When I began writing and distributing this column, I wanted to find a way to both make it free and easy for bloggers, small non-commercial publications and individuals to share it, whilst also giving syndicating publications something they can stake a claim in.

Luckily I was aware of a new copyright licensing system called Creative Commons that enables such a hybrid model of media production. Not only is it a useful tool for media producers, it’s also an important part of the larger trend that is blurring the lines between producers and consumers of media.

Established in 2002, the Creative Commons (CC) license system allows artists, both professional and amateur, to copyright their work with as many restrictions as they choose — including the ability to un-copyright works completely. According to their website, “Creative Commons provides free tools that lets authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry.”

Creative Commons allows cultural producers to easily add an individually defined copyright badge to their work (usually a small graphic). These badges provide a clear indication of the specific copyright restrictions (or lack thereof) for other cultural producers and users.

Big corporate media organizations use synergies and joint ventures to bring in larger audiences. Independent and online media need to create their own synergies by building and sharing audiences using their own unique strengths. So I figured what better chance to experiment than with a column focusing on the intersection between media, culture and technology.

The Creative Commons license I use asks each organization that publishes the Media Links column to post a statement at the end of each article acknowledging and linking to all the other syndicating publications. Creative Commons and the open Internet enable this, and other new forms of collaboration and synergy.

Are we all produsers?
Some people consider Creative Commons to be a key element of a new category of media content producers/users called “produsers.”

According to Axel Bruns, who coined the term “produsers,” the “traditional value chain of producer-distributor-consumer has condensed to a singular point, the produser, interacting with and potentially enhancing existing content.”

Thus, we now have produsers with “fluid roles” and perpetually unfinished media.

While media production has always been a collective process involving production ingredients from our collective cultural heritage, Creative Commons further enables (or perhaps re-enables) and encourages a more remixing-friendly media system and culture. Rather than conceiving and distributing media items as commodities, Creative Commons (CC) encourages the production, circulation and reception of media as a continuous and shared process.

Enabling sharing

While the open sharing elements of the Creative Commons license system are voluntary, according to a 2007 survey of CC users, more than 80 per cent of the CC-licensed works permit derivatives — meaning they allow others to build upon their media. While many media producers and users do not yet use Creative Commons, it is becoming more popular.

As of 2007, there were an estimated 60 million Creative-Commons-licensed cultural artefacts on the Internet, and CC use is still increasing. In an unprecedented move, Yahoo! announced plans in 2007 to allow users to employ Creative Commons licensing in their huge menu of online spaces and tools.

While it doesn’t appear that their plan has come to full fruition, it has at the very least meant that it’s popular photo sharing service Flickr has remained Creative Commons-friendly.

Creative Commons licensing is not limited to media production. There is also the ever-expanding open-software movement, and in the U.S., the Creative Commons group also recently launched a new project called the ‘Legal Commons‘ that will “collect and make available machine-readable copies of government documents and law.”

Where it goes from here is anyone’s guess. Let’s just share the idea and see where it leads us. 

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to the BC Cancer Foundation. You can find my donation page by clicking here. Every bit helps. Thank you in advance!

Related posts:

1. Some challenges of intellectual property law and Creative Commons
2. Quick Flickr and Creative Commons rant
3. Sharing a personal story – Guest post by Cecily Walker

I have tried to keep a minimal blogosphere/Twitter presence, but I just couldn’t resist writing about this topic. My friend Duane has a day job which is NOT being a photographer, although he does some fantastic photography work. Thus, when Duane has to police the internet to find whether someone is lifting his photos AND violating his Creative Commons license he expends time, money and it is in general, an overall headache.

Given that I can’t ask these questions to my Dad (who would be my go-to guy, normally), and armed with my own understanding of intellectual property law (having taken these courses during my Masters degree), I went to examine the recent case where one of Duane’s photos was lifted, apparently violating the Creative Commons License.

The first thing I did was read the Creative Commons that Duane has on this particular photo. I couldn’t find it off the website of the realtor, because there is no link back to Duane’s Flickr photo stream (the first red flag - no clear attribution).

The second thing I did was to read the realtor’s website upside down. As it turns out, the footer of one of his images says “All images (c) — the realtor’s name —”. Well, sorry to disappoint, but the photo above that exact footer is the property of whomever took it. From what I read on the site, the site owner did not take the photo, so, how can he claim copyright over an image that isn’t his?

The third issue is that for the Vancouver photo of the month promotional, this realtor’s site is using one of Duane’s images WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION. And the fourth issue is that of Duane being the copyright holder. Since the earlier footer implies that ALL images are (c) — the realtor’s name —, by association, this would imply that the photo of Vancouver at night (which you can find here on Duane’s Flickr stream) is also copyrighted by the site owner. Which it can’t because, well, Duane is the owner of that photo!

So what are the implications? First of all, I checked Duane’s CC license on that particular photo. The license is “Attribution-Non-Commercial-Non Derivative“. This means that (a) it should be attributed to Duane Storey (attribution that I can’t find for the life of me on the site that lifted this photo). That also means that no derivative can be done. Therefore, the site is violating the CC license because the composite photo IS a derivative of Duane’s original work.

Why is this a big deal? Well, for starters, because it’s one of those gray areas where people seem to just be entitled to use Creative-Commons licensed photos in whatever shape or form they want. Secondly, it makes (at least me) worried about whether I should even license my photos on Flickr. One of the reasons why I opened some of my own personal photos to licensing is precisely that I expect attribution!

I look forward to hearing from Duane how this issue was resolved. I can understand why Duane is upset, and I hope that this can be resolved quickly. Particularly since this seems to be a worrisome trend as of late!

Related posts:

1. Quick Flickr and Creative Commons rant
2. Third Tuesday Liveblog – Jeff Young on intellectual property and Web 2.0
3. Guest post: Sharing content online and the Creative Commons License by Steve Anderson