Creative Commons

Introduction

I have released some of my sound and video works under a Creative Commons licence. The one I am currently using is Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Australia. The main features are:

Attribution: Anyone who uses my work must give me credit as the creator of it.
Non-commercial: This licence does not give anyone the ability to make commercial use of my work. That is, use that "in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation".
Share-alike: People are free to chop up, sample, or reprocess my work, but any works made that incorporate my work must be issued under a similar share-alike licence.

The Creative Commons licence functions within existing copyright law. The works that have been placed under this licence are still copyright; they are not in the public domain. By placing works under the licence I have given advance permission for people to make certain uses of my work without having to ask me.

Why have I done this?

I have not made any noticeable amounts of money under the present copyright system, and I don't expect to. I think the sort of work I do is inherently non-commercial. I have very occasionally received nice rewards, in money or in kind, but these were prizes, not royalties.
Placing my work under a Creative Commons licence may give me more places to make my work available. On a couple of occasions I have had work on a platform that only accepted work under a Creative Commons or similar licence.

So I don't think I stand to lose very much, and I may well gain.

Possible disadvantages

If something that I have released becomes hugely popular, I won't get rich. (Nor will anyone else.) Related to this, there is no way of withdrawing a Creative Commons licence. I could stop making an artwork available, but existing copies could be propagated. I can re-release a work under a less restrictive licence if I wish, but not under a more restrictive one. I don't think this bothers me.

Further comments

Copyright in its present form is an oppressive force. The term of copyright has been extended considerably in my lifetime. The Creative Commons website points out that the early American copyright was for 14 years, with an option to extend for another 14 years. I understand that this reflected English law at the time (1790), so probably the law in Australia was the same. Now copyright in Australia lasts for 70 years after the death of the author, under the Australian "free trade" agreement with the United States. This same "free trade" agreement enforces digital rights management in Australia.

It is clear that the main beneficiaries of this continual extension of the term of copyright are not the actual creators, but Disney and other large corporations. Disney was a prime mover for the extension of copyright in the U.S.A. in 1998, which followed a previous extension in 1976.

When I first met composers writing contemporary music, I couldn't understand why they were using the words of long-dead authors, instead of writers nearer our own times. The answer was: copyright restrictions!

The situation that is developing with intellectual property in the arts is bad enough, but the situation in the sciences may ultimately be more serious. As in the arts, a movement among practitioners is developing to counter the locking up of large amounts of material for corporate gain. The Public Library of Science and Science Commons are two initiatives in this direction.

The existence of the Creative Commons approach provides a reminder that large corporations are not necessarily destined to rule the world.