From last week’s email…
The key is to build alternatives that creators on the Internet can use to both create as they wish and keep control of their creativity. That’s the challenge I see over the next four years. And as we review over the next few weeks some of the best of CC from around the world, you’ll begin to see how this challenge might be met.
The story continued …
Creative Commons is a Web 2.0 tool: A protocol, both legal and technical, that enables users of the Web to create and share creativity as they choose.
Or at least, that’s the hype. How does it actually do any work? What does CC actually add to the mix?
Here’s an example emerging from Japan that I saw demonstrated just two months ago. Members of CC-JP were walking around the conference with beautiful t-shirts, each with its own slightly different design. At the bottom of each shirt were CC licensing icons. On the left sleeve of each shirt was an QR Code — a two dimensional bar code common in Japan that (most) Japanese cell phones can read and convert into a URL.
I asked the obvious question: “What do these codes do?”
These shirts, I was told, were part of a new project called “C-shirt.” C-shirt was inspired by three other Japanese sites. Once I describe these three sites, you’ll see how C-shirt makes them work together.
The first site is the most familiar. Photozou is a photo site much like Flickr. Images can be marked with CC licenses, tagged, and organized into categories, including the location from which a photo was taken. Images from Photozou can thus be moved elsewhere — consistent with the CC license — and modified.
One place they can be moved is the second site: Willustrator. Willustrator is an online drawing tool. Developed by Heisuke Kambara, the tool by default embeds CC licenses into new illustrations. And that means that the collection of illustrations at the site can be reused and remixed however users would like. The site has extraordinary drawing tools, including a Bezier drawing tool. And with these tools, anyone can drawn an image, and either share it with others or import it to another application.
Willustrator is thus a “true sharing” site, designed to enable people to move their creation away from the Willustrator site — onto a blog, into a report, or, more interestingly, to the third site that I saw demonstrated that day — Nota.
Nota is the most extraordinary Web page generating technology I’ve seen. It too builds upon Creative Commons licenses, by using assets that are CC licensed. And it offers an amazing WYSIWYG Web editing ability. Think of a large whiteboard, which can be “edited” in just the way you might “edit” a whiteboard – with a marker or with photos taped to the wall. Within Nota, you can take a photo from Photozou, or an illustration from Willustrator, and import both onto the Web page. Using a drawing tool, you can underline important text. Or you can add a background drawing or photo to change the overall look of the page. Then with a single click, a Web page is generated — again, marked with a CC license if the user selects one, and made immediately accessible to the Web.
These three sites build upon each other. C-shirt is a perfect example of just how.
Imagine you meet a friend on the street wearing a C-shirt. Using your cellphone, you take a picture of the QR Code on the sleeve. That gives you the URL to the Nota page where that image lives.
On the Nota page, you can either buy your own copy of the T-shirt, or modify its design. You can use Nota, for example, to lay out elements of the shirt, Willlustrator to edit the designs, and Photozou to import source images to add to the design. When you are finished, the Nota site will then enable you to have you T-shirt manufactured and sent to you. Or you can set up your own design for others to buy or modify as they see fit. Thus, click a button, and the shirt is produced and sent to you. Or click a button, and you can open up your own store.
C-shirt is still in Alpha. I saw it when it was just three weeks old, but even then it was already functioning, because it simply built upon the components that other CC-enabled sites had exposed.
But C-shirt is important not because it will replace Versace. It is important instead because it demonstrates the potential once we extend Web 2.0 principles to the content layer.
So far, much of the excitement around Web 2.0 has been about modular technologies that can be made to interact simply. CC makes it simple to build modular content that can be made to interact simply. A community of creativity can thus be realized when the components expressly invite this collaboration.
This is one important aim of CC: To build a simple, free, and extensible infrastructure at the content layer that enables the freedoms that the many different creative projects of the Web need to interact.
Next week we’ll see more examples like these. (And stay tuned for the official launch of C-shirt!)
This email is part of a weekly series written by Lawrence Lessig about Creative Commons. If you would like to be removed from the list, please click here. Alternatively, if you know others who might find this interesting, please sign them up here.
