
Understanding Free Cultural Works - exolymph
https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/freeworks
======
robin_reala
The important thing about CC0 is that it’s an active declaration of
permissivity that bypasses a bunch of the various public domain laws around
the world. Just stating that something’s believed to be in the public domain
is useful as a starting point but it’s not an explicit licence.

~~~
mormegil
This is a bit misleading, IMHO. The important difference between CC0 and
public domain is that PD is a copyright status, while CC0 is a license. Which
means you use CC0 to grant PD-like status to works you hold the copyright for.
You cannot (should not) attach a CC0 to somebody else's work just because you
think it is PD. And vice versa: while stating "I release my work into PD" is
probably usable in the US, it is really incompatible with the continental
construction of copyright; for that, the explicit granting of a "most possibly
free" license is a better fit. (Even though you might doubt even CC0 is
bulletproof there...)

------
Tomte
I feel that Creative Commons had a lot of mindshare ten years ago, but today
next to nobody really thinks or talks about it.

Is it just me?

Also, is Lawrence Lessig still active?

~~~
Hokusai
> but today next to nobody really thinks or talks about it.

How much that is similar on how Linux evangelization is also harder to find?
Linux won the battle, Cloud computing is mainly an unchallenged Linux realm.

I see many institutions adopting Creative Commons and similar permissive
licenses. So, there is no need to pontificate about Creative Commons anymore.
From teacher to newspapers use Wikipedia as a reliable source. Even The
British Museum ([https://www.britishmuseum.org/terms-use/copyright-and-
permis...](https://www.britishmuseum.org/terms-use/copyright-and-permissions))
uses Creative Commons licenses.

For me it seems that Creative Commons is the status quo and the focus rather
changes towards the content itself and what can be produced.

------
egypturnash
Not discussed in this, but important in understanding Free Cultural Works: how
does the person who creates a Free Cultural Work pay their bills while doing
it?

~~~
Noos
this needs to honestly be discussed more. Even though the article is more
about discussion restrictions on the concept, the whole point of non-free
culture should be to ensure the artist can realize monetary gains from his
work in order to reward the time spent. Also to enable the artist to have some
control over the distribution and direction of his work, as well as
incentivize new and original work.

CC doesn't do anything for the artist.

it's great for distributors, who can aggregate and monetize free content, and
remixers, who have a base of ready-made content to use as a basis for their
own works. And of course the audience. But i don't really see the point of it
as an artist.

~~~
skyfaller
Saying that "providing works that other people are free to build on doesn't do
anything for the artist" is rather short-sighted.

Imagine someone living on a river saying, "Keeping the river water clean
doesn't do anything for me!" OK, maybe your pollution doesn't affect you, it
only affects people downstream of you. But if the people upstream pollute the
river, you'll wish they hadn't.

It's also untrue that artists are distinct from remixers. Is "West Side Story"
just a remix of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet"? I think often of The Time
John Fogerty Was Sued for Ripping Off John Fogerty:
[https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27501/time-john-
fogerty-...](https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27501/time-john-fogerty-was-
sued-ripping-john-fogerty) Fogerty was just trying to write songs, but
unsurprisingly his new songs sounded similar to his old songs, which had ended
up under someone else's control. Was he "remixing" himself? Making art that is
entirely new and does not relate to or reflect on any past art is almost
impossible.

As Lessig put it:

\- Creativity always builds on the past

\- The past tries to control the creativity that builds upon it

\- Free societies enable creativity by limiting this power of the past

\- Ours is less and less a free society

~~~
burrows
> Free societies enable creativity by limiting this power of the past

How does the "limiting" part of this work?

~~~
skyfaller
Two obvious examples of limits on copyright are (1) copyright terms not
lasting forever, copyrighted works should eventually enter the public domain,
and (2) some uses of copyrighted work not requiring permission from the
copyright holder, "fair use".

------
spodek
I trace free licenses to the GNU General Public License
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License),
which is why I believe that in time Richard Stallman's influence will become
greater than those of contemporaries like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

