Say somebody uses one of these derivatives of Sita in a commercial way,
That is unlikely to happen if it's marked -NC. The whole point of marking is to encourage re-use. You are correct that whoever mis-marks it would learn they did so in error, if they ever sued someone for re-use. But that re-use wouldn't happen, because of the mis-marking.
Excerpt (follow link for illustrations & active hypertext):
Unfortunately many useful Public Domain works are snatched right out of the Public Domain via copyrighted “derivative works”. Take the comic above. If you changed the background color on panel 3 from reddish-gray to lime green, you could say you’ve made a new work and copyright the result. I don’t mind modifications like changing colors, in fact I encourage them; but I abhor monopolies, and the thought of someone then locking up the work in this way is troubling. Certainly the source would remain in the Public Domain. But if someone else modified the source in a similar way, being likewise inspired to change the color of panel 3 to lime green, they could be sued by the jackass that copyrighted his lime-green-panel-3′ed version.
Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland is in the Public Domain, and technically you can still build on it. But if your “derivative work” too closely resembles Disney’s, they will sue your ass. The laws don’t recognize parallel evolution, nor do the tiny shriveled minds of the corporate executives who wrote them. Thus, although the exact text of Carroll’s original Alice in Wonderland is PD, it’s no longer “free” to build on thanks to corporate monopolies on derivative works.
A friend pointed out that the State gets into everything. Just because I don’t invoke repressive copy restrictions directly, doesn’t mean they don’t affect my work indirectly. Copyright affects everything, whether it’s copyrighted or not. Art is born free, but is everywhere in chains.
Another friend pointed out that my desire to “let go” is still desire. Choosing CC-o/Public Domain to experience the thrill of “selflessness” may actually be more selfish than choosing strong copyleft.
I want my art to stay free. How to achieve that under our current copyright regime, is quite a dilemma.
I think a better approach is to continue to contact journalists and users when they make this mistake.
But there are just too many people making that mistake. It's like when people start using a non-word that spreads like wildfire. What you have then is a new word, or a new use of an old word. Then you have to stop seeing it as a mistake, and accept the meaning of the word has changed. This is the brander's dilemma: Kleenex means something now that the Kleenex corporation doesn't want it to mean (for Trademark reasons). Me running around correcting everyone would put me in league with the Trademark nazis.
The phrase/name/brand "Creative Commons" is coming to mean Non-Commercial. It doesn't matter that that's incorrect - it's increasingly used to mean Non-Commercial in the popular voice. Language is a living thing, and we can't control it. It belongs to the Zeitgeist. I'm instead seeking another word.
My intentions are pretty well articulated by ShareAlike. Do whatever you want and don't restrict others from doing whatever they want.
The Non-Commercial licenses convey exactly what you wrote, "CC-NC-unless-you-give-me-a-cut". That's how they are supposed to work: like copyright, but not punishing people for making backup copies, or giving copies to their friends. And like copyright, those works end up being used a lot less because of the restrictions.
I less-than-three Dan Bull. (When I typed the less-than-three heart, Techdirt didn't accept it, thinking it was an html tag.) Anyway, Dan Bull, if you're reading this, I less-than-three U!
I read "Cory Doctorow Explains Why 'Free' Isn't His Concern; But Restrictions On Individual Rights Are" to mean Cory wrote some satirical piece explaining why he'd given up freedom in favor restricting individual rights. Maybe could be, "Cory Doctorow Explains Why 'Free' Isn't His Concern; But Individual Rights Are"
I'm really pleased with the success of this project. I hope they do a feature film next. If anyone can prove that Free Software and Free Culture are viable contenders in the "marketplace," they can.
I didn't think it was possible to misread that comic, but apparently you did.
The comic makes fun of "balance". There is no balance in copyright. Copyright works AGAINST the interests of artists and the public. Normally it's posited as something that "balances" artists with the public, as though they're on opposite sides. The comic implies that's a fallacy, and that the interests of "balanced copyright" (or any copyright) are neither artists' nor the public's.
You really have chosen an odd target to rant against.
