All Rights Reserved. . . to waive. . . in some cases

Creative Commons is a non-profit organization that allows creators flexible copyright management for their works.  Though it was primarily created to ease the process of sharing educational/intellectual information, its buzz spread quickly and Creative Commons was soon being utilized by artist of various types as well.  Most people seem to prefer Creative Commons over the traditional copyright, because it allows for easier sharing of creative property.  Creative Commons makes sharing easier mainly by changing "All Rights Reserved" to "Some Rights Reserved" (there are six different licenses that offer different levels of creative protection).  Though I do see the good in this organization, I personally have mixed feelings about it.  I love the fact that there is a place you can go to find pictures, music, knowledge, etc. for free; however, there is another part of me -- the current writer and former musician that doesn't understand why an artist would want their work up for grabs without receiving any monetary gain from it.  Unless these artist crave attention more than profit, then Creative Commons makes no sense.  I can understand sharing the educational information, because most scholars do indeed share the information that they learn or discover; but most artist on the other hand, are involved in their craft so that they can make money from their work.  I think I love Creative Commons and hate it simultaneously. 

Creative Commons, the people's champ, is 'Terminating' the traditional copyright

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/d_vdm/

In rare cases, like that of Josh Woodward, I can understand why he would allow people to use his work freely.  Mr. Woodward appears to be a pretty well-established independent artist, and he seems to now be at the point in his career where he wants maximum exposure.  Maximum exposure would eventually allow him to catch the attention of "the machine" which is the major record labels.  So in Josh Woodward's case, there is a method to his Creative Commons madness. 

http://www.joshwoodward.com/

So how do you walk that thin line where you share your craft with as many people who are willing to receive it and not go bankrupt in the process?  I don't know, maybe that is why this concept is so hard to grasp for me.  It will definitely help indie artists gain exposure, but there's just that minor detail of getting paid that keeps popping up.  I guess artists are going to have to start being more savy when it comes to marketing themselves and advertising their products.  I know there are still ways they can make a decent living -- it will just take more work.  However, if I put on my non-artist lenses, I think Creative Commons is wonderful for creating visual aids, special projects, web pages/sites, etc.  You can go to Creative Commons and find whatever you need for you particular endeavor. . . Just make sure that you give credit to the original artist for any material that you reproduce.   

There are many government agencies getting on the Creative Commons bandwagon.  Here's an article about The Australian Bureau of Statistics getting with the common folk:

http://abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/4a256353001af3ed4b2562bb00121564/8b2bdbc1d45a10b1ca25751d000d9b03?opendocument?utm_id=HPI

The Revolution Will not be Televised (It will be a webcast)

While most Americans are using the internet and other technology to enjoy various forms of entertainment, other countries are using technology as a tool to bring about change.  Civilians of oppressed countries are now rapidly becoming field reporters, covert camera crews, and practitioners of espionage, all in an effort to realize their individual freedom.  Without the technology that is available today, citizens might not be able to make the strides toward their freedom that they have made thus far. 

A prime example of the impending technological revolution is the censorship issue between Google and China.  As shown in the photo above, the image results for Tiananmen on the U.S. Google site and the Chinese Google site are drastically different.  This difference was due to Google's agreement to censor China's web content for the Chinese government; however, Google has now decided to withdraw from that agreement.  The internet censorship has lead to a great deal of outrage amongst Chinese citizens, and many tech-savy individuals have already begun finding ways to get around governmental internet controls.  Chinese "netizens" are actively displaying how technology has the capability to break down barriers.  The Chinese government will not be able to successfully censor web content for a long period of time, because as technology advances, more ways become available to "beat the system."

Happenings in places such as Iran and Burma have an even more Revolutionary tone.  In areas such as these, citizens are using technology to document protests, political unrest, and even instances of brutality.  In a blog entitled Anonymous Iran, unamed individuals are currently discussing ways to send video and photo images to remote locations where they can be safely uploaded to the internet -- a defense mechanism in case their recording device is ever taken away by the authorities.  In Burma, individuals are using the web to raise awareness about their situation to people abroad.  Many celebrities have gotten on board and are now human rights advocates/activists for the people of Burma (there is no doubt that many of these celebrities would not even be aware of the situation in Burma if it was not for technology keeping them abreast on international issues).  We are now just as capable of finding out what is going on across the globe, as we are across the street.

Finally, the last article I read was about the new YouTube direct, which was hilarious in my opinion.  I found this article funny, because YouTube Direct is a tool that major news organizations can use to basically fish for "instant stories" put together by novice reporters and camera operators.  Although the reporters have gone to school, earned the degrees, and are making the big bucks, they are now able to benefit from the hard work of the average joe with a camera phone and dreams of being in the media biz.  This directly speaks to the point I made in my first blog post, when I stated that it is going to be hard for "freelance artists" to get paid for their work.  As the article stated, if the freelancers are not going to be rewarded for their work (monetarily or with production/writing/photo credit), then they are better off setting up their own site and producing their work independently.  There is no need for the head of the tail to get involved and hog all the glory.

I believe that technology will have a tremendous effect on democracy, because technology allows for freedom of expression, even in places where it is not supposed to be allowed.  The government may currently be able to dictate what a citizen says or does in person when they are being physically watched; however, the government cannot always effectively monitor the "cyber citizen."  These internet activists will be the catalysts for a technological revolution in the very near future.  

http://www.youtube.com/direct
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2EEJkyntV4
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/world/video/122000/nb/122284_16x9_nb.asx?ad=1&ct=50
http://www.witness.org/

Google China side-by-side photo posted by Danny Sullivan on January 30, 2006.