So, I hit the Creative Commons website and followed the links to the “Choose a License” page. I read it through and then circled back to Chris’s assignment. He indicated that I needed to select something that I made for this course. I thought about the audio’s I had published on SoundCloud. Interestingly, SoundCloud plays only be standard copyright rules. So no option on their website for alternate licenses. Previously, I noted that YouTube allows for Creative Commons, but the default is a standard copyright. Probably there is a mechanism to modify the terms of copyright after the fact. However, the two videos I’ve made were not for this course. So, once again, I satisfied with my YAWP post. I selected a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. I am ok with the creative use of my work. I am not so ok with a big corporation using my stuff (like that is a problem I have) though I wonder on what definition that distinction turns. I imagined that my favorite YouTube content creators could use my stuff… but now I wonder. So, after having double checked, I should have selected ok to commercial use to allow other content creators whose sites are monetized access to my content. So, based on that learning, I switched to a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Proper Use Scenario:
So, my Favorite Blogger loves my post “YAWP” and decides to do a remix on the content and ideas. Favorite reaches out to me and lets me know of her intention. She does her creative work and posts her remix with attribution and link to my original post. Her monetized site results in profits to her, and because she promoted my work, the remix results in traffic to my site. The traffic and comments encourage me to monetize and market my blog.
Improper use Scenario:
Evil Blogger rips off my post directly and posts it on his site, Chris Lott Googling my YAWP post comes across this copyright/Creative Commons violation and drops the dime on Evil Blogger. I email Evil and politely request he either take down the post or engage in the creative act of remixing and attribution. Because I am so persuasive, Evil Blogger experiences a transformation and is touched by rainbows and ponies. Now, Good Blogger attributes, links and even remixes a little, but because his site has little traffic since had a reputation as a Pirate, no traffic to my site results.
Improper use Scenario (version 2):
Evil Blogger rips off my post directly and posts it on his site, Chris Lott Googling my YAWP post comes across this copyright/Creative Commons violation and drops the dime on Evil Blogger. I email Evil and politely request he either take down the post or engage in the creative act of remixing and attribution. Evil Blogger blows me off. I send a takedown order to Evil, his site host and search engines linking to his site. Because Evil is a jerk, his site host shuts him down for a pattern of violations. Evil has hacker friends, and they break into my blog site and vandalize it.
Creative Commons doesn’t wrestle with the fundamental weirdness of Copyright law(particularly the length of protection) however; it allows creators to fine-tune and make public the terms of their sharing and does so in a consistent way. I guess I knew more than I remembered about Creative Commons from my library work, nonetheless, I suspect this could be a useful tool for the cohorts of content creators on line. Here I am thinking about clusters of YouTube creators. Like these:
They could select a CC-BY license and protect themselves and support each other at the same time. Right now they are all young and good friends but we have seen money change people so very possibly simply going with the default YouTube licence might be short sighted for this kind of creative collaborations.