Creative Commons sued for deception

[Bob Olhsson]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/24/creative_commons_deception/

[Dr. Bob]

and interestingly on the same page....

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/09/24/virgin_digital_closes/

[nobby]

I've been to the creative Commons site, and they look like they're affiliated with the EFF, or may as well be. Talking about the stifling effect of traditional copyright... indeed.

Even their "not for commercial use" licence is a licence to distribute your IP without any compensation, or attribution, unless one is naive enough to think that a microscopic credit is attribution.

I prefer to stick with old fashioned copyright, thankyouverymuch

[Empty Planet]

That article is an amusing right-wing screed, but its blend of innuendo and opinion is certainly not news in the journalistic sense.

I'm not a huge fan of CC particularly, but I am indeed a fan of letting artists decide for themselves how they want their work distributed. This "news article" makes them sound like some radical element that profits from this deal. Not even remotely true. What they actually do is present an alternative model that works in conjunction with traditional copyright.

As this young woman has now painfully and publicly learned, however, greater power to choose goes hand in hand with greater responsibility, in this case to understand one's options and the reality of what one is signing one's name to.

It's easy for me to understand why such a license exists (and this is just one of many, btw). I don't know all the particulars, as I said I don't follow this particularly closely, but imagine a creative photographer who is completely unknown making his/her works available with this license. An ad agency picks it up and uses it on a national campaign -- but every time they must display the name of the photographer (yes, in small print probably), formerly unknown. A bad thing? Quite the reverse.

Licenses like these are designed to be used intelligently as part of one's personal strategy, whatever that strategy may be. That's why there are so many different licenses, of various strengths.

As far as I can see, CC just provides the opportunity for artists to specifically control what aspects of their work -- if any -- they make available, and to what kind of entity.

But, um, yes, you need to think about it and understand what you're doing.

I for one am in favor of granting artists more control over their work and how it's distributed.


Cheers.
:Coolio:

[Bob Olhsson]

Artists don't need to be granted the power that they already have which includes total control over their work and how it's distributed.

What artists do need is for people to begin calling out the EFF and their financial backers on the assault they have been making on artists' rights.

[nobby]

I'm not a huge fan of CC particularly, but I am indeed a fan of letting artists decide for themselves how they want their work distributed. This "news article" makes them sound like some radical element that profits from this deal.
The article makes it clear that Vigin Mobile is the entity that profits from the deal.


As this young woman has now painfully and publicly learned, however, greater power to choose goes hand in hand with greater responsibility, in this case to understand one's options and the reality of what one is signing one's name to.

If you read the article, then you know she didn't sign anything. Her uncle did, and it isn't greater power, it's heavily diluted power that you get under these agreements.

It's easy for me to understand why such a license exists (and this is just one of many, btw). I don't know all the particulars, as I said I don't follow this particularly closely,

Don't let that stop you from expressing your admittedly ill informed opinion.

but imagine a creative photographer who is completely unknown making his/her works available with this license. An ad agency picks it up and uses it on a national campaign -- but every time they must display the name of the photographer (yes, in small print probably), formerly unknown. A bad thing? Quite the reverse, I should think.

There is no stipulation regarding the size or legibility of the attribution. Personally, I don't think that's going to help the photographer's carreer, and he/she certainly won't get paid.

Licenses like these are designed to be used intelligently as part of one's personal strategy, whatever that strategy may be. That's why there are so many different licenses, of various strengths.

I think a couple of the licences can be useful for educational purposes (on the MILARE project I believe we used this one (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/)).

As far as I can see, CC just provides the opportunity for artists to specifically control what aspects of their work -- if any -- they make available, and to what kind of entity.

But, um, yes, you need to think about it and understand what you're doing.

I for one am in favor of granting artists more control over their work and how it's distributed.


Cheers.
:Coolio:

We always say at this site that you have to understand what you're signing. But let's be clear on this point: these licences all grant artists less control over their work and how it's distributed.

But don't take my word for it, go to their site.

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses

[Empty Planet]

Nobby, I won't even bother addressing all the misrepresentations -- not to mention insults -- in your post. I don't think you have a good grasp of CC, but you certainly have an excellent grasp of right-wing rhetorical tools. Heavens, what a nest I have stumbled into. :very happy:

Yes, Bob, they do have those rights. The CC licenses merely make the artists' wishes explicit in a way that can be immediately understood, unlike trad copyright notices.

I'm not particularly a fan of the EFF -- though your innuendo about its financial backers is noted (with respect, most non-profits have those nefarious financial backers) -- and I don't think making everything "free" is a particularly brilliant solution (I make money in this music racket too).

I'm certainly no apologist for the EFF types or, conversely, the old guard, as our society attempts to figure out solutions to these riddles.

But neither do I think that slinging mud at people who hold opposing political views is particularly noble, either.

However, this is your forum, your platform, and, with respect for your work in other fields, I'll clear out and let you use it as you see fit.


