“CC licenses demonstrate an alternative and positive approach towards copyright attitude towards the sharing of (and wider access to) ‘knowledge’ and information.” Here Creative Commons proves itself to be more positive in aspect of sharing works of art as opposed to traditional copyright law. CC also allows users to gain access to an even wider audience than traditional copyright law would allow. This article goes on to say that CC licenses promote a European system of operation that translates into “Author’s rights.” What this means is that CC licenses are modeled to protect and secure the rights of the creator of any work without destroying the creativity that others can make in addition.
Suthersanen, Uma. “Creative Commons-the other way?.”Learned Publishing. 20.1 (2007): 59-68. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/deliver/connect/alpsp/09531513/v20n1/s11.pdf?expires=1382069536&id=75888552&titleid=885&accname=Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey&checksum=FA779AF2A9AD431FF945AC6C432373D8>.
The internet is a huge place, the worst part being that enforcing rules is extremely hard. The second something is taken down, whether it be a picture, video, etc., it is most likely put back up again. Copyrighted material is just very difficult to handle on the internet. That’s why Creative Commons is such a brilliant ideas. The old saying goes, “If you can’t beat them, join them.” CC takes the annoyance out of illegally taking copyrighted material by making it legal to go and use the media freely while also giving credit to the source. Creative Commons takes the fuzzy legal issues on the internet and tries to clear them up. It’s an effective system that makes the internet a much friendlier place. I always see content on youtube getting taken down because of a copyright issue. Those videos should watchable by everyone, but it still gets taken down because of legal issues. Creative Commons fixes this issue by making it legal, as long as the source is accredited. I believe that it really opens up the creative potential of the internet by making content less restrictive. This is very useful for blogs because a blog is essentially a form of media that borrows from many other types of media. A blog can incorporate pictures and video that might be copyrighted. Should the owner of that property find their work illegally published on a blog, there could be serious legal consequences. Creative Commons avoids this entirely by giving users the power to do what they please while also giving the owner credit for their work. A blogger who uses CC benefits from the fact that their name/blog is getting around since people have to accredit the source. It’s basically free publicity that will increase the popularity of the blog.
Using Creative Commons is essential when integrating someone else’s work into your own. When using a picture or a video or a passage from a book, it is difficult to give credit to the initial creator and people often forget that they even have to. With Creative Commons media though, using another person’s work pretty much automatically gives them credit as they are allowing you to use it. Since the media is already on Creative Commons, the author is already allowing you to use it and perhaps modify it to how you want to, losing the confusion of if one is allowed to do this without getting sued. Many people also illegally download media and sometimes alter it without even knowing what they are doing; after a while the initial author’s creation gets lost in a sea of modified works, making it very difficult and perhaps impossible to figure out who the initial author or creator is. Creative Commons attempts to make sure that this does not happen, since the author’s original work is always there, unaltered.
Creative Commons is not only an important tool to use as a random user; it can also be extremely useful to a blogger attempting to reach out to a larger audience. Incorporating someone’s work into your blog is beneficial for obvious, previously stated reasons: it gives the initial creator credit for his or her work and it makes sure that the blog’s author is not plagiarizing and in danger of being sued. As a creator though, Creative Commons can have a much more beneficial effect on the blog. There have been cases of movie producers and authors posting their pieces online for the rest of the Internet to view, free of charge, and these people have seen a surge in views and/or profits since doing so. A blog may not gain the author any profits, but using Creative Commons for a blog can boost the readership of it. Putting the blog on Creative Commons and allowing other’s to view the blog and possibly even use parts of the blog for their own use give the blogger a greater variety of readers and ultimately, this is the goal for any blogger.
Why is it important to use Creative Commons media? How might a blogger take advantage of creative commons as both a user and a creator?
It is important to use Creative Commons media since it protects the images of the creators. I think that it is important in terms of money-making operations. If someone else was making profit from your creation, I believe that there is a problem there that needs to be fixed. With that being said, I have to say that I personally don’t approve of use of Creative Commons due to the restriction on certain images. Since I am restricted to these, my access to more and better images are highly limited. Since the use of creative commons copyrighting is unknown to the majority of people, most of them don’t bother to use it. Because of this, the variety of images at my disposal are much less than if I just used Google images. Perhaps if everyone started to use it and it became the standard, I could correctly cite my media but as it is now, it is just too difficult to do so. This applies especially to my blog where all my images portray sarcasm, satire, and internet memes. Since the search field is narrower it is much harder to find images that portray these ideas.