Once again the issue is framed as finding a "balance" between two extremes - with Freedom being as undesirable an extreme as Orwellian totalitarianism. I wish I could embed comics in the comments here, but since I can't, please look at this Mimi & Eunice cartoon about "balance" - it'll be worth your 15 seconds.
On the post: Creative Commons' Branding Confusion
Re: Re: Re: GNU FDL vs CC-BY-SA
On the post: Creative Commons' Branding Confusion
Re: Follow What They Do, Not What They Say
That is unlikely to happen if it's marked -NC. The whole point of marking is to encourage re-use. You are correct that whoever mis-marks it would learn they did so in error, if they ever sued someone for re-use. But that re-use wouldn't happen, because of the mis-marking.
On the post: Creative Commons' Branding Confusion
Re: Re: Re: One is worse
For my art, concerns about monopolies around re-uses. I've agonized over this: http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/03/09/mimi-eunice/
Excerpt (follow link for illustrations & active hypertext):
I'm conflicted, obviously.
On the post: Creative Commons' Branding Confusion
Re:
On the post: Creative Commons' Branding Confusion
Re: GNU FDL vs CC-BY-SA
But there are just too many people making that mistake. It's like when people start using a non-word that spreads like wildfire. What you have then is a new word, or a new use of an old word. Then you have to stop seeing it as a mistake, and accept the meaning of the word has changed. This is the brander's dilemma: Kleenex means something now that the Kleenex corporation doesn't want it to mean (for Trademark reasons). Me running around correcting everyone would put me in league with the Trademark nazis.
The phrase/name/brand "Creative Commons" is coming to mean Non-Commercial. It doesn't matter that that's incorrect - it's increasingly used to mean Non-Commercial in the popular voice. Language is a living thing, and we can't control it. It belongs to the Zeitgeist. I'm instead seeking another word.
On the post: Creative Commons' Branding Confusion
Re: One is worse
On the post: Creative Commons' Branding Confusion
Re:
The Non-Commercial licenses convey exactly what you wrote, "CC-NC-unless-you-give-me-a-cut". That's how they are supposed to work: like copyright, but not punishing people for making backup copies, or giving copies to their friends. And like copyright, those works end up being used a lot less because of the restrictions.
On the post: Comic Book 'Pirated' On 4Chan, Author Joins Discussion... Watches Sales Soar
SWEET
On the post: Dear Dan Bull: A Case Study In Musical Innovation
less-than-three
On the post: Gene Simmons Now Wants To Throw 'Anonymous' In Jail
On the post: Officer Bubbles Sues To Find Out Identity Of Anonymous YouTubers
Re:
On the post: Did The RIAA Really Just Come Out In Support Of 'Opt-In' Copyright? [Updated]
Even opt-out would be an improvement
Of course opt-in would be much, much better.
On the post: The Atlantic Mocks Digg For Having BP As A Sponsor... In An Article Sponsored By Exxon
Mimi & Eunice
On the post: China Tries To Scrub The Internet Of All Information About Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Re:
On the post: Cory Doctorow Explains Why 'Free' Isn't His Concern; But Restrictions On Individual Rights Are
I misread the title
Anyway, go Cory!
On the post: Open Source Animated Movie Shows What Can Be Done Today
Feature film
On the post: Even Without COICA, White House Asking Registrars To Voluntarily Censor 'Infringing' Sites
CLOACA
On the post: Upcoming Comic Book By Law Professors Compares ACTA To 1984
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Balance" again...
On the post: Upcoming Comic Book By Law Professors Compares ACTA To 1984
Re: Re: "Balance" again...
The comic makes fun of "balance". There is no balance in copyright. Copyright works AGAINST the interests of artists and the public. Normally it's posited as something that "balances" artists with the public, as though they're on opposite sides. The comic implies that's a fallacy, and that the interests of "balanced copyright" (or any copyright) are neither artists' nor the public's.
You really have chosen an odd target to rant against.
On the post: Upcoming Comic Book By Law Professors Compares ACTA To 1984
"Balance" again...
Next >>