Creative Commons?

[Ripps818]

I've been seeing these Creative Commons banners on several webcomics lately, and I wanted to know if someone could clarify some of the details for me. Should I license my webcomic with creative commons, or should I just leave it alone?
From what I've read about it, it allows other people to copy your work, but not sell it, as long your given credit. Right?

[Rkolter]

You really need to read about it on their website.

In short, they offer you carefully worded copyright license wordings, that let people use your work for some purposes, while allowing you to retain your rights for other purposes.

Handing out your copyright rights isn't something you should do without carefully thinking. This is true of however you hand out your license.

For example - if you display your works with a CC license allowing people to use your work if they give proper credit, and then later change your mind, you cannot go back and revoke or alter the licenses that have already been used. This means you can't go to someone who is following the rights you have given them with a CC license, and tell them to stop, even if you decide not to show that work under a CC license anymore. You gave them the rights; you can't un-give them.

Also, you cannot selectively grant a license with CC licenses. If you make your work available for others to write derevations of, for example (one of the options you can do), and someone writes a story with your characters in it that you don't like, you have no recourse. You cannot tell them to not use your character, nor revoke their license, nor tell them that their derevation doesn't meet your requirements and make any kind of (binding) request for them to stop displaying it.

If you allow commercial use, you can't stop someone from binding and selling your work, so long as they are giving you proper credit and following the other terms of the license. You can't even ask for a cut of he proceeds.

Creative Commons has it's real uses. But you must carefully consider what rights you are going to allow others to have. I have one. I chose this one:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/

It allows the copy, transmittal, and distribution of my comic, so long as it is not altered, not done for profit or commercial use, and both the license and my name remain attached to the work. As far as I know, it's the most common one used.

[Dracomax]

actually, I was considering just putting my comic in the public domain once I was done with it.

but then, I think copyright laws have gotten ridiculous, and knew of no other option that would allow others to use it freely so long as they retained my name on the liscence.. I'll have to look into this.

[Fecundity]

Also, you cannot selectively grant a license with CC licenses. If you make your work available for others to write derevations of, for example (one of the options you can do), and someone writes a story with your characters in it that you don't like, you have no recourse.

This is true if you pick a Creative Commons license that allows for derivative works. However, you can pick a restrictive Creative Commons license-- requiring attribution, allowing only non-commercial use, and not allowing any derivative works. If you later decide to sell the comic or let someone make a spinoff, you can set new terms either in general or with specific people. People would still be able to use the comic under the narrow CC license, but the further license would cover special uses not allowed under the CC license.

I agree that you should think carefully about how you want to handle rights to your work. However, CC licenses are a useful tool for making your work freely available without putting it in the public domain. If you release it to the public domain and someone else adds value to it-- even just by making a pretty edition-- then that person owns copyright to their version of your work. Under a CC license, you have the option of allowing derivative works while requiring that derivative works also be released under a free license.

(I picked this latter option for a textbook that I wrote.)

[RemusShepherd]

actually, I was considering just putting my comic in the public domain once I was done with it.

I am also, but I'd like attribution -- they can do anything they want as long as they say 'From a concept by Remus Shepherd, and here's a link to the original story.' That's also covered in Creative Commons with this variety of license.

Still, public domain would be easier, and people would be more likely to use something that they can then copyright themselves. CC prevents that. So I'm undecided.

[Rkolter]

Also, you cannot selectively grant a license with CC licenses. If you make your work available for others to write derevations of, for example (one of the options you can do), and someone writes a story with your characters in it that you don't like, you have no recourse.

This is true if you pick a Creative Commons license that allows for derivative works. However, you can pick a restrictive Creative Commons license-- requiring attribution, allowing only non-commercial use, and not allowing any derivative works. If you later decide to sell the comic or let someone make a spinoff, you can set new terms either in general or with specific people. People would still be able to use the comic under the narrow CC license, but the further license would cover special uses not allowed under the CC license.

Yep. That's the license I picked, and the one I explained later on.

[Allan_ecker]

Also, things in the Public Domain can be commercialized and raeped for profit. See: Disney

[Rkolter]

Also, things in the Public Domain can be commercialized and raeped for profit. See: Disney

Creative Commons does not put your work into the public domain. It releases limited, specific rights. It's not the same.

Besides, didn't Disney successfully campaign to have their copyrights extended another seventy-five years?

[Joel Fagin]

Besides, didn't Disney successfully campaign to have their copyrights extended another seventy-five years?

Yeah. If ever there was a Mickey Mouse operation...

- Joel Fagin

[RemusShepherd]

Also, things in the Public Domain can be commercialized and raeped for profit. See: Disney

Creative Commons does not put your work into the public domain. It releases limited, specific rights. It's not the same.

Yeah, but what if you'd be thrilled to have your work raped for profit? I'd love to see my comic made into a hollywood movie (or slightly more realistically, an indie print book), whether I get money for it or not.

