existing copyright law -- though, some question the legality of certain CC licenses). However, what will be most interesting is to see how copyright industry lobbyists and US politicians react to this. I imagine that such a move will show up in the industry... er... I mean the USTR's annual Special 301 report as evidence as to why Russia doesn't "respect" copyright law enough.

But would that really be true? Does building a more flexible, more modern copyright law really mean a lack of respect for copyright? Why wouldn't it mean a healthy respect for building a system that matches better with the times -- rather than the industry's kneejerk reaction to just keep ratcheting up the punishments, enforcements and coverage of copyright?

Filed Under: copyright, creative commons, dmitry medvedev, russia
Companies: creative commons

Off The Deep End: People Claiming That Supporting Creative Commons Is Being Anti-Creator

from the confusion dept

I'm always amazed when people accuse us here at Techdirt of being "anti-creator." Considering how much time and effort we spend showing content creators how they can make more money, and highlighting examples of cool and profitable new business models, it's one of the more bizarre criticisms. And, yet, some people seem to assume that anyone who dares to suggest any path that is not full-on extreme pro-copyright must be "anti-creator." The blog Technollama has a really stunning strange example of this, where a woman who is apparently a newly minted lawyer tells the blogger that "anyone who supports Creative Commons is by definition anti-creators' rights" followed up by this whopper:

"Creative Commons has put huge numbers of creatives out of business."

Wow. I mean, we've seen ASCAP lash out at Creative Commons before, but I really can't recall seeing someone state a position that was more ignorant. Creative Commons doesn't put any creatives out of business. It's simply a licensing choice for copyright holders. I'm at a loss as to how that can be against creators' rights at all. It's the opposite. It makes it easier for them to make use of those rights.

Filed Under: anti-creator, copyright, creative commons

Portuguese Politicians Want To Make Creative Commons Illegal

from the um,-wow dept

This is just insane. While we've talked in the past about how difficult it is to put your own work into the public domain by choice, apparently the Portuguese Socialist Party (which is currently in power) is trying to reform its copyright laws so that you can't waive or renounce your copyright on anything. As the report notes, this would effectively make Creative Commons illegal. Even worse, it would effectively make it against the law for you to try to put your own work into the public domain! The proposed law states that:

The equitable compensation of authors, artists, interpreters or executives is inalienable and non-renunciable, being null any other contractual clause in contrary.

The Ministry of Culture apparently claims that it's making this change to establish "greater and more effective protection for creators and cultural creation." Except, of course, that's not what this would do at all. Taking away the rights of content creators to free up their own works, and to either put them in the public domain or license them out in more permissive means, doesn't help content creators at all. Those who want to keep the strictest nature of copyright laws still have that ability, but those who realize the importance of sharing their works to both establish a greater reputation and to contribute more widely to culture, would no longer be able to do so. What a ridiculous suggestion.

Filed Under: copyright, creative commons, portugal

Why Creative Commons Hasn't Caught On In Serbia: They're Happier Without Copyright At All

from the freedom-is-a-nice-thing dept

This is from a few weeks ago, but I'm just getting around to it, though I found it quite fascinating. Rick Falkvinge, in discussing a recent trip to Serbia for the Share Conference, points out that Serbian content creators haven't really embraced Creative Commons, not because they prefer the full limits of copyright, but because many don't seem to like copyright at all:

He gave the story of what had happened when then-Yugoslavia was under an international embargo in 1990-1995.

Yugoslavia was allowed to import food, medicine, all the basic necessities of life, but not luxury items. Copies of digitized works counted as luxury items that weren't allowed. Importing copies of bitpatterns was not permitted, stupidly enough. It turns out, therefore, that this was not a problem. The people living there could make do themselves, copying themselves. It showed on a country-wide scale just how unnecessary the copyright monopoly is -- not just to academics studying the situation, but to the very people, too.

The result was that it was seen as a step backwards to start using Creative Commons in Serbia. It was perceived as unnecessarily restrictive and, well, unnecessary. Later, the copyright industry has been aggressive in Serbia just like everywhere else, but they have a serious uphill battle for hearts and minds.

I'd love to learn more about what happened in Serbia during that time and what happened in the aftermath as well, because I think it would be quite educational and useful in understanding some of the debates on these issues. Does anyone have any pointers to publications or people who can share more info?

Filed Under: copyright, creative commons, serbia

MPAA Hypocrisy: We Must Protect Culture! But We're Not Interested In Protecting Culture!

from the all-depends-on-the-question dept

Ah, the blatant hypocrisy of the MPAA. The organization and its supporters freely and frequently throw around bogus claims about how it's important to give it all the things it wants in terms of copyright laws and protectionism in order to protect culture. For example, just look at how MPAA VP Greg Frazier responded to a question in Brazil about Brazil's newly proposed copyright laws by saying:

Now, if you do not believe in the value of creativity, the importance of protecting it and to reward those who produce, then maybe you can justify [copyright infringement]. But in this case, you'll be doing great harm to the culture."

You see, copyright is important to protect culture. In the very next question, he's then asked about Creative Commons and how it has great support in Brazil. And his response is completely the opposite:

Well, not sure. They [supporters of Creative Commons] do not always agree with what we preach. And you're talking about democratizing culture, this is not one of our interests. It really isn't my interest.

So, got that? The MPAA says culture is important... when it makes the MPAA money. Otherwise... eh... not so important.

Of course, what this is really about is that the MPAA got spooked by proposals to Brazilian copyright law last year that would have gone quite far in terms of making a much more reasonable copyright law. It would have done away with notice-and-takedown and said that service providers would only have to remove content with a court order. It would have created penalties for inhibiting fair use or the public domain. And the scariest proposal of all to the MPAA? One suggestion to completely legalize file sharing.

Now, if we want to discuss the cultural situation in Brazil -- something Frazier really didn't want to get into -- why not point to the massive success of technobraega music in Brazil. The technobraega trend really is a wonderful example of democratized culture, where the creators of this music go to great lengths to give it away free, encouraging people to share it widely, even supporting the creation of "counterfeit" CDs to help the music spread, knowing that the more it spreads, the better they can do with live shows. Technobraega music in Brazil is a huge phenomenon, and an excellent case study in how a music industry can thrive and make money without copyright concerns, with free sharing... and do so in a way that really does "democratize" culture. Exactly what the MPAA is most afraid of.

That's because the MPAA and the big studios it represents don't want to help protect "culture" at all. They want to help protect the limitations on culture, such that they get to continue acting as a gatekeeper to culture.

Filed Under: brazil, copyright, creative commons, culture, greg frazier, mpaa
Companies: mpaa

Brazil's New Culture Minister Dumps Creative Commons From Ministry's Website

from the sharing-is-not-caring? dept

At times, we've covered the various goings-on in Brazil as the country has attempted to reform its outdated copyright laws. We've seen some very interesting proposals, including plans to punish the hindering of fair use or the public domain, and a separate proposal to explicitly legalize file sharing, in exchange for a small levy. That said, the government seems to be getting pulled in a variety of different directions on this issue, and the latest appears to be pissing off a lot of people. That's, in part, due to the new Culture Minister, Ana de Hollanda, ordering that the Creative Commons license on the Ministry's website be removed. When questioned about this, her response was:

"We will discuss copyright reform when the time comes."

Except, of course, a Creative Commons license has nothing to do with copyright reform. Keeping it up there makes no difference to copyright reform. It's too bad that it looks like some Brazilian politicians appear to be moving away from more reasonable approaches than what we have now.

Filed Under: brazil, copyright, creative commons