Creative Commons and the Copyright Log Jam
By Engage

The Learning Technology Team at SIESWE continue their examination of how modern technology can be harnessed to develop the social care workforce…

Copyright Serves a Useful Purpose…

All original work — music, articles, essays, photographs, user manuals, PowerPoint presentations etc. — has a creator, or author, and that person or organisation automatically owns copyright. Copyright gives authors certain rights to control the use of their creations, including making copies, issuing or communicating copies to the public and performing.

Its purpose is to prevent others making a profit at the expense of the author. If this protection were not available, so the argument goes, creators would stop creating and society would be the poorer for it. Thus, copyright was conceived as way of encouraging creativity by rewarding authors for allowing society the enjoyment of their creations.

Authors may assign all or part of their copyright to another body, e.g. a publisher. Copyright in works created by employees in the course of their employment is owned by the employer. For this reason the term rights-holder is often used to denote the body, corporate or private individual, that holds copyright.

…But Is Not Always Helpful

Anyone wishing to copy an existing work for any purpose is obliged to seek the rightsholder’s permission (often referred to as a licence). Some rights-holders, however, would rather their work was widely copied and re-used but, unless they state otherwise, no-one has the right to do this without explicit permission, a process which can create unwelcome administrative costs for both the rightsholder and the licensee.

In the pre-digital age libraries could acquire copies of books and reports and lend them without explicit permission. In the digital age, libraries may not routinely store and make available (or lend) digital works as this is defined as copying, for which the explicit permission of the copyright holder is required.

Thus owners and users can become engaged in licence negotiations that do not necessarily benefit either party, or society in general. Wouldn’t it be simpler if the rights-holder simply stated what uses of their work they were prepared to allow? In other words reserve some rather than all rights?

Enter Creative Commons…

The Creative Commons licensing scheme evolved to help rights-holders promote the use of their work without the need to negotiate terms with each and every potential user.

It is very simple scheme to use. From the Creative Commons web site the rightsholder can choose an appropriate jurisdiction and select one of a number licences which specify, amongst other things, whether commercial use or the creation of derivative works are allowed.

Isn’t This Tantamount to Giving Away My Work?

No. The rights-holder retains copyright but states the terms on which others may use the work. This is particularly useful in the voluntary and educational sectors where a substantial amount of work is of a non-commercial nature and the objective is to secure wide distribution and re-use.
In the absence of such a statement the default position is that copying or re-use is not allowed without the permission of the rights-holder, the identity of whom may be difficult to ascertain.

Any Disadvantages?

Korn and Oppenheim (2006) (tinyurl.com/2mlpoz) point out some factors to be taken into account before releasing work under Creative Commons. For example all versions of the licence grant irrevocable and worldwide rights. A rightsholder may cease to issue the work but cannot ‘unlicence’ anyone who has already licensed the work.

Rights-holders must also consider whether their creation contains any content (e.g. photographs) owned by third parties for which adequate rights have not been secured. Organisations are therefore reminded that the use of Creative Commons depends, as does any licensing operation, on staff awareness about copyright issues and robust rights management procedures.

Conclusion

Organisations, especially in the voluntary sector, routinely publish reports and other resource material which depend on widespread circulation in order to make an impact on education, public opinion and policy making. Most have been funded by the public sector or trust funds and have no imperative to make money. These resources frequently assert copyright but carry no information about permitted uses. In this case the default legal position is that permission must be sought from the rights-holder by each organisation seeking to use the work. The lack of a clearly laid out licence creates an administrative overhead for both parties and a log jam in the dissemination process.

Creative Commons licensing can break the log jam by freeing:

  • – third parties to make use of the work, usually to promote the cause or argument propounded in the work
  • – rights holders from troublesome calls seeking licenses to copy, store, disseminate or re-use
  • – rights holders from the need to read, consider and agree to a third party’s licence terms for the use of the work.

Related Internet Links