The Need for a Reverse Creative Commons Copyright License

I make no secret that I am a fan of Creative Commons.

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.

[thanks to giuli-o, jonathansin, and jonathan bailey via cc]

Dog Bite Law: Top 7 Ways to Save Your Pet From Euthanasia

A friend of mine approached me quite distressed yesterday, and his situation has left me a little distressed as well. His dog bit his neighbor. The dog was on a leash at the time on his own property, but reacted aggressively when the neighbor tried to approach him. Thankfully the bite didn’t appear too serious, but the event was nevertheless quite upsetting for everyone involved.

A dog bite can be almost as traumatic for the owner as it is for the victim. In addition to the obvious concerns about the well being of the victim, a dog bite can have serious financial implications for the owner and can be a matter of life and death for the dog.

The Common Dog Bite Myths

There are as many myths about the law surrounding dog bites as there are breeds of dog. Some people will tell you that the law says that any dog that bites must be put down; others will say that a dog can’t be destroyed for a single, isolated incident. They’re both wrong. The old common law rule was that a dog owner could be held liable for his pet, but that “every dog is allowed one bite”. In other words, a single incidence of aggressive behavior wasn’t enough to doom the dog, but the owner was on notice from that point forward and would be held fully responsible for any future attacks. However, many places have introduced laws to replace this old rule, and this will be what determines what happens in the case of a dog bite. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador, that law is called the Dog Act and it says that a dog owner is liable for the actions of his dog, regardless of whether or not the dog has a history of aggressive behaviour. Ontario has a similar law, as do many other jurisdictions. It also gives a court the power to order any “dangerous dog” destroyed if it is satisfied that the dog is truly dangerous or has attacked a person or other animal. In most cases, the authorities can’t just destroy your dog without getting an order from a court, and if things do get this far you have a right to be heard and present your side of the story.

Action Steps to Take If Your Dog Bites Someone

So, what should you do if your dog bites someone? The first and most obvious thing to do is to offer any assistance necessary to the victim. This has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with being a decent human being. Help out however you can. If your moral compass doesn’t point you in this direction, keep in mind the purely practical side- this person could easily make your life very difficult in the near future, and your cooperation and goodwill may go a long way in bringing things to an amicable resolution. Once the immediate concerns have been dealt with, here’s what you need to do:

Don’t panic: Your dog isn’t the first to bite, and it won’t be the last. You’re not automatically going to lose your dog, and your insurance may cover any financial liability. This is a serious situation, but not necessarily a disastrous one.

Talk to any witnesses: Check to see if anybody saw the incident, and politely speak with them. You may want to get their name and number in case you need to contact them again at some point down the road. It’s quite likely that your version of events will differ from those of the victim, and independent witnesses may be the best route to finding the truth that lies somewhere in between.

Talk to your insurance company: Most homeowner insurance policies will cover liability for dog bites. If there are injuries or a chance that the victim will take any sort of legal action against you, call your insurer to inform them of the incident and see what advice they have to offer. They will likely appoint an adjuster to investigate the claim and, if necessary, a lawyer to defend you. Don’t admit any liability or offer to pay any expenses before talking to your insurance company.

Offer to pay expenses: If your insurance company isn’t going to cover you or you choose not to get them involved, you should consider offering to pay for any direct expenses that the victim incurs, such as medical costs or prescriptions. This is another one of those goodwill gestures that you can offer in an attempt to resolve the matter, and in the majority of cases you’re ultimately going to be held liable for these expenses in the end. Acting early and with compassion can help ease the situation and may put you in a better position if matters do escalate. If there are reasons why you think you’re not responsible, such as provocation, consult with your lawyer to get an idea of where you stand.

Talk to your vet and local dog trainer: Talk to the professionals about the incident and get their take on what occurred and your dog’s demeanour in general. They’ve got more experience with aggressive animals than you do, and they’re likely to be more objective as well. Listen to their advice, even if it’s not what you want to hear.

DON’T talk to police or animal control without consulting with your lawyer: Finally, if the authorities want to question you or ask you about the incident, know that you’re under no obligation to speak with them. That doesn’t mean you should obstruct their investigation, but you should consult with a local lawyer before answering any questions or giving any sort of statement. This is a good approach for any situation involving police questioning, but especially when your pet’s life may be on the line.

I am as much a pet lover as anyone, and I understand the attachment people have to their pets. If a court thinks that your dog is aggressive or this behavior is likely to happen again, there’s a definite chance that it will order your dog euthanized. Even if the court doesn’t make such an order, it is your duty as a responsible pet owner to look at the situation as objectively as possible and, with the help of your vet and trainer, decide if putting your dog down is the appropriate response. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that any dog that bites should be destroyed, but in some cases that will be the best and most responsible course of action. Also keep in mind that while you may be able to deal with one biting incident, any future incidents will almost certainly result in substantial liability and the destruction of your pet. You will need to remain extremely cautious in the future, as a second incident will be taken much more seriously than the first.

[thanks to orin zebest and money grubbing lawyer via cc]

Trying a Case and Winning It: The Jury Perspective Method

We generally win cases, and many have asked how it’s done. While this advice may appear to be directed to attorneys, it’s actually for our clients. Everyone gets emotionally involved in a case, and that’s one of the main reasons to hire a lawyer. Plus, lawyers know the Court’s procedures, and they can take the day-to-day worries of litigation off your hands. But every client, at one time or another, wants to do it on their own. In a nutshell, here’s how:

Framing the issue is perhaps the most important aspect of trying a case. Try not to accept the other party’s version of the lawsuit, and instead look at it not from your perspective, but the way the jury is going to look at it. Before we start a case, we pull the jury instructions we expect the judge to give. Since that’s what you have to prove at the end of the case at trial, that’s what guides us throughout the case – through discovery and depositions, motions and ultimately trying the case.

Match up the documents and testimony you have on your side of the case to the elements of proof in the jury instructions. Since jury instructions are written for everyday people to understand, there’s not a lot of “legal-ese” in them. Once you have your proof lined up, you’re ready to go to trial. Now, you have to learn the evidence rules. Matlock, LA Law and Perry Mason are not good guides for how it’s really done. Take a class or go to court and watch – the latter is the fastest way to learn, and while you won’t understand everything, you’ll see how the most common objections are handled and argued.

Finally, once you win your case, you’ve got to collect on your judgment. That’s the really hard part. Enforcing a judgment is a procedural nightmare. If you haven’t hired a lawyer yet, now’s the time. Unless you can get the other party to just write you a check, you’ll have lots of paperwork to fill out.

Of course, over 95% of all cases settle, so hopefully you won’t have to go though the trial and judgment collection portions of litigation. Remember, though, that settlements are compromises, and compromises means everyone goes away with less than they really wanted.

[thanks to ell brown and  j. craig williams via cc]

Next Page »