Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Sigmascape1 AT cs.com]

To me, the ultimate example of a 'proprietary fork' in the world of public 
domain content is Hollywood. This is why the pd is so important. Disney can 
take the "Three Musketeers" and turn it into a "Three Mouseketeers" or 
whatever. That's their right. I have the same right to create three entirely 
new characters to plug into these slots and publish a book under a fully 
protected copyright. Another prime example of 'proprietary forks' is this 
summer's film Van Helsing. Again, toying with concepts, mixing (mashing) and 
altering certain ideas, and developing a fully copyrighted work. Thats what 
the commons is their for, and why it not only needs to be protected from the 
U.S. Congress but also re-populated with new works. Forget older works 
'falling' into the pd for now, Congress has taken away material for the next 
decade or so. We need to recognize those who create new public domain content 
(no rights reserved). Obviously, there aren't many, but things are going to 
change, and organizations like Creative Commons will be helping along the way.

Again, this is why I think it would be great to see CC feature more info 
about pd issues and content.

MLF

>Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:17:39 -0400
>From: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
>Subject: Re: Future plans
>To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
>    <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>Message-ID: <200410211717.39099.zotz AT 100jamz.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>I am not so sure about this in all areas - look at what caused "This Song" to
>be made. This can be especially dangerous where hugh amounts of copyrights
>are concentrated in the hands of a few entities.
>
>On Thursday 21 October 2004 04:52 pm, Greg London wrote:
>> Our difference in opinion hinges at the point where the
>> METAPHOR for a commons pasture or commons ocean FAILS
>> to follow a "commons" of intellectual works.
>>
>> A physical commons (pasture, ocean, etc) is a zero sum game.
>> Every barbwire fence and every drift net must take something
>> from teh community to give something to the proprietary individual.
>>
>> This is simply not the case with copyright works.
>>
>> A public domain piece of software can have an infinite number
>> of proprietary forks created, and none of those forks prevents
>> a public-domain-friendly group of individuals from adding
>> that same functionality to the public domain software and
>> re-dedicating it to the public domain.
>>
>> It IS the case with Patentable works. If you take some Public
>> Domain software and add some patented LZW compression function
>> to it, then no one can add that same functionality and make
>> it public domain.
>>
>> PATENTS treat functionality as a zero-sum-game.
>> COPYRIGHT does not.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> A copyright fork does not exploit, or set out the drift nets,
>> or whatever ugly metaphor you wish to use.
>>
>> It is true that a copyright fork does not return anything
>> to the public domain. But neither does it take anything away
>> from it either.
>>
>> A copyright fork does not TAKE ANYTHING AWAY from the public.
>> It creates something new that isn't public domain.
>>
>> There is a huge difference between the two, and it is
>> the source of the fundamental difference in our opinions.
>>
>> --
>>
>> If someone has an "atomic" project, like a bunch of photographs
>> of a city, and they want to make them Public Domain, why not?
>>
>> If wikitravel comes along and puts them into their project,
>> the project should be Copyleft/ShareAlike.
>>
>> But how is wikitravel harmed if AAA uses the picture
>> in their own travel brochure?
>>
>> You seem to want to monopolize any and all gift-economies
>> so that only other gift-economies can use them.
>>
>> I used a public domain of teh moon off of a NASA website
>> for the cover of my sci-fi book. The book is "All Rights Reserved".
>> Did anyone "lose" something because I didn't "give something back"?
>>
>> The original photos fo the moon are still public domain.
>>
>> My point being that proprietary copyright forks are not
>> a zero-sum-game. My proprietary fork of the public-domain
>> image of the moon did not take anything away from anyone.
>>
>> It added something that is proprietary, but it did not
>> take anything away from the public domain.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:11:15 +0100
>From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
>Subject: Re: Future plans
>To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
>    <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>Message-ID: <10467901.1098439875427.JavaMail.robmyers AT mac.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On Thursday, October 21, 2004, at 09:52PM, Greg London 
><email AT greglondon.com> wrote:
>
>>Our difference in opinion hinges at the point where the
>>METAPHOR for a commons pasture or commons ocean FAILS
>>to follow a "commons" of intellectual works.
>
>OK.
