Creative Commons

Hello!

Today I would like to discuss the lecture presented by Christina Spurgeon regarding the role of Intellectual Property, Copyright law and Creative Commons licences have in affecting the creation and distribution of creative works, knowledge and information. It seems that Creative Commons “is a new system, built within Copyright law, that allows you to share your creations with others and use music, movies, images, and text online that's been marked with a Creative Commons license” (Creative Commons Organisation, 2006). Subsequently, content creators can now allow their work to be freely accessed and/or used at their discretion by parties in the public domain. For example, in 1992 music publisher Warner-Chappel Music and Island Records sued Negativland and SST Records Ltd for the unauthorised and unattributed sampling of U2's song 'I still haven't found what I'm looking for' (Negativland, cited in Rimmer, 2005). After litigation, Negativland was forced to pay U2 $25,000, but they still remained firm in their argument that:

In the isolated medium of the Internet, and in the suggestion of fair use for collage, we are being guided by new technologies to reacquaint ourselves with cultural urges toward a rejuvenated public domain, right here in the twenty-first century (Negativland, cited in Rimmer, 2005)

Negativland definitely has a point, particularly because artistic appropriation is necessary for the evolution of culture. I also believe that such agreements are vital for the longevity of innovation and creativity, so that ideas can be shared, not controlled by the agenda of commercial enterprise.

Furthermore, as opposed to Copyright Law, which can lock-up ideas from public use and access for up to seventy years, Creative Commons licences are supportive of open-source approaches, which encourage freely shared information within the ‘Networked Information Society.’ Yochai Benkler (2006) highlights that such ‘Copyleft’ IP approaches, have been used by ‘thousands of loosely networked, free software developers” to create successful programs like the “…massive operating system GNU/Linux” that have great economic potential. In the lecture, Ms Spurgeon also demonstrated the benefits of Creative Commons licences by showing a clever cartoon on the Creative Commons Organisation’s website. What I found interesting from this cartoon is that people who use other’s creative work either within theirs, or add something to it, can make money from such activities. For example, by “skipping the intermediaries”, bass guitarist Steve MacDonald from the band called the ‘Red Cross’, added bass lines to the White Stripes album, then released mp3 tracks on his band’s website. He also renamed the original White Stripes album, White Blood Cells to Red Blood Cells and released it under Copyright law to make money. Steve even ran into Jack White, from the White Stripes who gave him spoken consent to continue his creative co-authorship with them.



Additionally, I believe that commons-based approaches also support the role of the produser in collaborative works between consumers and enterprise. It allows people to take fragments of knowledge to make or produce new creative pieces of cultural information. For example, my sister Charlotte quite often creates new playlists on her iPod using downloaded music from the online file-sharing program, Limewire. Charlotte also uses these downloaded songs to burn her own music compilations on CDs. In the lecture, Christina suggested this type of ‘produser’ activity is creating tensions within current Copyright Law regulations. These tensions primarily relate to:
a)Distribution (e.g. Napster & p2p Networking); and
b)Remixing (e.g. DJ Danger Mouse, The Grey Album).

Finally, I would just like to add that Creative Commons approaches are just another outcome of the evolution of the Networked Society, which are changing the way information, creativity and innovation is distributed throughout the New Economy. I will finish this post with a poignant quote by Yochai Benkler (2006) which I think explains these changes:

"This new freedom holds great practical promise: as a dimension of individual freedom; as a platform for better democratic participation; as a medium to foster a more critical and self-reflective culture; and, in an increasingly information-dependent global economy, as a mechanism to achieve improvements in human development everywhere."

Until next time, take care and have a great day!
Em x
References

Benkler, Y. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_1.pdf (accessed May 4, 2006).

Creative Commons Organisation. 2006. Learn more about creative commons. http://creativecommons.org/learnmore (accessed May 5, 2006).

Rimmer, M. 2005. The Grey Album: Copyright Law and Digital Sampling. Media International Australia, No. 114, February, pp 40-53