[ image creative1 type=center ]
Creative Commons, or CC, was launched in 2001 as a means to help artists and creators of intellectual property deal with the increasing pressure of a "Permission Society." In an effort to bypass the copyright lawyers and to create a legal, reusable document that allows the creator of a piece of music, text or image a new way to manage their copyrights, CC has created a place in between the "All Rights Reserved" of traditional copyright and the "No Rights Reserved" of the public domain. John Buckman, founder of Magnatune.com (a new type of record label whose motto is "We Are Not Evil"), and member of the board of directors of Creative Commons, found the time to answer some questions about copyright law, CC and what CC means to creators of new works of art, specifically musicians.
Can you briefly describe what Creative Commons is, and what it does?
Creative Commons lets creative people assign legal licenses to their works, giving users more rights than "all rights reserved." For example, a musician can allow people to remix their work as long as no money is made.
Why are you so excited about CC? What is your involvement?
CC is a way for artists to get heard by a very large audience. Previously, the main way to build an audience was with a large marketing budget. This really levels the playing field and allows smaller, more creative artists and works to have a chance at making it. As a musician, I'm keenly aware that the music I write is built on all the music I've heard over my lifetime. Nothing I create is truly original — it's a mix of inspiration and foundational knowledge from music that's been written before. But with "permission society" creeping in I fear for the future, and CC is a way out of permission society, a future where creative possibilities expand rather than contract. Because of Magnatune's success I was invited to be on the Creative Commons Board of Directors in fall 2006.
What needs in the area of music production and distribution do you see CC addressing?
Building an audience, business development, partnerships, facilitated distribution, removing most legal costs, removing much legal liability in artistic creation, marketing, mindshare and positive branding.
What is the difference between CC and copyright?
Copyright is "all rights reserved" and CC is "some rights reserved." With copyright, every use of a work requires the creator's permission. With CC, some uses are pre-allowed without the artist needing to give permission again.
Would/does a CC license have the same legal strength in proving date of creation and ownership as a copyright? Should artists still copyright their works?
CC works with copyright. The artist still retains the copyright — they simply also license the work under a CC license.
In one of the videos on the CC website it is mentioned that during the creation of CC there was some dialogue with the U.S. Copyright Office. What kind of backlash, if at all, has there been from the U.S. Copyright Office or copyright lawyers concerning CC and its mission?
I can't comment on the copyright office discussions, as I wasn't part of CC then. There has been a backlash among conservative lawyers and organizations that like the current system, and see no problem with it, since "it works perfectly well, you just need to have my lawyer call your lawyer, and we'll write up an agreement and agree on fees." For organizations with lots of money and all the contacts and content, this is very cozy and highly profitable. But, when a music license costs $20,000 with this process, lots of people, ideas and projects are cut out. That's just fine for some people, but not for me.
What kind of effect can CC have on the works of remix artists and those who use samples in their music?
CC Mixter is a site that enables musicians to upload their a cappellas, and others to make new music from that, all completely legally and with CC licenses providing the legal foundation.
What about the musicians, recording artists and remixers who make a living through their recorded musical expressions? Copyright law was originally intended to protect the artist and to foster creativity. Do you see this happening with sites like CC Mixter?
CC leaves copyright and all the power, in the hands of the creator. All CC does is give the creator options, in cases where it might be in the creator's wishes to have a license on their works besides "all rights reserved." For example, if a musician wants to have many remixes of their work, a site like CC Mixter enables that like nothing else, and the CC licenses make it all legal. Mixter has had many major label musicians participating, both because they like the quality of the work produced by Mixter's participants, but also because they personally like inspiring and enabling a new generation.
How has current copyright law stifled the creativity of such artists?
Copyright, meaning the "all rights reserved" approach, has prevented new ideas from being explored, and some people who did "illegal" things (meaning, things that they hadn't received permission to do) had bad things happen to them.
Is CC therefore a reaction against the current state of copyright law in the U.S. and elsewhere? How can musicians manage the rights, and reap the rewards, of their creative work differently with CC?
Copyright really deals with two things — 1) When you create a work, it means you automatically own all the rights to it. 2) In the absence of any other legal agreements or licenses, anyone who wants to do anything with your work has to get your permission. What CC does is create legal agreements between the creator of a work, and the public and other artists who want to use your work. CC exists in the domain of contract law, and as such is perfectly compatible with copyright law. The reason CC was created is that governments did not see any need to help enable anything but an "all rights reserved" regime — they assumed that if people wanted "some rights reserved" they could do that themselves by writing their own legal agreements. And in fact, if you look at the history of the music business, there are many instances of licenses on albums permitting all kinds of interesting rights. All CC does is make generic, easy- to-reuse licenses so that you don't have to pay a lawyer to write one for you. However, what this effectively does is lower the cost to have "some rights reserved" works, and with the lower costs we've found that millions of people are interested in doing this.
What would a "some rights reserved" legal environment look like and how could that foster creativity in all levels of music creation, from commercial styles to soundtracks to serious art music?
Look at CC Mixter — musicians, producers and fans all working together to create new music. Of course, much of it is not so good, but in my experience, 20% of what comes from the collaborations is excellent, and that 20% inevitably comes from people you didn't expect. With Magnatune, a "some rights reserved" approach allows people to listen to music entirely before choosing to buy, and if they buy, they have far more rights and flexibility with the work they've just purchased. It also allows musicians to contribute to the non-commercial sector, such as schools, which is a life goal for many people.
Can you describe the philosophy behind Magnatune?
Magnatune is a next-generation record label that isn't evil. That means we treat fans and musicians as well as possible in a completely moral and respectful fashion. For fans, that means no DRM [Digital Rights Management], MP3s or WAVs, and full listening before you buy and Creative Commons licensing. For musicians, it means that they keep their rights, and they get 50% of all the money made in selling their music.
How has fostering a community of "open music" affected the artists who you have signed to your label?
Initially, musicians are skeptical, and then they start reading about themselves on blogs, seeing their music in films and receiving royalty checks. Then they tell all their musician friends about Magnatune.
What do you predict this "open source" model of music rights and record label management will do to the music industry at large?
Linux hasn't destroyed Microsoft, but it's forced Microsoft both to innovate and to open up and change some of its practices. It's also caused far more competition and diversity in the software sector. In no way do I expect "Open Music" (i.e. open source philosophy applied to music) to destroy "Big Music," but I do think it will continue to cause the music industry stress and worry, and thus cause them to innovate more, to offer things better for the public in order to compete and overall to increase the cultural diversity on this planet.
When you come down to it, almost everything in our society is driven by the generation of profit and the bottom line. We have all seen how the RIAA has moved to protect the rights of publishers, record labels and even artists to their income. Has the implementation of the philosophy behind Magnatune hindered profits, or are you actually seeing the reverse?
Any record label today needs to interest people in their music. You can "push" it at them with expensive marketing and advertising, or you can let the fans discover you and spread the word that you're doing something worthwhile. The "not evil" approach of Magnatune very much does that.
Most of the music we have been talking of is of an electronic type such as techno (remixing), and other commercial music types. What kind of response have you seen from the art music world about CC?
Magnatune's most successful musical genres are classical (35%), new age (12%), electronica (11%), and world (11%). If you go to CC Mixter, you'll of course find plenty of hip-hop, but you'll find great funk, acoustic and experimental music as well. With CC-based projects, we see a flowering of all genres.
What can artists do now to help bring about the type of creative environment that CC is aiming for?
Assign a CC license to their work, upload the music to sites like Jamendo, and a cappellas to CC Mixter and remix others' music as well.
