On the Web, many bloggers and other creators are comfortable with at least limited reuse of their work. Though fair use protects a lot of the actual copying that takes place, especially on blogs, many don’t mind if others go beyond that, so long as they receive credit and the use isn’t hurting their bottom line.

However, the majority of bloggers, photographers and other creators, at this time, do not provide clear content licensing terms. They instead either don’t think about the issue at all or just rely on Web conventions and common courtesy to function as a license.

Unfortunately though, not licensing your content is a poor move for many different reasons. Whether you want to use an “All Rights Reserved” license, a Creative Commons one or something else, it is important to express your licensing terms, both for your sake and for the better of the whole Web.

Simply put, not doing so hurts yourself, your visitors and, through proxy, the rest of the Web.

How it Helps You

The biggest problem with not licensing your work is that others, when they visit your site, are going to believe a variety of different things about what they can do with your content. Unfortunately, many of these beliefs will be very wrong. Some will think they can do with your content as they please, usually following the “no copyright symbol, no copyright” fallacy, others will think the opposite, that they can’t do anything with your work at all and prevent them from using your work in a way you would have likely approved.

Though it is true that others can ask permission to use your work, many will not think to, others will not want to and some may not be able to due to time constraints. Being clear and upfront is a better solution for everyone.

Also, a clear and proper license also gives you greater legal protection over your work. Without an actual license, the use of your content becomes governed by an implied license, which is open to interpretation and is determined by looking at your actions with the work. An actual license can mitigate the danger of an implied license, ensuring that your content is used exactly as you intended it.

In addition, depending on how the license is affixed to the work, it may be considered copyright management information (CMI), which adds another avenue for a lawsuit, should an infringement rise to that, and it can be especially useful when suing for infringements of works that were not registered at the time of the infringement.

In short, properly licensing your work, and ensuring that the license is affixed correctly, provides your readers with clear direction on how to use your content and gives you greater legal certainty as well as greater legal protection.

If you don’t license your work well, you are taking a gamble with your content that you may not be able to afford.

How it Helps the Web

Currently, on the Web, there are countless different strategies for how people want their content used. Some license their work to the public domain, or as near as they can get, others favor a strict “All Rights Reserved” approach. Right now, there is no “standard” Web license.

However, since most sites don’t provide an adequate license, users usually wind up creating their own rules, often based on misinformation. They develop standards for how they interact with other people’s content, regardless of what the creators want and, in many cases, what the law actually says. These standards turn into habits that, in turn, become common practice.

Since most copyright infringements on the Web go undetected and aren’t addressed, one can go quite a long ways before a copyright holder discovers what they are doing and moves to stop it. This can create a very ugly and very avoidable conflict that both makes the copyright holder look like an extremist and scare off others from using any work, even when they would have permission.

In short, no one wins with these types of copyright conflicts. The ideal default behavior for those looking for content should be to check the license first, but with such a small minority of the Web’s content licensed correctly, it is very difficult convince people to do that. Furthermore, with so many myths and misunderstandings about copyright floating around, conflicts are bound to happen.

In short, if we don’t want users to create habits that run counter to how we want our content to be used, we should express those terms clearly and enforce them professionally and reasonably. This, in turn, protects everyone. If everyone gets used to reading and following the licenses, there are fewer copyright conflicts, fewer accidental infringements and, most likely, more sharing.

However, to make that practical, a large percentage of content needs to be appropriately licensed. If we don’t, we have to realize that visitors will be coming to our sites with habits and notions that run counter to our own and, even if we do license our content, those licenses are more likely to be overlooked, ignored and missed simply because they are so rare and visitors don’t fully know what to look for.

Bottom Line

Though it may seem like Creative Commons is everywhere and as if every site has a copyright license, the simple truth is that most do not. Part of this is because many major content hosts, such as image sharing and social networking sites, don’t offer easy ways for users to license their work. Part of it though is sheer ignorance of the need or unwillingness to act.

The simple truth is that the vast majority of the work uploaded to the Web does not have any licensing terms attached to it, leaving others to guess at what the true intent of the copyright holder is. This, in turn, has created a lot of problems for the Web.

Personally, I’ve always been a big fan of Creative Commons licenses and have a great deal of respect for the work that they do. But whether you choose a CC license, a regular copyright license or something else different altogether, it is important to make your intentions clear and to do so in a way that is legally sound.

Failure to do so not only puts you and your work in legal risk, but also makes it more difficult for others to enforce their rights or to give them away. It is very difficult to build a positive copyright climate on the Web when everyone is confused about what the exact rules are.

No matter where on the spectrum between public domain and all rights reserved you sit, it is important to make yourself clear. It only takes a moment and, in terms of your copyright, may be the single most important step you take.

1: Psystar’s bankruptcy filing to affect Apple’s copyright infringement suit

First off today, the famous “Hackintosh” maker Psystar has filed for bankruptcy protection, likely putting a serious crimp on Apple’s lawsuit against the company, which accuses it of violating copyright in making unofficial Mac computer.

