This Week In Creative Commons History

from the global-summit dept

Since I'm here at the Creative Commons 2017 Global Summit this weekend, I want to take a break from our usual Techdirt history posts and highlight the new State Of The Commons report that has been released. These annual reports are a key part of the CC community — here at Techdirt, most of our readers already understand the importance of the free culture licensing options that CC provides to creators, but it's important to step back and look at just how much content is being created and shared thanks to this system. It also provides some good insight into exactly how people are using CC licenses, through both data and (moreso than in previous years) close-up case studies. In the coming week we'll be taking a deeper dive into some of the specifics of the report and this year's summit, but for now I want to highlight a few key points — and encourage you to check out the full report for yourself.

Public Domain Dedications Are Gaining Steam

Even within the CC community itself, there is some debate as to the effectiveness and appropriateness of various licensing options like no-derivatives and non-commercial. Here at Techdirt we've always encouraged creators to strongly consider the CC0 option that puts their work fully into the public domain (or at least as fully as you can under a copyright system that provides no clear legal mechanism for doing so). In the past year, the use of CC0 has been growing, largely thanks to some specific projects like the the release of a large collection from the Metropolitan Museum of Art which I wrote about a couple months ago, and the public-domain-focused photography platform Unsplash. Hopefully the success and usefulness of these projects drives even more creators and platform operators to embrace CC0 (many content sharing platforms still don't even give uploaders the option, with CC-BY as the least restrictive license available).

Non-Commercial Licenses Are The Minority

Casting the net a little wider than pure public domain dedications, there's an even bigger trend away from the more restrictive CC options. We've discussed many times in the past how "non-commercial" is an extremely problematic requirement in an era where the lines between commercial and non- are often extremely blurry. Similarly, "no derivatives" cuts of countless avenues of positive, productive use of content, and creates even more uncertainty around exactly what is allowed — and under a harsh copyright regime with hefty penalties for infringement, uncertainty is functionally pretty close to just being blocked altogether. So it's great to see that licenses which allow remixing and commercial use are continuing to increase as a proportion of all CC licenses, reaching 65% this year.

The Commons Is Huge

In 2016, there were 1.2-billion works published with Creative Commons licenses. Though growth has slowed slightly since the count passed the one-billion mark last year, it shows no signs of stopping. Ten years ago, there were only 140-million such works.

Many of the discussions at the summit are focused on how to push these trends forwards even further, both in specific areas of interest and in the commons as a whole. We'll have closer looks at some of these ideas soon, but for now check out the full report to learn more — and get ready for the Made With Creative Commons book (a collection of examples of CC work, plus insights from artists on how they have built sustainable open culture businesses, and advice on using CC with your own work) which will be available as a free ebook on May 5th.

Filed Under: copyright, creative commons, free culture, licensing

Techdirt Reading List: The Idealist: Aaron Swartz And The Rise Of Free Culture On The Internet

from the free-culture-matters dept

We're back again with another in our weekly reading list posts of books we think our community will find interesting and thought provoking. Once again, buying the book via the Amazon links in this story also helps support Techdirt.

Two weeks ago, our book of choice was a collection of Aaron Swartz's writings. And this week, it's a new book by Justin Peters not only about Swartz, but also about the rise of free culture online, putting Swartz's ideas and actions into context, called The Idealist: Aaron Swartz and the Rise of Free Culture on the Internet. I have to admit that I had no idea this book had even come out until I heard a wonderful interview with Peters over on On the Media (and, for what it's worth, in a separate podcast, OTM's Brooke Gladstone said that the interview was so good that they struggled to figure out how to edit it down -- so I wonder if they'll release an even longer version as a "podcast extra.")

After that interview, I picked up a copy of the book and have only just started it, but am impressed already. By not just focusing on Swartz, but the wider context of copyright law and information policy over the years, it makes Swartz's focus much more understandable. I've found that, in talking about Swartz with people who aren't familiar with internet and open information culture, that they don't understand why Swartz would focus on what he did. But when put into the much broader context, it becomes much more understandable. For folks who are already knowledgeable about this world, it's still an interesting overview, potentially capturing parts that you weren't aware of, or putting other aspects into context as well. For folks with little deeper knowledge of the background of the open culture movement, it's a wonderful way to immerse yourself in the details.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, copyright, copyright policy, free culture, internet culture, justin peters

Make Art, Not Law

from the yet-another-interview dept

Crossposted from Questioncopyright.org

Filed Under: art, copyright, free culture, law, nina paley

Should Creative Commons Drop Its NonCommercial & NoDerivatives License Options?

from the a-good-question dept

While we're big fans of Creative Commons in general, for many years, we've raised questions about some of the licenses/clauses -- with the NonCommercial one being of particular concern. Almost four years ago, we worried about the very blurry line between what was commercial and what was non-commercial, and how trying to separate them out in a license could lead to serious problems. Two years ago, Nina Paley also argued about significant problems with the NonCommercial licenses, and how they actually hurt Creative Commons itself in the long run by creating branding confusion. In particular, many people think that all CC licenses bar commercial use, even though that's not the case at all.