Week 2: Lawrence Lessig: CC Values
Week 2: CC Values – Spanish Version
Thanks to Maria Cristinia Alvite for translation
Today, Creative Commons launches a brand new fundraising model: We’re becoming the first nonprofit organization to raise money through online video sharing.
We’ve uploaded several of our short videos (which explain CC licenses and talk about how the Creative Commons project began) to Revver, an incredibly cool video-sharing platform that uses Creative Commons licenses to help creators make money from their work.
Revver attaches a short ad at the end of each video on its network. When a viewer clicks on the ad, Revver splits the resulting ad revenue with the video’s creator. Usually, it’s a 50/50 split, but Revver is generously giving Creative Commons 100% of the money our videos make through the end of our fundraising campaign on December 31, 2006.
So, watch our Revverized videos (or help us spread them by embedding them on your blog, MySpace page, or Web site), check out the ads at the end, and help Creative Commons get paid! (Although we want you to watch our Revverized videos so we can earn money, we’ve also made ad-free versions available.)
As part of this launch, we’re premiering our latest video — Wanna Work Together? — designed by Ryan Junell (who is also responsible for our Get Creative and Reticulum Rex clips) and featuring new music by Lesser. The video pays tribute to the people around the world using CC licenses and CC-licensed content to build a better, more vibrant creative culture.
In conjunction with this launch, we’re also publishing a Featured Commoner interview with Steven Starr, the founder and CEO of Revver. In it, he talks about Revver’s origins, its future, and his views on the current state of user-generated video.
For more information about the Viral Video Fundraising Campaign, take a look at our press release.Comments Off
Creative Commons recently joined the OpenCourseWare Consortium as an “Affiliate Organization.” The Consortium is a collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world – including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam – who are commited to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. The mission of the OpenCourseWare Consortium is to advance education and empower people worldwide through opencourseware. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses.
OpenCourseWare Consortium recently launched the OCW Consortium Portal site, which provides easy access to materials from nearly 3,000 courses openly published by 50 member institutions largely using Creative Commons licenses. Courseware is available in nine languages — English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Japanese, Simplified and Traditional Chinese, Vietnamese and Thai — and comes from leading institutions around the world. The site also provides information for schools considering open publication of course materials, including information on handling intellectual property concerns and choosing an appropriate license.Comments Off
As ccMixter passed the 5,000 upload mark and our star remixer teru approaches 100 remixes (no accident that his average rating is 4.75 out of 5 by the way) we’re eager to encourage folks with blogs and web pages to check out a new feature that makes it easy to embed dynamic links or Fabricio Zuardi’s Music Player powered by a XSPF playlist into your pages. Appropriately enough we called the feature Publicize. This feature not only applies to remixers, but also their subjects because you can specify that you want the remixes of the artist — hey, 25 remixes of musetta’s “Ophelia’s Song” can’t be wrong. (Publicize here).
Publicize and the new Remix Radio are just two very early features of many that will be falling out of the Query/Formatter API currently under development. Armed with this API developers can query ccMixter in hundreds of ways and ask for the results in a large variety of formats — RSS, XSPF, ATOM, M3U, CSV, AJAX/JSON, etc. as well as pre-formatted HTML. We look forward to mashups of ccMixter remixes and other CC content sites (*cough*).Comments Off
Steven Starr is the founder and CEO of Revver, a video-sharing platform that uses Creative Commons licenses to help creators make money from their work. Revver attaches a short ad at the end of each video in its network and splits the resulting ad revenue with creators. The company uses CC licenses so that people can legally share the videos in the Revver network across the Internet.
A few weeks ago, Revver released the Open Revver API, which enables anyone, from individuals to major companies, to create an online video portal using the same tools that built Revver. In conjunction with this release, Revver posted a short video that shows how to build a Revver portal in just 42 seconds.
On another front, Revver has started enabling nonprofit organizations to leverage its open syndication platform as a viral fundraising technology. Creative Commons is the first organization to work with Revver to raise money by sharing videos. Check out our Viral Video Fundraising Campaign.
Creative Commons spoke with Starr to discuss Revver’s origins, its future, and the current state of user-generated video.
