Creative Commons: What Is It Good For?

Creative Commons is someones utopia. It is a place where people can share and collaborate on creations legally: a community for creative types such as musicians, artists and poets . It is fair to say that Creative Commons is a solution to copyright and authorship laws however it is also a failure as it still does not stop breaches of copyright on the Internet. This essay seeks to explore the organisation, Creative Commons to see how it deals with copyright on the Internet. Notes and examples of successes and failures will be used as evidence to reach the conclusion that overall Creative Commons is inadequate when dealing with the issue of copyright. Firstly, copyright, especially copyright on the Internet is to be explained.

Copyright is, as its name suggests, the right to copy (Liberty (ed.) 1999, pg135). It is all about access and ownership to something (Liberty (ed.) 1999, pg138). According to Baker & McKenzie, Gretchen McCord Hoffman and Liberty, copyright law protects expression, original work and results of creativity from exploitation and acknowledges the creator (1998, pg8; 2005, pg15; 1999, pg135). Copyright also protects work from being tampered with or changed. Copyright laws first appeared in 1534 due to the invention of the printing press in 1476 (McCord Hoffman 2005, pg5). Originally, copyright was not intended to protect created work but to guard government power from mutiny (McCord Hoffman 2005, pg5). Today copyright is the right to a piece of work (Baker & McKenzie 1998, pg8). If something is copied without permission and the “copier” is caught, consequences include infringement, being sued and possible criminal proceedings (Liberty (ed.) 1999, pg135). Liberty deemphasises the importance of copyright, as copying work is “only a problem” if it loses money (Liberty (ed.) 1999, pg138). Negatives to the confines of copyright are also present. Matthew Rimmer objects to copyright for he claims it restricts the flow of ideas (2007, pg 264). Lawrence Lessig also protests that copyright undermines the public domain and the thought of sharing (2001, pg98). But more about Lawrence Lessig later. Copyright on the Internet is the similar to any type of copyright yet in its own right a completely different matter.

The Internet has changed copyright. With new technologies, people are able to copy and distribute material perfectly, easily and cheaply (Liberty (ed.) 1999, pg134). Content can be sent around the world in only a few moments, by the touch of a button (Liberty (ed.) 1999, pg134). The legality of sharing work on the Internet is ambiguous; people either do not know or ignore copyright laws (Bollier, David 2008, pg94; Liberty (ed.) 1999, pg134). What the public seems to fail to understand and acknowledge is that everything on the Internet in under copyright, from emails to websites to servers (Liberty (ed.) 1999, pg137). Australian law clearly states that multimedia “used directly or indirectly in a computer” is protected under copyright (Aplin 2005, pg39). Multimedia, being a combination of text, sound, graphics and/ or moving and still images (Aplin 2005, pg8). Lawrence Lessig states that on the Internet, content has all rights reserved or is in the public domain; there is no middle ground (2001, pg98). Creative commons gives an alternative to copyright, its logo “some rights reserved” explains philosophy and aim to change the rules of copyright (Rimmer 2007, pg261).

Creative Commons is a non-profit organisation founded by Lawrence Lessig in 2001 (Rimmer 2007, pg264; Doctorow 2007). Content on Creative Commons is in the public domain, so people can share and add to creative works legally (Rimmer 2007, pg261). By helping to customise copyright licences, creators are allowed more control in terms of use of their work (Rimmer 2007, pg262; Doctorow 2007). The conditions creators get to choose for their personalised copyright licence include permission to use work commercially, permission to modify work and if so, whether adjustments of the work can be distributed (Doctorow 2007). An alternative to strict copyright laws is what Creative Commons create: a solution. On the creative common sites, the testimonials of the service Creative Commons provide an example of it as a resolution to copyright. But is an alternative enough?

To just change the terms of copyright does not stop work on the Internet from being copied, taken and/ or changed. Liberty claims that with the use of the Internet people can take works and copies of work without getting caught, as it’s hard to prove where the work actually came from (1999, pg134). There are websites that allow anyone to download and take content easily and cheaply. Such as http://www.moviesanddownloads.com/, http://www.watchdirect.tv/, http://www.yourfreemusicdownloads.com/ and many more. Creative Commons also does not prevent material being taken under its own copyright licences. An example of this is the case against Adam Curry and the Dutch tabloid magazine, Weekend. Adam Curry a broadcasting personality posted photos of himself and his family on vacation onto flickr, under a copyright licence made by Creative commons that stated it was not for commercial use. Weekend used the photographs from flickr and published them with in an issue of the magazine without “noticing the copyright” and consequently, Adam Curry sued (Rimmer 2007, pg270). Despite the outcome of the court case it is still evident that people can still take material of others on the Internet, despite copyright and Creative Commons copyright licences.

