Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-nz - Re: [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: Leigh Blackall <leighblackall AT gmail.com>
  • To: Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand discussion <cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-nz] CopyFarLeft: could this explain low artists adoption of CC ANZ
  • Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:15:17 +0930

Quite interesting Danyl. That last quote you used is the one I want to focus on, that large media (and small) have tended to require exclusive rights on works, for a variety of good business reasons, such as the principle of 'first to market' applied to branding, or equally the concern over brand or message dilution if others were to use the same work. This last point is no doubt the rationale as to why Wikimedia Foundation ironically retains ARR copyright on project logos, such as the Wikipedia logo.

I think my point is that it is these factors that more realistically govern commercial use, and not the NC restriction on CC licenses. And that it becomes more of an education and awareness campaign that is needed to get independent producers using the more liberal CC licenses.

But one more point, if I may... The premise of the argument, that producers are not using free copyfarleft licenses. A browse of Flickr for example, reveals a great number, and historically speaking, rapid increase in the uptake of free licenses CCBY in particular. And with YouTube only supporting CCBY, I suppose the could be said for video... Although, I have observed the opposite trends in CCmixter.org where increasing numbers of tracks are using NC, which I think is the unfortunate product of mixing works where NC is concerned.

On Jul 5, 2012 4:03 PM, "Danyl Strype" <strypey AT disintermedia.net.nz> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
cc-nz mailing list
cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-nz
Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand
http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page