Creative Commons, Only As Good As Those That Use It

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

As you may know I’m not a big proponent of using Creative Commons licensing for my photographic work (see Creative Commons: A Great Concept, Iâ€™ll Never Employ), but I do recognize it has value in some contexts (see EXIF and Beyond: Lawrence Lessig Interview). A recent development caught my eye that highlights one of the weaknesses of the Creative Commons model. That weakness is that the system of Creative Commons licensing is only as good or reliable as those that use it properly. If those using Creative Commons licensed images that don’t follow the license, the honors based system breaks down and becomes useless if not a detriment to the photographer releasing their work under it.

The latest story exemplifying this weakness comes from Corey Doctorow improperly using Creative Commons licensed photographs by Aaron Landry on the Boing Boing web site. To date Corey Doctorow has been a staunch advocate of Creative Commons and has written on the subject several times, often being referenced on the Creative Commons blog. If one of Creative Commons most staunch supporters doesn’t use it properly then what is the likelihood the average person will?

An Example of Creative Commons Not Working – Aaron Landry

Of course the next question raised based on Aaron’s licensing terms is Boing Boing a commercial site? Is the placement of advertising on the site enough to warrant identifying it as a commercial site and thus making commercial use of his photography? Joshua Benton shares an interesting experience in trying to determine the Creative Commons perspective to a similar question he raised sometime ago. Unfortunately Creative Commons clarifies little on what is considered “Commercial Purposes”.Â This exposes yet another weakness of Creative Commons… an organization working to better define and protect image use, but still stuck in limbo on making the call or just unwilling to make the call on certain definitions. How is this an improvement over the ambiguity of copyright use and legal definition we see in our legal system?

Technorati Tags: Creative Commons, Aaron Landry, Boing Boing, photo, photography, licensing

Stay Connected with Jim
	Join Me On Twitter	Become a Fan on Facebook
	Listen to EXIF & Beyond	My Latest on YouTube

Posted by Jim on 03.30.2008 at 11:46 pm
Tagged: Copyright, Creative Commons, News & Current Events, Photography , Copyright, Creative Commons, Photography

Related Posts

D. Travis North

I'll admit my ignorance to copyright up front - something I am not proud of, as a photographer...I should be more in tune. But in an effort to understand it all, I find your site to be a great resource. I had been considering using CC license in my own work, but my findings don't leave me warm and fuzzy (you're not my only influence, but a big one). That said, what do you do to copyright your own photos? Do you file each of your photos with Library of Congress?

zab

So, if someone truly evil uses CC, does that make CC evil?

http://blog.limewire.com/posts/1616-Even-Charle...

Jim

@Dan It's interesting to hear your perspective. I've only looked at Creative Commons from the perspective of a photographer and not an educator. I would imaging CC is a great tool for educators, but it still likely shares the same pitfall.... awareness and understanding. From your perspective do you feel that those in academic circles fully understand the the intricacies of licensing use of their work or is it the same as what we see with photographers?

Jim

@Eric There is a distinct difference between Creative Commons licenses and All Rights Reserved and that difference is means of enforceability. Creative Commons relies on a more community based support for enforcement and if you're lucky you'll get CC legal backing. Formal copyright filings with the Library of Congress will enable you to seek damages that most copyright attorneys (CC or not) will be happy to assist with (i.e. get a cut of for taking your case). I agree that challenges that face Creative Commons and standard Copyright law are common in how copyrighted work is used in this modern day and age. Even still the law is the law and although it has some ambiguity it still needs to be followed until it is updated or reinterpreted. Creative Commons for the most part has been doing a great job at staying at the forefront of defining terms around these new uses, but it still falls under the current law of the land. The trends and precedents it sets with its licensing terms are no doubt paving the way for context to future legal decisions. None the less the organization still suffers from short comings as most do and the example highlighted in this post reveals a little of that. My hope is that if CC is going to make an effort to employ licensing terms and use definitions they go all the way in doing so.

Dan Mitchell

Jim:

I've been in the creative commons loop for sometime due to my work in education and my early connection with a part of the blogosphere that was enamored of CC.

I've come to the conclusion that, as you describe, it is too subtle in many cases for anything simpler than "feel free to use my stuff with attribution" or "don't use my stuff at all."

The middle ground is way to soft and mushy, and your example illustrates that nicely. I still use a CC license for some materials that I provide for students at my college as part of my teaching work, but I would be very, very hesitant to release any of my photographs under that form of licensing. It is not that I would always refuse a request for inexpensive or even free use under very limited and special circumstances - it is that I want to retain sole control over the determination of when to do that and when not to.

Take care,

Dan

Eric

I agree that the Creative Commons organization desperately needs to define what a "commercial use" is under the terms of the license. Though personally I don't consider merely displaying a photo on a blog with advertising as a commercial use - and that seems to be the unofficial consensus on the subject.

But that aside, "all rights reserved" has the same problem of only being as good as those who observe it. If merely attaching a license to content solved these problems, then the RIAA wouldn't be fighting a war on its customers and DRM would never have been conceived of.

It's not a problem with either license. Or to the degree that it is, it's because the licenses don't conform to the social norms and normal behavior surrounding intellectual property.