Creative Commons: Where does the name Revver come from?
Steven Starr: My first thought was reverence for the creator, but people have other ideas: revenue for file-sharers, revving your career, ideas like that. Revver’s mission is to deliver sustainability, to get you paid so you can develop your creativity further. Revver technology enables your video file to move freely across the Internet, generating revenue everywhere it goes.
CC: What sets Revver apart from other video sharing sites?
SS: Video Makers split ad revenue 50/50 with Revver, and if you share Revver video, you get 20% of the ad revenue off the top. Video Watchers get free video with unobtrusive endframe ads, and Video Sponsors target into an ever-growing content library without associating with infringing content. Our Video Patrol reviews every video entering the Revver library for infringement, hate speech or porn, and we work with Creative Commons to foster a community that understands creator rights. And unlike most other sites, we don’t play cat-and-mouse with the DMCA. It’s really disrespectful to the creator.
CC: Should amateurs really care about being paid?
SS: Hell yes. Look at the Clash, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Spike Jonze or any creator that ever made your heart pound. They were all amateurs; they had to fight like dogs to sustain their creativity in the early going. The influence of all these new online creators is wildly disruptive; genre, format and storytelling are being re-imagined with a different set of tools. We see online video as a new art form, these online creators are game-changers, and they surely need to get paid. They need recognition and resource.
CC: What do you think of the YouTube acquisition?
SS: It’s really great for online video, a total validation of the space. But current DMCA practices continue to throw creators under a bus, that problem gets worse every day, and this deal does nothing to solve that problem.
CC: What do you mean?
SS: Well, by the time you locate copies of your work and notify the site to take it down under the DMCA, more copies pop up and you have to start all over again. But should you lose income as sites leverage your creativity to scale traffic? Should sites refuse to police for illegal copies of your work unless you’re a strategic partner? Selling protection to those who can pay for it, while forcing small creators into a money-losing DMCA cat-and-mouse game is simply unfair.
CC: So how does Revver get the creator paid?
SS: It’s really simple, we attach dynamic ad insertion software to the video, and give it back to you. EepyBird, the creators of the Diet Coke and Mentos Experiment, processed their video through Revver and released it into the wild. Within weeks they received over six million views, and more than $35,000 in ad revenue. Of course, that’s a big hit, but we’re now getting lots of Revver creators paid. As our traffic and library grows, we imagine the day where any number of creators are able to make a living using Revver technology.
We also work with non-profits; Firefox asked us to build a contest engine that called out to their user base to create 30-second Firefox promos. It was a smashing success; they had hundreds of submissions and many, many millions of views. Creative Commons is about to start using our open syndication engine for fund-raising. There’s lots of ways to use Revver technology, we’re just getting started.
CC: How are the advertisers responding?
SS: Extremely well. Smart brands love interacting with the audience, and the really smart ones understand it’s better to sponsor authenticity then to try and replicate it. Our sponsors enjoy a real halo effect with creators; we expect a golden age of Internet sponsorship to emerge over the next few years. Creative development at agencies, studios, networks and labels may never be the same.
CC: You’ve said that Revver isn’t really another destination site. Can you explain that?
SS: Well, it’s important to note that the vast majority of Revver video views are happening in the wild, and not on our site. 88% of the Diet Coke and Mentos views happened on EepyBird’s website, 10% happened on our Sharer network, and just 2% happened on Revver.com. So it’s all about virality, and we don’t lose sleep over our Alexa ranking; most of the action is elsewhere.
And sure, video makers and sharers and sponsors and watchers come to Revver to develop collections, set up accounts, set preferences on content feeds. But again, we’re a totally open system, one that allows almost all of the activity to happen offsite. And the release of our open API allows anyone, from major companies to individuals, to build and maintain their own video-based communities elsewhere, using Revver technology.
CC: How does Revver use Creative Commons licensing, and what’s the response been like?
SS: When you upload to Revver, your video gets protected under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license. This means people are free to share your video if they credit you as the creator, and they can’t change the video or make money off of it without your permission. Creators really get CC; they appreciate the flexibility of CC licenses. In a world where the terms of service for many upload sites give site owners free reign to edit or repurpose uploads however they like, it’s a step forward every time a new creator opts into the CC license.
