Creative Commons Kitten

I'll continue with my anti-Disney tirade shortly, but until then, I'd like to introduce the first of my lovable sidekicks: Creative Commons Kitten.

Ain't she cute?


When I posted my personal copyright statement not too long ago, a friend on Facebook responded thus:

I'm slightly disappointed about your copyright policy -- I think that some sort of Creative Commons license would have been more appropriate!

At first I was inclined to agree: after all, I'm adamant that copyright law is too stringent, and Creative Commons is designed to provide that middle ground where authors and artists can have some - but not excessive - control over what the public can and cannot do with their work.  Creative Commons licences can, at the discretion of the original author, allow the public to reproduce the work, distribute the work, create derivative works or any combination of the above.  Once a Creative Commons licence is given, it cannot be revoked.  Creative Commons also offers expedited passage for creative works into the public domain, giving (again at the discretion of the original author) the option to release the work into the public domain at 14 or 28 years, instead of the life-plus-something-ridiculous that is currently standard under copyright law.

Fundamentally, I approve.  The "all rights reserved" tag that goes along with traditional copyright leaves no room to maneuver.  It's an all or nothing deal: either be prepared to sue anyone who so much as thinks about quoting you, or release everything to the public domain and risk losing the livelihood by which you wrote it to gain.  Creative Commons licensing opens up the vista for those who wish to benefit from the work, while preserving two fundamental rights for the author: first, the right to profit by their work, and second, the right to protect the integrity of the work.

Here's the thing, though.  The artists who grant Creative Commons licences are, generally speaking, the ones who will turn a blind eye to fanfiction and the like anyway.  Creative Commons licences are optional.  There is no obligation to any artist, author, publishing house or studio to release a work under any type of Creative Commons licence.  The aforementioned artists etc. are at complete liberty to ignore Creative Commons and keep their work under lock and key for life-plus-however-many-years-we're-at-now, and deny the public licence to do anything with it until they're long gone to dust.

I'm not saying artists should be forced to give up rights to their work from the get-go.  I'm saying that copyright itself should include the ability to state what the public can and cannot do with your work.  Authors who want to retain exclusive rights should be permitted to do so, for a reasonable period of time.  30, 55, 75 years, even life, but no longer.  Because here's what we have right now: those copyright holders who choose to release their works under Creative Commons licences should be lauded, but what about those who do not?  Their work remains inaccessible until long after they are dead, and, in some cases, until well after the work is forgotten.  A shorter copyright term, or less restrictive copyright applications, could well prevent less-publicised works from falling into obscurity while the rights-holders jealously guard them against any interference.

In my copyright statement I state very clearly what I will and will not permit regarding public use of my work.  I firmly believe this to be a fundamental right of any artist or copyright holder: to use copyright as a tool both to protect and promote their work.  No doubt I could say much the same thing with a combination of Creative Commons licences, but I choose not to, because I have a belief regarding what copyright should be.  By choosing not to take action against anyone who respects my four little rules, even though I am technically protected under the "all rights reserved" incarnation of copyright, I make a statement about what I believe copyright should be.  To say the same thing with Creative Commons licences would be - I believe - to admit that copyright in its current ridiculous incarnation is here to stay, and that the best we can do is compromise.  I'm not ready to admit that.
That's why Creative Commons Kitten is a kitten, and not a full-grown Cat like me.  She has a place in the current landscape of copyright, but she is not fully developed.  In time, she may not be needed at all, and can be free to chase her own tail all day.  Until then, she is a great support for copyright, but no substitute for doing the real thing with integrity and honesty.

This is Copyright Cat, signing off.