There are definitely advantages of using Creative Commons copyrighting for the creators. Like previously stated, it protects the creators’ rights to stop others from using the media to make profit. Besides that, it also increases the creator’s exposure and publicity. When someone else uses the image, other people can see it and easily recognize who created it. In terms of the bloggers, I can’t really see too many advantages. I guess that it is morally right to fully cite the creator. Also with the copyright, there is less likely a chance that the creator will force you to remove the picture ( though I highly doubt the creator will be scouring the internet looking for instances where his or her picture was used).
Overall, I believe that creative commons, while a useful tool, is not something I would use frequently. It is just too difficult to find the images I need since it is so unheard of and therefore has such a narrow search field. I also believe that as long as the user isn’t using the borrowed image to make money it should be okay. At that point, there are only advantageous effects for the creator from others using the image primarily increased publicity.
It’s important to use Creative Commons in blogging so an artist can get credit for their work used in others blogs. If they are a new artist, they may be using Creative Commons to get their name out to the public. We have to put ourselves into the artists position and realize that we also would want to be credited for any work that we might create. If bloggers don’t credit the artist for a particular work in their blog, others may think it is the bloggers own work. Bloggers should always offer credible information in their posts, which would also include proper credit for any art used.
Bloggers can take advantage of using Creative Commons to help enhance the look and feel of their blog. They can add pictures, art and music to add atmosphere and dimension to the blog. Adding any of these elements to a blog’s text can keep it from being one dimensional. Readers want to see more than just words in a post. Adding artistic elements keeps things from being boring.
As creators, bloggers also want to make sure that any original work they post on their blog gets credited back to them when used out in the public domain. If they post original artwork or an original recipe, they more than likely would like it to be shared. Creative Commons helps them receive the credit that is due to them for their original work.
Creative Commons licensing I believe can benefit authors of all the arts as well as the public who wish to use the works. Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford Law Professor who developed the idea, believes with this kind of licensing, artists can still have control over their work. Artists can allow portions of their work to be used by others for any purpose, and other portions not to be used at all. They choose what they wish to have “some rights reserved rather than all rights reserved.” Under Creative Commons licensing, work is restricted to be used for non-commercial use. Lessig believes that by allowing others access to artists work, only builds upon the original work. The artists name still gets out there even though they are not the ones promoting it. And if one person likes the work they will pass it on to someone else, who will then pass it on, etc. It creates a domino effect. This also helps to further promote the author. Existing copyright laws don’t allow works to get to every place that they could. This holds the artist back from their full potential.
Artists who allow their work into the public domain are able to reach a wider audience than if they kept their work under the current copyright laws. The examples given in the article prove how this works. Cory Doctorow’s novel sold 10,000 copies in it’s first run through bookstores. By putting the novel online for free he had 500,000 downloads. He didn’t make money on the downloads but he was able to get his name out to 500,000 more readers. When he does decide to sell a novel again, he will have more people familiar with his name. A variation of this idea also worked for producers Robert Greenwald and Jim Gilliam. By releasing a 48 minute portion of their film “Outfoxed” online just after it was put into theaters, they were able to get their film introduced to more than just the people who sat in the theater to watch it. Their idea also generated sales of the film, since most who viewed the preview bought the full length version.
The article points out that Creative Commons is not just for people that we think of as artists, such as musicians and book authors. Creative Commons has an archive of what Lessig calls “artifacts of culture.” This online archive has assorted works that are accessible to the public. For instance, the Creative Commons archive has “works” such as “materials from more than 500 Massachusetts Institute of Technology classes.” Audio “works” from U.S. Supreme Court arguments since 1950 also inhabit the archives. This type of material can benefit those doing research in a particular area or those who may just have an interest in this type information. By not being able to access these materials under current copyright laws, important information as well as history may never be known. Mozilla Firefox’s plan to allow the public to search online with their browser for works of art licensed by Creative Commons, is probably the first of many other browsers who will follow in their footsteps.