Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-nz - [Cc-nz] CopyFarLeft: could this explain low artists adoption of CC ANZ

cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand discussion

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Danyl Strype <strypey AT disintermedia.net.nz>
  • To: Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand discussion <cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Cc-nz] CopyFarLeft: could this explain low artists adoption of CC ANZ
  • Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 06:33:23 +0000

Kia ora koutou

Just had a skim of this blog post by Alan Toner from 2007, and comment
#2, a reply from Dmytri Kleiner whose essays are being discussed in
the post:
http://knowfuture.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/copyfarleft-an-anarchist-gema/

This discussion offers a potential explanation for why CC has less
adoption among individual and small group creators of music, film,
writing etc than it has in government, libraries and archives,
education and other institutional creators and trustees of cultural
works. In brief, the argument starts with the observation that the
'non-commercial' clause lacks a clear meaning, a problem that has been
debated in CC circles since its founding. Is use 'commercial' when
money changes hands? When a for-profit organisation is involved? Both?

Toner:
>> Site A offers works available for free and makes money off them by
>> monetizing public attention through advertising sales. Site B sells .avi
>> video files with printed covers at the cost of production and postage. Are
>> either, neither, or both of these sites commercial? <<

The argument is that this uncertainty makes artists cling to ARR (All
Rights Reserved)

Even where they do adopt CC, artists often use the 'non-commercial'
clause to protect their work from exploitation by for-profit media
corporations. Even though they may be quite happy for 'share-alike'
projects like Wikipedia to include their work the 'non-commercial'
clause prevents this.

The discussion offers a potential solution, a 'CopyFarLeft' license,
which revolves around making a distinction between two totally
different classes of commercial actor.

Kleiner:
>> In other words organisations where “owners” own the tools and “workers”
>> use them <<
(ie global media corporations and small business which aspire to
become like them)
AND
>> organisations where workers own the tools they employ in production. <<
(ie 'peer producers' - individuals, collectives, and co-operatives)

Note that the distinction is not between those who erect paywalls (eg
many academic journal publishers), and those who do not (eg Youtube,
PirateBay). Nor even between those who seek to profit from either
model, and those who do not; by these criteria a not-for-profit trust
which owns tools, and employs workers to use them, would be in the
same category as the media corporations.

Under a CopyFarLeft license, those in the first category would have to
negotiate a commercial license, just as they would under a CC
'non-commercial' license. However, those in the second category could
freely make commercial use of works licensed under the CopyFarLeft
license. Those wanting to use the CopyFarLeft license would join an
arts equivalent of the Free Software Foundation, which would hold the
copyrights, receive the royalties from corporations, and use them to
fund more cultural production (perhaps as grants, donations to
crowfunding campaigns, investments in Flattr etc).

For me, the most interesting thing about Kleiner's proposal is that it
is a win-win for producers in both catgories.

Kleiner:
>> It is not hard to figure out that Sony would not qualify for free access
>> under copyfarleft, and also that Sony neither wants nor expects free
>> access, since the system of paying for access is entirely acceptable to
>> them.

Why then, should we insist on granting free access to media
corporations who neither want nor expect it? Especially as I have
explained that doing so renders commons based production of media
assets economically unsustainable. <<

Some food for thought.

He mihi mahana
Strypey

--
Danyl Strype
Community Developer
Disintermedia.net.nz/strype

"freedom is participation in power.”
- Cicero

"Uncomfortable alliances are not just necessary; they reflect and
speak to the tremendous possibility of our political moment."
- Harmony Goldberg and Joshua Kahn Russell
http://www.nationofchange.org/new-radical-alliances-new-era-1337004193

"Both Marxists and Chicago-school libertarian economists can agree
that free software is the best model."
- Keith C Curtis
http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=407




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page