Comments on: The Need for a Reverse Creative Commons

By: Would you allow me to ….?

Would you allow me to ….? — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 23:55:28 +0000

[...] kind of a blog title is “PlagiarismToday”? Anyway, this post from PlagiarismToday caught my attention. It proposes the concept of “reverse creative commons”. Instead of [...]

By: StMarc

StMarc — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:09:25 +0000

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.

By: Mario Pena

Mario Pena — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:01:48 +0000

I think is a very interesting proposal and point to start. Will give some thoughts. Thanks!

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:58:13 +0000

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.

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:56:54 +0000

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.

By: Jade Blackwater

Jade Blackwater — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:48:35 +0000

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

By: Copycense

Copycense — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:11:07 +0000

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.