Let’s face it, people write blogs to get noticed for their thoughts.
Why else would you publicly share everything you think?
As my favourite writer on blogging once noted, blogging is used to manage the self; it structures the mess that is life, just like a journal – only with the added element of PR and promotion of the self (Lovnik page 28).
With this in mind, how much control should bloggers have over their thoughts, their ideas, and their online identity?
It would be great to be noticed for my writing, but at what cost would this come at? Would it be worthwhile allowing anyone to share my work, possibly for their own commercial gain, or possibly even without attributing it to me?
This is where Creative Commons comes in. Founded in 2001, Creative Commons is a non-profit organisation that has created a set of licenses that make it easier for people to share and build upon others creative work, within the rules of copyright. It aims to increase the amount of creative work available to the commons, but within the system of copyright regulation.
It was created as a response to the increasing regulation of creative content and strict tightening of copyright law. However, as Marc Garcelon explains, the point of creative commons is not to entirely oppose the idea of copyright, in fact it limits itself to the confines of copyright law as things are ‘free’ to the commons only if we choose.
Garcelone notes ideological shifts in the 1980’s led to deregulation of markets and legal alterations resulting in a rapid concentration of media ownership. Creative Commons was born from a concern about the implications of restricted market of media ownership, and tightening intellectual property laws, for the new medium of the internet.
There are now around 130 million Creative Commons licensed works. This does not, however, mean that there are 130 million ideas up for grabs. As mentioned, the licenses work within the legal framework of copyright, and as such there are several restrictions you can place on the creative commons license. For example, the one I have adopted does not allow my work to be used for commercial purposes.
On the one hand, restricting my ideas is very selfish. It’s like attempting to place a patent on things I say.
It would also seem a bit wrong for a blog like this: Let’s all work to solve global warming – but make sure you acknowledge me for what I did. It makes wanting to work together for a cleaner world feel so…dirty. It’s narcissistic and greedy, isn’t it?
On the other, how am I supposed to grow my readership while ensuring that others do not profit from my work?
Blogging is not too different from academic work (indeed, some of these posts are pieces I will be assessed on against my peers).You wouldn’t take an essay someone else has invested their time and effort into and sell it off as your own, would you?
For an amateur blogger to get noticed, creative commons is a pragmatic and realistic way to manage content. By allowing my work to be reproduced in other forums, my ideas effectively reach a wider audience. Although I may not remain in absolute control of my ideas (who enforces the use of my work on the web?) ideas can be actively shared amongst an interested community.
And let’s face it, whether it’s right or not, as an amateur blogger people are just going to assume my work is free for redistribution if they see any worth in it. It’s just the reality of the web.
Lawrence Lessig, one of the founders of Creative Commons, sums it up nicely when he states that “stuff in the commons is not necessarily free.” (page 352) He uses the examples of city halls, streets and park benches to highlight that although that all resources can be restricted, the only difference is restrictions in the commons are general and indifferent to who is restricted.
Another pearl of wisdom from Lessig is his distinction between ‘rivalrous’ and ‘nonrivalrous’ resources. Rivalrous resources are those which require restreictions dur to their scarcity, while nonrivalrous are unlimited – and therefore cannot be overused (Lessig, quoted in Garcelon page 1310).
The example is used on creative works published on the web, however what really struck me was the humbling thought that I, as a blogger, am essentially a nonrivalrous resource. There are over 126 million blogs on the internet, posting around a million blog posts a day. I’m certain that if I were to disappear tomorrow, even readers within my niche would not worry. Someone else will replace me in that niche. In the grand scheme of things, I don’t matter. So who am I to prevent others building upon my work for the benefit of everyone?
Wow. That’s an incredibly profound direction I took there. The point is I have chosen to allow my work to be distributed freely across the web and to be built upon. The only restrictions I have placed are on commercial use and that if my work is used, I would hope it would be attributed to me.
To sum up, I believe Creative Commons does have a place for more professional areas of the internet. Especially if your creative work is your source of livelihood. As mentioned previously, I also consider it wrong to profit from the time and effort of others.
And hey, if it helps my online identity, then it can’t be a bad thing.
Climate Communications 