Creative Commons Copyright

Author
Post
Essentials Only Full Version
spindlebox
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2645
  • Joined: 2007/05/30 07:56:11
  • Location: Kansas City, MO
  • Status: offline
2009/04/07 09:50:50 (permalink)

Creative Commons Copyright

Any thoughts on this? I just started thinking about it because I got a survey from somebody in Germany I filled out.

Personally, I don't like the idea of somebody using my work without my permission. Of course, if I was ever asked, depending on the usage, I would most likely grant it.

Anyway, I've done a little research and it seems to be an idea to "foster creativity" and "promote artistic development". But it also looks to me as free reign for those who have the inability not only to create their own material, but to pay for using others works. It appears to me, to be a slippery slope for hardworking, creative artists - like myself - whom not only deserve credit for their hard work, but compensation from those who wish to use it.

I understand that those who sample others works depend on the ability to be able to use others' works, but I, as a songwriter and music creator - don't really have sympathy for those riding the coattails of others. My opinion is, if they want to use others' works, they need to not only give credit, but perhaps share profit - if any is earned - from their "efforts" in producing their "new" derivitive work - to the artists from whom they "employed" in the "creation" of their work.

This is only one man's opinion granted, and I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, but just that this is MHO. I have always created my own material, I have NEVER sampled, and therefore don't have any experience with having to use others work to express myself. I have considered doing covers in the past, but have not done so because I was unable to obtain permission. I won't do it otherwise, out of respect. And frankly, now I'm so busy with my original works the thought hasn't crossed my mind for a while.

I'm sure there are other reasons for the Creative Commons Copyright as well, but my limited research has produced limited results. I'm starting this thread to educate myself and others and open up a dialog (hopefully peaceful!) with different perspectives. I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong and consider other perspectives.

OK, GO!


PS, for anybody that cares, I called the US Copyright office this morning to check on a registration. It IS registered and has been so since June of 2008, but it takes them 17 MONTHS to officially mail out certificates at this point!! Back in the 1990's it took a couple months!
post edited by spindlebox - 2009/04/07 09:53:57


 
 
#1

3 Replies Related Threads
    foxwolfen
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 8256
    • Joined: 2008/03/29 23:41:47
    • Status: offline
    RE: Creative Commons Copyright 2009/04/07 14:58:49 (permalink)
    Well, it really is a matter of perspective.

    'Open' licensing such as the creative commons are actually designed to give the power back to the artist as today's copyright does little to protect the artist and more to protect corporate interests.

    An 'Open' license does not preclude anybody making money for their work, quite the contrary. What it does is preclude someone other than the artist "locking" the work into a personal monopoly.

    As I see it... my work is mine... always mine. It can never be owned by somebody else. Open licenses give me the ability to enforce that.

    Also, not all of us are wholly concerned about making money. There are other motivations for many people and this license protects them far better than most others. Most of my work is given away for free. But I want due credit (not cash necessarily though that is always welcome too). CC licensing ensure that occurs.

    Open licensing is not for everyone. However, most things with open licensing tend to be a lot more secure and transparent... you know what you're getting. That can never be said about proprietary licensing. Ever.

    A scientist knows more & more about less & less till he knows everything about nothing, while a philosopher knows less & less about more & more till he knows nothing about everything.

    Composers Forum
    #2
    jimmyman
    Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 2193
    • Joined: 2008/12/16 06:57:38
    • Status: offline
    RE: Creative Commons Copyright 2009/04/07 19:12:14 (permalink)


    i wish i could remark on the subject but i dont know enough to.
    feeding off ideas from others works is a good thing but duplicating
    a work for ones own purpose is not without concent.

    i can say though that you dont attend a concert for free. why?
    it cost money to do it.

    a plumber dont come to my house for free unless hes a close
    freind. maybe thats the point

    its a one to one ratio. when the numbers get big its harder to
    get into perspective.


    My soundclick
    #3
    foxwolfen
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 8256
    • Joined: 2008/03/29 23:41:47
    • Status: offline
    RE: Creative Commons Copyright 2009/04/07 19:26:40 (permalink)
    Well, lets take a practical example. Some of the artwork in the Vatican used to be public domain. But, a Japanese company who did the restoration work, managed to copyright the restorations. So, what was once a free to photograph and publish, is now not. You may not publish photos of the restored work with out permission.

    These are 500 year old works of art that should remain in the public domain.

    Now if this work was put under a creative commons or other open type license, the work and any derivative of the work would have to maintain the same open license. In many ways, it helps protect the greater good by limiting profiteering and monopoly.

    It is not, as often seems on the surface when you throw the word free into the equation, about limiting the artists ability to earn a living from his work. It is about the freedom to use it and protect it as the artist wants. It is free as in 'freedom', not free as in 'free lunch'.

    A scientist knows more & more about less & less till he knows everything about nothing, while a philosopher knows less & less about more & more till he knows nothing about everything.

    Composers Forum
    #4
    Jump to:
    © 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1