>
>>A physical commons (pasture, ocean, etc) is a zero sum game.
>>Every barbwire fence and every drift net must take something
>>from teh community to give something to the proprietary individual.
>
>Not immediately. The community will immediately get more wool or fish from 
>the producer who invests in the wire or the net. There may well be an 
>immediate benefit to society. But over time the capability to create new or 
>future wealth will suffer.
>
>>This is simply not the case with copyright works.
>
>IMHO it is exactly the case with copyrighted works *if* one looks downstream 
>from the immediate benefit.
>
>>A public domain piece of software can have an infinite number
>>of proprietary forks created, and none of those forks prevents
>>a public-domain-friendly group of individuals from adding
>>that same functionality to the public domain software and
>>re-dedicating it to the public domain.
>
>I'm just going to quickly nip out and add the bits of Disney's "Aladdin" 
>that aren't in the (modern) 1001 Nights to an equivalent public domain work. 
>Wish me luck. ;-)
>
>>It IS the case with Patentable works. If you take some Public
>>Domain software and add some patented LZW compression function
>>to it, then no one can add that same functionality and make
>>it public domain.
>>
>>PATENTS treat functionality as a zero-sum-game.
>>COPYRIGHT does not.
>
>Historically I would agree, but the current IP ideology is doing its 
>darndest to make it zero sum.
>
>>It is true that a copyright fork does not return anything
>>to the public domain. But neither does it take anything away
>>from it either.
>
>Not at the point of forking. But let's look at the Public Domain as an 
>iterative or cyclical system, one that benefits both society in general and 
>"proprietary" interests as well with time. A proprietary fork may well 
>provide immediate benefit. But it will deny future benefit for some time, 
>slowing the creation of value that it itself benefitted from. This is not 
>all achieved just using Copyright, but the current IP ideology isn't limited 
>to Copyright and Patents.
>
>>A copyright fork does not TAKE ANYTHING AWAY from the public.
>>It creates something new that isn't public domain.
>>
>>There is a huge difference between the two, and it is
>>the source of the fundamental difference in our opinions.
>
>IMHO this fails to treat PD as a process and does not account for denying 
>resources rather than removing resources. And in fact, IP ideology is based 
>on the idea that a PD fork (as it were) *does* take something away!
>
>>If someone has an "atomic" project, like a bunch of photographs
>>of a city, and they want to make them Public Domain, why not?
>
>They are presumably doing so to provide some small benefit. If, however, 
>doing so supports the denial of larger benefit, their action works against 
>itself.
>
>>If wikitravel comes along and puts them into their project,
>>the project should be Copyleft/ShareAlike.
>>
>>But how is wikitravel harmed if AAA uses the picture
>>in their own travel brochure?
>
>Cross-stream, atomically they are not. Downstream, they are. And if 
>wikitravel wish to crop, filter or montage the images, they'd better hope 
>they don't do so too similarly to a previous AAA version.
>
>>You seem to want to monopolize any and all gift-economies
>>so that only other gift-economies can use them.
>
>I want to stop value being syphoned off from a feedback loop whose growth 
>benefits both those inside and outside the loop.
>
>>I used a public domain of teh moon off of a NASA website
>>for the cover of my sci-fi book. The book is "All Rights Reserved".
>>Did anyone "lose" something because I didn't "give something back"?
>
>Yes. They lost a sci-fi book. ;-)
>
>Could you have afforded to pay a professional illustrator for an original 
>illustratuion for the cover? In fact, could you have afforded to commission 
>the image you have used? You have added value to something from the Public 
>Domain. If that image had not been placed in the Public Domain, your product 
>would not have had that value.
>
>Would a 19th century image of the moon done as well? Kinda a different feel. 
>Culture *is* subject to bitrot. By the time your work is out of Copyright it 
>will be the same vintage as Jules Verne's work is for us now. Now if you 
>make your work PD, the same will be true of any derivatives. At some point 
>in the tree of PD forks, the branches stop being PD.
>
>I am not talking about fairness or Left/Right ideology, I am talking about 
>growing *total* value at the fastest possible rate.
>
>>The original photos fo the moon are still public domain.
>>
>>My point being that proprietary copyright forks are not
>>a zero-sum-game. My proprietary fork of the public-domain
>>image of the moon did not take anything away from anyone.
>
>Upstream and cross-stream, no. A fence doesn't reduce last year's harvest or 
>anyone else's current flocks either.
>
>>It added something that is proprietary, but it did not
>>take anything away from the public domain.
>
>As phrased here, failing time travel nothing could. ;-)
>
>- Rob.
>
>