What I Think

Over the past few years the issue of copyright on the Internet has become a decisive one. Which side of the fence do you stand on? Do you believe that information yearns to be free and that there should be no restrictions applied to creative works, or do you believe that hard work and talent should be compensated?

Which side you believe generally depends on whether you are a creator or consumer of artistic works. If you are a creator, then you’ll have a better understanding of the time and effort that goes into producing something original, and therefore will feel that paying to own something original is the right thing to do. On the other hand, if you are on the consumer side of the divide, then you won’t have that same understanding, and therefore will put a lesser value – or no value at all – on the works that you enjoy.

But who’s to say that we’re even observing the correct fence? Looking at the Open Source and Free Software movements will demonstrate that there are people who will dedicate their time to create something that will make them no money, but they do so for any number of other reasons: love of the work, pride in accomplishing something that no-one else has done, fame, the joy of solving a problem or just being able to help others. At the other side of this fence are consumers, who even though they are not required to pay for the end product, will still make a donation to help the cause. They perceive that the end product has a value, and are willing to prove it through their donations.

Even though Open Source or Free Software may not cost you anything to use, they are still covered by copyright, or “copyleft” as some advocates like to refer to it. Whether it be the GNU General Public License (GPL), the BSD License, a Creative Commons License (CC), or any of the myriad of other available Open Source licenses, each work is still protected to some extent. Which one that is used can depend as much on the beliefs of the author(s), as much as what they want to achieve by opening their work to the public.

The reason that I’m posting on this topic is that I came across a story recently that highlights some of the problems with copyleft licenses, or more precisely what can happen when their meaning is misunderstood. The story goes like this: a major international company used the picture of a young girl in a national advertising campaign. The photograph they used had been taken from Flickr. The photograph in question, along with several others used in the same campaign, had been posted by the user under a Creative Commons license. This license allowed for commercial use of the image so long as the owner was accredited. The company involved did credit the owner by including their Flickr URL on the advertisement.

So far the terms of the license were adhered to. What makes this into a major story is the fact that the person in the photograph is easily identifiable, is under the age of 18, and was not asked for her permission to have her image used in this way. Given these circumstances, there is an argument to be made that the company should have obtained written permission from the young person and her parents to use her image, regardless of how the actual image was licensed. The owner of image was also unaware that licensing their work under this specific Creative Commons license would allow it to be used in commercially.

In this case there are possible misunderstandings on both sides of the fence – because the work was released under a Creative Commons license the company involved did not believe that they needed a release form, and the owner who released it under that license did not understand the implications of doing so.

This brings me back to my original argument, whether you agree with copyright or not depends on whether you are a consumer or a creator. This time round the creator is the small guy, and the consumer is the multinational corporation.