New Creative Commons Licenses Released For Intergovernmental Organizations

from the no-more-excuses dept

Even though Creative Commons licenses have only been in existence for just over a decade, it's now hard to imagine the online world without them. The ability they offer to modify or even cancel copyright's monopoly has led to all kinds of innovation, and given that success (as well as one or two failures), you might think there's no need for any more CC licenses. Creative Commons begs to differ:

We're pleased to announce a new suite of Creative Commons licenses specifically designed for intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). IGOs produce a wide array of valuable information and content, ranging from scholarly and scientific papers to environmental data. Just like other creators who seek wide dissemination of their works to achieve maximal impact, IGOs benefit from using CC's well understood and widely adopted licenses.
A new license is needed, apparently, because IGOs have one or two special requirements. For those who are interested, Andres Guadamuz has a useful post on his Technollama blog explaining what's new and why. He has no doubts about the significance of these new licences:
It may be easy to miss the monumental importance of this new licence. Creative Commons has enough acceptance in the legal mainstream that it will be adopted by the likes of the World Intellectual Property Organization and the OECD. It could be argued that this might be detrimental to CC, as it shows that it is now being used by the establishment as a fig leaf to cover the deficiencies inherent in copyright protection. The reality is that this sets CC as the international open content standard, and sends a strong message that it should also be adopted by governments to release their own data. In other words, there are no more excuses not to adopt CC, and this can be used by open content advocates everywhere to answer for once and for all stupid questions about the validity of open licences.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Dec 13th, 2013 @ 4:50pm

    So, who's going to respect this without potential enforcement?

    Probably plenty of people, actually: those who respect the rights and wishes of other creators.

    What I really meant to get at was: So what's the diff between respecting this CC license and that of MPAA / RIAA? The basic common law principle is SAME for all that can be called copyright: that the creator of a work has ALL the right to control copying so that he can gain money from it, and other people NONE, though they can PAY to consume the content. -- What's so difficult about that?

    I'll tell you: ATTRACTIVE content undermines that simple common law morality and the deal that society has worked out to make creative works practical. You pirates and freetards convince yourselves that no one is harmed by your consumption of content without paying. -- Heck, usually you claim piracy helps promote it! -- Anyway, this CC IGO stuff almost no one wants, so is just nearly irrelevant. -- Let's go back to the basics on copyright that applies to ATTRACTIVE products. I came across my bullet points just now, by happy coincidence, so I'll just paste them in, haven't done for a while:


    Fundamentals of Rational Copyright Somewhat redundant to clarify related aspects. Don't worry if you can't grasp these all at once: I'll be using magic to post it often.

    >>> Copyright is derived from the facts of existence; it is natural law and cannot be narrowly defined; it is self-evident like the US Constitution itself which is only valid UNDER common law; statute is at best tertiary.

    ) Creators inherently have SOLE RIGHT TO COPY their work.

    ) Creating is and has always been more difficult than copying.

    ) The special provisions in law for copyright stem from the above 2 facts. It's specific setting out of "intellectual property" rights for creating works given the relative ease of copying.

    ) Copyright specifies WHO can gain money from the works, AND that no one else is to gain money from them. (For a limited time, but after in public domain, it's still unethical to grift on the work of others; ONLY the cost of reproduction should be charged.)

    ) Copyright law is indeed exactly to prevent TWO types of THEFT (during the limited time): 1) by commercial scale copiers directly profiting 2) by the general public taking the work without rewarding creator. Only creators may make copies or attempt to gain from it during that (limited) period.

    ) There are NO rights whatsoever granted to or held by copiers. No one's "right to copy" is at any time removed or diminished because it never exists prior to the creation of a work.

    ) Machines doing the labor of copying doesn't confer any new right to do so.

    ) Copyright has a worthwhile societal purpose to encourage the creation of various works, even if only for trivial entertainment.

    ) Many like to jeer that copyright exists only until a creation is shared with others -- after that you've no claim to it! Then anyone can take the work that you did and try to grift off its value for themselves. But that's advocating law of the jungle apply to creators while enabling grifters and pirates to use the very tools of civilization to STEAL the creations. It's just not FAIR. -- No one will say that laborers don't have right to the fruits of their labor (except so far as they advocate slavery, and some DO). Copyright is the SAME common law, fundamental recognition of who's due the rewards for having produced, except applies to non-material products. The creator puts in work with hopes of profit, relying on the stated terms of civilized society that the public assure monopoly for a limited time so that the very potential for rewards isn't stolen by either grifters or pirates.

