As a development from the talk given by Elliott Bledsoe the week before last at that workshop I have written um a few thought on the matter of open copyright.
- The person that puts something online should be responsible for its rights. This can take care of a lot of issues of allowance of information.
- New media should NOT have local copyright laws. The internet is global. New Media is global.
- Human readability in licensing is essential. Without this the problem will not actually change
- Licenses Stacking is pretty good. This means that people creating licenses can customize them quite a lot.
- Creative Commons being too structured and requiring too much Attribution. This is a major issue. CC is for dorks. There is no system to work around your own needs. This ether needs to be made more easy or absolutely impossible, like a blanket clause.
- Attribution is needed but it is ambiguous how this can happen well. In a lot of cases it is impossible to enforce and on some media it is to hard to do at all. This is a major problem, perhaps situations where attribution is not occurring could by default become commercial uses.
- Two Problems with people in this market.
- People do not implement copyright and do not care about it. These are most people who like doing something and care less about money. Passionate individuals who do not have a reliance on money.
- Those who do, do not do it nicely. This group are people who are involved in some industry and do not think enough about the users. People like Metallica and Prince for example but also many other media sources such as the New York Times.
- Look at for some notes on things of interest http://wiki.lessig.org/index.php/Main_Page
- Humanise Copyright (this might be the big issue) A huge problem with copyright now is not that it is that bad but just that it is not understood. There is nobody who really understands all the rulings in the Copyright act in the united states and this is quite problematic. This issue needs to be simplified more than anything else. So it is predictable and understandable, well known and respected.
4 comments:
it is interesting that you say that the person putting work out online should be responsible for the rights inherent in that content. if that be the case, that puts an interesting spin on the current case against virgin mobile. if you're wish were true, then the photographer should have been responsible for clearing model rights on the photograph in question. interestingly the girl in the photograph and the photographer are also suing creative commons.
obviously i can't comment on the merits of the case, but i will say that cc is copyright licences, and the cc licences shouldn't have to encompass every possible periphery legal/moral/industry requirement outside of copyright law that in implicated in a specific kind of (re)use of the
content. they are copyright licences not a do-anything-and-everything licence.
also, how is cc too structured? and how does it require too much attribution?
the term (of the aus licence) is "You must also give clear and reasonably prominent credit to (i) the Original Author (by name or pseudonym if applicable), if the name or pseudonym is supplied; and (ii) if another party or parties (eg a sponsor institute, publishing entity or journal) is designated for attribution in the copyright notice, terms of service or other reasonable means associated with the Work, such party or parties."
Hey, thanks for the comments!
Firstly I would like to say that you are far more aware of the details of CC than myself so I may well have overlooked some rather serious things in my thoughts.
I think you are right in highlighting the specific issue of the virgin mobile case however I think my intentions are more along the lines of serving small business, in which case there is a lot more incentive of contributors etc. to mind the eventuality of their content.
I agree that CC and as far as I know, all approaches to copyright are limited in scope and I think, to some degree, part of this issue that I want to see addressed and perhaps needs to be addressed for new media to develop fully is, in fact outside of the realms typically associated with copyright. Though I am not an evangelist for their ideas, the P2P Foundation have been writing some rather interesting material on this matter. I think perhaps my disregard for reality in my opinions of CC and other copyright is at least partially a result of their influence.
I think, in response to your second comment on this post, my most serious qualm in this regard is that I feel CC is not anamorphic enough. That is to say, I feel, from my limited experience and understanding, that those engaged in CC are bound in ways, that at least some times, I would rather avoid with my own content. For this reason I am party to the idea of structuring a solution around cases of engagement and being based, as little as possible on a blanket clause.
Thanks again for the comment. Do you think I am totally left field on this one?
not left field at all. part of our role is to present case for change in the cc model so i am always interested in what people think of it.
Post a Comment