CSC 379:Week 2, Group 1

Creative Commons

Overview

Provisions of Creative Commons License

Based upon copyright protections, the various forms of the creative commons licenses allow the creator of a work to declare "some rights reserved" instead of the usual "all rights reserved" associated with plain copyright. This allows the creator of the original work to grant certain permissions to those who wish to use the original work without the prospective user having to explicitly ask for permission.

There are 4 conditions that make up the different Creative Commons licenses:

Attribution

All Creative Commons licenses require attribution as specified by the original work's creator when the work is used, distributed, or modified whether in its original form or as a derivative work.

Noncommercial

The original work may only be used, distributed, or modified only for noncommercial purposes whether the work is in its original form or as a derivative work.

No derivative works

The original work may be used or distributed, but may not be used in any form of derivative work.

Share alike

Derivative works based upon the original work may only be distributed under an identical license to the original work.

These conditions are combined in various forms to make the six main Creative Commons licenses:

1. Attribution (by)
2. Attribution Non-commerical (by-nc)
3. Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike (by-nc-sa)
4. Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd)
5. Attribution No Derivatives (by-nd)
6. Attribution Share Alike (by-sa)

Links

• Creative Commons
• Creative Commons Licenses
• Creative Commons FAQ

Comparison to other common licenses

License	Advantages	Disadvantages	Ethical Considerations
Creative Commons	Creator of work can grant specific permissions for re-use of work Rights and conditions of others to use work are more clearly laid out Based on copyright	Must be careful to choose appropriate license to retain the desired amount of control over the work Must specifically designate work as licensed under Creative Commons Users of Creative Commons-licensed works must be careful when combining works with different licenses	There is a disclaimer of warranty that the individual granting the license has the right to do so Certain provisions of the license change between countries
Copyright	Automatically granted to created works, even without notice Reserves all rights for the creator	Can cause confusion, since it applies without notice of copyright Those wishing to reuse copyrighted works must seek explicit permission	Easy to violate copyright unintentionally, since notification of copyright is not required
GPL	Requires any modified and released versions to have source code available, and to stay under the GPL Maintains free software environment Based on copyright	Incompatible with closed-source (commercial) development Once something is under the GPL, it essentially must stay under GPL	"Locked-in" to GPL Forces ideology behind GPL on users of GPL'd content
Lesser GPL (LGPL)	Allows non-GPL software to link with LGPL'd libraries Less restrictive than GPL Based on copyright	Largely discouraged by GPL proponents	Allows free software to be used in proprietary projects
BSD-style Licenses	Non-copyleft - modified versions aren't required to be free, more flexible Allows modified versions to be released under alternate licenses Based on copyright	Modified versions can become incorporated into proprietary projects Original BSD license had an annoying "advertisement" clause	Free code can be made proprietary
Public Domain	Work is released from copyright Work can be used by anyone else without restriction	Any rights by the creator are forfeited	Creator retains no rights to work

Discussion Questions

Adoption of license

The Question

Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and guarantee the protections they want to extend to the public?

Creative Commons licenses are good way for people to clarify what should and should not be done with their work. It lets you pick and choose what rights to reserve. CC licensing must also be indicated, whereas copyright requires no notification. A CC license is a good way to distribute the works you have created and protect the people who download it. If you did not create the work though, you of course cannot give others the right to use it as they see fit. So unless the media outlet is all the creator of all the media they distribute, a CC won't help protect the public.

Links

• Creative Commons FAQ

Ethical considerations / Obstacles to adoption

The Question

What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?

With a Creative Commons license you can allow people to share in your creative work and add to or change things while at the same time reserving which rights you want without giving the public complete free reign over your work. This gives creators more options than normal copyright. This benefit the public but can also benefit the creator by giving them a way to get their work out to the public easier without giving up all their rights to their work.

A Creative Commons license does have some disadvantages though. Once you pick which license to use, you can't take it back. You can choose to stop licensing your work that way but anyone that already has a copy of your work under the old license can forever use it to the full extent that old license permits. Also the most restrictive Creative Commons licenses will still allow restrictive verbatim copying with attribution and non-commercial purposes. This is less than just copyright and may not be restrictive enough for widespread use within the business community. It seems Creative Commons licenses are targeted more towards giving the public greater use and currently don't suite everyone's needs.

Links

• Creative Commons
• Creative Commons Licenses
• Creative Commons FAQ

Ethical considerations of international usage

The Question

Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?

There are different project groups working to promote the adoption of Creative Commons licenses internationally. They promote but also help adapt the licenses so that they fit with a given country's laws.

An obvious ethical consideration for a international copyright system is that the creator of a work cannot protect their rights if the violator is in another country that does not wish to enforce the licenses. Also legal precedence regarding Creative Commons licenses from one country wouldn't necessarily be recognized by another country. Because the countries of the world don't have a joint judicial system there must a certain amount of trust and understanding between countries in order to protect the rights of all the creative citizens involved. For this reason I think that Creative Commons licenses are a good step in the right direction, but they aren't enough to replace international agreements regarding intellectual property.

Links

• Creative Commons
• Creative Commons FAQ