Leslie Burns, a creative/marketing consultant to commercial photographers wrote a lengthy post on her blog about the American Society of Media Photographers’ (ASMP) recent “interactions” with Lawrence Lessig, the founder of Creative Commons author of several books on the Free Culture movement.

The ASMP is an organization she is close with, and she stresses that she still feels it to be a great organization with good people, she feels that their involvement with Lessig, who spoke at a recent ASMP event, is dangerous and that Lessig needs to be “ignored/silenced as much as possible” as he has “done more harm to small creative businesses than any other single human in the US”.

This viewpoint was punctuated by a commenter to the post, Don Giannatti, who described Creative Commons as a “thinly veiled rights grab”.

This post is just the most recent example I’ve seen of the hostility toward Creative Commons in many creative communities. However, it is a hostility that I don’t fully understand.

Yes, freely available works have hurt many freelance and small artists, I understand this well, but Creative Commons did not create this problem, much of this is simply due to the Internet itself and would still be a problem even if CC disappeared tomorrow. In fact, without the licensing structure of Creative Commons, the problem could be much worse.

While I’m not saying that CC has been a great thing freelance artists, at least those with business models that don’t work with it, it isn’t the pariah that many have made it out to be either. The truth is much more humble than that.

A Strange Rights Grab

The thing about Creative Commons is that it is completely opt-in. If artists and content creators did not want their works licensed under a CC they simply had to do nothing and default copyright would apply. Even though Creative Commons is not for everyone, perhaps not even most, it is clear that many artists, of all types, do want their works licensed under less restrictive terms.

In fact, this behavior was going on well before Creative Commons. But rather than having formal, proper licenses for their content they were simply adding footnotes to their work saying things like “You are free to copy my work so long as you give a link back”, for example. Some were even going so far as to dedicate their works to the public domain.

These licenses are flat out dangerous as homebrew licenses by those without knowledge of copyright issues are, almost universally, flawed and can either fail to achieve their goal or give away more rights than intended.

The Creative Commons organization saw a need and filled it. Group A wanted to share their work, Group B wanted to be able to use shared work, but the law was in the way. The CC Organization created a series of licenses to act as a bridge between them. However, these two groups existed before CC and would exist after it disappeared and they would still find ways around the obstacles created by the law, they would just lack a pretty, easily understood tool to do it.

That, in turn, would create new problems including greater copyright confusion, poorly written licenses that give away additional rights and legal uncertainty for all involved. This type of climate would further taint the copyright pool and that would, in turn, hurt all copyright holders, CC or not.

However, what is truly confusing is how Creative Commons is a rights grab. It’s hard to “grab” rights that are freely offered and it is even unclear who is doing the grabbing. Some point the finger to corporations but I rarely see corporations using CC photos and, when they do and it makes the news, it’s usually because of a non-copyright-related disaster.

Corporations have been shy about CC licensing, largely due to the strict attribution requirements. They can afford the small amount required to properly license stock content and do so. However, smaller Web sites have been grateful, preferring CC-licensed images over paid content to make ends meet in their thin budgets.

It’s Not Just CC

Though it is true that Creative Commons is the most popular means of legally sharing free content on the Web, it is far from the only. Sxc.hu, for example, is a free stock photo site that is both immensely popular and doesn’t use CC licensing at all. There’s also a slew of free article Web sites, such as Articlesbase, that do the same thing with text content, once again without CC licensing.

These aren’t sites that are part of the “Free Culture” movement by any stretch. Much of the content is submitted by professional writers and photographers hoping generate some free promotion for their paid work, but they fill much the same gap.

So while some blame CC for being the worst thing to happen to smaller artists in generations, much of the problem seems to be attributed not to CC, but to the Web at large.

After all, the Web has given countless casual artists a voice and a broad audience. Many of these artists feel little need to commercially exploit their work and, instead, are just happy to let others use it with certain restrictions. Those desired restrictions vary from person to person, thus why CC created six different licenses, but the idea remains the same, there are certain uses of their work many people are not interested in compensation for and, often, wish to actively encourage.

In short, Creative Commons didn’t “create” the legions of free content available, but rather, just made it easier to search for and license correctly.

CC As a Lightning Rod

In reading the comments, much of the backlash against CC is really more directed at Lessig and the larger free culture movement.

I’m the first to admit that I don’t agree with everything Lessig has said, his favoring of copyright formalities being one my biggest sticking points, but there are others who are far, far more extremist than Lessig on copyright issues.

Lessig has always considered himself a supporter of intellectual property, and backs this up in his writing, but he favors reforms to the current system. However, where Lessig still believes in copyright, there are others who don’t believe copyright should exist at all or that copying should never be against the law, under virtually any circumstance.

The problem is pretty simple. The copyright wars have been divided sharply into two camps. The freedom-stomping content creators and corporations who don’t understand the Internet and the thieving pirates who don’t want to pay for anything, or so that’s what you read on the relative sites.

