Creative Commons & Webcomics 144
xerexes writes "This week Comixpedia is publishing an article written by T Campbell called "Creative Commons and Webcomics" which features a roundtable discussion with comments from Lawrence Lessig, Neeru Paharia, Mia Garlick, JD Frazer and Cory Doctorow. Traditional copyright faces webcomics with an uncomfortable choice. Its restrictions, properly enforced, would mean a virtual end to crossovers and homages, fan art, fan fiction, and many other staples that make the webcomic a more entertaining creation and foster artistic growth. A total lack of copyright, however, leaves unscrupulous readers free to "bootleg" subscription sites, program tools to deprive comics of advertising revenue, and even profit from others' labor without permission. The Creative Commons license presents a possible solution. It lets copyright holders to grant some of their rights to the public while retaining others, through a variety of licensing and contract schemes, which may include dedication to the public domain or open content licensing terms. "
As an example of how well things can work... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp02242005.shtml [somethingpositive.net]
http://www.checkerboardnightmare.com/d/20050224.ht ml [checkerboa...htmare.com]
http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/fanart/queenofwan ds.html [irregularwebcomic.net]
Of course, this being Slashdot, five people have probably already posted this by now...
Fair use, Fan Art and the plague of my daily life (Score:4, Informative)
This reminds me a lot of a problem my company is facing. One of partner sites that uses our free video hosting software http://video.freevideoblog.com/ [freevideoblog.com] gets a lot of "fan" dedications to popular TV shows like Buffy the Vampire slayer or Anime music videos set to popular songs. It's damn good work, and IMOHO only creates more awareness and popularity to the original work, but because we're paranoid of getting sued by the RIAA and MPAA, we have to delete those videos from the system.
I have to wonder how the Music industry gets around this as often I hear music that "samples" tracks from other artists, or even sound bites from TV and the movies. So I know there is a process in place to take an original work and modify it (And combine it with your own original work) to create your own unique art...but I don't know what it is, or where that shade of gray turns black.
I have to say that in this lawsuit happy time I'm more inclined to ere on the side of caution, but I feel a lot of unique and original work is lost or covered up by folks like myself moderating content off the system.
Anyhow just some idle rambling from my own experience.
-Adam
Re:Fair use, Fan Art and the plague of my daily li (Score:4, Informative)
It's not that bad.
Most people mixing up their own derivative works for fun will share within their circle of friends privately, or via centralized services that haven't grown big enough to care about being legally anal, or via decentralized p2p (which is where I find most of those anime music vids, halo vids, GTA trick vids, CS cheater vids, WoW "hammertime" vids, and whatnot).
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Because of that "IANAL" thing - true of most people with web content. And just putting a message like "You can copy my stuff within reason" is pretty much equivalent to "Help yourself to everything" if you ever want to take it to a courtroom.
The CC licenses, on the other hand, ARE written by lawyers. So they say exactly what you want them to say, and when you say "You can do this, but not that" you know that you're not leaving a dozen loopholes to be exploited.
Re:Not about Copyright (Score:3, Informative)
A proper trademark license requires attention to quality control standards, i.e. the licensor can dictate how the mark is used, can require the licensee to provide examples and submit to spot checks, and can be terminated if used wrongly. In practice, they should be for a limited term of years, and should be valid contracts, which requires consideration, etc.
Lucas likely has good trademark licenses with Kenner (or whoever the hell makes the toys now). I doubt they have anything good with fanfilms makers, though not having looked into it, I can't say.
And btw, there is no form of human endeavor that doesn't require lawyers.
Re:Profit (Score:4, Informative)
Basically, you should work on your vocabulary; just because something is illegal, or even wrong in your opinion, doesn't mean you should call it stealing. A different word might be more appropriate. Arson isn't stealing, for example. Nor is kidnapping.
As it happens, there is a term that is exactly the right term to use: copyright infringement.
It might not inflame your passion, but it's accurate. I value the latter more, especially since it's difficult to have a rational discussion with someone that's being so emotional that they can't think straight.
Re:Money, money, money (Score:4, Informative)
How about 14 years with the option to renew for another 14? You know, how it was orginally way back in 1790.
Since we're on that note anyway, Copyright Timeline [cni.org]
Re:Fair use, Fan Art and the plague of my daily li (Score:3, Informative)
The test of legality used to boil down to something like "does the work stand on its own without the sampled material, and does it not detract from the value of the original."
So Skinny Puppy could get away with using tons of dialogue from television and film in the 80s, because:
- Their music didn't depend on the samples, it just incorporated them.
- Using those samples didn't devalue, for example, Bugs Bunny cartoons, Charles Manson documentaries, or incredibly awful Canadian vampire movies.
- The samples were used to provide commentary on society.
Over time, sampling became more about swiping someone else's bassline, or another part of their music. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this (although I think the incest factor makes the new work less interesting), but it did change the nature of using sampled elements.
Today, basically if you are a major-label band, you *must* clear all your samples, no matter how short, or there will be a legal battle.
Most copyright holders seem to ignore bands on non-mainstream labels (e.g. Metropolis), but if there is enough publicity, and the copyright holder takes issue with the music, there have still been court battles.
You can't buy Apotheosis' "O Fortuna" new anymore, because Karl Orff's estate sued over it. Granted, that failed the "does it stand on its own?" test miserably, but on the other hand even the total worldwide sales of that track wouldn't have covered the licensing costs for the music, so it would never have been made "legitimately" anyway.
The money issue is a big one for smaller bands. Some copyright holders will charge hundreds or thousands of dollars for the use of a single sample, even if it's for an album which will sell 2000 copies at most.
The pricing makes some sense in the inflated world of major labels, but it stifles independent artists. For example, I once estimated that to clear the samples in *one* of my tracks from back in 2000, it would cost something like $50k-$100k, far more than the entire album it was from would ever generate even in gross profit.
Personally I think it's illogical to the point of frustration that a visual artist can make and sell collages made from Chiquita banana stickers and newspaper clippings all day, but using audio samples is somehow different.