The response has been just great; LonelyGirl15, Invisible Engine, AskANinja, Ze Frank, CuteWithChris, Doogtoons, and many other top line creators are now working with CC licenses via Revver. We expect to have over 100,000 CC-licensed videos in the library in a matter of weeks. It’s working, and it’s working well.
CC: What about free culture?
SS: We love remix culture, mashups, and the like, and if you’ve got bank, go ahead and make free stuff. But we spent time in the favelas after the iCommons Summit in Rio with creators earning barely enough to afford mini-DV tape to make shorts on borrowed digicams. Those creators would love to get paid. They should have the right to decide how their content is distributed online, and not see that decision made for them by someone else.
CC: What’s the history behind Revver?
SS: Experiences around developing talent and then as a creator made it clear that access was the whole story, and that very few people had it. So in 1999 we launched AntEye.com, riffing on the idea that the biggest vision might come from the smallest eyes. We thought we could leverage the entire Internet as a vast discovery platform. Creators from all over the planet sent us thousands of videocassettes to digitize and publish, and some of it was just fantastic.
To get the word out, we sent AntEye trucks out to a bunch of college towns with the word CREATE! emblazoned on the outside. We’d pull up, give curious kids digicams in exchange for their driver’s license, teach them to edit their video in the back of the truck, then publish it online. Our best creators, as rated by their peers, were given micro pilot budgets and exposure into a first look we’d set up with HBO. Yet bandwidth was just insanely expensive, and our wild-eyed business model assumed that we’d discover the next Chris Rock or Robert Rodriguez or whomever, and then build a kind of a people’s MTV out of the content flow.
That’s all starting to happen now; we were just far too early. So just as AntEye started collapsing, a group of us started building out LA Indymedia. Indymedia burst onto the scene in November of ’99 as an independent media apparatus during the Seattle WTO. A group of us, inspired by their success, came together in LA to build an Indymedia Center for the 2000 Democratic National Convention.
We rented the 6th floor of Patriotic Hall, set up open computer stations, a community radio station, a convention newspaper, and in collaboration with Free Speech TV, a television studio and satellite uplink. Democracy Now! jumped in, as did 1400 other journalists from all over the world. We built a full-blown, multi-disciplined media operation in a matter of weeks. Danny Schechter, who’d delivered the crisis of South African apartheid into the global conversation in the 1980’s, was asked to host the first night.
Just as we were about to flip the switch, a thoroughly misguided LAPD claimed a bomb scare and shut us down. The bomb scare was absurd, clearly a mythology, so we put the Chief of Police’s home phone number onto the LA Indymedia homepage as a complaint line. We then got a call from LAPD to remove his number, and we agreed to do so in exchange for being left alone. And so the following night, just as Rage Against the Machine hit the stage outside of the Staples Center, we went live, with Danny hosting to over 12 million homes in our Echostar footprint. An amazing moment, to say the least.
That the LAPD tried to shut us down seems predictable in retrospect. Indymedia equals media empowerment, and this type of tech-savvy alternative media initiative was not only unprecedented, but a couple of years ahead of the proliferation of blogs and vlogs and social networks. And this may well have been a first, the first time anyone tried to shut down a domestic television station.
To many of us there, collaborative journalism really came into its own that night, presaging future commercial efforts like OhMyNews in Korea or Current in the States. But media empowerment can be quite threatening to those who are used to being in control of the message, as evidenced several days ago by the cold-blooded murder of Indymedia journalist Brad Will in Oaxaca, Mexico. The price one pays for having an ‘un-embedded’ point of view seems to increase by the hour. A couple of weeks ago, Bush signed into law a bill expanding his rights to declare martial law, to order militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters. And so the question for the online video community is: who’s to protect media-makers under such circumstances?
