Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Copyright, Creative Commons Licensing, and Open Source

     To me, for content or software to be truly open, it must be accessible without any type of restriction to my obtainment of the medium. It can't cost money or require a membership to view it. I believe open access information, to be considered such, must have content that is truly really free and has no "copyright" or other policies regarding its use by other internet users. 
     
     I do believe that copyright law needs to be reformed within reason in order to incorporate the ever changing world of the internet. I don't think that a reform should call for every piece of produced content to be free to use in any way the public sees fit. Instead, I believe that a majority of the content that is to be produced should be licensed under Creative Commons licensing in order to facilitate the use of content, while still being able to respect the wishes of the creator
Image result
     Generally, the Internet is an interface in which most people would not consider the re-post or other reproductions of copyright protected content to be a breach of copyright law. Instead, fan communities post the copyright content in order to spread and advertise their love for their favorite shows, brands, or comics. I don't think that fan created content such as .gifs or other types of edits are plagiarizing, but instead a type of labor that the fans decide to take part in in order to show how much they enjoy the copyrighted content that is produced by these companies or other artists. These companies' fans are providing their services without a thought of compensation on their part. Most companies and artists will allow the re post of their work within reason, and often if asked in a formal fashion. This is a step toward a Creative Commons license, as the creator and owner of the licensed good is able to have their content used under their discretion. 
Image result for reposting art
     In addition, the use of original content on the Internet is hard to police. Many artists create original works, but find it hard to prove they are the original creators in order to have re-posts eliminated or otherwise find it difficult to see where their creations are being used. When browsing a website such as Tumblr, you see many artists on their posts asking for the other users to give them credit for the creation, or to ask for permission to re-post the work to another site. This, I believe, is an informal type of creative commons license. However, it is understandable that artists are outraged if they do not receive credit for their work. Their wishes are often being ignored when others re post their art or other works on different websites. many times, it is even the same site that the art originally was posted on, but some just choose not to "reblog" or attribute their love to the original. If the creator does not wish for their work to be published or otherwise used elsewhere, it is the responsibility of the consumer to ensure that their work is used in accordance to their wishes and to not contribute to the problem ourselves.
________________________________________________________________________________

No comments:

Post a Comment