If open source gives programmers the freedom to create new and better software for computers, the nonprofit organization Creative Commons does something similar for musicians, writers and other artists. While this open source spin off has nothing to do with the 1′s and 0′s of computers, the project would not be possible without the Internet, nor would it be as necessary.
The Creative Commons (CC) is a licensing project that gives artists control over how their projects can be used, sampled and meshed with other ideas to create completely new works. After all, creativity is only 10 percent genius and 90 percent plagiarism. In a world where memes are floating around at a rate too fast to keep track of, the mere act of choosing what one will or will not sample is part of the artistic process. In the past, however, copyright made it impossible for artists to use another’s work without paying royalties. This stiffens the creative process for anyone not backed by large financial support. But Creative Commons gives wiggle room to the underground artist looking for new ideas to work with.
The Creative Commons movement doesn’t stop copyright. Just like open source for programmers, copyright is still granted and money can be made from work produced under the CC, but it also gives artists the freedom to decide what can and cannot be done to their work by another party, and lets others know what is safe to take from another artist’s work. This just didn’t exist under traditional copyright contracts.
The ©, an all familiar sign, is put on products to make people aware that they are not allowed to copy the work without the creator’s permission. But, as this video explains there are some times when the © is unnecessary, even a burden. Today, all work is copyright the second it is produced, whether the artist intended it for sale or not. So, if you are a small garage band or a leading New York writer everything you do becomes copyright automatically. But what if you want other people to use your work, adapt it, improve upon it or spin it off into new creations and send it back out in to the world? How can you not automatically restrict the use of your creations? This is what the Creative Commons allows.
The Commons offers a total of 11 different licensing agreements to choose from. So, you can restrict the use of your work to only those that are willing to give attribution, are willing to also license with the CC or a whole range of other stipulations. The combination is completely up to the artist, giving them the power over who can do what to their work. Best of all, CC is a nonprofit and gives these licenses out at no cost. While the Creative Commons is offered in several countries, each branch needs to re-work the licenses legal wording to fit local copyright laws.
The CC has been a tremendous counter culture force since its inception in 2001, even spurning harsh words from the king of geeks, Bill Gates, who retracted his statement after seeing the uproar it caused. With millions of works available in the commons a high powered commons search engine has become a necessity, with Yahoo answering the call with a Creative Commons search, to aid artists looking for projects to use for inspiration. So what does this nonprofit represent that it would get Bill tied up in knots and receive cheers from millions the world over?
Advocates see the Creative Commons as a changing of the guards and a rejuvenation of artistic communities. If everything is copyright and privatized the idea of “standing on the shoulders of giants” becomes an expensive creative endeavor. But, the CC creates an environment where there is a wealth of ideas that all can grab from freely. It evens and enriches the playing field for creativity and in doing so it automatically establishes an open source community of artists. At the same time, as ideas flow, people can still make money from their Creative Commons work. It isn’t, as Bill referred to it, a modern form of communism. The ‘free’ in the Creative Commons stands for ‘free speech,’ not ‘free beer.’
A recent example of the Creative Commons was the Wired CD. This was the first example of major recording artists, such as the Beastie Boys and David Byrne, coming out and licensing their work under the Creative Commons. Not only could I download these tracks, jam, re-mix and re-record songs with my favorite artists, but so could thousands of others who subsequently licensed their new works with the Creative Commons. One CD started an avalanche of creativity, an artistic dialogue.
We live in an era where artistic movements live and die quickly. The information age spawns tantalizing new genres, but cannot sustain any for too long, as Internet viewers are constantly sweeping ahead to look for the next new idea. This is understandable, expected and welcomed by many. But having established the tranquility of information age art (in all its mediums from music to digital videos) why not foster a creative idea by supporting a free space for it to mature and take on new manifestations? It’s a process of democratizing innovation, which some would say is restricted in part because copyrights limit the ability of others to engage with a work. Take away the Commons and there literally is no common ground for artists to start from. But if everyone has access to these ideas, something the Internet already grants us, why can’t we all equally engage with them.
Fact: the Internet allows us to share information at a rate never before dreamed. I can do instantaneous business with someone in China. The Creative Commons asks, why can’t I engage with a person in China on a creative endeavor too. After all, I am already exposed to their ideas.
Anybody who reads blogs already knows the importance of being able to link back to another’s post. In fact the most popular blogs just are “re-blogs,” or sites that organizes blogging communities to find the most linked to subjects. If the subject matter was copyright and not open to the blogging community, the entire blogging phenomenon, which had a notable effect in the 2004 presidential campaigns, would amount to unorganized ramblings. The fact that everyone has access to the same information and can site it, adding their own commentary, is what gives blogs their substance.
True, the Creative Commons has nothing to do with blogging, as there are no blatent copyright issues with linking, but that is precisely why they are a good example of communities that are free to have ideas exchanged and expanded upon.
As much as the music and other industries want to deny it, technology enables us to download, mix and sample their products. They can fight it, but it simply will not go away at this point. We have passed the turning back point. File-sharing is not going to disappear tomorrow and neither will artists who desire to start where others have left off. All the Creative Commons does is make sure that these individuals, who many would argue are contributing to society through their efforts, do not become outlaws. So the final question is, should they be considered outlaws?
In the end this is a moral question which I cannot fully address here. But I add to that question: Were the Romans morally wrong for stealing Greek aesthetics? The way most historians understand it this conscious attribution of Greek thought was an important and beneficial contribution to Western civilization. Luckily all ideas back then were part of the commons, there were no copyrights so all was free for the taking, If things had been different the Romans might have been sued out of existence.