At about the same time and along similar lines, Ian Clarke had launched Freenet, a global, decentralized anti-censorship P2P network with, among other attributes, the potential to eliminate the bandwidth costs we’d seen at AntEye. So we partnered, organized a 501c3 around Freenet, and formed Uprizer to develop software inspired by Freenet architecture. This time we had a business model; a content delivery network, but then Hummer Winblad found itself in the crosshairs of the Napster lawsuits. P2P became the devil, and our investors urged us into the enterprise software business. I knew nothing about enterprise software so I quit, and then a friend from the Pacifica Foundation asked me to manage KPFK-FM.
At 112,000 watts, KPFK’s likely the strongest community radio signal in the US, and the idea was to see whether we could transition the station to a more grassroots version of its community mission. So we threw open the doors to a community who’d been picketing the station for years, blew past our fundraising targets, implemented listener-generated programming initiatives, and restored financial control back to the station. As expected, we saw massive grassroots creativity around us, but the price for many unpaid creators was predictable, a never-ending struggle for resources.
So in 2002 I started working on ChangeTv, a digital cable hybrid; AntEye meets KPFK meets MTV. The goal was to filter user-generated video off the Internet and onto cable, and most importantly, get our creators paid. We had John Perry Barlow and Jack Healey from Amnesty International advising us, but 18 months of trying to raise $65 million in a post-bubble environment just about broke me. So I morphed ChangeTv into an online creator marketplace and brought in a team of consultants; Ian Clarke and his brother Andrew joined over the summer, Oliver Luckett joined right after the November ’04 elections. Oliver’s the inspired former head of the network at Qwest; he’d just brilliantly teamed with Norman Lear to deliver over a million online voter registrations.
Andrew and Ian set about building Indy.tv for musicians, early proof of ChangeTv’s recommendation engine, and Ian started developing Dijjer.org, an open-source http-based P2P network designed to cover bandwidth. Oliver began solving problems associated with tracking files across the network, and collaborated on a new business plan. The Participatory Culture crew out of Worcester, Mass. joined in to build websites for Dijjer and Indy, and we all drove into the desert for a brainstorming marathon.
After that, things moved quickly; I raised more seed capital, asked Oliver, Ian, and Andrew to join fulltime in March of ’05, changed the name to Revver, and raised venture capital from the syndicate who’d funded Skype. And now we have an amazing group of people from all walks of life throwing in together; it’s just a great place to work and we’re all really committed to what we’re doing.
CC: And tell us about your history. What’s your personal background?
SS: I started out as a high school volunteer at WLIR-FM, the legendary New York rock station, then worked my way through college as a DJ, a short-order cook, a CBS Records rep and a concert promoter. Bob Marley was just a massive hero of mine, and a friend and I were somehow able to convince William Morris to route his tour through Wisconsin. Just weeks before he recorded Babylon by Bus in Paris, Bob rolled into Madison and blew the roof off of the Orpheum Theater. I had conversations with him around those two shows that pretty much changed everything for me. So when I finished college, I headed straight for William Morris in NY looking for him, and got offered a job in the mailroom.
I spent the ’80s learning new media, and working with Bob’s family after he died. New media in those days meant upstart networks like MTV, selling audiobooks for clients like Andy Grove and launching a home video division. Later, my focus shifted to young creators; indie filmmakers, writers and playwrights like Ang Lee, Larry David, Tim Robbins and many others. I ended up running the NY film operation, but I was way too curious to stay there. So I left in 1991 to write and direct my first film, Joey Breaker, featuring Bob’s daughter Cedella and a very young Philip Seymour Hoffman. And then I spent the 90’s as a filmmaker, TV producer, and working with Rita and the kids on a feature about Bob.
CC: What happened with the film?
SS: Well, Cedella always said that making a film about her Dad wouldn’t be easy and she was right. Bob may be the most widely known musician on the planet – a force of nature from Angkor to Windhoek to Delhi to Rio – the New York Times says he’s the most influential artist of the second half of the 20th century. But Warners’ was looking for a rock ‘n roll movie, think La Bamba, and they never saw how lucky they were to have a chance at something greater.
Rather than make the wrong film, we walked away. But I have no regrets, and not a day wasted. All of it led to AntEye, which led to Revver, and we’re now helping creators everywhere find an audience and sustain their creativity. And the prospect for empowering creators on a global scale strikes me as a better tribute to Bob’s worldview than any movie about him ever could be.