Cheers.

:Coolio:

[nobby]

Nobby, I won't even bother addressing all the misrepresentations -- not to mention insults -- in your post.

That's a good idea, because there aren't any.

I don't think you have a good grasp of CC, but you certainly
at least I visited their site. Have you?

The CC licenses merely make the artists' wishes explicit in a way that can be immediately understood, unlike trad copyright notices.

I thought that copyright notices are pretty easy to understand. YMMV. By all means, feel free to sign off on anything you like. But if you want to see what your actual rights are before you do so, visit:
http://www.copyright.gov/

But neither do I think that slinging mud at people who hold opposing political views is particularly noble, either.

Now it is I who seeks enlightenment. This is about business or the lack thereof, not politics. Had I been slinging mud, you wouldn't be able to see your monitor. You don't know my political views, but I suspect that they aren't much different from yours.

I thought being accused of being "right wing" was pretty funny... until I began to wonder if you were joking. "Right wing"... struggling songwriters, musicians, and other artists who can barely pay their bills are right wing?

Your views are welcome here. People don't always agree with my POV, and you have to accept that ppl won't always agree with yours.

[myrtlebacker]

CC is an mainly an amateur license. This should be no news to any professional, who wants to derive direct revenue from his art. Who didn't know that before ? It's also obvious that you use CC to grant other people some of your rights. That's the whole point of it.

You can tailor your CC, do expressly allow commercial use - which this advertisement clearly is - but this commercial use clause is fairly uncommon.

I think the girl just doesn't want to sue her uncle, who made the mistake.

[Bob Olhsson]

It's all kind of Orwellian.

The EFF and the tech "press" go on and on endlessly slinging mud at record labels. Then they tell artists, musicians and songwriters that they really ought to give up their right to copyright ownership in exchange for a mention in the credits because "everybody knows the labels are scumbags who will never pay you." Then they'll add "yes, musicians really ought to get paid but copyright is obviously obsolete as a business model."

[pipelineaudio]

Bob, can you please see this thread at the JREF?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95201&page=8

There are some CC guys there, pushing a rather disgusting viewpoint

[Bob Olhsson]

The argument for every single rip-off that artists, musicians and songwriters have ever been subjected to has always been the same: "Just let us use your music for free and the exposure will help advance your career."

There's very little evidence that this has actually ever been true. Yes, there are individual cases where offering a free taste can make a big difference however if the artist isn't directly involved in turning that exposure into immediate income, I'm told such exposure has rarely been worth the expense.

[pipelineaudio]

In these threads its usually

"record companies are evil, so were 'sticking it to the man' by, err....stealing from both the artist and the record company" yeah that logic dont work so well lol

or

"everyone should be paid the same, just do the british tv tax"

or

"stealing intellectual property isnt stealing"

a lot of this has to do with communist/linuxist leanings (not that all linuxers are communists of course

[Bob Olhsson]

It uses socialist rhetoric within a libertarian philosophy which is a complete contradiction or at the very least wanting to have it both ways. The fact that these folks only apply socialism to things they can't profit from themselves speaks volumes. I frankly smell focus-group chosen words being used to make the reader feel looting music is a way that they can play Robin Hood and fight "the establishment."

My point of view is that anything that harms a musician/songwriter-owned record label amounts to an assault on all artists and musicians. The fact that some labels have been scumbags does not warrant stripping artists of their equity in what they create or of stripping them of their negotiating position to seek the most advantageous distribution arrangement. Taking the artist's monopoly away from them only hands music over to exploitation by the most powerful distributors. Of course that's who I think are behind all of this.

[clicktrack]

It's all kind of Orwellian.

The EFF and the tech "press" go on and on endlessly slinging mud at record labels. Then they tell artists, musicians and songwriters that they really ought to give up their right to copyright ownership in exchange for a mention in the credits because "everybody knows the labels are scumbags who will never pay you." Then they'll add "yes, musicians really ought to get paid but copyright is obviously obsolete as a business model."

This is very interesting, Bob, and I don't disagree with you.

I, though, was quite happy with the EFF when they went after clearchannel's bogus patent (http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_03.php)w.r.t live recording and the immediate pressing of CD's.

In that case, they seemed to have the industry's best interest at heart.

Having said that, you are right...they can't simulataneously speak in favour of muso's getting paid while suggesting that the only longstanding true means that musicians have to get paid is outdated.

Very interesting thread...

[Bob Olhsson]

Going after CheapChannel's patent was a cheap publicity stunt. CheapChannel didn't have a leg to stand on and would have been shot down in flames the first time they ever tried to sue somebody anyway.

[clicktrack]

Going after CheapChannel's patent was a cheap publicity stunt. CheapChannel didn't have a leg to stand on and would have been shot down in flames the first time they ever tried to sue somebody anyway.

It was widely agreed that they didn't have a leg to stand on. The problem was that very few wanted to (or had the deep enough pockets) to tackle CC's staff of lawyers.

