Group items tagged

This article is about creative commons, and how music artists are starting to prefer it over traditional copyright. Artists such as "Chuck D and the Fine Arts Militia" released their new single under creative commons, and encouraged people to copy it, mix it, criticize it and other things. Now the song has been incorporated into new types of music and videos, and every time those are viewed, it links back to the original artist, giving them immediate popularity. Once other artists saw how this was giving the band more fans, they started releasing their songs under creative commons as well. Copyright laws provide limited flexibility, and make it harder for artists to get as many fans as they would if they released their songs under Creative Commons. Artists and authors have been saying that creative commons allows others to "build upon their creativity -- without calling a lawyer first." Now, artists are making half of their money off downloads and the other half off licensing fees. However, while many artists and authors are starting to release their work under creative commons, others like major movie studios or record labels will not, because they already make plenty of money off the current traditional copyright system.

Creative Commons licenses are changing the media sharing environment of the internet. When people share media with a creative commons label, anybody is allowed to download, upload, and share it for free. This is good for artists who want to grow their fan bases, but bad for companies who are looking to profit from their work.

Published May 23, 2006. Creative Commons License was a controversial topic. The major objection to Creative Commons licensing was whether it was really sprouting creativity; many who did not agree with creative commons believed that it was allowing people to download free songs and that no creativity was needed to make a mashup by combining various artists' works into one song. Simon Lake, the CEO of a not-for-profit company called Screenrights argued that '"there's a certain arrogance in believing you can do whatever you want to someone else's output. To say copyright stifles creativity is ridiculous. If you put those two things together, copyright is the end process, it's what protects creativity. And to suggest that copying is creating is ridiculous."' However, others disagreed and said that it in fact was the contrary. People, like Jim Moynihan, found that copyrights actually "force you to be more creative." In the end however, creative commons allows artists more freedom and the ability to selectively restrict certain works as copyrighted and to allow other works to be public and accessible. But it is illegal to use unauthorized media in mashups, sampling, and remixes; posing the justified potential threat, to many DJs and creators of reworked media, of lawsuits and getting sued.

Date issued: June 26, 2006. This article is basically about a three-day conference that was held in Rio De Janeiro. A rare global alliance of artists, scientists, and lawyers met to discuss working towards creating a "creative commons," which would give artists the privilege of deciding which rights they wished to maintain and which to share. "In its broadest form, the Creative Commons system allows creators and consumers of culture not only to view or listen to a digital work but also to copy, remix or sample it, as long as the originator is properly credit" Gilberto Gil, who is a singer-songwriter as well as Brazil's culture minister and an advocate of overhauling the global copyright, also attended the conference. Gil spoke about his six year battle in court with publishing companies to recover ownership of his work. Which now exceeds more than 400 songs which Gil has all registered with Creative Commons-he has retained the rights of some but had made others available for listeners to interpret, copy and manipulate as they please. The author of this article, Larry Rohter, appears to be mostly reporting. He doesn't blatantly state his opinion on the subject, however the article is one sided, in favor of Creative Commons and all the artists struggling to gain the copy rights of their work. He is for Creative Commons.

This article by Noam Cohen describes the controversy over the use of public photos on flickr. Flickr is a website used to share images with family and friends, which is now being used by company's and site's selling images without the approval of their owners. One example was Virgin Mobile's use of a picture of Alison Chang, a 15 year old, in one of their campaigns without her knowledge. The picture was under the protection of a creative commons that allowed it to be used for commercial use, making this issue more about privacy than about copyright. Virgin Mobile responded that they were "promoting creative freedom and didn't do anything wrong."

Date Issued - June 26, 2006. This article is about Creative Commons and how people are trying to enforce it so that artists don't necessarily have to sign off on having their work as being copyright. Larry Rohter (the author) is a journalist who was a South American bureau chief of the New York Times but was originally born in Illinois. Rohter is for Creative Commons because everyone he quotes in his article supports this new idea. This article shows the good side of Creative Commons and how much of an advantage it could be for artists who like to make remix's, or use other artists work for a different type of art.

Date issued: July 30, 2008. A video explanation of creative commons directed by Jesse Dylan and produced by Michelle Meier and Priscilla Cohen. The video focuses on the explanation of how creative commons allows creators to give permission to allow other artists to use their stuff and collaborate with it. It talks about how creative commons now allows people from different parts of the world to feel free to work with something that someone else from another part of the world created. It allows more people to come together and collaborate with one another.

What Andy Clarke is trying to say is that although twitter is a very social site, it can not be used to its full potential because not as many ideas are exchanged. This is because people are afraid of their ideas being stolen, but with this new creative commons copyright partnership, people will never have to worry anymore. It allows people top share ideas and both get the amount of credit they deserve. Although this can be unnecessary for basic, "I just got milk at the store," tweets, it will be amazing for people who want to share ideas whether, they're intellectual or not.

Clarke is a world renown British web designer and author.

This article was written by Chris Snyder an email author for Wired on February 20, 2009

Date Issued: March 2010. An article from THE (Technological Horizons In Education) Journal written by Rama Ramaswami - a freelance business and technical writer based in New York City. The article focuses on the movement toward open educational resources where teachers have more choices to customize the curriculum, mixing and matching educational materials to create content that is tailor-made for the needs of their students, immediately. Open content refers to material published under a license that allows any user to edit, adapt, remix, and distribute it. It is distinct from free content, which is in the public domain and has no significant legal restrictions on its modification. The article appears to be fact gathering with an indifferent opinion.