Creative Commons: A Creative Way to Beat the System

U.S. Copyright was founded in 1790 and used to protect scientific and other progressive creations for up to fourteen years (LIBGuides). The copyright extended numerous times the past few decades, giving creators exclusive rights for the approximate length of two lifetimes. The consequences for refusing to abide to these laws can range from substantial fines to jail time. Wishing to create a more obvious solution than contacting the owners of creative works and enduring an excruciating approval process, Creative Commons was created. Creative Commons is defined as “a nonprofit organization... [which aims to] promote copyright law to allow greater access, use, and repurposing of creative works (Media Factory)”. It was founded in 2001 with the support of the Center of the Public Domain. It had a Board of Directors with copyright reform supporter Lawrence Lessig as a member. He and the others wished to add to the definition of “fair use”, even going so far as to add the Developing Nations license. After all, what use would the copyright infringement penalty be if the "culprit" was unable to afford it?

There are several Creative Commons licenses that can be chosen by creators: Attribution (CC BY); Attribution-NoDerivs (CC BY-ND); Attribution –NonCommercial Share-alike (CC BY-NC-SA); Attribution-Share-alike (CC BY-SA); Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC); and Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) (. The following essay will be a breakdown of the licenses’ individual aspects, which are represented by letter pairs.  Attribution (BY) is used the skeleton of the more specific licenses. It allows users to do what they wish with another’s work, so long as they give the original author credit. This is including, but not limited to, distributing, remixing, and copying. It is represented by the simplified silhouette of a person. The Share-alike (SA) license gives users the opportunity to distribute derivative works under one condition: the derivative work, like its origin, must also contain a Share-alike license. This is represented by a reversed C, which is better known as the “copyleft” symbol. Non-commercial (NC) is the same as Attribution, but it prevents creators who use it to their advantage from selling or advertising their work. To identify it, look for a dollar sign with a line going through it. Finally, there is the No Derivative Works (ND) license, which is the strictest of all of them. If one’s art is under this copyright, licensees can only make verbatim copies. This license is labeled by an equals sign. Creative works-themed sites attempt to enforce these laws to prevent art theft, but it is mostly a courtesy.

Some DeviantArt users are victims of art theft due to others failing to comply with the Creative Commons law. Though most artists create their own works, whether it is drawn, sculpted, or photographed, it should be known that displaying them on websites with traffic at the millions poses a great risk. Therefore, dA gives you the option of adding a Creative Commons license, hoping to scare thieves away. It is not always successful. I have been made both witness and prey to this crime. There are vigilantes who either expose the thief on Deviants’ comments section or report them to the higher-ups. Based on my experience, the retaliation ranges from severely delayed to a simple slap on the wrist. It is understandable, since it is the art site with the most traffic, but is also worrisome for those who are affected.

There are some popular artistic methods whose position in copyright is left ambiguous. Fan-made works are prime examples. There are trillions of drawings, comics, parodies, and music videos that have not-so-subtle connections to television shows and video games.  The main concern is the commercial use of someone else’s plot and characters without permission or acknowledgment. In my opinion, these derivative works are more helpful than harmful, so long as the works are not wrongfully claimed. Without understanding the references, the jabs at the media represented would not be nearly as entertaining. They would encourage the confused audience to search for the source, therefore supporting the originators. The same applies for fan-fiction. Despite sufficient details being vital to a good story, some fan-fiction authors subconsciously assume that their readers are aware of the original plot and leave out important facts. In these situations, they add new characters, they formulate an entirely different story, or do both. Due to their growing popularity and aforementioned promoting, the creators of the originals tend to look the other way. In some cases, like Black Rock Shooter and the 50 Shades of Gray series, the derivative is made into its own original piece and exploited for profit. Therefore, despite something being a blatant portrayal of something else, it could commercialized if differentiated enough.

This essay is under the CC BY-NC-SA license. It is intended to be informative and it would be beneficial to its purpose if it was shared. Any creative derivative works will more than likely extend people’s interests. It may also encourage others who would never have thought of it previously to pursue the original work. Parodies of cartoons and recorded video game guides are constantly promoting whatever original work is shown, increasing and captivating the audience of old and new media. Which is why, I feel, that as long as nothing is being used for personal gain, these creations should be left alone.

Cites

“About the Licenses.” Creative Commons. Creative Commons. Web. 27 November 2013.

 “Copyright, Copyleft, and the Creative Commons.” LIBGuides. HUHS Library Media Center. Web.  26

November 2013.

Corbett, S. “Creative Commons History” and “Lawrence Lessig.” Creative Commons. Media Factory.      

Web. 27 November 2013

“Creative Commons license.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Web. 26 November 2013.

“History.” Creative Commons Wikia. Creative Commons. Web. 26 November 2013.