The image to the right is the first time (that I am aware of anyway) that one of my photos has been used under the auspices of the Creative Commons license. I had two pictures from my Washington, D.C. set used in an online travel guide, but I had to give permission for that, so I don't think it counts as the same thing. The lady who made this derivative of my photo uses them for slides to illustrate various Web 2.0 concepts.

I mentioned in a previous post that my flickr photos and my blog were both released under a CC license. By this point in time most highly net-savvy people know about and are aware of CC licenses and when and why they are a good idea. But, many of my friends, they who comprise the majority of my readership, are not up on such things. So, I will take this opportunity to explain what I mean when I talk about CC licenses.

First, it helps to understand what copyright by itself is. To the best of my knowledge, the following is true, but I am not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt. In the U.S. and A, as soon as you fix a creative work into any kind of form--words on a page or in a computer file, a photo, a video, a song or even just a snippet of music--that work is copyrighted, with no extra effort needed on your part. If you wish, you may submit your work to the United States Copyright Office, but all this gains you is the ability to sue for monetary damages if your work is infringed upon.

So, let's say I record a song on my computer. At the instant that song is recorded it ("it" being the recording, the song's melody and the lyrics) is copyrighted and no one else can record a version of the song or mix, sample or in any other way make a derivative work without my explicit written permission. Additionally, no one can distribute that recording without my permission, even if there is no monetary gain on the part of the distributor.

For example, the occasional mp3 that I post here on this site is, in the most technical and pedantic interpretation of the law, illegal as I do not have the permission of the copyright holders to distribute their material. There is considered to be some gray area here, related to fair use, which is why I continue to post them.

Getting back to that song I recorded: I could go the traditional route of seeking a record contract for that song and releasing it in stores and to the radio. But, the days when artists and consumers needed record companies are gone. "Prosumer" recording equipment is getting better every year and I believe that within the next 5-10 years the average home PC will have the ability to do true multitrack recording of some kind, right out of the box. Also, thanks to the internet, distribution is no longer limited to specialty record stores and big box retailers; any artist with a computer and internet access can distribute the work they create to the entire world without the need for an extensive production and distribution chain. And as consumers, we no longer have to have radio, in-store marketing, or other forms of advertisement to introduce us to new musical artists. Of the last 10 or so cds I bought, the ones that were not from musicians who I already knew were bought based on recommendations from friends or from "peer-to-peer" advertising, e.g. mixtapes, mp3 blogs, music videos on YouTube, etc. The same goes for most of the cds on my "To Buy" list.

Let's say that I don't wish to go the traditional route of seeking a recording contract and I decide to distribute my music via the internet using the existing social networks of blogs and online profiles. How do I let people know that it's ok to post it to their blogs or make copies of to give to their friends? I release the work under a Creative Commons license, that's how.

Say I want to let people distribute the song, as long as they give creative credit to me, and as long as they are using it for Noncommercial purposes. Also, I want to allow people to remix and mashup the song in anyway they see fit, as long as they release this new work under the same license. I would release the song under an Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike license, the exact same one this blog is released under (follow the image link in the footer to see what this looks like).

Alternatively, say I wish to release the song and I want to allow people to use it for commercial purposes, a video production company using the song for a bed track on a corporate training video for example, but want to make sure no one makes any derivatives of the work. Naturally, I still want attribution for any uses of the song. In that case, I release the work under an Attribution-NoDeriv license*.

Simple, huh? And the best part is that I still maintain my ownership of my copyright. If someone violates the license, a major motion picture uses my music in the case of the first license above and does so without giving proper attribution, I can still legally seek monetary damages.

If you remember the post I made recently about doing that internet tv show, I went to Jamendo, a distribution site for artists who release their music under a CC license, to look for music for the soundtrack. Linked below are two of the songs I picked as being suitable possibilities for use. I am able to put these up here with little or no fear of possible reprisal since the artists involved have, by releasing them under a Creative Commons license, indicated that I am perfectly within my rights to do so. The same goes for their use, if they are released under a ShareAlike license, as soundtrack material.

Burn by Grace Valhalla
Woods of Chaos by Rob Costlow

It is my belief that unless you are doing something strictly commercial on the web--and even then it's been done and is not a bad idea--you should release the things you create on the net under some form of a Creative Commons license. That way you contribute the global culture not only in the sense of providing content but also in the sense of creating something that can be built upon by others. Rather than toiling alone, we all work together, and in doing so can create much greater things than we do alone.

Creativity, it has been said, is merely the ability to hide one's sources. In the world of Creative Commons, creativity is the ability to hide one's sources, unless they put an Attribution clause in their license.

More resources:

A short comic that explains licensing in a simpler form than this.

Choosing a license.

Article by Cory Doctorow about why he has released his writing for free on the web while also having copies for sale in book stores.

Creative Commons on Flickr.

*I am unsure about this one, as I don't know if using the song in another context counts a derivative work or not.