Given that, it's interesting to see a suggestion over at the website for Students for Free Culture to take this a bit further and suggest that as Creative Commons is exploring its next round of licenses, it's time to get rid of both the NonCommercial clause and the NoDerivatives clause, arguing that they both run counter to the nature of free or open culture:

The two proprietary clauses remaining in the CC license set are NonCommercial (NC) and NoDerivatives (ND), and it is time Creative Commons stopped supporting them, too. Neither of them provide better protection against misappropriation than free culture licenses. The ND clause survives on the idea that rightsholders would not otherwise be able protect their reputation or preserve the integrity of their work, but all these fears about allowing derivatives are either permitted by fair use anyway or already protected by free licenses. The NC clause is vague and survives entirely on two even more misinformed ideas. First is rightsholders’ fear of giving up their copy monopolies on commercial use, but what would be considered commercial use is necessarily ambiguous. Is distributing the file on a website which profits from ads a commercial use? Where is the line drawn between commercial and non-commercial use? In the end, it really isn’t. It does not increase the potential profit from work and it does not provide any better protection than than Copyleft does (using the ShareAlike clause on its own, which is a free culture license).

The second idea is the misconception that NC is anti-property or anti-privatization. This comes from the name NonCommercial which implies a Good Thing (non-profit), but it’s function is counter-intuitive and completely antithetical to free culture (it retains a commercial monopoly on the work). That is what it comes down to. The NC clause is actually the closest to traditional “all rights reserved” copyright because it treats creative and intellectual expressions as private property. Maintaining commercial monopolies on cultural works only enables middlemen to continue enforcing outdated business models and the restrictions they depend on. We can only evolve beyond that if we abandon commercial monopolies, eliminating the possibility of middlemen amassing control over vast pools of our culture.

Most importantly, though, is that both clauses do not actually contribute to a shared commons. They oppose it. The fact that the ND clause prevents cultural participants from building upon works should be a clear reason to eliminate it from the Creative Commons license set. The ND clause is already the least popular, and discouraging remixing is obviously contrary to a free culture. The NonCommercial clause, on the other hand, is even more problematic because it is not so obvious in its proprietary nature. While it has always been a popular clause, it’s use has been in slow and steady decline.

Of course, as they note, the NonCommercial clause is still used pretty frequently -- though often without much thought given to why. The site suggests that perhaps those clauses could actually be rebranded or moved out of Creative Commons directly, to keep CC more focused on true open culture efforts.

It's an interesting proposal all around, and we're already seeing a fair bit of buzz about it. It will be worth watching to see if it really gets any traction.

Filed Under: creative commons, culture, derivatives, free culture, noderivatives, noncommercial, open culture

Shouldn't Free Mean The Same Thing Whether Followed By 'Culture' Or 'Software'?

from the principles dept

Adapted from a talk and slide show I presented at the Open Knowledge Conference in Berlin on July 1, 2011. --NP
Crossposted from ninapaley.com

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

-- The Free Software Definition

These are the Four Freedoms of Free Software. They are foundational principles, and they are exactly right. They have served and continue to serve the Free Software Movement very well. They place the user's freedom ahead of all other concerns. Free Software is a principled movement, but Free Culture is not – at least not so far. Why?

1. The No Derivatives (-ND) Restriction

If you tinker with software, you can improve it. You can also break it or make it worse, but the Freedom to Tinker is one of the foundational 4 Freedoms of Free Software. Your software may also be used for purposes you don't like, used by “bad people,” or even used against you; the Four Freedoms wisely counsel us to GET OVER IT.
Unfortunately, The Free Software Foundation does not extend “Freedom to Tinker” to Culture:



Cultural works released by the Free Software Foundation come with “No Derivatives” restrictions. They rationalize it here:

Works that express someone's opinion—memoirs, editorials, and so on—serve a fundamentally different purpose than works for practical use like software and documentation. Because of this, we expect them to provide recipients with a different set of permissions (notice how users are now called "recipients," and their Freedoms are now called "permissions" --NP): just the permission to copy and distribute the work verbatim. (link)

The problem with this is that it is dead wrong. You do not know what purposes your works might serve others. You do not know how works might be found “practical” by others. To claim to understand the limits of “utility” of cultural works betrays an irrational bias toward software and against all other creative work. It is anti-Art, valuing software above the rest of culture. It says coders alone are entitled to Freedom, but everyone else can suck it. Use of -ND restrictions is an unjustifiable infringement on the freedom of others.

