Tonight, as I was browsing through the Creative Commons website I was struck by various elements of its mission, history, and elements it gives. First of all, the element that most struck was its history. Created in 2001 with the support of the Center for the Public Domain, Creative Commons is currently lead by a Board of Directors which constitutes of ” thought leaders, education experts, technologists, legal scholars, investors, entrepreneurs and philanthropists. ” (Web, Creative Commons, n.d). It explains that its main mission is not only to obviously protect original material from plagiarism, but it is also seeking to provide a broader ranger of educative and creative materials for the public with readily access, all within the desired author’s conditions. Further on, it also explains that it has sought to eliminate barriers for research and technological innovation, all which seemed to be quite ideal and futuristic. From a broad view of the website which contains the information about its history and mission, it all seems to work out perfectly. People or enterprises who are seeking to publish their work, and protect it from people who may benefit from it illegally or without their public consent. As the article I read pointed out, it may be particularly beneficial for artists, musicians, photographers, or people who are creating content to use it to avoid other people from benefiting illegally from their work, publishing it as their own. Even more so, if as the website alleges, has had massive media platforms like You Tube join its “partners” to make these licenses in the releasing of work mandatory.
When it came to determining the license I was going to use for this blog, I first read about the licenses, and what each of them entailed. After some consideration I decided to opt for the “Free Cultural Approved for Works” license. However, when it came to defining and understanding the terms of this license is when I found the possible gray areas of Creative Commons, and how these may act as a mask for the apparent “freedom” and wider outreach it promotes.
If not applied correctly, any body who uses a Creative Commons license may be subject to using copyrighted material without even being aware of it. I found it also to be quite confusing regarding the terms, agreements, and procedures one must follow when using CC protected material, and found that even though the Creative Commons idea skeleton is quite “avant-garde” and promotes a safe environment for creativity, if not done clearly, and safely monitored, can turn into a quite confusing mess of legal terms, insufficient licenses and restrictions.
Read more on the pro’s and con’s of Creative Commons here: https://longzijun.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/creative-commons-licenses-advantages-and-drawbacks/