CC: What’s next in store for Revver?
SS: Well, we just rolled out Revver 1.0 a couple of weeks ago. Last week, we offered up our open Revver API, which allows any software developer anywhere on the planet to build a website on top of Revver’s platform. This is a really big step for us. We also just rolled out a flash container that allows your video to keep monetizing even after they get ripped from streams by sites like KeepVid. And we’re adding community tools and major media partnerships to generate opportunities for Revver creators. Lots more about this and a bunch of other initiatives soon, and a whole new rev of the site in a couple of weeks.
CC: Any parting thoughts?
SS: Not really, except if we were having any more fun we’d get arrested. It’s incredibly inspiring to do this work; we’re insanely grateful for the chance to build this business, and it’s really starting to prove itself. All that’s left is a callout to creators everywhere: Revverize it, set your video free!Comments Off
New license drafts for version 3.0 for the CC US license and the new generic/unported license have been posted. There have been several new amendments to the licenses — mainly as a result of the discussions on the cc-licenses list, but some as a result of discussions internally and amongst CC’s international affiliates. A first round of comments to the cc-licenses list discussions was posted back at the beginning of September but the bulk of discussions took place after this posting. The issue of the DRM parallel distribution language was debated in earnest. Ultimately, however, the general sentiment on the list does not seem to favor implementation of the DRM parallel distribution language at this stage.
To briefly explain the current round of amendments:
As noted above, these changes, for the most part, reflect list discussions and so hopefully a large amount of further discussion is not necessary and version 3.0 can be implemented shortly. However, if there are further errors or issues identified by people then the discussions will continue for as long as necessary to resolve these.Comments Off
Red Hat recently launched a matching sponsorship program for their employees in order to continue their support of Creative Commons. They will match their employees’ donations dollar for dollar up to $5,000.
We’d like to extend a warm thanks to our friends at Red Hat for their continued support — we are very appreciative!
If any other companies are interested in participating in our matching sponsorship program, please contact email@example.com.Comments Off
[This email is part of a weekly series written by Lawrence Lessig about Creative Commons. If you would like to be removed from this list, please click here. Alternatively, if you know others who might find these interesting, please sign them up here.]
In the four years since we launched CC, the Internet, and the world’s understanding of the Internet, have changed dramatically. In 2002, the media was obsessed by something called “piracy.” Today, they call it “user-generated content.” Just around the time we launched, Wikipedia crossed 100,000 articles; today it is the most important testament to the Internet’s potential to enable something different and extraordinary.
When we started, none of us had any real idea about what the Internet would become. But we all had dreams. Mine was that the Internet would offer something different from the world of analog culture. While many were obsessed with how new technologies would radically change old businesses, I was eager to see the new ways of creating and interacting that would develop. iTunes does better what Tower Records did pretty well. But what would the Internet create in 2010 that didn’t exist (in any significant sense) in 1990?
One dream was what Andy Raskin called in his 2004 “Business 2.0″ article about Creative Commons, the “sharing economy.” The “sharing economy” is different from a traditional commercial economy. It is not simply people working for free. Instead, this is the economy that supports Wikipedia (and free and open source software before that). It is the economy that drives much of the creativity in YouTube and blip.tv. It is the world of “amateur” creators, meaning again, not those whose work is amateurish, but those who do what they do for the love of what they do, and not for the money.
This sharing economy is not meant to displace the commercial economy. Its purpose is not to force Madonna to sing for free. Its aim instead is to enable the millions of other people around the world who are also creative, but who want to create in a different kind of community. The editors who make Wikipedia sing are not people who couldn’t get a job at Encyclopedia Britannica. They instead create for a different reason, within a very different community of creators.
At its core, Creative Commons is designed to support this sharing economy. Our free tools give creators a simple way to signal the rules under which they want to create. And, perhaps more importantly, by signaling clearly and reliably these freedoms, they encourage others who otherwise might hesitate to share and build upon that work. Thus, for example, the Public Library of Science publishes all of its articles under a CC license that gives users the freedom to share those articles broadly. Libraries and institutions around the world can now archive these works and make them available locally. Without the confidence of the CC licenses, no doubt lawyers within these different institutions would have panicked. The CC licenses let that panic be avoided, and invite many (who otherwise would not) to help share and build upon work.
