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]

Top 5 List of the Best Ways to Prevent Plagiarism of Online Content

If you’re a blogger (or any other kind of Webmaster) your content is being copied, it is virtually a guarantee. Whether you are big or small, users and commentators, along with spammers and scrapers, are using your work. Some of this use is likely legitimate, even desired, but some of it also likely goes beyond what’s allowed and into copyright infringement.

Still, not everyone has an interest in enforcing their copyright. Whether they don’t feel passionately about the issue or don’t see it as worthwhile, they feel that the (limited) time spent dealing with plagiarists and other infringers isn’t well spent.

But no matter how you feel about copyright enforcement, you still have a strong interest in both tracking and understanding how your content is used and also heading off unwanted uses of your work.

So taking a few minutes to think about your content and how you can protect/track it makes sense as it might reduce the amount of misuse you see, without you doing anything to stop infringements, and let you find readers you didn’t know you had.

Add/Update a Copyright Notice in Your Footer

If you don’t have a copyright notice on your blog, you need to add one and make sure it is up to date. Though you don’t need a notice to have your work be copyright-protected, many people don’t understand that and will think all work without the © symbol is free for the taking.

There’s a very simple trick for WordPress users to make sure that the date is automatically updated, making it the last time you ever have to change your copyright notice.

Many blog platforms have this function already installed using a simple PHP like:

Copyright 2004-< ?php echo date(‘Y’); ?> – this would produce Copyright 2004-2009, and change to 2010 automatically next year.

License Your Content

Next, explain the terms under which others can use your content. Are you reserving all rights? Say so clearly and post a notice indicating as such (All Rights Reserved). This can be a part of your above copyright notice.

If you want to allow certain uses of your work, add a Creative Commons or other appropriate license. Do not try to create your own license.

Expressing the terms of use clearly is important as it prevents misunderstandings but it should not be the sole focus of your site. Make it clear for anyone who is looking for the information but don’t down beat readers over the head with it.

Sign Up for FairShare

Fairshare, powered by content-matching service Attributor, is hands-down the best free tool for finding matches of your blog content.

It’s fast to sign up for and easy to use. Just provide FairShare with your RSS feed and subscribe to the one it generates to receive updates on matches to your content it finds. Whether you are just interested in tracking where your content is used or are actively enforcing it, it is an invaluable tool.

Use Google Alerts for Static Content

You likely have static content on your site that isn’t in your RSS feed and, thus, isn’t protected by FairShare. Visit Google Alerts and create alerts for each page using unique phrases in quotes. Then, you’ll receive RSS or Email alerts when the content appears elsewhere on the Web.

As an alternative, you can use Plagium with its free weekly reports.

Add an RSS Footer

There are literally dozens of plugins for nearly every major platform that can do this, but it’s important to add a footer to your RSS feed. Since that is the most common way your site will be scraped and republished, you should add something to it that ideally links back to your site and/or adds some kind of copyright notice (perhaps one similar to the footer of your site).

You can also use a digital fingerprint, string of letters and numbers that should be unique to your site, and create a Google Alert for it to track where your RSS feed appears on the searchable Web.

Bottom Line

Though I’ve already harped on the benefits of content tracking as a statistics metric, there is much more that Webmasters can do to protect their content, all without filing a single cease and desist letter or takedown notice.

Since all of these steps can be taken in under an hour’s time, it makes sense to take a moment, make sure that your site is up to code, your content is tracked and your feed is protected. Though you can’t stop everyone from misusing your content, no matter how much enforcement you do, there are simple steps that can reduce infringements and help you reach out to new audiences at the same time.

Clearly, this is time well spent even if ongoing enforcement isn’t.

[thanks to loop_oh and johnathan bailey via cc]

Creative Commons and the Law: Redefining Old Rules of Copyright

Creative Commons is an organization that allows people to issue creative works under a license that allows more flexibility than the default “all rights reserved” of copyright law.

Recently, John Dvorak wrote a column asking what good Creative Commons serves. I got to talking to my fellow columnist Molly Wood, and she said she didn’t really understand what the licenses were good for, either.

Meanwhile, 53 million works on the Internet link back to a Creative Commons license. A lot of people are buying into the concept. But is it dangerous? Is it revolutionary? Is it pointless? Here’s an attempt to deal with what this insanely popular license is and whether it’s good for anything.

How Creative Commons works
Here’s the concept of a Creative Commons license, as I understand it. Every creative work receives copyright protection automatically the moment you fix the work by putting pen to paper, hitting save, or pressing record. This protection reserves all rights to the work’s creator. Nobody can use that work without express written permission except where there is legally determined fair use. (We’ll get to what constitutes fair use in a minute.)

Creative Commons provides a somewhat standardized set of licenses that a creator of copyrighted works can use to give extra rights to people. This is similar to the GPL, used for software. (What was hard for me to wrap my head around in writing this column is that Creative Commons is actually more about protecting the audience you’re hoping will use your work than it is about protecting you. You still hold on to whatever rights you reserve, but you’re abandoning some of those rights on purpose.)

Copyright law protects any creative work you create whether you want it to or not. Nobody can legally use your work beyond fair use without a license. Creative Commons serves as a license that people who want their work to be shared can issue. Don’t want your work to be shared? No problem. Don’t use a Creative Commons license.

