I make no secret that I am a fan of Creative Commons. I use it on this site, as well as other sites I’ve created, and write routinely about it here on Plagiarism Today.
Though the system has it’s flaws it, overall, is a great idea that is well-executed.
But there is a pretty severe limitation to the system, it requires the copyright holder to take action first. If the copyright holder does not proactively license his or her work under a CC license, it is locked away and there is precious little help in getting the potential user of the work permission, even if the owner might be willing.
This is why there is a need for a CC system that starts with the user and works backwards. This could be a boon not just for the sharing and reuse of copyrighted works, but also for the Creative Commons Organization itself.
Though this is just an idea, I want to lay out how such a system might work and what the benefits/limitations might be to get the conversation rolling.
How It Might Work
The problem is pretty simple. If a potential user finds a work they want to ask permission to use and it isn’t granted universally, as through a CC license, they have to ask permission. However, few people are comfortable doing that and even fewer know how to do it properly, with full legalese.
A reverse CC system could fix that by having the user pick out the license that they need/want and then emailing it in the form of a permission request to the rightsholder via email. All the user would have to do is pick the rights they need, enter some information about the work, and then send it. This could also be used in situations where the copyright holder has a CC license but the user needs more permissions for a one-time use.
Ideally, this permission request would come in a similar format to current CC licenses, with first an easy-to-understand version of the terms and then a legalese one to satisfy the lawyers. Ideally, such a request would be usable both by smaller copyright holders, who might be unfamiliar with CC licenses and big corporations who have much more standardized permissions systems.
Such a system could do a lot of good for the copyright climate on the Web and it doesn’t take much imagination to see its potential.
Why It’s Important
While there are stock letters that can achieve much of this effect, they are not intuitive and they can be very intimidating. The easier this process is made, the more likely people will ask permission and the clearer things are to the copyright holder, the more likely they will say “Yes”.
Also, since this license would be CC-branded, it would be a good chance to introduce the CC brand and licenses to people who don’t use them. It might encourage the spread of CC licenses or at least awareness of the name.
Most importantly though, it would give users the tools they need to quickly, easily and effectively ask for permission to use work. This could drastically reduce disputes about who gave permission for what and the nature of the use. By getting these requests into a more structured format, everyone can understand them better making them more clear and forcing people to spend less time on them.
It’s a win-win for both rightsholders and potential users alike.
Some Limitations
A CC-style system for asking permission would not correct the biggest problem with rights clearance, the time required to do so.
Most Creative Commons searches for a work are done for some immediate need such as an image for a written post or a clip for a video in production. Usually, in these cases, there are many similar works that can perform the task and the key is to find one that is properly licensed. A good example is looking for a CC-licensed image of a sunset for an article.
This method would only be useful in situations where a very specific work was needed and waiting was possible. If there is no specific need, there is likely enough CC-licensed or otherwise available works that you can find what you need quickly. If you can’t wait, then the project is probably dead regardless.
Such a system would also face strong issues in terms of internationalization and problems. Though the CC Organization managed to largely resolve the internationalization issues with their main product, it might be too heavy of a load to go through it again, especially for something likely to be rarely used.
Furthermore, this is heavily prone to user mistakes. It requires the user to know what work they needs, be able to find the right copyright agent and then contact them. While this is a simple task for blog posts and Flickr images, it isn’t easy for music and movies. In fact, there are many people who are paid very good money to figure out just those issues.
Despite these limitations, there are still many situations where such a permissions system would be useful, especially for students and others who are assembling larger projects over a period of time. Best of all though, it would be a way to introduce copyright holders who do not use CC licenses to the concept and bring them, even if just with one or two cases, into the fold of sharing their content.
Bottom Line
Though there would be flaws and limitations to this system, it would also fill an important gap within the current licensing system and make it possible for users to effectively initiate the licensing process.
Though Creative Commons was right to start with the system it did as it is both easier to implement and more likely to be widely used, there is still a need and an audience that is unserved by this licensing revolution that could be an opportunity for all involved.
As great as standardized licensing is, it is a one-way street without standardized permission requests as well. It’s time to empower the user too and help them open up new doors for themselves and rightsholders.
