If you look carefully at the lower right corner of this page, you'll see a logo just like the one above, which reads "Some Rights Reserved." I'm used to seeing this or similar Creative Commons logo here, on many other websites I visit (especially blogs), and on my own works--but it recently occurred to me that it might not be such a common sight for others, that, indeed, some visitors to this blog might not understand exactly what a Creative Commons license is, how it's revolutionizing the Internet and the publishing industry, and what it means for writers and their audiences. The Creative Commons website has an in-depth explanation, and I suggest you check it out after reading this brief overview.
Founded in 2001 by Lawrence Lessig, Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization. It offers writers, photographers, and other artists the option of licensing their works for public consumption under terms that are less strict than international copyright laws. Each license has different terms for re-use of the work, with the most lax of these allowing for complete re-use by others for any purpose without monetary compensation toward the original artist. One of the most common licenses is the "Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives" license, which allows free distribution of material, as long as the creator is credited, the work is not used for commercial purposes by those who re-distribute it, and the work is not modified; in essence, this license states that the original work may be freely distributed. It is the strictest of the CC licenses, but it is still less strict than the stipulations that apply to an unlicensed work under copyright law, under which an artist may sue a person for copyright infringement if they distribute the artist's work, whether or not a profit is made.
Even less strict is the license I personally use on most of my poetry and short stories, and which is used on this blog: the "Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike" license, which not only allows for distribution of the original work, but allows others to create derivative works--that is, to change it, mash it up, publish it in any format, use it in whatever way they see fit--again, as long as they aren't using it for commercial purposes, they are attributing the original creator, and--in this case--are offering the derivative work under the same license, so that others can use it however they want.
Some criticize it the CC licensing system for "undermining" copyright law. Of course, these are often media giants (though, sometimes, it is an artist), whose sole interest is profit. Others, typically members of the copyleft movement, criticize it for not being liberal enough in most cases or for a host of other reasons, and I admit, it does have its faults. But the organization is a dynamic one, often doing its best to respond to the concerns of those who wish to help shape it in liberalizing copyright laws.
Whatever the criticisms, it can't be denied that CC licensing is a boon for both artists and fans. In the music industry, some artists, mostly independent, have begun licensing their work through the CC system. This allows fans to download, copy, and re-distribute the artists' songs freely, thus giving the artists a better chance to be heard. It's basically free publicity for the artists, and for the fans, it's a way to get music without worrying about the iron fist of the RIAA crushing them and their livelihoods with lawsuits requiring payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars simply for downloading a few songs.
Some might wonder how this helps the artist. Yes, it's publicity--but they're giving away their work. How can they possibly make money this way? To answer that, we have only to pick one of the many examples of successful artists who use the CC licensing system, and I can think of none better than Cory Doctorow. One of the first writers to offer his work under CC, Doctorow is perhaps the world's foremost proponent of the organization. Initially offering his works under the most conservative of the licenses, he now offers most of them under the same license as this blog, which allows for the creation of derivative works. Because of this, his short stories and novels have been distributed throughout cyberspace, have been translated into dozens of languages, turned into comic books, audiobooks, and other formats by his fans, who are happy to do so and happy to promote their works, without the fear that Doctorow will sue. He claims that this publicity has led to sales figures that he would not otherwise have seen, given the relatively small distribution of his early works. For Doctorow and many others, the Creative Commons license has bolstered their careers and garnered them greater profits, for a large percentage of readers who enjoy the online versions more often than not purchase the hardcover or paperback versions of his works. I myself have done so, and I know I'd likely never have heard of Doctorow--or at least never bothered to check out his work--had I not come across the free versions online.
So, what does this mean for us poets? Poetry rarely pays well, and most poets remain obscure throughout their lives and even after death. As Doctorow and other advocates say, the danger for authors lies not in "piracy" but in obscurity. But with the use of a Creative Commons license, it becomes easier to distribute one's works. I personally license almost 100% of my work--poems, stories, and essays alike--through CC, and though I've not become famous (yet), I'm convinced that online distribution in this manner accounts for greater publicity and higher revenue than I would ever see if I had to rely on traditional publishing methods and if readers were afraid to distribute my work freely.
I urge you, next time you come across a Creative Commons-licensed work you enjoy, to use the freedoms it gives you and the work's creator to their fullest. Help out a fellow poet, author, or artist by promoting his or her work. And, perhaps, think about licensing your own work through CC. As the organization itself points out, it does not in anyway undermine copyright law. You still own the rights to your work; you are not transferring them, merely licensing others to use your words without fear of retribution. In this age of information and the struggle to control it, freedom--not copyright law--is what is being undermined, and as poets, we have been charged with pointing out such social injustices. I think Creative Commons licensing is not only a revolution but one that poets must consider if they are to be deserving of the name.
No comments:
Post a Comment