For example, here I have violated the Free Software Foundation's No-Derivatives license:

The Four Freedoms of Free Culture:

1. The freedom to run, view, hear, read, play, perform, or otherwise attend to the Work;
2. The freedom to study, analyze, and dissect copies of the Work, and adapt it to your needs;
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor;
4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.
(link)

Without permission, I've created a derivative work: the Four Freedoms of Free Culture. Although I violated FSF's No-Derivatives license, they violated Freedoms # 2 and 4, so we're even.

1. The Non-Commercial (-NC) Restriction

The Freedom to Distribute Free Software is essential to its success. It has given rise to many for-profit businesses that benefit the larger community.

Red Hat, Canonical – would the world be better if such companies were forbidden? Would Free Software benefit from a ban on those businesses?

Yet the Cultural ecosystem is stunted by the prevalence of Non-Commercial restrictions. These maintain commercial monopolies around works, and – especially for vocational artists like me – are functionally as restrictive as unmodified copyright. Yet they are widely mislabeled “Free Culture,” or even “Copyleft.”

This is a still from the mostly excellent and popular documentary RiP: A Remix Manifesto. This film is many peoples' introduction to the term “Free Culture” and “Copyleft.” But as you can see, the Non-Commercial restriction is lumped in with actual Free license terms.

See that dollar sign with the slash in it? That means Non-Commercial restrictions, which are most definitely NOT Copyleft. (I've posted about Creative Commons' branding confusion before, but it's only gotten worse since then.) This film is itself licensed under unFree Non-Commercial restrictions. As an artist and filmmaker, I have found confusion is rampant among my creative colleagues. Some filmmakers are beginning to think the term “Free Culture” is cool, but they still want to restrict others' freedom and impose commercial monopolies on their works. The book Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig its itself not Free culure, but it is widely looked up to. It sets an unfortunate and confusing example with its Non-Commercial license. It illustrates the absence of guiding principles in the Free Culture movement.

I have spoken to many artists who insist there's “no real difference” between Non-Commercial licenses and Free alternatives. Yet these differences are well known and unacceptable in Free Software, for good reason.
Calling  Non-Commercial restrictions “Free Culture” neuters what could be an effective movement, if it only had principles.

So what do I want?

I want a PRINCIPLED Free Culture Movement.

I want Free Software people to take Culture seriously. I want a Free Culture movement guided by principles of Freedom, just as the Free Software movement is guided by principles of Freedom. I want a name I can use that means something – the phrase “Free Culture” is increasingly meaningless, as it is often applied to unFree practices, and is also the name of a famous book that is itself encumbered with Non-Commercial restrictions.

I want a Free Culture ecosystem that allows artists to make money. I want anyone to be able to accept money for their work of remixing and building on Culture – just as a trucker can accept money for driving on a road. I want money to be among the many incentives to participate in building culture. Without the freedoms to Tinker and Redistribute without restriction, there is little incentive to build on  and improve cultural works. There is little reward to help your neighbor, when you are guaranteed to lose money doing so. “Free Culture” with non-Commercial restrictions will remain a hobby for those with a surplus of time and labor, and those who only accept money from monopolists.

I want commerce without monopolies. I want people to understand the difference.

I want a Free Culture ecosystem that includes equivalents of  businesses like Red Hat and Canonical. I want cultural businesses that give back to their communities, that work with their customers instead of against them. Only if we refuse to place Non-Commercial and No-Derivatives restrictions on our works will a robust Free Culture ecosystem be able to emerge.

I want the Free Software community – those who currently best understand the Four Freedoms – to champion the rest of Culture, not just Software. I want Freedom for All.

Filed Under: free, free culture, free software, freedom

'Free' Culture Folks Discuss Models For Sustainable Creativity

from the start-thinking dept

Last year, I was invited to attend the FCForum's event on creating sustainable models for creativity in the digital age in Barcelona. Unfortunately, due to timing and conflicts, I was unable to attend, though I heard from many who were able to make it and enjoyed it. Out of that event, the FCForum has released their version 1.0 document which is described as a "How to for Sustainable Creativity." I take a bit of an issue with the title, which implicitly seems to suggest that creativity isn't naturally sustainable, and needs some sort of outside help. However, the document itself is an interesting read. It digs into what the current state of the market is in music, filmmaking, writing & publishing, fashion and software, and then looks at various economic models that can be used to support all of those. The discussions on each industry could certainly be fleshed out a bit, but there are some interesting visual representations, such as this breakdown of money going to a certain major label band: When you look at images like that, you quickly realize the problem is not that the internet is eating away at money going to musicians, but that something isn't right in how musicians make money today. Thankfully, things are changing, and the ability to seek out competition, rather than remaining a major label act, means that artists have more control and aren't forced into ridiculous deals like the one above. The paper then goes on to look at some of those economic options.

