Creative commons seems like an interesting approach to copyright. It allows for a less rigid diffusion of copyrighted works in certain communities. Therefore, people involved in the field of education and some professional content creators can release information without having to deal with the normal channels of the publishing industry which would render their work expensive and limit their availability. In that sense it actually matches the aims of Google in releasing its Google book search engine. Scholars are likely to want their article published on their engines.
The big downside I see with creative commons is that it is designed for experts in copyright and likely to harm some communities. The classic publishing industry involves a face-to-face transaction and thorough review of the work before publication. Therefore, people engaging in the procedure have to know of the consequences of their enterprise. On the contrary, as seen in the Virgin case creative commons allows for copyrighted materials to be easily published without any regard to other laws such as privacy laws, and without grasp of what the consequences of allowing commercial use may be. It represents a threat for uniformed consumers, especially minors. It is important to note that this feature is not unique to creative commons. However, allowing creators to choose a license instead of just posting a work without instructions regarding its use have significant legal consequences. Although uninformed, the consumer created an agreement and gave its consent to certain uses. Because of the creation of this contract by the consumer, court could have the tendency to apply general principle of contract drafting and interpret it in favor of the non drafting party. In that sense, creative commons could harm consumers by being designed for copyright connoisseurs and not giving notice of it.
Here is the site I recommend regarding creative commons:
No comments:
Post a Comment