Creative Commons

I understand that the idea of Creative Commons has always been around. At least I don’t remember a time when it wasn’t. I wrote an article many years ago, put a copyright symbol at the end and said that anyone who reprinted it needed to give me credit. I think I also considered that they needed to contact me to let me know, but I’m not sure I wanted to give out that my personal contact information. But I know I considered it. I don’t think Creative Commons invented the idea of allowing people an entire continuum of options between “All Rights Reserved” and “In the Public Domain.” But somehow the idea of the movement that Creative Commons has started is exciting.

Even with Creative Commons, questions behind copyright law continue to perplex me. For example, a panel is going to be discussing “Who Owns This Image?: Art, Access, and the Public Domain after Bridgeman v. Corel. In 1999 a judge ruled that exact replications or photographs of art work which is in the public domain can not be copyrighted because those works are not original. That seems clear enough to me, but this question is continuing to be discussed and debated.

Here are a couple questions they’re going to discuss on April 29 and my comments.

“Should access to public domain artworks control uses of images of those works?”

If the work is in the public domain, doesn’t that mean that anyone can use those images? So if one person had access to the work, then of course that doesn’t mean they could control how others used the image.

“ When and how should custodians of public domain artworks exercise control over reproductions of them?”

Never. That’s inherent in the nature of the artworks being in the public domain.

I’m sure my comments simply show my ignorance. I’d welcome any clarity that anyone would like to provide for me.

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8208#more-8208

Becky