Why Create?

A mentor of mine once said, “Anyone can criticize a theory, it takes a true mind to find a solution for it’s failures.” When I first started researching the Creative Commons and one of its creators and greatest advocates Lawrence Lessig, the Copyright and Trademark student in me was very critical. I even approached my professors and asked, “Is this man out of his mind?” But then I started reading Lessig’s book Free Culture, and the clouds began to clear. Lessig isn’t arguing for an abandonment of creator rights under Copyright law, but greater public access to works. I began to think about the daily blogs I read and the twitter updates I sift through each morning and between classes. I realized how much of what I read and access on a daily basis is written by creators and authors whose purpose for writing isn’t necessarily a paycheck but rather to express an idea and opinion outside the realm of traditional media and content. I think the desire to share an opinion and idea, not earn a paycheck is why so many of my favorite online creators have latched on to the idea of Creative Commons.

So what is Creative Commons and why should you care about it?

Creative Commons is a way for writers, authors, creators, artists, etc. to license their material in a way that gives greater public access while protecting their rights. Copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 102) automatically protects a creator’s right to reproduce, distribute, and create derivatives of his or her work. Creative Commons takes that “automatic right” and provides creators the option to grant more access to their work. For example, when a blogger decides to upload content to his or her blog under a Creative Commons License, the blogger has the option to select from seven different licenses. The blogger selects the license and effectively enables an exception to his normal copyright protections. In other words, the blogger chooses the portions of copyright law he or she likes and wants to apply to his or her work. All of the Creative Commons licenses require attribution, but a blogger can choose to allow or disallow commercial use, derivative works, and choose whether his or her work can be “remixed” under the same license. (I’ve “remixed” Lisa Rein’s online copy of the pros and cons of the different licenses into a PDF chart here so you can get a comparison of the different licenses.)

In case you’re a visual learner…here’s a video:

Sounds great, right? So why is this going to be an issue for future lawyers?

Well, numerous internet users, authors, creators, artists are subscribing to Lessig’s idea of greater access to information. Instead of registering their work with the Copyright Office, numerous creators, authors and artists are licensing their work under a Creative Commons License. However some of those creators, don’t really understand what they are signing themselves up for. Case in point: A photographer uploaded his photos to Flickr and his photos were used in an Australian advertising campaign. The photographer was furious and sued, but he’d licensed his photos under a Creative Commons license and he lost. The author of this article says that Creative Commons is bad for photographers because there is no protection from people taking artists’ work and uploading it to other sites under the Creative Commons License. This might be true, but Creative Commons thinks they have a solution. Programs like Tyn’s Tracer Tools track what content is copied from your website and ensures that the content is attributed to the original author. (Note: All Creative Commons licenses require attribution.) So, if an author’s content is copied without his or her permission and published on another website, the author can sue for copyright infringement of those rights protected by the Creative Commons license, including attribution. Case in Point: the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court upheld the Creative Commons Licenses in April of 2008 as a form of copyright protection. You can read more about it here.

Future lawyers should begin to look at Creative Commons as a new tool for Copyright protection especially on the internet. A large number of influential bloggers, creators and artists are subscribing to the concept of greater access to information through licensing instead of Copyright protections. As Creative Commons popularity grows, so does its potential for litigation from unsuspecting creators who unknowingly subscribe to the ideas without really doing their homework on what Creative Commons licensing actually means for their creator rights. It’s so easy for a creator to check the Creative Commons box in Flickr or add one of the licenses to his or her website or blog, it’s only a matter of time before creators claim nobody really explained Creative Commons licensing to them and attempt to sue.

The real question future lawyers should be asking is not what’s so important about Creative Commons, it’s what industry will the Creative Commons penetrate next? The fact is, Creative Commons is important and new attorneys should become familiar with it. The online world is not the only realm to have embraced Creative Commons; artists in the music industry (Nine Inche Nails – most recently) and the publishing industry (Google Books Search) are also welcoming Creative Commons into their industries. Who will be next?

Final Thoughts…2 cents, 4 cents, $15 later…

As much as I embrace the idea of free flowing access to information and the idea of Creative Commons, I question whether it’s all just that: a nice theory. When I went to Lessig’s webiste to download his books Free Culture and Remix, I found myself so frustrated with the idea of carrying around a 350-something page stapled manifesto about “free access to information”. I asked myself whether it was worth it for me to sit there and wait for my printer to painfully spit out pages (some of which smeared due to wet ink) or if I would be satisfied just sucking it up and paying the $15 it would cost me to purchase each bound book. I ended up heading to my local bookstore where I purchased my very own bound copy of each. What I love the most about my bound books is that they are exactly that: bound and covered and I don’t have to worry that they are going to get crumpled in my book bag or fall apart after a few good reads. I can’t say the same for my downloadable/printable copies which now reside in the recylcing bin in shambles.

Does a desire for “nice, neat, bound and covered”  tangible products outweigh a desire for “instant, free, downloadable/printable” content? This is a question I asked myself as I held my bound copy of Free Culture close to me at my local coffee shop. Maybe you have some thoughts on that? I’d love to hear what you think.

Related posts:

1. How to Use Google Images Without Getting Sued
2. The Consequences of Being a Legally Clueless Celebrity Online
3. Secret Copyright Treaty Leaks – Goes Viral
4. How Bloggers Can Legally Find Premium Images
5. YouTube v. Viacom: What This Means for User Generated Content
6. Nike: Social Media and Lawyers
7. FTC Guidelines on New Media and Disclosure Won’t Just Affect Bloggers
8. How to Spot a Fake Blogger
9. Martindale-Hubbell Connected: Positioning Yourself for Tomorrows Social Media
10. How Lawyers Avoid The Social Media Fail Whale