Creative Commons, Friend or Foe?
[by Jim Cavanaugh]
Ask most photographers about Creative Commons and they will likely respond that it is just a tool for people to use images without having to pay for them. At first glance this may seem true. Creative Commons allows people to use photographs and other intellectual property created by others in several broad categories of use. These are broad licenses where creators receive no compensation. This is the part that most photographers see as a devaluation of copyright or “giving images away for free”.
But is it? Creative Commons does offer licenses. They may not be the kind of licenses we want to grant for our work, but they are licenses none the less. What do they do? The facilitate licensing. They provide a mechanism for a copyright owner and an end user to negotiate specific uses and operate with respect for current copyright laws. In essence, the end user obtains a proper license that the copyright owner grants for the use of their work. As long as the user abides by the limitations granted in the Creative Commons license, they may use the image without fear of infringing the copyright owner’s copyrights.
While the current range of licenses available through Creative Commons does not address the licensing needs of most transactions between professional photographers and their clients, it does offer a model to build on. The strength of the model is that it is fast, easy, available and widely recognized. The traditional process of obtaining licenses from photographers tends to be slow, complicated and without standards. However, the PLUS Coalition has done tremendous work in trying to bring standardization to this process.
Technology has changed the expectations of how users expect to obtain content. Creative Commons may not meet our commercial needs and is geared to specific markets. However it is an important first step in solving the issues on how users of content can easily and quickly obtain legal rights to utilize that content.
Can Creative Commons model be a guide for us to build or utilize new infrastructure to license our work?
2 Responses to 'Creative Commons, Friend or Foe?'
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Creative Commons, Friend or Foe?'.
I have to respond that I most vehemently disagree with this post. In answer to the last question, I say “No.” We must not use CC, not even as a model, at least not if we want an above-board, honest, market-sustainable system for licensing.
I encourage photographers to read up on what is behind CC, its founder, and what its backers really stand for. I’m not generally a tinfoil-hat wearing person, but this gets very complex and, well, intriguing.
“At first glance this may seem true.”
Because it is.
“This is the part that most photographers see as a devaluation of copyright or “giving images away for free”.”
It is exactly that. And for me it is not so much that they are given away for free (personally couldn’t care less) it is that they leave control of the image to others… relinquishing that which made it special. The control of the image is passed on without any further personal involvement with that so lovingly created.
“But is it?”
Yes. Of course it is.
“They may not be the kind of licenses we want to grant for our work, but they are licenses none the less.”
That sounds suspiciously like stating we should simply sign every contract that is thrust upon us by media institutions hell-bent on removing the ownership of the quality work and making it their own. I do not accept that things simply must be done because someone else says they should. Especially when that party has no vested interest in protecting MY work and investment.
“As long as the user abides by the limitations granted in the Creative Commons license, they may use the image without fear of infringing the copyright owner’s copyrights.”
Super. So could these things be handled with a simple email/phone call and simple contract.
The guy: “Hey Don, I want to use that shot for a thingy I am working on.”
Me: “Dude, flattered. Go ahead and use it for that thingy thing, and send me a simple contract. I will sign. This is for the thingy only though, and thanks for the contact.”
This is the huge, challenging difficulty that CC solves? Really?
“The strength of the model is that it is fast, easy, available and widely recognized.”
So what? So is simply giving up… letting people just go ahead and use the work. Put it up with a statement that the images are free for the taking – have a great day… and be done with it.
Not sure when ASMP started down the “let’s make it easy, even though the basic tenant of our belief system, that the photographer is the owner of the work, is ignored or besmirched. Seems so strange to me.
“The traditional process of obtaining licenses from photographers tends to be slow, complicated and without standards.”
Well, at the risk of sounding like a luddite… so? You mean we cannot find a way to work this copyright thing that respects the ownership and vast history of this incredible art form other than simply giving up to the whims of the market? We want it to be easy to get your stuff (sniff sniff) and it is too hard so we DEMAND you make it easier, or we will simply steal – er, re-appropriate it – and call you names.
Come on.
I think that a lot could be done to steamline the process WITHOUT giving control of the image away. Without devaluing the image from the standpoint of the market. Without giving in to the corporate media giants who seem to be really excited about this process. For us. For them, not so much.
“Creative Commons may not meet our commercial needs and is geared to specific markets.”
With all due respect, when there is a transaction that does not involve value, as in, I want this, you give it to me, there is no “market”.
“Can Creative Commons model be a guide for us to build or utilize new infrastructure to license our work?”
Well, that is the question. Here’s the answer.
No. It cannot.
And ASMP, of all groups, should aim higher.