Not to be confused with Common Sensible, which is an excellent read by Ari Blackthorne.
Contrary to what anyone else may say, taking other people’s artworks and making out they’re their own is in no way a new trend, as me and Ryker Beck found a year ago today on this very blog. In fact, it’s been going on much, much longer than that.. way before SL even got going with a vibrant art scene.
I’m not going to get into the whole debacle yet again, because it’s freaking old now. People steal – either they knowingly do it (in which case, rumbling them is probably the only way they’ll stop) or they have no idea what they’re doing is wrong, and have no idea what constitutes as fair use. Unfortunately for them, ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law.
Which is where this blog takes over – introducing our old friend: Creative Commons!
Law teachers often dictated “Assume everything on the Internet is copyrighted!” which isn’t a bad theory until Creative Commons came along and shook the entire copyrighting system. Audio, music, video and yes – photography and art – have all been swooped into the Creative Commons rage, as artists use this alternative to traditional copyright licensing.
The Creative Commons website explains it neatly:
Creative Commons provides free tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry. You can use CC to change your copyright terms from “All Rights Reserved” to “Some Rights Reserved.”
The whole CC thing kicked off in late 2002, so it’s a relatively new thing, but 50 countries have incorporated it into their copyright laws, so it’s a real thing.
But what does it mean?
Well there are currently six types of Creative Commons licenses:
- Attribution alone
- Attribution + Noncommercial
- Attribution + NoDerivs
- Attribution + ShareAlike
- Attribution + Noncommercial + NoDerivs
- Attribution + Noncommercial + ShareAlike
Looks a little awkward, huh? Where’s there’s four phrases in there – Attribution, Noncommercial, No Derivatives and Share Alike.
Attribution means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work – and derivative works based upon it – but only if they give you credit.
Noncommercial means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work – and derivative works based upon it – but for noncommercial purposes only.
No Derivatives means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.
Share Alike means:
You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.
So just to spell it out clearly – if you see the words “All Rights Reserved”, that means you can’t use it without the express permission of the original creator. If you don’t see anything written at all, assume it has All Rights Reserved and that you can’t use it.
There’s millions upon millions of artworks out there that have creative commons licenses on them. For example, pretty much the whole of my Flickr photostream is on a Creative Commons license. Try the following websites to find more examples of CC licensed work where you can find photography and artworks which the author allows you to build upon, provided you give attribution.
- Flickr
- Deviant Art
- stock.xchng
- Wikimedia Commons
- Creative Commons Search
- Every Stock Photo
- FreeFoto.com
- Dreamstime
- CGItextures
In some of the above websites, you may find works that have been released into the public domain and hold no copyrights whatsoever, so you can do as you please with them. Politeness dictates you give attribution anyways, but then, not everyone is polite!
Of course, Creative Commons does have its critics. Some think that it’s a daft idea which serves to feed greedy corporates or deprive professional photographers of income. Some think it doesn’t go far enough. Either way, it’s there and there’s no excuse for anybody to be lifting copyrighted work where the author has expressed there is no permission to do it.
Use a bit of Commons Sense, and you’ll be fine.
Ryker Beck on September 14, 2009
EXCELLENT post, and here here.
Lizzie Lexington on September 14, 2009
Criminy, I will just stick to pure SL images or my own RL snapshots for the time being, LOL.
juana manuel on September 14, 2009
what an excellent post.
Arcadia Nightfire on September 14, 2009
How do you do that for your entire photostream? Do you have to do each photo individually?
Prad Prathivi on September 14, 2009
Nope – just click here while you’re signed into Flickr and do it all in one go!
Arcadia Nightfire on September 15, 2009
you rock!
Melponeme_k on September 15, 2009
Great Post.
But be careful with recommending Flickr. Yes, it allows CC license options. However it’s default is All rights Reserved.
All the professional photographers I watch on Flickr are totally All Rights Reserved. They also watermark their images and put rights claims in their comments section. For them, flickr is used as an impromptu portfolio.
Flickr is definitely not all CC and that impression should not be given.
Troy McLuhan on September 15, 2009
A couple of minor points:
1) Creative Commons licenses build on top of copyright laws, they don’t replace them. The owner of a copyright has the right to license their works as they see fit, and one option is to license them with a Creative Commons license. If I decide to license a photo with a CC license, I’m not giving up my copyright (unless I deed the photo to the public domain).
2) I don’t think any country has changed its copyright laws to take Creative Commons licenses into account. They don’t have to. I think what you meant to say is that many licenses (blobs of text) have been “ported” or “localized” for many different countries; that was done because licenses build on top of copyright law, which varies from country to country.
elysium on September 15, 2009
Excellent explanation. For anyone who may be confused about what copyright and creative commons is all about, you have made it very clear and concise.
I think this statement is especially important:
“If you don’t see anything written at all, assume it has All Rights Reserved and that you can’t use it.”
SO many people go the other way “oh well, it didn’t say anything.” and I understand that often this is ignorance… but it surprises me time and time again that people assume “if it’s on the web, it’s free”
A related issue not really addressed here is sites that allow you to download images for free, personal use. (ie: wallpapers) They are only free for your personal use, not for public display or profit. Grabbing an image from one of these “free” sites is not the equivalent of a cc license or public domain.
Ari Blackthorne on September 15, 2009
Thank God for defibrillators.
Thought for a second it was some new blog with that name. LOL
Excellent article, Prad and one that is well-needed. And for the record, my entire Flickr stream is CC Attribute; No-derivs.
I am and have been a professional photographer for longer than I want to admit here. I like the CC system and use it for a limited selection of my work.
As for my fully copyrighted (All Rights) artwork… well, I know better than to plop those up on the Internet, especially in photo-sharing places like Flickr.
So it’s really all about control.
And yes, I’ve seen the recent blogging on unauthorized derivs of SL artwork being resold – I concur it’s shameful and pitiful.
Tary Allen on September 15, 2009
“Unfortunately for them, ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law.”
this is so very true, and apart from that, don’t we all learned that our sources must be credit?
besides old and simple honesty, I think we all learned at school (and at home) that we can’t quote, or use someone else material without giving credit, there isn’t even need to know IP rights, thats common sense and integrity.
Chez Nabob on September 16, 2009
Personally I’ve never found a situation in which the good old Copyright Act of 1976 didn’t suit my needs (you can grant the same rights under it as you can with CC). So, much of the hoopla around CC is lost on me apart from the fact that CC makes it easier for people to understand.
The big issue I have always had with CC is that it takes the rights you have been granted under copyright and supercedes that to an individual contract situation. This is a VASTLY different situation than the protections you are granted under federal copyright law, and one that could also yield vastly different outcomes depending on the jurisdiction should a legal situation arise.
Copysense recently wrote an editorial about this very issue (here’s the link http://tinyurl.com/ndf6w2). The editorial raises lots of other questions about whether or not CC has been good for the debate on reforming copyright. They conclude that CC has actually had a negative impact, and I see their point.
However I can also see the opposite side of the coin in that the argument could be made that CC has thrust the copyright debate into a place where more people are aware of the issue of copyright reform.