Websites that license their products under a Creative Commons License (or copyleft as it is sometimes known) reach a wider range of people, as their products can be viewed for free and reproduced in other places (as long as they are properly referenced). Creative Commons is a not for profit organisation, established in Australia in 2004 (http://creativecommons.org.au/about/ccaustralia) that enables people to share their own work in ways that are less restricting that traditional copyright. Three examples of information available under Creative Commons are Wikipedia.org, xkcd.com and the online film Sita Sings the Blues. Financing these websites is usually made through donations and the selling of merchandise.
Creative Commons came about because copyright was not meeting the needs of the creator and the consumer. It gives the creator more control over the sharing of a product. It allows the consumer to have “more liberal use of your material, but only on certain conditions” (http://creativecommons.org.au/learn-more/licences). When something is copyrighted “anyone who wants to use someone else’s material in any of the following (Italics mine) ways generally needs permission” (http://designroyale.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/1889836124c8dbfe7b2fba.pdf ): reproduction, making the work public, adapting the work or performing the work (http://designroyale.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/1889836124c8dbfe7b2fba.pdf). Not all creators want so many restrictions on their works, for various reasons that will be highlighted in this essay. However using a Creative Commons license does not mean giving up all rights to your works, there are restrictions that you can add to the license so you “can mix and match … to create a license that defines exactly how you want your work to be used” (http://creativecommons.org.au/learn-more/licences). While there are many good things about a Creative Commons license there are some mediums where it is not ideal. When someone’s primary goal is capital, rather than sharing information, copyright is much more suitable. In the United States “copyright is one of the strongest net contributors to the nation’s balance of trade,” (Goldstein 1992, p. 79) so it is still a massive force in the information-sharing world.
Part of the larger Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia is “the most important application of the principles of the free and open-source software movement” (Rosenzweig 2006, page number unavailable). With over 3 million articles on topics ranging from philosophy to French Nails, it is arguably the most famous free encyclopaedia. The home page also has random facts and an ‘On this day…’ section. “Most text in Wikipedia, excluding quotations,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ) is licensed under Creative Commons and a GNU Free Documentation License, enabling the reader to reproduce the work in their own blogs, assignments and websites. The freedom allowed through a Creative Commons is ensuring “the works continued availability to the public” (Heffan 1997, p.1487) and with its snowballing popularity Wikipedia had lead to over 167 million searches in December of 2009 (http://stats.grok.se/en/top). More people are allowed access to this information; therefore more people will use it. A Creative Commons license also suits this form of peer-created information, as there are multiple anonymous contributors who could attempt to claim royalties if people were paying for access to the information.
With over a billion internet users (Konieczny 2009, page number unavailable) it seems to make sense for your product to reach as many people as possible and with a Creative Commons license this can happen. XKCD is a humorous comic-strip website created by former physicist Randall Munroe, whose comics are often featured on personal pages on various social networking websites. Munroe allows his comics to be featured in books, blogs, newsletters and presentations (though he requests you ask for permission if it is a for-profit publication) (http://xkcd.com/license.html). This allows his product to reach people through the internet and through traditional forms of information sharing. Naturally, this brings a large amount of people to view and enjoy the websites product. XKCD, like the other two websites featured in this essay, uses very limited advertising. Their popularity is based on word of mouth and the publishing of their comics in other places. The ability of the company to do to gain recognition in this way would be restricted by traditional copyright, so a creative Commons License gives them many more options.
“The internet is a culture based on sharing colonised by a culture based on accumulating” (Ippolito, 2001). Nina Paley, the creator of Sita Sings the Blues aims to steer away from this mentality saying that “like all culture, it belongs to you already” (2009). It is a feature length online animated musical that is free for the consumer to “copy, share, publish, archive, show, sell, broadcast, or remix” (Paley, 2009). Paley, who adapted the Hindu story for modern audiences, is an advocate of copyleft licenses and claims that her “first concern is Art, and Art has no life if people can’t share it”. This quote reiterates the fact that when people are allowed to freely share information and entertainment online it will reach a wider amount of people. This film was not made with a high budget, so a Creative Commons license helps with the distribution of the film. If it was licensed under a copyright Paley would need to spend money on advertising and promotions in order to get the product out there; however under a Creative Commons license the viewers can spread word of the product by distributing the product itself.
While copyright is good for capital based products, a Creative Commons license is perfect for websites who want their product to reach everybody who uses the internet (and even people who do not). In today’s digital age information is so freely accessed online it seems to make sense not to fight information sharing, but to encourage it. Relying largely on donations and the sale of merchandise, Wikipedia, XKCD and Sita Sings the Blues have found success using Creative Commons licenses, and with their works always being free to the public the success will likely snowball.
REFERENCES:
Goldstein, P 1992 ‘Copyright and Legislation: The Kastenmeier Years’, Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 79 – 91. Viewed via JSTOR.
Heffan, I 1997 ‘Copyleft: Licensing Collaborative Works in the Digital Age’, Stanford Law Review, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1487 – 1521. Viewed via JSTOR.
Ippolito J, 2001 ‘Whatever Happened to the Gift Economy’, Leonardo, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 159 – 160. Viewed via JSTOR.
Konieczny, P 2009 ‘Governance, Organization, and Democracy on the Internet: The Iron Law and the Evolution of Wikipedia’, Sociological Forum, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 162 – 192. Viewed via JSTOR.
Rosenzweig, R 2006 ‘Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past’, The Journal Of American History, vol. 93, no.1, pp. 117 - 146. Viewed via JSTOR.
Wikipedia article traffic statistics 2009, viewed 12 October 2010, <http://stats.grok.se/en/top>
Wikipedia: FAQ 2010, viewed 12 October 2010, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/>
Paley, N 2009, Sita Sings the Blues, viewed 10 October 2010 <http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/>
Paley, N 2009, Frequently Asked Questions, viewed 10 October 2010 <http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html>
Licences, W n.d., viewed 13 October 2010, <http://creativecommons.org.au/learn-more/licences>
License , W n.d., viewed 11 October 2010 <http://xkcd.com/license.html>
About, W n.d., viewed 11 October 2010 <http://xkcd.com/about/>
An Introduction to Copyright in Australia 2007, viewed 15 October 2010 <http://designroyale.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/1889836124c8dbfe7b2fba.pdf>
About ccAustralia, W n.d., viewed 16 October 2010 <http://creativecommons.org.au/about/ccaustralia>
About, W n.d., viewed 16 October 2010 <http://creativecommons.org.au/about>