Creative Commons licensing is a simple and straightforward application of traditional legal concepts, but the perception it is something more and even radical is partly the fault of Creative Commons.

Much has been written about the absurdity of ASCAP’s fundraising letter that claims that Creative Commons, among others,  is “mobilizing to promote ‘Copyleft’ in order to undermine our ‘Copyright’ and that “[i]f their views are allowed to gain strength, music creators will find it harder and harder to make a living as traditional media shifts to online and wireless services. We all know what will happen next: the music will dry up, and the ultimate loser will be the music consumer.”

As Drew Wilson explains, this description of Creative Commons is ridiculous. And it is. But let me explain why I think in part Creative Commons has made the perception of what it does murkier than need be.

Last year I spent a day at the invitation of a professor at Wooster College lecturing on and discussing copyright with a number of his students. The students were terrific — bright, imaginative, and enthusiastic. At the end of the day we had a two hour, informal discussion section, and finally they were able to pin me down to explain what a few throughout the day had wanted me to explain: what is Creative Commons all about? I hadn’t responded to the question earlier because we had so much to cover in a very limited amount of time and it just didn’t seem like that big of a deal or that complicated to me. But I realized the simplicity of a Creative Commons license had escaped them.

All a Creative Commons does is provide suggested language to anyone who creates copyrighted content that will alert those who use the content whether and under what conditions the creator will allow those users to re-use the content without worry of copyright infringement. If I were to post on my blog that anyone may use any or all of my writing for any purpose provided that in doing so they credit me, make clear what words are mine, and provide hyper-links back to the posts they are using, I would not thereafter be able to sue anyone for copyright infringement who had complied with my conditions. By posting those instructions, I would have made an offer that use under those conditions was permissible. The use by someone of the material in compliance with those conditions would be an acceptance of the offer that would create a binding contract. That contract would bind me to my promise not to consider that use an infringement.

It’s no more complicated than that. Creative Commons provides here a menu of restrictions you might want to put on the use of your creation and the language that will enforce your promise not to consider use that complies with those restrictions.

But somehow the whole enterprise has been perceived to be something much more profound. First there’s the name — Creative Commons — which in the current political environment evokes misbegotten fears of “socialism” and even “communism” that naturally enough feed rhetoric that accuses comrades of the “CopyLeft” of stealing artists’ precious “Property.”

Good god, we’re just talking contract language that copyright holders can use to make explicit to consumers the extent those consumers can feel comfortable re-using the copyrighted works in ways they are certain are consistent with the copyright holders’ desires. This has nothing to do with a “commons” except in that any published, copyrighted work is part of what some people call our “intellectual commons.”

One should also note that even if someone includes with their work a Creative Commons license (or language they draft themselves) that states that re-use under certain conditions will not be considered an infringement, that does not mean that such a re-use would necessarily be an infringement in the absence of that language. Some stuff I post is not original enough to be subject to copyright. Some stuff I post can be re-used in ways that constitute fair use. Just because I’ve told you that you’re free to re-use my stuff as long as you give me credit and a hyper-link doesn’t mean, in other words, that if you don’t give me credit or a hyper-link you’ve infringed my copyright. That would depend on copyright law. But if you did follow my instructions, your worries would be over.

Unfortunately, too, even many of the efforts to provide straightforward explanations of what a Creative Commons “license” is founder on the shoals of legalese. “License” itself is a term most non-lawyers cannot easily grasp. And to jump immediately into screaming that an attack on Creative Commons is an attack on “artistic freedom”  – as Drew Wilson does in the post I link to and praise above — is to descend into rhetoric of war, of right versus left, of freedom versus tyranny, of property versus availability. We shouldn’t need to go there.

Creative Commons licensing is simple, straightforward application of traditional legal concepts. That’s all. Can we please move on now?

Legal decisions based on what the law is not — the “permission culture” and copyright overclaiming

One thing law students don’t get at all is the ways lawyers negotiate a world in which legal decisions are based on what the law is not.

Mike Masnick over at techdirt, , writing about the “Permission Culture” (that is, the culture that insists that sampling and quoting should only be done with permission), puts his finger directly on one of the biggest problems — the fear of even frivolous lawsuits, even by big publishing concerns, prevents writers, musicians, and artists from quoting, sampling, and appropriating parts of copyrighted works they don’t need permission to take:

The unfortunate reality these days is that publishers won’t touch such quotes without permission being granted. It’s almost impossible to find a publisher these days that would sign off on even that snippet of eight words, claiming that they don’t want the liability of a lawsuit. I’ve had this discussion a few times with authors and publishers, and they all say the same thing: due to the potential liability of a lawsuit, even if it clearly does appear to be fair use, it’s just not worth using the quote. In fact, we discussed this point here last year, where we wrote about an author who had to drop an entire section of a book, because of a few short quotes. Clear fair use… but his publisher wouldn’t touch it.

I would suggest too that one reason publishers won’t publish books without permission for the use of quotations is that they perceive it to be in their interests not to do so. That way, other publishers will ask and pay for permission to use quotations from their own books. That is why, I am convinced, the music industry never has seriously challenged lower court decisions requiring permission (and, presumably, payment) for the use of any recorded sample — the practice makes each company’s record vault’s sources of income.

The problem, of course is exacerbated considerably because the wealth and of the corporate conglomerates that own so much of our intellectual property. Who is going to fight Disney, even if he’s right? Another problem is the widespread ignorance in the media about copyright. As Richard Posner has written, the fear of litigating against rich copyright holders who place a premium on their fear of losing something of value leads to behavior based on law that isn’t at all what the law is supposed to be:

Look at the copyright page in virtually any book, or the copyright notice at the beginning of a DVD or VHS film recording. The notice will almost always state that no part of the work can be reproduced without the publisher’s (or movie studio’s) permission. This is a flat denial of fair use. The reader or viewer who thumbs his nose at the copyright notice risks receiving a threatening letter from the copyright owner. He doesn’t know whether he will be sued, and because the fair use doctrine is vague, he may not be altogether confident about the outcome of the suit. The would-be fair user is likely to be an author, movie director, etc. and he will find that his publisher or studio is a strict copyright policeman. That is, since a publisher worries about expansive fair uses of the books he publishes, he doesn’t want to encourage such uses by permitting his own authors to copy from other publishers’ works. So you have a whole “law in action” law invented by publishers, including ridiculous rules such as that any quotation of more than two lines of a poem requires a copyright license.