Copyright centrists, whether right or left leaning, get lumped into one of those two camps and it seems many have thrown Creative Commons in with the pirates. This is unfortunate as it stifles much of the legitimate copyright debate and only sharpens the divide between the two sides, making compromise even more difficult.

We saw this a great deal in Andrew Keen’s book, where he frequently considered Lessig a copyright abolitionist, and it is a common mentality of others on the Web.

However, this lumping makes Creative Commons an excellent lightning rod. A publicly acceptable and “hip” face of the “pirate” movement. It’s an easy target though one that is often misunderstood.

Bottom Line

In the end, the ASMP was taking a very bold, but necessary step in inviting Lessig to speak. Serious dialoge about copyright is urgent if the situation online is going to get any better. Everyone has to listen with open minds and think of real solutions.

There is no magic bullet, no easy way out. Any real answer is going to be messy and involve sacrifice. However, these are issues that can be solved.

But for that to happen, we have to stop seeing copyright as a black and white issue and look at it as a shades of gray issue. There are no two sides, but many sides and almost everyone, most likely, has at least some of the answer.

Until we start comparing notes with open ears, I don’t think we’ll ever find the real solution.

1: 12 nations top US list on copyright piracy

First off today, the United States announced its latest “priority list” of nations on copyright and piracy matters. This is a list of countries that the U.S. is most worried about on the intellectual property front and the nations are subject to additional scrutiny as well as possible sanctions.

Though most of the list wasn’t a surprise and included the usual suspects China and Russia, it included at least one new addition that caught many off-guard, Canada.

This is Canada’s first appearance on the list and, according to the administration, is prompted by lacking laws including no anti-circumvention regulations and difficulties with getting ISPs to remove infringing materials.

In addition to the 12 on the priority list, 33 nations were added to a lower level “watch” list including Egypt, Poland and Saudi Arabia.

2: update on Warner Music

Next up, we have an update to the ongoing Lessig/Warner Music situation.

The organization that had posted Lessig’s presentation, which is unnamed in this blog post, had received a notice from YouTube, where the video was hosted that WMG had filed a takedown notice on the talk since it included short sections of various WMG songs.

Today we have word that the group is disputing the claim and seeking the restoration of the presentation.

Indeed this is a predictable move, but an important one nonetheless.

3: Deeeeelicous!!!!

Finally today, the person who may well be the most DMCAed person on the Web, Perez Hilton, appears to have learned at least one thing from his battles with the photo agencies. He has filed a takedown of anti-gay marriage a video featuring him and Carrie Prejean.

The group he filed against, the National Organization for Marriage, has been notoriously aggressive themselves with DMCA notices, filing at least one over a clip made up of snippets of the audition tapes for their now-famous “gathering storm” advertisement.

The NOM ad remains available on their site and contains only a few brief seconds of Hilton, bolstering a fair use case. However, it seems pretty clear these takedowns, on both sides, have less to do with copyright and more to do with politics.

The Joke

For those who didn’t get the joke in the title, check out The Arrogant Worms. A band well worth listening too.

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.

1: IP minister rules out ‘three strikes’ disconnection law

UK IP Minister David Lammy has indicated that his government has done something of an about-face, taking the option of a three-strikes policy off the table. The policy, which would disconnect file sharers from the Web after two warnings, had been a hot topic in the UK, even leading to some voluntary agreements between ISPs and copyright holders.

Lammy said that this policy is not the right direction for the UK and encouraged companies to find commercial solutions to the piracy problem, ensuring that people pay for copyrighted works through technological and other means.

He also said that he wants to better educate the public not just as to what copyright is, but how it affects them so it is seen as less the domain of the professional.

2: U.S. rockers MGMT win piracy row with Sarkozy’s party

Speaking of three strikes, one of the biggest proponents of the law in France has been the country’s President Nicolas Sarkozy. However, his political party just settled a copyright dispute with U.S.-based rockers MGMT over their use of one of their songs in both an event and in online videos.

According to reports, the party agreed to pay approximately 30 thousand Euros to settle the matter, which Sarkozy had dismissively offered to settle for one dollar previously.

All of this takes place as the parliament in France is preparing to vote again on tough new anti-piracy legislation.

3: Lawrence Lessig’s Twitter

Finally today, in a classic case of copyright fail, Warner Music filed a DMCA takedown notice against one of Professor Lawrence Lessig’s presentations. Lessig, who talks routinely on the issue of fair use, is a copyright attorney, is one of the founders of Creative Commons and, until recently, one of the most active members of the copyleft movement, regularly used snippets of music in his presentations under fair use.

Obviously, Lessig has promised to fight the takedown notice, presumably by filing a counter notice in short order.

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.

However, there are a lot of other great copyright stories including several candidates for “Weird Story of the Week”.

Remember, as usual, this week’s linkroll is a “raw” link list. Some stories are duplicated, some do not point to their original sources and some may not be accurate. A great deal of refining goes into producing the show notes for the Copyright 2.0 Show.

It was another wild week for copyright news with some of our ongoing plots reaching a conclusion this week, at least for now. We also have updates on many of the ongoing cases including Real/MPAA case, the University of Oregon subpoena saga and much more.

