For several reasons I would side with the Free Culture Movement, in favor of allowing creativity and remixing. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that everything should be free and available for the general population to re-create. There should be limitations and guidelines, but for the most part I think those details are being worked out. There are several sites that offer media under the creative commons license. You can find photographs, music, web design, animations, documents, and artwork that are "free" with some restrictions. As an individual that likes to be creative I would be honored if someone found something I created and then used it in their project.
Lets say I created a template for a website. It took me weeks to get all the details just right. I could see myself posting it on a server or site that offers it to members for free. Of course membership would be free, an agreement would be made that the template is free and available for any modifications. I don't need to be referenced as the creator. If you like it take it and customize it to your needs. However, there would also be an agreement that a member couldn't download the template then turn around and post the same template on another site that does make a profit from selling the template. That would be wrong. Just like it wouldn't be right for me to use a musicians (cc licensed) work for my own monetary gain just by changing the title of the song.
I would estimate that most users in some form or fashion have used content created by someone else and modified it. It happens. In several ways that does restrict creativity. What happens in the case where some artist creates something unique, yet there are vague parallels to another piece of work? Are there copyright infringements. Constantly, I hear about this lawsuit and that lawsuit about copyrights. Take JK Rowling for instance. Once something gets into the public domain it becomes challenging to keep it locked up without being remixed.
Is there anything that is completely free? Sure, I suppose there is, but I have always experienced some sort of agreement that sets restrictions on what is permissible and isn't when using something under the creative commons license. It isn't always easy to find the agreement or associated rights of the content, but its there. In most cases when I signed up for a membership with a given site I had to agree to certain terms and conditions. Then after that initial agreement the following content didn't mention anything about copyright's or creative commons license.
Excellent points. I really love the creative commons license as well. In education, the ability for students to engage creatively with inspiring work is very important. The legal tangles of protecting intellectual property are beyond my feeble brain, but I understand the importance of protecting IP. However, in the classroom, it feels like the fair use laws can stall the advancement of learning in the arts or sciences. That seems counter to the intent of "intellectual property"
ReplyDeleteSo the question I have is- so what if they take your work and repackage it and sell it? Why do you care? You weren't making money off it, so why not let someone else? They are taking nothing from you that you weren't already giving (sounds like a sappy love song... )
ReplyDeleteI've found we have an instinctive sense that using something commercially is somehow taking advantage- even when the purchasers do so willingly. Perhaps the person who repackages it is actually doing a service by making it more accessible (i.e. on a site where it's easier to find, or use or download).
Now I could understand not wanting your picture to end up on a billboard http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/11/smith-family-photo-czech-advertisement
but even then, how have they really suffered? What has it cost them? What did they give up?
I find the more I ask these questions, the more it comes down to just the way people feel...
but eager for your thoughts.
d.i.
@divb, when you stated, "They are taking nothing from you that you weren't already giving (sounds like a sappy love song... )" I would have to say it is about intentions. My intentions are to share. Share with a broader community so that the art or template could be used as a platform for others that can't create, or see something useful that they can modify for themselves, along with several other reasons. If I create something then it is "re-packaged" and sold then there is a minor conflict. If it is more accessible then it almost defeats the purpose in making it free by me. My intentions wouldn't change.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't there be a risk for those that downloaded the free version. Say the "re-packaged" version has some agreement that requires the user to cite them. Then you have two different groups of people using the same content and one group could potentially be breaking the law. Could be trouble. It just seems like, what is free or under the creative commons license should stay that way after it is put out into the open domain.