    ) Even indirect income from in any way providing "for free" the protected work of others is clearly illegal, immoral, and unethical.

    ) Putting entire digital movie / music files online for anyone to download is NOT sharing, not fair use, nor fair to its creators; it does remove some degree of potential profit and some degree of actual profit.

    ) Copying rights are granted by the public for the public good (or was until unilaterally changed by moneyed interests) and we all have a general duty to respect the special provisions made for creators.

    ) Possession of authorized physical media is license to access the content any number of times (which can be one-at-a-time library use, yet not "public" display). In the absence of physical media, there's no clear right to access content, only perhaps an authorized temporary permission. But at no time does possession of digital data confer a right to reproduce it outside of the terms and conditions as for physical media, no matter how easy it is to do so.

    ) Emphasizing an aspect of the just above point: digital data is even less "owned" by the purchaser than with physical media, not more.

    ) When independently rendered, fashion "ideas", "art" in general, "look and feel", jokes, bits of wit, and musical "riffs" are not copyright-able because not significant effort. Don't throw those in to confuse the topic. (Specific clarification for music: you may render "stolen" riffs to parody or add spice, but not use actual "sampled" audio as basis for your main theme.)

    ) Many persist in using the canard of "copyright can't guarantee income". -- Misleading. From the US Constitution it's been to assure creators a monopoly on the ATTEMPT at income from a given work for a limited time period. No one else has the right to even MAKE such attempt, nor to GRIFT off the content value either directly or indirectly (as a draw for eyes to advertisements).

    ) Nothing above is invalidated or weakened by results being imperfect, nor by attempts to indefinitely extend time and scope of copyright: the latter are driven by greed and should of course be resisted, but by more general means.

    ) If you advocate taking copyright away from Disney after its long abuse and extension, then FINE! -- But don't at same time empower mega-corporations to steal creative works from the poor. Those are not similar cases. Doing away with ALL copyright is even more criminal than the current mess. -- Make a means test for copyright, prohibit it entirely to corporations, and prevent them from raiding the public domain.

    [Last revised 13 December 2013]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 13th, 2013 @ 5:43pm

    Re: So, who's going to respect this without potential enforcement?

    I've uploaded my works to various sites under CC will full access for people to do anything they please with it. That means selling it, building something new with it or whatever. 300K + Downloads I've earned nothing lol because I offer it free to add a little competition to places like GR selling the same old shit week after week.

    They copy movie styles over and over and over and over it's boring. I offer my superior work as two big middle fingers and a kiss my ass I'm better than you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    solidyote (profile), Dec 14th, 2013 @ 12:27pm

    I just wanted to mention that the CC licenses do not cancel copyrights. They work within the confines of copyright laws, but its impossible to nullify them since they're obligatory..

    They mention on their websites that some countries are making things harder for CC licenses, given their copyright laws don't support things like CC0...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), Dec 15th, 2013 @ 9:12pm

    Wheres Nina

    Still think Ninas stance holds more weight than this does.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Dec 16th, 2013 @ 9:34am

    Re: So, who's going to respect this without potential enforcement?

    the creator of a work has ALL the right to control copying so that he can gain money from it, and other people NONE, though they can PAY to consume the content. -- What's so difficult about that?


    Define "creator" and specify a length of time for which the sole right to copy is valid.

    So... what about derivative works? We've established that you care nothing for the Constitution or for the fact that copyright was created thereunder for the good of the public as a primary concern.

    People don't "consume" content unless they're lighting it on fire, or something. "Consume" is a word brought in by the maximalists to justify the ever-increasing expansion of copyright terms, the idea being to pretend there is a finite amount of the specified song, film, etc.

    Artists, creators, etc. can derive an income from performance; copyright rents are not the primary source of income for them. What part of that is so damn hard to understand?

    Back to your first point: by your reckoning, who owns the right to perform and sell copies of performances of, and the sheet music to the works of Johann Strauss? The man is dead, and has been for some time. PLUS the long copyright terms we have now were not in existence then. You're pretending we have always had insanely long copyright terms. We haven't. That is disingenuous of you, Cathy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This