however, for example they all contain a core grant of rights to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work,
require attribution and a „no restriction of fair use‟ declaration.
Interestingly, the “Non-Commercial Licence” states that: “digital file sharing shall not be considered to be…for
commercial advantage...”. So by granting a Creative Commons non-commercial licence, the creator is licensing
file sharing within the scope of the licence.
So what’s the problem for publishers?
From one point of view, Creative Commons is to be welcomed. It reminds the Web community that copyright
exists and offers a web-orientated set of licensing tools to control re-use bringing the issue to the forefront of
content producers‟ minds. It makes clear that it requires copyright law to be effective and that is it not
attempting to replace it. In its FAQs, it even states that it cannot collect royalties and contains a link to the
Copyright Clearance Center - http://creativecommons.org/faq).
But is there a sting in the tail? Creative Commons is clearly not anti-copyright per se, but it certainly takes the
view that copyright law is currently weighted too heavily in favour of rights-owners. One of Creative Commons‟
founders, web public domain publisher Eric Eldred, was involved in Eldred v. Ashcroft, in which he and others
unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of the US Copyright Term Extension Act before the US Supreme
Court.
The Commons also offers „Founders Copyright‟ which allows authors to limit their copyright protection to 14 or 28
years by assigning copyright to Creative Commons in exchange for a licence for the required term with the work
entering the public domain upon the expiry of the term
(http://creativecommons.org/projects/founderscopyright/). This could have potential issues when content
perceived to have little worth is licensed shortly after creation and subsequently becomes commercially valuable,
resulting in the rights-owner missing an opportunity to finance any future creative work.
Conclusion
Creative Commons brings the concept of copyright and digital rights to the fore. It has ambitious plans to expand
and although, in the main, their licensing scheme will not be suitable for large or commercial copyright holders, it
does provide an alternative which may prove attractive to small-to-medium creators.
Publishers and rights-owners need to ensure that their own licensing strategies do not allow a vacuum to be
created in the online commercial sphere that the Commons licence would be only to happy to help fulfil.
Laurence Kaye
Laurence Kaye Solicitors
© Laurence Kaye 2004
T: 01923 352 117
E: laurie@laurencekaye.com
www.laurencekaye.com
http://laurencekaye.typepad.com/
This article is not intended to be exhaustive and it does not constitute or substitute legal advice,
which should be sought on a case by case basis.
Page 3
2004
Please feel free to copy or make available this article without modification in print or electronic form for non-
commercial purposes. If you do so, please include this disclaimer and copyright wording with attribution. If you
want to re-publish or make the whole or part of this article available in a commercial service or publication,
please contact the author at laurie@laurencekaye.com.