Through this essay, copyright has been explained as a rule to protect creative works. Unfortunately, the use of the Internet has come to ignore copyright licences and as a result copyright laws are difficult to enforce (Liberty (ed.) 1999, pg135). Creative Commons has given the public options of copyright licences so more access is allowed to material. It is correct to say Creative Commons provides an answer to the strict regulations of copyright law. Yet with or with out Creative Commons licences, material is still being shared illegally on the Internet. Overall, Creative Commons cannot stop the illegal use and sharing of creative effects.

Aplin, Tanya 2005, Copyright Law in the Digital Society: The Challenge of Multimedia, Hart Publishing, Oxford, pg 39

Australian Copyright Council, 2009 homepage, accessed 22nd October 2009,

Baker & McKenzie 1998, Guide to Intellectual Property in the I.T. Industry, (1^st Edition) Sweet & Maxwell, London, pg 8

Bollier, David 2008, Viral Spiral: How the Commoners Built a Digital Republic of Their Own, The New Press, New York, pg 94

Creative Commons, 2009, Support CC Testimonials, accessed 15^th October 2009. <https://support.creativecommons.org/testimonials>

-Homepage, 2009, accessed 15^th October 2009 <http://creativecommons.org/ >

8 Doctorow, Cory 2007, Creative Commons, 8^th November 2007, accessed 16^th October 2009 <http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/11/cory-doctorow-creative-commons.html>

Garlick, Mia 2006, Creative Commons License Enforced in Dutch Court, Creative Commons, 16^th March 2006, accessed 17^th October 2009 <http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5823>

Lessig, Lawrence 2001, The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World, Random House, New York, pg 98

Liberty, The National Council of Civil Liberties (ed.) 1999, Liberating Cyberspace: Civil Liberties, Human Rights and the Internet, Pluto Press, London, pg 134, 135, 137, 138

McCord Hoffman, Gretchen 2005, Copyright in Cyberspace 2: Question and Answers for Librarians, Neal- Schuman Publishers, New York, pg 15

Movies and Downloads.com 2009, homepage =, accessed 21^st October 2009 <http://www.moviesanddownloads.com/ >

Rimmer, Matthew 2007, Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands Off My Ipod, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, pg 261, 262, 264, 270

Watch Direct 2009, Homepage, accessed 21^st October 2009 <http://www.watchdirect.tv/ >

Your Free Music Downloads.com 2009, homepage, accessed 21^st October 2009 < http://www.yourfreemusicdownloads.com/index.php >

Week 8 tute task

Sign an e-petition.
No problems. I googled “sign a petition” and I chose the first site that came up, www.whalesrevenge.com. It was a campaign to gather one million signatures to stop whaling. It’s a campaign that I believe in and I think I’m not only sticking to my political belief but reinstating them as well. I heard about a restaurant in Japan that served whale burger. Really, how good must endangered meat taste?

Respond to a professional blogger at a major news site.
Honestly, I don’t know any bloggers who work at news sites but I do know of feature columnists in the newspapers. One writer in particular is Frances Whiting, she irritates the hell out of me. I wrote:

Dear Frances,
I think your column stinks and constantly wonder why you are still being published.
If you have any reasons please tell me. I am baffled!
From,
Anna Heraghty.
I’m still waiting for the response to see if it has been published or not. It doesn’t go against my political beliefs- I am all for free speech and writing to Mrs Whiting has been on my to do list for some time now.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26095526-5012445,00.html

What is Barak Obama up to today?
Did someone say invasion of privacy? I wasn’t very comfortable looking up Barack Obama’s schedule but couldn’t find it anyway. I suppose the FBI was on top of it and saw it as the breech of security it is. I did however find what Obama did yesterday, on http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/ .

Find out who your local, state and federal representatives are.

Local: I live in West End which makes me apart of the ‘Gabba Ward’. I found out that Councillor Helen Abrahams was my local representative. http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE:1709411286:pc=PC_3024 State: I’m assuming, Anna Bligh? She is the premier of Queensland and when I googled “Queensland representative” there were no definite results. I went to her web site which was no use- it didn’t say she was a “representative” or not. http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/index.aspx Federal: I’ll put my money on Kevin Rudd. He is the Prime Minister of Australia and in the House of Representatives. http://www.aph.gov.au/House/members/member.asp?id=83T Finding the local, state and federal representatives was an act of sticking to my political beliefs. They are there to represent the community and myself in parliament. It’s important to know who they are.

Let your local member know what you think about their last speech.
So I was on the Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives website because honestly, I have no idea who my local member is. While there I came across Arch Bevis who is the member for Brisbane. I went on that tangent because I had already spent a solid twenty minuets trying to find who my local member was. His last speech was on the 20th August 2009 about Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill. I sent him a note on his website http://www.archbevis.com/ in the ‘contact Arch’ page. I told him I agreed and to keep up the good work.

Week 9 summary.

