I choose the 5th question which is "Creative Commons is both a solution and yet another failure to deal with authorship and copyright on the internet. Discuss and give examples. "
After my research I found following journals are related to my topic.
1. Fitzgerald, Brian and Oi, Ian, 2004, “Free culture: Cultivating the Creative Commons”, Media & law Review, 9, p.137.
Within this paper, the authors provide positive points of view about the Creative Commons licenses and also indicate the future impact of Creative commons to free culture. The author believes that the Creative Commons promote better identification, negotiation and reutilization of content for the purposes of creativity and innovation. It can well support the idea that CC is a solution for authorship and copyright.
2.Gordon-Murnane, Laura 2005, “Generosity and copyright: Creative Commons and Creative Commons search tools”, Medford, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 16-22.
This article firstly starts with the introduction of the traditional copyright law, and its development and limitations, then highlighting the Creative Commons is a complement of current copyright law by providing an alternative method for artists to “share what they want, keep what they want”, while publishing their works online under copyright. The content of this article includes supportive information on success of Creative Commons. It also contains detailed information on six main Creative Commons Licenses, which can be use as references for background description of Creative Commons.
3.Berry, David M. and Moss Giles 2005, “On the ‘Creative Commons’: a critique of the commons without commonalty”, Free Soft ware Magazine, 5, June 2005.
The writers argue that the Creative Commons project on the whole fails to confront and look beyond the logic and power asymmetries of the present. The key message this paper wants to deliver to us is “the commons is based on commonalty” and the Creative Commons licensing model is still a commons without commonalty. It constitutes blockage in the flow of creativity. Obviously, the authors are holding a point of view against the Creative Commons, thus, this paper may be used as resources to criticise the copyright issues within the CC system.
4.Carroll, Michael W., 2005, “Creative Commons and the new intermediaries”, Villanova University School of Law Working Paper Series, The Berkeley Electronic Press, p.34.
This paper majorly focuses on examination of the disintermediating and reintermediating roles played by Creative Commons licenses on the Internet. A large amount of intermediaries based on the machine-readable CC copyright have begun to appear online as search engines archives, libraries, publishers, community organizers and educators, which indicates that the CC licenses are getting more and more popular in application. it can be used as an evidence that content owners have gradually accepted the CC as a best solution of their authorship.
5.McDonald, Ian, 2006, “Creative commons: Just say ‘CC’?” Copyright Reporter, 24(4), December.
The writer concludes that there are logical and practical problems both with the rationales behind the Creative Commons licences and with the way it approaches copyright. The entire paper clearly generalise the drawbacks of the CC licences into different subtitles. This article is really helpful to discover the potential disadvantages of the CC project. What’s more, it is also a good support material to prove that CC is a failure to deal with the copyright on the internet.
After my research I found following journals are related to my topic.
1. Fitzgerald, Brian and Oi, Ian, 2004, “Free culture: Cultivating the Creative Commons”, Media & law Review, 9, p.137.
Within this paper, the authors provide positive points of view about the Creative Commons licenses and also indicate the future impact of Creative commons to free culture. The author believes that the Creative Commons promote better identification, negotiation and reutilization of content for the purposes of creativity and innovation. It can well support the idea that CC is a solution for authorship and copyright.
2.Gordon-Murnane, Laura 2005, “Generosity and copyright: Creative Commons and Creative Commons search tools”, Medford, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 16-22.
This article firstly starts with the introduction of the traditional copyright law, and its development and limitations, then highlighting the Creative Commons is a complement of current copyright law by providing an alternative method for artists to “share what they want, keep what they want”, while publishing their works online under copyright. The content of this article includes supportive information on success of Creative Commons. It also contains detailed information on six main Creative Commons Licenses, which can be use as references for background description of Creative Commons.
3.Berry, David M. and Moss Giles 2005, “On the ‘Creative Commons’: a critique of the commons without commonalty”, Free Soft ware Magazine, 5, June 2005.
The writers argue that the Creative Commons project on the whole fails to confront and look beyond the logic and power asymmetries of the present. The key message this paper wants to deliver to us is “the commons is based on commonalty” and the Creative Commons licensing model is still a commons without commonalty. It constitutes blockage in the flow of creativity. Obviously, the authors are holding a point of view against the Creative Commons, thus, this paper may be used as resources to criticise the copyright issues within the CC system.
4.Carroll, Michael W., 2005, “Creative Commons and the new intermediaries”, Villanova University School of Law Working Paper Series, The Berkeley Electronic Press, p.34.
This paper majorly focuses on examination of the disintermediating and reintermediating roles played by Creative Commons licenses on the Internet. A large amount of intermediaries based on the machine-readable CC copyright have begun to appear online as search engines archives, libraries, publishers, community organizers and educators, which indicates that the CC licenses are getting more and more popular in application. it can be used as an evidence that content owners have gradually accepted the CC as a best solution of their authorship.
5.McDonald, Ian, 2006, “Creative commons: Just say ‘CC’?” Copyright Reporter, 24(4), December.
The writer concludes that there are logical and practical problems both with the rationales behind the Creative Commons licences and with the way it approaches copyright. The entire paper clearly generalise the drawbacks of the CC licences into different subtitles. This article is really helpful to discover the potential disadvantages of the CC project. What’s more, it is also a good support material to prove that CC is a failure to deal with the copyright on the internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment