Way back in my first core post, I profiled the infamous blog – Fitzroyalty. His blog contains a Creative Commons license with the ‘ShareAlike’ button. Such a button states that this:
“Allows others to distribute derivative works only under a licence identical to the license that governs your work” (creativecommons.org.au/licenses)
I have since, been wondering whether this fact alone obliges me to include a CC license on all things mel-born.
You see, I’m just not so sure about the whole project.
The Internet has always posed a threat to the “dominant market position” of media corporations (). The wave of copyright laws and agreements amended, or created even between the late 1980s- c.1999, highlights the concerns of major media players and their desperate attempts to maintain control over intellectual property.
Undoubtedly, this threat has only increased with the exponential growth of the blogosphere, and other UGC outlets on the web. Again, this is evident in the music industry’s crusade against P2P technologies, starting with Napster in 1999.
Creative Commons came to be in 2002, posing a different angle on copyright – to find good in the open sharing of information. CC allows its voluntary users to have active control over the copyright overriding their own work.
Say for example I, as an amateur, were to take some fantastic photo, purely for the love of photography. With a CC license, I can proactively choose to allow other Internet users to feature my image on their own web pages, provided they simply attribute the picture to me. Woo! Power to the people!
Yeah, if only it worked like that.
Truth is, while the idea of Creative Commons is great, it doesn’t stop copyright breaches. Let’s go back to my dear friend, well, idol, Fitzroyalty…
It seems scripted, but believe it or not, FR (who don’t forget bears a CC license) once had his work ‘stolen’ by none other than Three Thousand! You can read about his scenario here. What this shows, is that in this circumstance, the CC license was futile. TT, a professional organisation, utilised the intellectual property of FR (and in essence, took profit from it) without permission. There were no consequences.
While I have tried to attribute images to their correct author on all things mel-born, the fact remains that I too, have indeed flippantly ignored these creative restrictions. As such, I would be a hypocrite to enforce a license of my own.
What would I do though if my content was unknowingly reproduced? It’s been flattering, and a little weird to be getting feedback from my friends about this blog. They are actually reading it, even enjoying it! Perhaps I’m too hopeful, but does that mean that other net surfers are indeed doing the same? Why should I stand back and allow a total stranger to cruise on in, rip off my content and make a profit from it?
But a Creative Commons license still wouldn’t stop them.
all things mel-born, represents first and foremost an assignment, but it is nothing more than a hobby for me. I don’t wish to seek profit, and I am not a professional media worker. Really, I don’t think my work isn’t that outstanding to need to worry about intellectual theft.
So for that reason, I’m opting out of a CC license for this blog.
Don’t think that’s a free passage to steal from me!
Mel xx
all things mel-born 