This week’s topic was about the internet as a utopia. Utopia, by definition is a fictional place that is considered to be ideal and perfect. The guest speaker, Jason Nelson spoke about the realities of the idea about the internet as a world that is considered to be created by humans where everything is fine. A harsh reality is the consequences of the Dot-Com Crash. The Dot-Com Crash or “Bubble” happened around 1998-2001; it reached a head in 1999-2000. Western Societies and their economies went into turmoil after investments made into web site companies were not returned. It wiped out $5 trillion in market value: the stock market was left in disarray. Despite this glitch, Mr Nelson still seemed to convince me that the internet was still this other world where expression was encouraged; where people could talk and share common interests; where there was free speech. The internet today is a place where digital poetry can bloom and has real potential. Poetry romances and grounds us with meaning. It is the poets of the world who challenge the structure of society that is deadening to the soul and ignite revolutions. Poetry on the internet is influential yet people aren’t venturing out and seeing the possibilities. There are maybe 4 to 6 sites an individual goes to when on the internet and only little exploration is done. I admit, I am one of those offenders. Lock me up! In saying there is some kind of a poet’s utopia on the internet there is also a lot of trash. You have to wade through a lot of crap to find something interesting and it is time consuming. My Godmother always warned me that looking at a flat screen all day would give me ‘square eyes’. I’m going to take a risk and explore more from now on. ‘Square eyes’ is curable, isn’t it?

Week 8 summary

Week 8 summary.
It was hard to summarise this week's lecture content because there was so much of it and it wasn’t really explained because there was no lecture. In the tute however, Dan turned it around and gave us an overview of it which was very handy. The lecture was about Cyber politics and eDemocracy. Cyber is a Greek word that means to steer or navigate. It has ties to the word Cyberspace which is a mathematical realm or virtual world that is pure structure with no colour or tone. It involves computers and the internet and everything inside of them. Cyber politics is the politics and laws of Cyber space. eDemocracy is the use of political debate and campaigning on the internet. It’s no secret that politicians are using technology to promote themselves and persuade the public these days. An example is the America president appearing on David Lettermen:



Democracy is a political system that places the public first. It’s about free speech and equality. But what happens when the government wants to censor the means of the publics’ speech- the internet? I can understand why someone would want to shut down a site that promotes rape or has child pornography on it, but when does it stop? A free country, like Australia or the USA, could become a communist country like North Korea by censoring Digital technology that has opened a new world inside the world. People don’t need to march in a protest anymore; it’s as easy as going to a website. By censoring this land of free speech, politics is clashing with the internet and not in a good way.

Week 7 summary.

Why not better the things we have to make life easier? Amen, sister! Creative Commons is an online sharing community that started in 2002, that has changed the rules of copyright. It allows people, the creators of culture, to refine the rules of copyright and allows more people to share creations. Creative commons promotes a sharing culture where creators make choices on who has access and who can control or alter what they make. Alleluia! It gives copyright more options. Propriety is what Creative Commons challenge. A confidential, closed source is not welcome the sharing community; it is rebelled against. FLOSS – Free Libre Open Source Software also defies propriety. Sources codes are like recipes for computer programmes. It is written in a computer language called ruby. Over the years Sources became commodities in businesses like Microsoft and Apple, FLOSS challenges close sources and promotes the sharing, contributing and reusing of source codes. In FLOSS one may, study, share, improve and or run a programme without and limitations. Personally, I didn’t know about FLOSS or Creative Commons until this lecture. I think they provide a fantastic opportunity to enjoy new and improved technology. This week I challenged myself not to use the Microsoft owned, Internet Explorer. At home, I have the outdate version Internet Explorer 6.0. It pretty basic without tab options or anything fancy like that. I started using Mozilla Firefox 3.0 as an alternative and consequently, I’ve converted. It gave me the luxury of live bookmarking and giving the book marks themes. With the tabs, it’s as if the clutter on the computer has bee cleaned. Using the internet is so much easier. Praise the Lord!

Week 6 summary

Consume, eat, gobble, nibble, scoff, munch, chew, chomp, gnaw, devour. In these times we are guzzling down the media. We are becoming obese with information, entertainment and communication, all of which are in fingers reach. There are 2 ways we consume media: “big” and “small” screens. Big screens are shared and public ways of consuming media whereas small screens are private and physically smaller. Whether it’s the cinema, TV, computer, iPod, mobile phone or “on the fly” gadgets, they all cater to professionally made, produced and edited content from traditional and new media producers; content that we gorge ourselves on. Nowadays, audiences are taking back control and producing/ editing work for themselves and the already made market. Our culture is becoming more creative by the minute: mash ups, mobile productions, even changing the story of well know film. Stirring the pot? The way we interact with media is changing thanks to technology. Personal computers and mobile phones have put the utensils in our hands to be able to make something different and to have an input into the media. An example of this is footage which has been caught on mobile phone in news stories. Terrible quality or not, audiences now have active roles and consumers are becoming the creators.

Week 6 tute task. Tomato Anna

Without the help of Windows Paint, Google Images, Youtube and Windows Movie Maker this clip would not be possible. I'd like to thank God, my parents and everyone who has supported me through out the production of Tomato Anna.

You're Welcome...