Creative Transparency

Lecture seven's focus was on the notion of free culture and free content sharing, which takes place within the Internet meta-scape and how it relates to copyright in general. The fact that the Internet is significantly based upon the aspects of sharing information created by others, means that concerns can arise regarding copyright laws. So a mid-way of sorts was established in 2002, named 'Creative Commons'. Creative Commons, is a non-profit organisation whose duties allow net creators the ability to dictate how their creations are used by others. The whole point of it is protect the creator from another using their work, for purposes they did not intend. It can increase the freedom that users have to share information or decrease it. Six main license types can be selected from the site, starting with the limited attribution coverage to the more intense, attribution non-commercial no derivatives license.

According to our lecturer Adam Muir, much of the Creative Commons philosophy emerged from users who wanted more freedom with various computer softwear. Before there was a market in computer softwear, intellectuals shared embed codes among each other. When the industry began to take off more restrictions were put out by companies such as Microsoft. People like Richard Stallman began the idea of creating so called 'free' softwear, which could be altered and used by others as they saw fit. He believed that users should be entitled to the 'four freedoms'. Meaning, they should be able to; run the program as they wished, adapt it to their own needs, make copies and distribute their alterations and in general have the option to improve that softwear. Nowadays, the notion of 'free' softwear, has been replaced by 'open', because there are always costs involved.

Today there are many 'open' versions of soft wear available on the Internet, which are similar and or almost identical to 'propriety' programs. The plus is you don't have to pay for them and you can often change features, which you could not do with a windows version. Take FireFox for example (I happen to know a little trick where you can speed up certain features, like downloads). FireFox is also fairly secure, and in some respects almost better than Internet Explorer. 'Open' softwear is also necessary for students like me who can't afford to purchase Microsoft office for example. But, who desperately need a word processor!!

Well, the whole point of 'Creative Commons', seems to be to make it easier for users to share information and grow from each other. What I am concerned about though, is the protection of the artist. Problems can arise between general proof of authorship sometimes. We should be asking ourselves the question: does creative commons really protect the artist or creator? With the help of Creative Commons, another artist can build or inspire off another. Is this just? Is this not plagiarism? Apparently not if the author allows it. But, it all seems rather messy to me, especially if not handled correctly.

Though, one thing to consider, is that every creator has at some point been influenced by another. Many singers, dancers, authors, and painters have taken information or art, grown from it as artists and then made their own 'original' contribution.

It reminds me of a quote by the surrealist painter Salvador Dali,

"Begin by learning to draw and paint like the old masters. After that, you can do as you like."

If we can grow from each other as artists,surely, that is a great thing. I just hate to think that the original creators may be lost in midst of vast creative transparency.