The feud between the two companies has been long and drawn out, including anti-trust and copyright abuse claims by Psystar against Apple, but it seemed that Apple had the upper hand in the lawsuit. Now though, it may be very difficult for Apple to collect any damages that it is awarded as it will likely be treated as an unsecured creditor, meaning most, if not all of its damages will be discharged in the bankruptcy.

2: MGA asks appeals court to halt transfer of Bratz

Next up, the MGA/Mattel case is back in the news today as MGA has filed a petition to halt the transfer of the Bratz line to Mattel while it appeals the lower court ruling,

MGA is asking the judge, which ruled that the Bratz dolls, marketed by MGA since 2001, are actually the property of Mattel since the creator of the dolls was employed by Mattel at the time of conception. MGA is appealing the ruling and is asking the appeals court to hold of on the ordered transfer, which MGA says would do irreparable harm, until the appeals process plays out.

No word on when a ruling is expected but it seems likely that the court will side with MGA on this one and postpone the transfer.

3: Digg Content is Now Public Domain Internationally

Finally today, Digg has changed the license it places all user-submitted content under from its generic public domain dedication to a CC0 license in a bid to make the license more applicable international.

In terms of licensing, the CC0 license is functionally the same as a public domain dedication, waiving all rights to enforce ones copyright, however, the CC0 license works better in countries without specific public domain dedication procedures or countries where such rights are inalienable.

All in all, it is a minor change for Digg, but definitely a coup for the CC0 license as Digg now becomes by far the license’s biggest user.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

The CC0 (or CC Zero) tool, which has been in the works since December 2007, was recently quietly released to the public in the format of a full version 1.0.

CC0 is not so much a license as it is a waiver. It is an attempt by the Creative Commons organization to improve upon its public domain dedication system by making it both more international-focused and rectify many of the challenges and problems that come up when trying to simply place a work on the public domain.

The idea is that, rather than licensing your work with certain terms and restrictions, you are instead waiving as many of your rights as possible, including all related rights (including moral rights). Though it isn’t the same as placing a work in the public domain, it would, theoretically, have much the same effect.

The question is how much will the license be used and whether Webmasters, many of which are already wary of the terms CC licenses place on their work, will be willing to waive all of their copyright interest.

How it Works

Obtaining a CC0 waiver for your site is much the same as getting a regular CC license. You visit the CC0 page, input the information for the work you want to license (Note: This is optional but, as with CC licenses, the data you put in is embedded in the license itself).

The one element that is different is that the CC0 waiver does have an active “clickwrap” element that requires the user to agree to both waive their copyright interest and that they have read the terms of the license and understand it. This is, assumedly, to ensure that there are no misunderstandings with users and that no one who doesn’t intend to waive their rights uses this system. It also, likely, helps with enforceability as the person waiving their rights has electronically “signed” a contract indicating as such.

However, even after that, the process then again does one last check to ensure that the user is certain they wish to waive their rights and cautions artists that depend on copyright for their income against using the service.

Once you’ve completed that, you are then presented with a familiar set of HTML and button options for marking your work. You can then take that code, paste it into your site or otherwise affix it to your work. Otherwise, the waiver has not been completed as the CC0 licensing procedure is NOT a registration process and nothing is stored by the Creative Commons Organization.

The most common button will look like the one to the left (or above in your RSS reader). Please note though that this is meant to be used as a sample of the CC0 button and is not designed to indicate that this article or anything on this site is licensed under a CC0 license. All content on PT is underneath the BY-SA license.

The Advantages of and Problems with CC0

Though CC0 isn’t designed to replace the public domain dedication service, it is designed to improve upon it. The CC0 system works better internationally, is likely more legally valid (since one can not dedicate their works into the public domain in many countries and there are questions about doing so in the U.S.) and, if the icon and meaning becomes recognizable enough, more clear.

The problem is that there hasn’t exactly been a rush to use the public domain dedication system and it hasn’t been the legal issues that has kept others at bay. Those that have used CC licenses have favored other licenses overwhelmingly and those that have wished to license their work in the public domain have usually just done so without the aid of CC.

Though the CC0 waiver system is a potentially useful tool for those that want to waive their rights and certainly preferable in most cases to either a CC Public Domain Dedication or a similar dedication of their own, it seems unlikely that the “license” will catch on in a big way, that is, barring a major shift in the attitudes of writers and artists.

It seems that, for most who want to give up most of their rights, the CC-BY license is more than open enough.

Conclusions

There’s little doubt that the CC0 waiver system is a major step forward for the Creative Commons Organization in terms of their public domain efforts. Even though it isn’t a true public domain dedication, it only waives the rights as far as they can be waived (Note: Moral rights, in many countries, can not be outright waived), it opens up what is likely as close to a public domain option as practical under the current legal climate.

Though it doesn’t seem likely that this license will be widely used, trying to get willing copyright holders to license their works with the terms that they want, or no terms at all, is a big part of their effort so having this waiver available likely means more than the number of likely licensors would indicate.

To say the least, it is an interesting project that has been over a year in the making. It is nice to see it reach its version 1.0.