I’m not sure I agree with Meredith’s latest post at TechEssence on the Unintended Consequences of Content Portability.
Although the post focuses on the issue of syndicating content from AP, Reuters and other news wires, which I think is an important discussion, it’s the discussion towards the end I’m not sure of:
What if an anti-death penalty individual’s Creative Commons-licensed photo is used on a pro-death penalty Website? Would it look like the individual is promoting something they don’t agree with? This is a risk we all take when we allow our content to be used by others.
This is an issue that has been around for as long as we’ve been able to critique, cite and discuss the work of others. When people cite, we don’t get to choose whether they are quoting us to support their argument, or to provide a point of criticism. Or, they may selectively quote and make it seem that we support or oppose an issue.
On the other hand, I support efforts by, for example, bands who refuse their work to be used by advertising agencies for commercials whose product they oppose.
Yet, on another turn again, authors who quote from song lyrics in their books are often stymied by the need to track down the publishers and get permission (and often pay) to have those lyrics printed (because often lyrics are used to provide a talking point or argument in a book, publishers want to vet them). This is why I dropped the idea of doing a study of library songs.
Copyright is a mess, and there is no way to easily remedy this situation, especially when the reality of tracking down authors/publishers/copyright owners is so cumbersome and tedious.
For now, probably the best thing to do is be clear about whether your work is licensed by Creative Commons, GNU GPL, or if you remain All Rights Reserved. If you choose Creative Commons, be clear about what the license you choose permits others to do, and cause a ruckus if you deem necessary.
Hmmm… I’m not really sure if there was really anything to agree or disagree with in my post, since I didn’t come to any conclusions or make any suggestions. I was just brining up issues that people often don’t think about (or at least I don’t). I know I had never thought about someone using my photos in a way I didn’t
like… it had literally never occurred to me. And I think things are, in fact, different now, because, before Creative Commons, people had to get explicit permission to use someone else’s photo and the photographer could make the decision on a case-by-case basis. And I think Creative Commons was probably the best thing to happen to the intellectual property world, like ever, but some people just don’t really think about what it means when they choose a specific license.
I guess this is why I’m really grateful, in hindsight, that in my first library job I spent a lot of time dealing with creative people and copyright licensing.
At times it was tedious, but it really did give me pause to think about why people make decisions they do about licensing, rights, and so on. If I hadn’t had that role, I might not have ever thought about it either, until the issue arose.