I don't understand the OP's objection, personally. There is a legal term of art for what you are proposing: that term is "making an offer." Lawyers do this all the time – the offer to contract can come from any party in the transaction or even a third party. There's nothing wrong with it and there's nothing intimidating or unfair about it.Right now, if I put up an image with CC rights (which I would never ever do, but assuming) I am, in essence, making an offer to the world – abide by my terms, and I will grant you this license. You're just saying, and quite reasonably in my opinion, that a standardized format for potential users to do the reverse – say to the rightsholder, I would like some rights to use your property, here are the terms I offer, are they acceptable? I agree that a standardized format would actually be helpful for laypersons who are just trying to do the right thing. You don't know how many times I've explained to someone that they were asking for far more rights than they needed for what they wanted to do, and that they were running the risk of insulting the rightsholder by overreaching.
I think is a very interesting proposal and point to start. Will give some thoughts. Thanks!
Thanks. It's definitely an alpha-stage idea, but everyone seems excited about the basic premise, a simple way to ask permission similar to how CC makes it easy to give it.Hopefully something will come of this.
One of the biggest problems with permissions is that people do not understand how to do it nor do they do it correctly. People don't know what rights they need or how to ask for them and the legal terms alone are enough to scare off a layperson.Yes, you are right that the potential user would be essentially drawing up a contract for the rights that they want and presenting it to rightsholder, but what the rightsholder does with that is up to them. Since it clearly and efficiently explains what they want to do with the work, it would be trivial for the rightsholder to say no or propose their own contract. Granted, contract law isn't really my area of expertise, but even if it isn't a contract, just a very clear proposal, something to start the process, it can be a huge help. Yes, you are right that there is no benefit to the rightsholder in this, and thus many may just walk away, but on the surface there isn't a lot of benefit to CC licenses themselves either. Many are comfortable with reuse of their work but just don't want to give blanket permission. A system to make asking permission easier is clearly needed and the CC Organization are in the best position to help.
I like the premise of your suggestion Jonathan. I think anything that makes it easier, more intuitive, and more common practice to request permission for use would be a good thing.I'm not sure about the actual nuts and bolts of how it could/should work, but speaking as a writer/artist, I know I'd appreciate more proactive permission requests.As you point out, a lot of folks aren't necessarily sure about how to request permission (although it does seem like it should be a simple thing to do), and some folks don't even consider asking in the first place.I love it whenever someone writes to me and asks to use my work – I try to make it easy for people to contact me. I get pretty frustrated when I see folks using my work not only without permission, but without any attribution (especially when they use it for a commercial purpose).Under your proposed model, it might potentially make it easier for someone like me to write to someone who has inquired about use, or already violated copyrights with a link and a friendly "Here is where you can go to submit a permission request", without having to educate folks top to bottom on how it's done and why. (I've had people downright argue that they have every right to copy whatever they want because hey, it's online, and they can highlight, copy, and paste with the best of 'em!)Permissions are important, cumbersome, time consuming, and yes, important. With so much sharing online, it makes sense for artists/creatives to be proactive in helping to sculpt the online "culture" in a way that facilitates the fair sharing of ideas and information in a way that does not take from each artist's efforts or goals.Good food for thought Jonathan. I'll be interested in hearing more as your idea evolves.Jade
If we understand this correctly, the "permission request" comes from the prospective user and then goes (pre-formatted) to the author (or copyright agent)? If this is so, it seems easier in theory. But from a practical standpoint, this baffles us on one point: how can a prospective user issue a contract for rights he or she doesn't own or control in the first place? Under the CC license scheme, the author of the piece gets to determine the level of rights s/he is granting, which is proper because the author has the rights to grant. The author gives a certain level of rights, in exchange for the user's promise to use only those rights according to that grant.In contrast, it sounds like the prospective user in your scheme has no rights to grant, yet is issuing a unilateral contract (as if he had those rights) with terms and conditions he wants the author (i.e. the actual rights holder, all things being equal) to agree to. If this is the case, then of course it is easier and more advantageous for the user. But in this situation, what is the author getting: a user's promise to abide by conditions to use rights he had no permission to use in the first place? This is a copyright issue (i.e. the prospective user seems to be bartering prospectively for and with rights he doesn't own or control), but seems to be also a contract issue (i.e. the prospective user hasn't produced any inducement to make a contract).Anything to facilitate permissions is worthwhile, but unless we missed something, we're unsure this plan does it as it is stated.