A Creative Commons license defines how people can use the work beyond the dictates of fair use, but without their having to negotiate a unique license with the copyright holder. There are four conditions that you can choose to apply to a Creative Commons license:

• Attribution: You can use the work but must give credit. This applies in all Creative Commons licenses.
• Noncommercial: You can use the work only if you don’t make any money from it.
• No derivative works: You can use the work only without altering or transforming it beyond the provisions of fair use.
• Share alike: You can transform a work as long as you make the resulting work available on the same terms as the original work.

You can use these terms in 6 different combinations.

How is this different from fair use?
Fair use already allows people to use my work, in a limited way. It was enshrined into law in 1976 as Section 107 of the copyright act.

According to Stanford University’s Web site on fair use, in its most general sense, fair use of a copyrighted work is “any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and ‘transformative’ purpose such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work.”

The law provides for a four-factor test to determine fair use. The test involves the nature of the use, the amount of the original work used, the nature of the resulting or derivative work, and the purpose of the use. The court must consider all four factors. (It’s pretty much essential to consult a lawyer if you want to be sure what you’re doing is covered by fair use.)

Sometimes content creators want to distribute a work and have people feel like they can do what they want with it, without fear of being sued or having to consult a lawyer. Nobody’s making anyone do this, but some people have found it quite beneficial to allow this.

One use of Creative Commons is to allow the free distribution of your work for noncommercial purposes. Under copyright law, nobody is allowed to copy your work without your permission. A Creative Commons license allows you to keep hold of the copyright and still make money on the work, while allowing new technologies and rabid fans to spread the word widely. Sure, you could tell people to ignore your copyright, but a license gives them the assurance that you mean it.

Think of a band with an MP3. Under copyright law, if they allow others to give away the MP3 without explicit asked-for permission, someone in the band could subsequently sue the people distributing it. If they distribute the MP3 under a Creative Commons license, then people can freely share it without having to ask and without the fear of being sued. The free distribution could serve as marketing for a full CD. A lot of bands have done just that with varying effects. Cory Doctorow uses this to great effect with his novels. He gives away the text but not the print edition. And he says he’s making money.

The band Wilco released their album Yankee Hotel Fox Trot under a license similar to Creative Commons. Their original record label refused to release the album, but after it became popular on the Internet as a free download, a different record label (which was, ironically, part of the same parent company as Wilco’s original record label) released it as an ordinary CD, and it became one of Wilco’s best-selling albums.

Does Creative Commons somehow threaten fair use?
Some have the idea that Creative Commons somehow threatens the existence of fair use. A Creative Commons license has no effect on the fair use of a work. The text of a Creative Commons license expressly states that copyright law and any other applicable law, such as fair use, still apply.

We already have precedents for fair use, and we need to work to protect them. But Creative Commons allows others to use your work without the risk, cost, or limitations of fair use law. Lawrence Lessig, chairman of Creative Commons, believes the use of Creative Commons license will actually raise awareness and help the fight for fairer copyright and fair use laws.

Does Creative Commons make the law more complex?
Some critics fear Creative Commons could make copyright law more complex. Creative Commons isn’t a law nor does it add or subtract anything from the law. It’s simply a license based on copyright law. It doesn’t change the law any more or less than any other license, such as a EULA. It can spur changes in the law, but it doesn’t effect changes just by existing. Most supporters believe these changes will improve copyright law.

If it’s public domain, why do I need a license?
I’ve also seen complaints about the Public Domain dedication from Creative Commons. The complainants say that if something is in the public domain, it doesn’t need a license. That’s true. But if the creators of a piece of work want to put it in the public domain without waiting the 70 years after their own death for that to happen, they can use Creative Commons to give the public all the rights of public domain right away. It’s just expediency. Most critics probably don’t want to do this, but the option’s there.

The harm of Creative Commons
Some people apply the Creative Commons license to their Web sites when they have no need to. If you don’t understand the implications of the license, take a minute and study it some more. People around the world may be able to reprint your thoughts or ideas in many forms if you use this license. I use the license and am OK with the implications. But don’t just slap it on your blog without understanding what it means.

Why would anyone give away their work?
Some complain that if you issue something under a Creative Commons license, you can’t take away that license. And that’s right. You can never revoke the terms of it. That’s the point.

The real argument here is over why you would want to give away your work at all, even if you do hold on to your rights. Some people don’t understand the benefits of giving something away without immediate return, and with the added consequence of giving up some of your own rights.

I mentioned two examples earlier, Wilco and author Cory Doctorow. Even Professor Lessig himself has issued copies of books online for free under Creative Commons and sold the books quite well. Another use is in schools. Many academics welcome Creative Commons licenses. Under normal copyright law, if a professor wants to include an article or chapter of a book in a course packet of copies, that professor has to get permission from the author. This can be burdensome for a course packet with 10, 20, or more individual articles. Works issued under Creative Commons license can ease that burden.

But it’s a gamble, and it’s not for everyone. Some people are making good use of that gamble. Some are even making money. Some just get marginally famous. Some just want to contribute to the world. That’s the corny part that a lot of people don’t trust or believe. And they don’t have to. But it doesn’t make Creative Commons dangerous or useless.

[via tom merritt]