A
website that allows for people to post what they want without copyright to
worry about is a great idea. The “vision” of this website is to achieve
universal access to knowledge about culture, research and education. The
website is international and I truly believe that this can help the world
understand everything that is going on, in all places around the globe. The
actual mission of the company is that is develops, supports and stewards legal
and technical infrastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing and
innovation.
The
Creative Commons website alters the way we understand ownership and copyright
because it creates a place for people to go to share knowledge and allow for
others to copy. The main part of it is that it allows for people to use
the information. For example, I read a case study on Nine Inch Nails The Slip
and they posted songs for people to listen to completely for free and it wasn’t
just a 30 second clip! They posted the whole song. From a public relations
perspective (which is my major) this is a brilliant way to gain followers and
attract attention.
I
may be thinking of this with a public relations spin to it because that’s what
I study but I think that this affects the work of others in a positive way.
Another case study I read on this website was about a website, www.gotoknow.org which was created in
Thailand for people to share knowledge about anything with each other. I think
that this would be a great way for a non-profit group to get the word out about
their missions, or really any other organization. I think that the subjects of
a work are definitely affected in a positive way because this is optional and
each user is aware of what this site stands for.
The
Creative Commons license would have altered the works cited in the text of Gone with the Wind because when the end
of the copyright protection was in the near future, outside writers were hired
to write sequels to this book. Instead of the copyright being prolonged, the
characters themselves became the protected expressions of an idea. The creative
commons license would have enabled the book to be reproduced as opposed to how
it actually is, which is that they cannot be reproduced.
I don’t think that the
Creative Commons project would afford protection to the right of publicity
because as we learned in the Bela Lugosi situation, publicity is strongly
protected. Celebrities who have personas or likeness that they are specifically
known for have the right to convert their personal image into a property right.
I don’t think that any celebrities would give up the rights to their own
personality or image because that is a true income for them, like for example
Kim Kardashian who is in a lawsuit currently for a company using her persona in
a commercial.
The Creative Commons
project is a great way to gain publicity or to bring out ideas but in recent
years there have been many restrictions with copyright and ownership,
especially in music. How will musicians or actors make an income? They need
their rights and for us to purchase their creative works.