All in all, there were sixteen stories this week including news from all over the copyright world including our “Weird Story of the Week”.

This week’s stories include:

• Orphan Works Bill Dies a Slow Death
• Royalties Unchanged, iTunes “Saved”
• Blizzard Wins Big Bucks in WOW Lawsuit
• Lessig’s “Free Culture” Book Available with DRM
• Director Recruits Army to Upload Fake Torrents
• And Many more…

You can download the MP3 file here (direct download). Those interested in subscribing to the show can do so via this feed.

Show Notes

All in all, there were fifteen stories this week including news from all over the copyright world, even including an update on Yoko Ono, an appearance on Rush Limbaugh and much, much more.

So, to help me sense of it all, I sat down with Chris Matthieu from Numly and we tore through the week’s copyright happenings with our usual mix of news, views and abuse.

This week’s stories include:

• Orphan works Legislation Introduced
• Microsoft Wipes DRM Keys
• Metallica and Madonna both sound like Trent Reznor, Who Releases a New Single
• BayTSP to Track YouTube Piracy
• Capcom Has Egg on its Face After Okami Release
• And Many more…

You can download the MP3 file here (direct download). Those interested in subscribing to the show can do so via this feed.

You can find the “Sue All of the World” Music video mentioned in the Podcast on Camp Chaos (Warning: Some language)

Let us know what you think of the interview segment and if we should do more of these in the future!

Show Notes

[audio:http://media.libsyn.com/media/plagiarismtoday/copyright20eps56.mp3]

We have multiple tales from the RIAA and their battle against file sharing, news that P2P is no longer the big bandwidth hog, Microsoft destroying DRM keys and a fashion designer suing a charity operation over a drawing of a handbag.

Finally, in weird copyright news, we have Professor Lessig drawing the ire of Rush Limbaugh over his tastes in mashups and watermarked art making its way to the cover of a brand- new Wii game.

Remember, as usual, this week’s linkroll is a “raw” link list. Some stories are duplicated, some do not point to their original sources and some may not be accurate. A great deal of refining goes into producing the show notes for the Copyright 2.0 Show.

But even with all of the strange news, it was still a very serious week with new legislation making its way through Congress, a showdown between the EFF and the RIAA and a new album by Nine Inch Nails that seems poised to change the way music is sold.

So, to make sense of it all, I sat down with Chris Matthieu from Numly to discuss those stories and more with our usual mix of news, views and abuse.

This week’s stories include:

• PRO-IP Gets a Shave
• The EFF Challenges “Making Available”
• The Air Force Files a DMCA Notice
• Lessig Questions The Pirate Party
• Ferrari Not Thrilled About New Limousine
• And Many more…

You can download the MP3 file here (direct download). Those interested in subscribing to the show can do so via this feed.

Show Notes

[audio:http://boxstr.com/files/1320957_aog8g/copyright20eps49.mp3]

The lecture mostly focused on the past ten years of his career, including his attempt to combat the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, the founding of Creative Commons and the rise of “remix culture”.

The talk also provides a very interesting overview of the history of copyright extensions, particularly in the U.S. and raises questions about the constitutionality of many of the recent copyright law revisions.

The lecture wraps up by presenting Prof. Lessig’s newest project, the Change Congress initiative and his new strategy for fighting corruption and changing the political system.

To anyone interested in copyright law, this lecture is a must-watch and is a fond farewell to one of the founders of the “Free Culture” movement.

The video is embedded below:

Images from the video are from opensourcecinema.org and are licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Online social media, like socialized forms of media before it, has at its core the concept of communal recreation. Lessig called it The Remix Culture. What ever you label it, its a focus on derivative works.

In urban legends, gossip and oral tradition, each time the story is retold it is remixed with frameworks and concepts already possessed by the teller. Verbatim repetition is very rare.

Online the media and the tools have changed but the idea remains the same, each remixer is applying their own frameworks and concepts to a new bit of media.

Copyright laws do not understand modern derivative culture because they differ from traditional forms in the size of their potential reach and distribution.

The music industry is one easy example after another. The Grey Album for instance. And there’s probably a new example of this every day on youtube.

It is impossible to fight the current of derivative culture, but it is possible to take advantage of it.

Marketers can and should take advantage of this phenomenon by encouraging users to remix pieces of brand content (and perhaps even giving them the tools to do it and share). Danger lies here, as Chevy learned with their Make Your Own Tahoe Commercial, but there is also a lot of reward to be had like everytime Stephen Colbert asks his users to remix some video of him.

A content producer will benefit himself greatly (And probably avoid unwanted content reuse) if he or she allows some of his content to be remixed (and again, encourages or facilitates the process and sharing) under a Creative Commons license. This trade of a little bit of media for increased exposure will ultimately increase the value of that producer’s work, not diminish it.

Dan Zarrella is a social media marketing consultant and if you liked this post you can read his blog, follow him on twitter, or vote for him for Best Social Media Marketing Blog in the Search Engine Journal Search Blog Awards.

If you are interested in writing a guest column for this blog, please contact me via email.