The next challenge is to figure out how this sharing economy interacts with a traditional commercial economy. What happens when Time wants to use a fantastic CC-licensed Flickr photo? Or how does a hit on ccMixter move into the commercial space?
CC will never become a part of that commercial economy. But it is important, I believe, that we play a role in enabling this crossover. The alternative is a world we’re seeing too much of all ready: large entities that create sandboxes for “sharing,” but then effectively claim ownership over everything built within that sandbox. This is, in my view, not a sharing economy. It is instead simple sharecropping.
The key is to build alternatives that creators on the Internet can use to both create as they wish and keep control of their creativity. That’s the challenge I see over the next four years. And as we review over the next few weeks some of the best of CC from around the world, you’ll begin to see how this challenge might be met.
Our board member Joi Ito passed along this Blog TV spot. Technorati Japan’s Blog TV features CC Mixter on a special portion of this show called Challenge CGCM. Also, check out the woman to the right of the cowboy hat; she prominently displays a CC sticker on her laptop.Comments Off
I discussed much the same issue with Mike Linksvayer of Creative Commons USA at Copycamp last month. Nice guy, full of enthusiasm for the technology. But we never could clarify just how the “commercial rights reserved” part of a CC licence would actually work.
Close. We failed to clarify how a CC NonCommercial licence would directly replace a portion of Chris’ current revenue, which if I understood and recall correctly, derives from educational institutions
paying for photocopy and other use of Chris’ works via fees to a collective.
The disconnect is twofold. First, a CC NC licence may permit a nonprofit educational institution to use so licenced works under the licence — without fee. Second, the collective arrangement is working for Chris. He gets some supplemental revenue and presumably very little paperwork comes with it. He has little incentive to try something different that does not have this collecting infrastructure.
It is no surprise that CC licences are not appropriate for everyone. They are another option, built on copyright, and 100 percent voluntary. Writers may wish to not avail themselves of the option for
works already bringing in steady revenue from collective licensing arrangements. Chris continues:
It’s not practical for a user wanting to license commercial uses of perhaps dozens of CC items to chase down each author and try to negotiate a fee. But since CC does not have a collective licensing arm, there seems to be no convenient mechanism for users who want
to comply. Making compliance hard leads to non-compliance, doesn’t it?
I sense an entrepreneurial opportunity for the provision of low transaction cost commercial licencing of CC licenced works. Perhaps some existing collecting socities are well placed to execute on this opportunity. Or perhaps upstarts will do well in this market as established players wait to see what happens. Most likely, some of each.
I mean this seriously. I think CC has many useful applications for making things freely available. But is there anyone out there who has ever reserved commercial rights under a CC license and then actually received payment for those rights?
Yes! For example, artists on the Magnatune record label. Magnatune’s business model is releasing music under a NonCommercial licence and selling commercial rights. See a Magnatune blog post highlights some interesting recent deals and an interview with Magnatune founder John Buckman. Unsurprisingly most artists on Magnatune also want a low transaction cost solution: Buckman says the vast majority of artists react to the business model with “Whatever, you take care of the details.”
Two other recent commercial licensing instances mentioned on this blog are BeatPick music and Mercedes Benz and Lonelygirl15’s licensing of music from ccMixter users.
Of course there ought to be Magnatunes and Scoopts for most creative formats and genres that use copyright. This is certainly part of the plan. It takes time to build infrastructure, especially decentralized infrastructure, but much more will be visible in this area in the coming months.
It must also be mentioned that selling copies or commercial rights are not the only business strategies available to creators, nor even how most creators get paid now, let alone in the future. This was a hot topic of conversation at CopyCamp, so I did a “Speed Geek” session on it — rapid fire five minute presentations repeated for small groups until all attendees had seen all presentations — an exhausting and fun hour plus. My flip chart after the Speed Geek finished:Comments Off