This form is secure
Send a message
Search for members
This post is public
The "digital age" and the internet have reformed the way copyright is seen by the general population. While initially it was a tool to protect the author and publishers of the written word, with the advancement of technology it soon became a force blocking creativity and freedom. While initially copyright protected works for a reasonably brief period of time, it ended being extended to ridiculous proportions, way beyond the lifespan of it's authors.
Today's global digital communications, computers and the internet allow us to instantly and simultaneously share ideas and works in a way that was not dreamt over one century ago. And in this digital age, traditional copyright doesn't even make sense, as the act of copy is part of the process of communication. In the digital world, in order to read a book, listen to a song or see a video, you need to create a copy on your computer.
Think about it: when you look at a copyright protected photo on your computer, your browser have already downloaded a copy, something copyright prevents you to do. So, when you upload a photo to ipernity and place it under copyright, how can someone see it without breaking traditional copyright protection? Remember: copyright prevents copy.
If on the other hand your intention is to prevent unauthorized redistribution of your work, you need to extend copyright by allowing a certain type of copy, something not covered by traditional copyright. After all, copyright means all rights reserved. This is where Creative Commons enters and upgrades copyright to the 21st century.
By using a creative commons license you keep some right reserved while allowing normal and lawful use of your work over digital networks. The fundamental aspects of copyright are carried over to creative commons: authorship remains with the original author through the Attribution clause, work integrity is warranted by the No Derivatives clause and economical retribution is retained by the Non Commercial clause.
What's more important, the right to reuse the work is explicitly granted by creative commons. You can freely download the work for any personal use, you can redistribute it and, if the author explicitly allows, you can even modify it and use it as source or part of your own creative work, as long as you credit the original author.
Now, if you're still with me, let me share with you why I felt the urge to write about this subject. While looking through my contacts' beautiful images, I was pointed to a serious instance of copyright violation, in this case, plagiarism. Of course a creative commons license wouldn't prevent this from happening, a bad apple is a bad apple.
As the offending account seems to have been terminated, I can't judge on the motive behind the plagiarist but I've often seen cases where people so much love the work of others that they collect and share it. It's quite common for fans of musical groups to do this and the motive is frequently to share something you love, not steal it. The problem with copyright is you're not allowed to share or redistribute, even when you rightfully credit the author. I'm convinced that a larger awareness of creative commons would help to reduce the cases of unlawful copyright violation and give creators and consumers a lot more options.
jake makes slideshowspro says:
--
Seen in ojisanjake home page (?)
Rob Youngpro says:
Of course, if someone wanted to share my work, all they have to do is ask me. It is the polite thing to do afterall.
chromatic orbpro replies:
Rob Youngpro replies:
Anne Kunz says:
chromatic orbpro replies:
[en] Problem here is a large percentage of the population doesn't realy understand copyright. There are many who wrongly assume that "public access" means "public domain".
wdjpro says:
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en,
so basically anyone can do what they want with them, as long as they leave my name as the original author.
First, copyright law, at least in the US, is extremely complicated. And I totally agree with you that a large percentage of the population doesn't understand copyright. I am not a lawyer (IANAL) but, for fun, I've read a few books about copyright law. One point is that there is an exception in copyright law allowing you to make a copy to computer memory for the purpose of viewing digital media (photos, books, papers, etc). So that type of copying, for private use, is okay. Second, "fair use" (a US legalism but again, IAMAL) allows for a small degree of copying+redistribution. It seems that in copyright, as in life, nothing is black-and-white.
chromatic orbpro replies:
Nowadays, authors no longer depend on publishers and can distribute their own work. And one of the best ways to do this is by re-distribution, where fans pick up and pass on. This is where (traditional) copyright law just doesn't work.
As for fair use, besides being a USA thing, it's not even clear what it applies to, so when the big companies force you to take down, you need to spend lots of money and effort to challenge them.
My point is, we (authors) need to (re)take copyright from the courts and back into our hands. That's what Creative Commons is for.