So, publicity stunt, possibly. They did make me personally happy with that stunt, tho ;).

The EFF's take on copyright, though definitely doesn't fit in with their concept of paying the artist...I do agree with you on that.

[chrisj]

I'm a bit at a loss here.

Who the heck uses a Creative Commons license WITHOUT understanding that it's a big give-away? When the language says 'okay for commercial use with attribution' who on earth has the gall to be surprised when a huge corporation does exactly that and pays you nothing?

Uh, guys, people have been known to sign off on bad contracts in the traditional music business too ;)

If your point is that people should not be allowed to sign off on bad contracts, it's a bit late to be saying that, and you are SO in the wrong business to point fingers. Signer beware- even if it's a 'deal memo'. Know what I'm saying?

I put out a piece of software that compels me to include its code- FreeverbCJ. Why? Because the person who ported it to Audio Unit from public domain (Freeverb is PD) ported it with the Gnu GPL, associated with the FSF.

I knew what I was getting into with that. And when (not if) I want to take the enhancements I've made to it and produce a new, even better reverb as a commercial product- I'm going to have to start from scratch, using only literally the completely original code bits I personally added (I'm thinking of a specific bit that was totally from scratch) and if I refer to ANYTHING (might not even be necessary) it will have to be the public domain Freeverb out there on the internet that can't even be compiled into an AU plugin. I can't take the existing one and go from there, not even one line unless I was the sole author and originator of the entire line of code, and even then I can never ever legally withdraw that line from the GPL-sphere if I released it publically and anyone else got it- or even if anyone else got the product built from it, I'm obliged to come up with the code if they can't get it otherwise.

KNOW WHAT YOU'RE AGREEING TO. I'm totally fine with what I just outlined. Freeverb as an AU is GPLed, just as the original Freeverb is PD. Nobody twisted my arm to modify it... but it's not up to me as far as 'taking that stuff back'. It's against the rules.

By the same token, suing the big corporation because you said they could use a photo of you commercially and they did, is against the rules. If you weaken that it's the same type of thing as weakening copyright itself. If I am not permitted to do a big stupid giveaway of my IP, exactly who is?

I'm very not impressed by a lot of thinking in this thread. Talk to me when they have the power to abolish copyright itself. Until then you're getting mad at CC for allowing people to sign off on what you consider a bad deal, and again, this is the last industry to be pointing fingers about that, it really is.

[Bob Olhsson]

The point of the lawsuit is that people deserve to be better informed by CC about what signing away their rights means. I could care less about what people sign provided what it is gets made perfectly clear to them.

[chrisj]

I agree there- assuming it wasn't clear. What boggles my mind is the idea there are people using Creative Commons and not knowing it's a huge giveaway. Is it, like, a checkbox on image hosting services? "Oh, it says creative, maybe it'll make my picture hosting better. DOH!"

I don't understand how this is happening to people who aren't already pinko commie rats :D

If it IS, then damn straight it needs to be explained better.

[Immanuel]

chrisj - the thing is, that many people newer read the stuff written in small letters (usually long winded (thorough) stuff). Do you read the full EULA every time you install some kind of new software. Most people do not.

I just read, that more than ½ of the Danish internet users don't even know, that they are not allowed to share their internet connection with their neighbours through wireles networks.

On top of that. I probably sound elitist here, but it is said in full respect. There is a great variation in human cognitive capacity out there. Many people don't see it, because they don't hang around less lucky people. Others don't see it, because they are not bright enough to understand their own limitations. If we decide, that it is ok to fuck with these people (and I am not talking about the positive meaning of the word here!) - just because they are "stupid" and therefor deserves no better - then we are IMO on a very wrong track seen from a human perspective.

Therefor it is good, when people speak up against fraud - no matter if it is leagal fraud.

Immanuel

[chrisj]

I don't see how Creative Commons could be a fraud. Seems like a concept that doesn't interest a lot of people here, but to suggest that it's a malicious way of fucking with people is kind of out of line. The question becomes, how far are you willing to go to protect people from their own naivete- and are you willing to apply the same rules in your own backyard?

[nobby]

Bob and chrisj are both right about this.

The thing is that when the people pushing CC refer to it as artists having more power over how their material is used, that's disingenuous semantics.

You are giving up power; you are giving up control.

Now, there may be cases when, say, giving up any rights to royalties on a relatively small sample of your body of work may make sense in some gamble of an internet/ viral strategy.

Personally, I'm not keen on it. In any case, having their feet held to the fire may make the CC people a bit more forthright, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

[radiationroom]

Do you read the full EULA every time you install some kind of new software.

If it's the first time installing an application, absolutely. Some apps have spyware/malware attached, and if it's mentioned in the EULA then you can bet that it's probably legal for them to include it.

Especially those "free emoticon graphics" advertised everywhere. You can bet there is a catch there. Evil!