Neil Hester

All poems © Neil Hester unless otherwritten

Name:
Location: North Carolina, United States

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Copyleft! Copyup! Copydown!

Actually, this is really just about copylefts (I doubt there *is* such a thing as a copyup or a copydown). Scroll down to the bottom of this blog. See the "(CC) Some Rights Reserved"? That's my copyleft, courtesy of Creative Commons [/alliteration]. I got this idea from Anonick of The Limericker, since he got one for his blog shortly before I followed suit (I think it was spades). You can read my explanation of it, or go here for further details. Before you make any moves, be sure to also read this wonderful article that talks about copylefts among other things.

Basically, my work can be used for commercial purposes so long as I am credited appropriately (y'know, mention my name and whatnot, by Neil Hester). Derivative works will be tolerated, but only if they are shared under the aforementioned terms. That's it, pretty much. I like the terms, personally; I'd love for my work to be exposed by others~

It's a good idea (kudos to Anonick for the spark), I suggest that any other bloggers who deal in any form of art consider benefiting from a copyleft; it's the left (or right) decision!

3 Comments:

Blogger AnoNick said...

I agree with you... anyone who makes any work of art should get their works copylefted. It's not an alternative, but rather an extension, of copyright. A much great explanation of all things copy-... is given here: http://www.knitsisters.com/2006/08/02/knitting-copyrights-and-copyleft/

Nice thing to do. :) I like your blog.

9:35 PM  
Anonymous Alex said...

The only problem with prohibiting "derivative works" is that you're essentially prohibiting any use of the material other than a strict printing it off or simply copying-and-pasting the material. The term "derivative work" is very, very broad in copyright terms—it means any work that incorporates your material. So technically if someone was inspired by one of your poems and made a painting illustrating it, that would be a derivative work. Or, if they took the poem and put it into a small book of "great poems on the internet," that small book would itself be a derivative work. It is a very broad definition—personally I don't even consider the CC-ND license to even be copyleft in any real sense.

I personally don't share the fear of someone making a small dime from my work (if someone can make a dime from something I did, hooray for them!), but the "no derivative works" aspect makes the "copyleft" aspect very weak (no creative mash-ups, no inclusion in "great blog posts of the early 2000's" books, "best internet poets, 2006" article, etc.).

I personally wouldn't dare try to redistribute something under a no-derivatives license—again, almost any distribution would be derivative—so I'm not sure what one accomplishes with it.

In the end, remember that the strength of a copyleft license is not in the restrictions it poses but the freedoms it gives and the freedoms it preserves. If you licensed it as CC-BY-SA, for example, you would allow people to re-use the material, but would require them to 1. credit you, and 2. license the new work (the derivative work) under CC-BY-SA as well. The first one means that you will always get the credit you deserve (hooray), and the second means that no big publishing house is going to likely try and make a lot of money off of it anytime soon — they'd have to license their final product as CC-BY-SA as well, and most big content producers wouldn't be able to make much money using a copyleft model. What you would be encouraging would be any use that was also not afraid to be copyleft—which would most likely mean use very similar to the sort of use you'd probably like anyway (i.e. someone putting together a small collection of great internet poetry and selling it for the price of putting it together—they get a few dollars for their trouble, and you get the exposure you want).

In the end it comes down to what you want out of a copyleft license. Is it to really let others use your work and to subsequently give you exposure? NC-ND probably won't accomplish that. BY would give you the credit you want (and deserve). SA would make it so that only hard-core copyleft people would be able to use it, effectively reducing the possibility of them being used in a commercial exploitive way.

Just my take on it... Sorry for the unsolicited comments—I came here by means of the link left by anonick and couldn't restrain myself! ;)

9:15 PM  
Blogger LAEvanesce said...

Thanks a lot for the reply Alex ^^ I understand a lot better what "derivative work" means, something that I had defined differently (I should've done my homework). I probably would've checked out your explanation, but I currently have "no moderation" on and didn't realize Anonick's reply was there (I might need to change that too, come to think of it). I now understand what "no derivatives" means much better, thank you Alex! I suppose I ought to change things up a bit... *runs off*

(P.S. The link is in my post now; your article is great ^^)

7:02 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home