Creative Commons Smackdown
Thoroughly-unlovable techno curmudgeon John C. Dvorak doesn’t like… well, he doesn’t like stuff in general.
But his latest thing to be grumpy about is Creative Commons, resulting in this little rant over at the PC Magazine website.
This is one of the dumbest initiatives ever put forth by the tech community. I mean seriously dumb. Eye-rolling dumb on the same scale as believing the Emperor is wearing fabulous new clothes.
If you are unfamiliar with this thing, be sure to go to the Web site and see if you can figure it out. Creative Commons actually seems to be a dangerous system with almost zero benefits to the public, copyright holders, or those of us who would like a return to a shorter-length copyright law.
Of course, what John C. Dvorak really thinks matters about as much as whether or not John C. Dvorak once spit on a rock in the Arizona desert. But it’s plain to see that Dvorak has missed the point (not unusual, given that he greeted the initial release of the iPod as a fiasco that would wind up costing Apple millions).
Creative Commons is not a replacement for the Copyright as it stands – it is an easy way of marking fair use for copyrighted material.
Under the current copyright law, “fair use” (which Dvorak seems to think is somehow easily defined) is vague and at times incomprehensible. Those seeking to use copyrighted material under “fair use” can work for years to ensure that they are within their rights purely to wind up getting their asses handed to them in court because their idea of fair use is different from the copyright holder’s idea of fair use, which is in turn different from the Judge du Jour’s idea of fair use.
When you release something with a CC license, you tell the world what you automatically accept as “fair use” – which is your right as the copyright holder.
But what is truly, grossly inaccurate about Dvorak’s “Creative Commons Humbug” is this little gem.
This is nonsense. Before Creative Commons I could always ask to reuse or mirror something. And that has not changed. And I could always use excerpts for commercial or noncommercial purposes. It’s called fair use. I can still do that, but Creative Commons seems to hint that with its license means that I cannot. At least not if I’m a commercial site and the noncommercial proviso is in effect. This is a bogus suggestion, because Creative Commons does not supersede the copyright laws. In fact, the suggestion is dangerous, because if someone were sued by the Creative Commons folks over normal fair use and Creative Commons won the suit, then we’d all pay the price, as fair use would be eroded further.
First of all, Creative Commons claims no ownership of the works in question, so if Dvorak gets his little curmudgeon booty sued by anybody, it’ll be the original author and not Creative Commons.
As for Dvorak’s other statements, he says, “I have sent notes to this operation and never received a reply, in case you’re wondering.” Well, he obviously didn’t read the freakin’ FAQ.
No. All of our licenses include this language: “Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.” Fair use, the first sale doctrine, and other such limitations apply whether a copyright holder consents to them or not. That’s a good thing, and we want to let such rights be.
If I choose the noncommercial license option, can I still make money from my licensed works?
Absolutely. The “noncommercial use” condition applies only to others who use your work, not to you (the copyright holder). When other people use or trade or copy your work, they cannot do so for “monetary compensation or financial gain,” unless they get your permission.
One of our central goals is to encourage people to experiment with new ways to promote and market their work. In fact, we designed the noncommercial license option to be a tool to help people make money from their work, by allowing them to maximize the distribution of their works while keeping control of the commercial aspects of their copyright.
Take this example: You license your photograph with a noncommercial license and post it on your website. An editor at Spectacle, a for-profit magazine, comes across your photo and wants to use it for the next issue’s cover. Under the noncommercial term, the editor could copy your photograph and show it to her friends and co-workers, but she would have to strike a separate deal with you (for money, if you’re smart) to use it for the magazine.
A special note on the noncommerical provision: Under current U.S. law, file-sharing or the trading of works online is considered a commercial use—even if no money changes hands. Because we believe that file-sharing, used properly, is a powerful tool for distribution and education, all Creative Commons licenses contain a special exception for file-sharing. The trading of works online is not a commercial use, under our documents, provided it is not done for monetary gain.
And, just to re-iterate, is Dvorak gonna be sued for using CC material?
No, we will only provide the license, plus a plain-language summary and machine-readable translation of it. We’re not a law firm. We’re much like a legal self-help press that offers form documentation—at no cost—for you to use however you see fit. We cannot afford to provide any ancillary services particular to your situation and, in any case, our mission does not include providing such services.
July 22nd, 2005 at 1:51 pm
I think it is about time that Dvorak retire, before he becomes completely dimwitted.