Public Domain is a valid option if you want your story to continue living but you don't expect to further work on it yourself.

[Nervous Spy]

Besides, didn't Disney successfully campaign to have their copyrights extended another seventy-five years?

Actually, it was extended by 20 years: from 75 to 95 years. Needless to say that they will do some more campaigning once that deadline runs out, though. Still, the 'Steamboat Willie' version of Mickey Mouse should be public domain by now in some countries.

[McGravin]

If you're looking at Creative Commons, you might want to read up on the idea of copyleft to get an idea of some options. It's a much better idea than just throwing things out into the public domain.

Some non-webcomics examples of copyleft are the General Public License that covers the GNU project and other free software, and the Open Gaming License by Wizards of the Coast for the d20 system.

[McDuffies]

Also, things in the Public Domain can be commercialized and raeped for profit. See: Disney

Creative Commons does not put your work into the public domain. It releases limited, specific rights. It's not the same.

Yeah, but what if you'd be thrilled to have your work raped for profit? I'd love to see my comic made into a hollywood movie (or slightly more realistically, an indie print book), whether I get money for it or not.

Public Domain is a valid option if you want your story to continue living but you don't expect to further work on it yourself.

An interesting question, I guess you could draw paralels between that and how Sun gave up copyright of Java to establish it as a standard, or even the old VHS vs. Sony video standard story. One wonders, even if you'd lose control over your own work, if it managed to get established in people's consciousness due to that, your reputation as author would benefit, which can only be good. You lose some, you get some, it's just that (if we assumed that our work has potential for that to happen) it's a risky affair. Still worth a thought.

[Dracomax]

Creative Commons does not put your work into the public domain. It releases limited, specific rights. It's not the same.

Yeah, but what if you'd be thrilled to have your work raped for profit? I'd love to see my comic made into a hollywood movie (or slightly more realistically, an indie print book), whether I get money for it or not.

Public Domain is a valid option if you want your story to continue living but you don't expect to further work on it yourself.

An interesting question, I guess you could draw paralels between that and how Sun gave up copyright of Java to establish it as a standard, or even the old VHS vs. Sony video standard story. One wonders, even if you'd lose control over your own work, if it managed to get established in people's consciousness due to that, your reputation as author would benefit, which can only be good. You lose some, you get some, it's just that (if we assumed that our work has potential for that to happen) it's a risky affair. Still worth a thought.

you see, this is what I'm talking about. the only problem with putting it in the public domain is that people are not required to credit you with creation, which lets somebody else claim it was their idea completely.

[RemusShepherd]

Let's list the rights. Someone correct me if I go wrong anywhere here...

1. Right to Copy.
2. Right to Distribute.
3. Right to Modify and create new derivative works.
4. Right to Profit from any of the above.
5. Right to determine the rights of derivative works.

Copyright denies all of the above rights, with some exceptions made for #1 and #2 for fair use, and some exceptions made for #3 for parodies.

Public domain grants all the above rights.

Copyleft grants all rights but #5 -- all derivative works have to be distributed with the same Copyleft designation.

Creative Commons allows you to selectively turn the above rights on and off. They also have means to force attribution -- derivative works must mention the original creator.

Attribution is the only thing that I care about, but to each their own...

[Mon Ami]

Yeah, I rather have someone ask me personally if they could use my work. Otherwise it is scary for someone I don't know to reuse it.

[Rkolter]

you see, this is what I'm talking about. the only problem with putting it in the public domain is that people are not required to credit you with creation, which lets somebody else claim it was their idea completely.

Nobody ever has the "right" to claim someone else's work as their own, even if the work is in the public domain.

[RemusShepherd]

Nobody ever has the "right" to claim someone else's work as their own, even if the work is in the public domain.

Ehhh....

Take Snow White, Pinnochio, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, and the Little Mermaid as examples. These were all stories in the public domain. Then Disney did their own versions of them.

Now you can make a Snow White story of your own, based on the original public domain tale. But if your story has anything in it that resembles the Disney story, they'll sue you claiming you stole their copyright.

So Disney hasn't *claimed* those stories...but they've tried to build walls around them that others can't get through.

[Rkolter]

You can copyright your own derevations of public domain works.

There are other portrayals of Pinnochio and Beauty and the Beast that I know of. There was a Pinnochio movie last year that wasn't a Disney film (ok, it sucked, but...) and Splash in the 1980's was a take on The Little Mermaid. The stories are also in book form without Disney's label.

[Nervous Spy]

Yeah, Disney holds no rights to the Pinocchio story itself, just to their movie, the design of their characters, and any element they added to the story.

In fact, whenever Disney releases an animated feature based on a classic (public domain) work to video/DVD, there's at least one cheaply-made knock-off coming out at the very same time from some studion in Taiwan or Korea. That's also why Disney always add's their company name to the title.