This is the second of several postings describing potential innovations to our licenses. It comes courtesy of Rob Hallman, a Stanford Law School student in the “Advanced Contracts: Creative Commons” seminar.
You have the power to make learning fun. At least partly. Promoting education is a personal goal and a corporate mission for many copyright holders. If you have creative work that you’d like to share with students and educators, but you don’t want people to use it for other purposes, an “educational purposes” license option may be just your size. “Educational purposes” gives the green light to any use of a work in a classroom setting.
There are all sorts of classrooms (including virtual), and we’d like to include them all, as long as they’re run by a legitimate educational institution, commercial or not.
But what about fair use? We don’t imagine that this “educational purposes” provision would replace or compete with fair use. Instead, this provision is designed to allow copyright holders to share even more usage rights with students and educators than fair use allows. We want students and educators to feel confident that their use is legal and happy that the artist or owner is a willing accomplice in the learning process.
Educational Purposes. The licensor permits students or educators to copy, distribute, display, and perform the Work in whole or in part for educational purposes as defined in this section.
Educational purposes include classroom use affiliated with an educational institution, research or other projects developed and displayed exclusively for classroom use, or for the review of instructor(s), or degree-conferring committees, where:
Educational institutions include individuals, corporations or trusts, commercial or noncommercial, whose primary purpose is educational, and whose educational purpose is demonstrable through governmental recognition or through comportment consistent with a customary understanding of educational purpose among practitioners in the field.
Classrooms include the traditional classroom setting as well as other recognized forums for instruction or coursework that are administered by an educational institution. On-line and other nontraditional “classrooms” will be considered classrooms for the purposes of this definition where they are the forum for a legitimate course, seminar, or instructional program administered by an educational institution.
Students are a distinct, limited community currently participating with the permission of an educational institution in a course, seminar, or other program with an educational purpose offered by that institution. Student status is coextensive with the duration of the course, seminar, or program.
Educators are full-time or part-time/adjunct faculty, administration or staff of an educational institution.
Can this be simpler? Should it be broader? Narrower? Tell us why you’d use it or why you wouldn’t.19 Comments »
This post is the first in a series that will roll out, over the course of this week, potential innovations to our licenses for your review and comment.
Mmm . . . Free Samples
Right now, our menu of license options lets authors choose between prohibiting or encouraging a) commercial re-uses of their work, and b) transformations of their work.
It does not, however, let an author choose c) to encourage commercial transformations of their work while d) prohibiting commercial verbatim copying of their work.
That is, if you like the idea of people making a remix of your song, or re-cutting your film, but you don’t want them simply to sell whole, unaltered copies of your work, our licenses today may not perfectly fit your needs.
The “noncommercial” provision is a blanket restriction, treating all commercial uses — no matter how innovative — the same.
Many folks like the idea of inviting others to build on their work; and they really like the notion of a copyright regime that would recognize and honor that practice. (Of course, copyright today doesn’t.)
Don Joyce of legendary culture jammers Negativland nailed both of these concepts in an early conversation with us on the subject:
“This would be legally acknowledging the now obvious state of modern audio/visual creativity in which quoting, sampling, direct referencing, copying, and collaging have become a major part of modern inspiration. [A sampling option would] stop legally suppressing it and start culturally encouraging it — because it’s here to stay. That’s our idea for encouraging a more democratic media for all of us, from corporations to the individual.”
In this spirit of democratic media and collaboration, we offer this draft provision for your comment and improvement. You are all Kings and Queens of Copyright: What would proper “sampling” and “collaging” look like in your world? How might you build on or re-mix our formulation below?
You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in this license in any manner (except as described immediately below) that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
You may exercise the right to create and reproduce Derivative Works in a manner primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation — provided that the Derivative Work(s) constitute a good-faith “sampling,” “collage,” and/or “mash-up,” as appropriate to the medium, genre, and market niche.
Now, we anticipate that the phrase “as appropriate to the medium, genre, and market niche” might prompt some anxiety, as it leaves things relatively undefined. But there’s more method here than you might expect: The definition of “sampling” or “collage” varies across different media. Rather than try to define all possible scenarios (including ones that haven’t happened yet) — which would have the effect of restricting the types of re-uses to a limited set — we took the more laissez faire approach.
This sort of deference to community values — think of it as “punting to culture” — is very common in everyday business and contract law. The idea is that when lawyers have trouble defining the specialized terms of certain subcultures, they should get out of the way and let those subcultures work them out. It’s probably not a surprise Creative Commons likes this sort of notion a lot.14 Comments »
We’re very excited to announce that Davis Guggenheim, a celebrated director and producer of both documentary and dramatic film and television, has joined our Board of Directors. Davis brings to our team the invaluable perspective of a creator with both extensive commercial experience and a commitment to public policy.
