Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-eyebeam - [cc-eyebeam] Responses to Carlo and Liza

cc-eyebeam AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Neeru Paharia <neeru AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: <cc-eyebeam AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Responses to Carlo and Liza
  • Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:56:18 -0800

First a response to Carlo:

In which sense? Do I need to write "this piece is under this xyz license" to
allow copies and so on?

What I think is that these new kind of licenses can be easier applied to
products sold in a more traditional context (music, texts) than to
art-objects sold in a parallel market such as artmarket is...

How do you think to apply these licenses to a painting? Or to a NetArt
piece, which in my mind has no big differences in poetics and authorship
terms.

In truth I find CreativeCommons set of licenses very interesting ("Choose
License" tool is very helpful) but not so well applicable to an art piece...
but of course.. I'm here to learn and to know more about this subject.

carlo zanni


Carlo,

According to US law, if you do nothing, your work is protected under a full
copyright. You do not have to register, or put a little © on your work.
However, most people who want their work to be distributed under different
conditions, either more restrictive or liberal than a full copyright include
some kind of a contract. This could be from a click-wrap contract you get
when you buy a new software application (and usually never read it) that
will probably impose terms that are more restrictive than copyright, to a
Creative Commons license, that gives certain rights away.

Our licenses have been designed for most copyrightable content, including
paintings. In the same way that a band would want their song shared online,
I could see the same motives for a visual net artist. Our licenses can work
in physical space, but possibly aren't as valuable, because physical space
has greater distribution challenges as opposed to the Internet.

Response to Liza:

Liza, you mentioned Movable Type and how adoption of CC has been good
because our licenses are embedded in Movable Type. We've noticed this and
are hoping to take this model to other authoring applications. For example,
we're currently working with Adobe to write a plug-in for their Creative
Authoring Suite so that CC license info will be embedded into Photoshop,
Illustrator and PDF files. We're also hoping application in the music space
will catch on -- most coveted are the music authoring applications (Reason,
Fruityloops, Protools, etc.), and website portals where lots of free mp3s
are distributed like IUMA or Soundclick. In the case of these portals, they
are already distributing many MP3s that are legal to share, but the
terms-of-use are vague. If you have ideas for how we can contact or
approach these groups let me know.

Liza, you also mentioned that NetArt is often based on a closed systems. I
don't know much about the landscape of NetArt, but one of our main goals is
to promote collaboration between people. Hopefully our licenses will grease
the wheels by making content clearly marked for re-use, and findable under
open licensing terms. Recently we began working with some students at MIT
to build an application called "Mixter", kind of like Friendster, but for
musicians, so bands could see who remixed their music, and also have a list
of bands they remixed. This application is meant to help musicians find
each other, build off each other, and understand how things have been built
in a collaborative process. Jon Ippolito also has "the Pool," another
online collaborative project which I think will be featured in the forum at
a later point. Thanks so much.

Regards,

Neeru








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page