Looking over the list, there isn't anything too surprising, but it's nice to see all these ideas in one place. I'm sure some will brush this off as being nothing special, but as a 1.0 document, it really does seem like a good start in highlighting the massive spectrum of possibility for creators to make money for being creative today. Of course, what I find interesting is that this is all being put together by the folks who the legacy industry likes to (falsely) declare "pirates" who "just want stuff for free." Yet, here they are, working hard to put together a rather helpful "how to" to help creative folks earn money. What has the industry done on that front other than complain to the government and sue their fans?

Separate, but related to this, Eric Goldman points us to a similarly interesting report on sustainable business models for university presses. It could almost be an appendix to the earlier report -- though this one is much more fleshed out. It's nice to see various university publishers thinking through these business model issues, and doing a pretty thorough job of it, rather than just complaining about how everything is failing.

Filed Under: business models, creativity, culture, free culture, sustainable creativity

Some Hows and Whys of Free Culture

from the I'm-talking!-again! dept

On July 16th I gave at talk at H.O.P.E. (Hackers On Planet Earth) called "Sita Sings the Blues: a Free Culture Success Story." 9 Minutes of excerpts are below, in which I discuss why I insisted on authentic songs, what is and is not property, how software is culture, the difference between Share Alike (copyleft) and other Creative Commons licenses, why I paid to legally license the old songs, how noncommercial copyright infringement is still illegal, legal costs, benefits of audience sharing & decentralized distribution, the Sita Sings the Blues Merchandise Empire (sitasingstheblues.com/store), open-licensed merch, audience goodwill, how fans support artists, rivalrous vs. non-rivalrous goods, the Creator Endorsed Mark, migrating Flash files to open formats, gift income, commerce without monopolies, why I encourage legal sharing, and more.

For those with longer attention spans, you can watch the entire unedited hour-long talk. It includes even more topics like Minute Memes, cultural lineages, combining vs. originating, many Ramayanas, our impoverished Public Domain, understanding Free Culture, Content vs. Containers, and a more detailed income breakdown of the Sita Free Distribution Project.

Filed Under: free culture, nina paley

Even 'Free' Culture Supporters Sometimes Have Difficulty Living Up To Their Own Principles

from the Software-IS-Culture dept

In my endless attempt to explain what's wrong with Creative Commons' "non-commercial" and "no derivatives" restrictions, I came across this 2005 article by Benjamin Mako Hill:

Free Software's fundamental document is Richard Stallman's Free Software Definitions (FSD) [3]. At its core, the FSD lists four freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose;
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs;
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor;
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits;

...For the CC founders and many of CC's advocates, FOSS's success is a source of inspiration. However, despite CC's stated desire to learn from and build upon the example of the free software movement, CC sets no defined limits and promises no freedoms, no rights, and no fixed qualities. Free software's success is built upon an ethical position. CC sets no such standard.

This has led to a proliferation of harmful and incompatible CC-NC and CC-ND licensed works, mistakenly labeled "Free." Mako Hill points out that while Creative Commons pursued its goal of "Balance, compromise, and moderation," it failed to define or defend any core freedoms. Indeed, there seems to be no concern about what the "Free" in Free Culture means. To most it means, "slightly less restrictive than modern copyright." Even so, most CC licenses are more restrictive than pre-1970's copyright (because modern copyright's extended terms and more draconian punishments for infringements still apply).

Fortunately the Four Freedoms of Free Software easily apply to Culture:

the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it

the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it

the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression

the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works

That's not so hard, is it?

Ironically I was arguing with Richard Stallman last month about the Free Software Foundation's use of -ND licenses on its cultural works. A film they sponsored, Patent Absurdity, has "no derivatives" restrictions even though it could be greatly improved by editing, and clips could be highly beneficial in other works. Freedom #4 FAIL. Even the FSF fails to apply the Four Freedoms to Culture!

Software IS culture. Many in the Free Software Movement draw a false distinction between "utility" and "aesthetics," claiming software is useful and culture is just pretty or entertaining. But you never know how a cultural work might prove useful to someone else down the line. If you treat it as non-useful, and restrict it to prevent other uses, then of course it won't be useful - you've restricted its utility through an unFree license.

The Free Software community needs to learn that Software is Culture. The Free Culture community needs to learn that Free is Free.

FREE. CULTURE. It's not that hard.

Filed Under: creative commons, free culture, non-commercial