In 1999, Davis undertook an ambitious project documenting the challenging first year of several novice public school teachers. Two films resulted from this intensive immersion in the Los Angeles public school system: The First Year and Teach. Both films sought to address the tremendous need for qualified teachers in California and nationwide and to create awareness of this crisis — as well as to inspire a new generation to become teachers. In 2002, Davis received a Peabody Award for The First Year.
Davis was an Executive Producer on Training Day and directed a feature film called Gossip, both for Warner Bros. His television directing credits include recently completed episodes of “The Shield,” “Alias,” and “24″ as well as such critically acclaimed programs as “NYPD Blue,” “ER,” and “Party of Five.” He is currently a Producer and Director of the upcoming HBO series “Deadwood.”
Guggenheims other documentary films include Norton Simon: A Man and His Art, produced for permanent exhibition at the Norton Simon Museum, and JFK and the Imprisoned Child, produced for permanent exhibition at the John F. Kennedy Library. Guggenheim wrote and edited many films with his father, four-time Academy Award winner Charles Guggenheim. Davis graduated from Brown University in 1986.Comments Off
This week we’ll roll out several potential innovations to our licenses, then call for your comments. First, we’ll post some proposed text for two new kinds of license options: “sampling” and “educational use.” Second, we’ll float some draft language that we’ve considered adding to our licenses as enhancements: an explicit safe harbor for search engines under our “noncommercial” condition; a clear distinction between privacy-enhancing encryption tools and over-reaching digital rights management; and a potential link requirement as an addition to our “attribution” provision.
We plan to post around one draft provision a day this week; by the end of the week, we’ll have upgraded our blog so that you can share comments with other readers. Please weigh in: Let us know if you think the proposed enhancements and options are worth it, and if so, how we might improve the specific language of each.
Note: We’re not changing or versioning the licenses — not yet, anyway. We hope through this process simply to vet publicly issues that a few of you have raised via email, and to explore how Creative Commons and our adopters might best work together as our project grows. After a healthy comment period, we’ll take stock and move on from there.Comments Off
Today, Creative Commons metadata advisor Aaron Swartz joined blogger and author Cory Doctorow, programmer Brandon Wiley, Rice University‘s Chris Kelty, and Executive Director Glenn Otis Brown to talk about the Creative Commons at a panel discussion at the South By Southwest (SXSW) interactive conference. The panel covered issues surrounding the project, how people have used our licenses, and what comes next.
This afternoon, Creative Commons chairman and co-founder Lawrence Lessig will deliver a much-anticipated keynote.Comments Off
We are excited to announce today the launch of the International Commons project. The goal of the International Commons is to “port” our licenses to operate in the legal systems (and languages) of countries across the world.
Christiane Asschenfeldt, a copyright expert and the newest member of the Creative Commons team, will coordinate the effort from Berlin.Comments Off
Charles Muller has licensed the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism under a Creative Commons license. The dictionary is a compilation of Buddhist terms and texts — as well as names of temples, schools, and people — found in East Asian Buddhist canonical sources. The dictionary project, which began in 1986, is thought to be the most comprehensive compilation of Buddhist terms available in English today.1 Comment »
These comics walk the Creative Commons walk: our very own Neeru Paharia built them from Ryan Junell’s original artwork, which debuted in our Flash movie under a Creative Commons license, and from photographs taken and licensed by our webmaster Matt Haughey.Comments Off
Last month, a few folks in the world of weblogs asked some good, hard questions about Creative Commons licensing of their works. (We covered that discussion here). At the time, Denise Howell put a request out to other lawyers to weigh in on the issue, and recently, attorney Tim Hadley did so.
Tim’s exhaustive analysis examines the ins and outs of applying a license to a weblog (specifically in the context of Movable Type’s recent support for Creative Commons licenses). He takes a long look, in particular, at the issue of license revocation and echoes our chairman’s take on the subject not long ago.
Tim has also posted a follow-up based on feedback and posts from other sites and is planning a complete revision of his first post on the subject — the goal being to cover as many sides of the issue as possible.
Thanks, Tim — and to the rest of you sparking discussion about the licenses.Comments Off
Creative Commons will sponsor acclaimed singer-songwriter Cat Power (a.k.a. Chan Marshall) at the San Francisco NoisePop music festival this Wednesday, Feb. 26. Advanced tickets are sold out, but some tickets may still be available at the door (Bimbo’s 365) the night of the show.
Creative Commons staffers will be in the lobby handing out copies of our new “enchanced CD.” It’s hot off the press and features our Flash animation plus Creative Commons-licensed tracks by D.J. Spooky, Roger McGuinn, Dealership, The Walkingbirds, and Gamelan Nyai Saraswati.Comments Off