Creative Commons Copyright

[Iconoclast99]

I have not submitted a story yet but when I do I would like to submit it with a Creative Commons copyright. Essentially this is a method where I retain copyright but release the work for almost unlimited non-commercial use, like a GNU free license.

The details of Creative Commons licenses can be found at http://creativecommons.org/

The license I want to use is Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0. , which states that:
You are free:
- to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
- to make derivative works
Under the following conditions:
- Attribution. You must give the original author credit.
- Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
- Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.
For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above.

Obviously this is not important to me for copyright purposes, but I just want to explicitly reiterate my belief in the freedom of the net. A small notice at the beginning of a story should suffice, and doesn't violate any Lit policies that I have seen.

Iconoclast

 

[gauchecritic]

I can't see any problem myself but I would PM Laurel just in case.

And the chances are that you will be ripped off sooner or later and that you will not be credited.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

My understanding is that Lit uses a standard Literary Copywrite on every story that's posted. The copywrite belongs to the Author, not the site. If one of your stories is ripped off (and eventually one or more will be) Laural will go to bat for you.

On the other hand, if you plan to go your own way, I'm not sure what Laural can do for you.

I've had stories ripped off and I've had other sites ask me if they can use a few. Generally, the lagitimate sites will ask. So I don't see any need to change from the norm.

 

[fifty5]

I have not submitted a story yet but when I do I would like to submit it with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0.

I'm with you entirely on principle, but be very sure that this is exactly what you want to do.

My question is why you are trying to retain commercial rights. If that's so that no one else can (legally) make a profit from your work, then fine, if very hard to enforce - you'd not just have to discover that someone was doing it, but then maybe have to pay to get the evidence.

If your aim is to keep an opportunity to make money from it yourself, then I'm afraid you're cutting your own throat. In almost every case I've heard of, those who are prepared to pay want an assurance that the same work isn't available for free somewhere else - which is just what this would prevent you from doing.

If it was me (it isn't) I'd just add a note saying that you are supporting Lit by making your work available to read on the Web free of charge - which is something you believe in - and then stick with Lit's normal policy of you retaining all rights, but granting Lit a license to use your stuff without charge.

I've released photos via WikiMedia under CCAS license, but only for lower resolution copies, which means I have something to sell which is better than what I'm making available for free: the hi-res version. With a story, there's no real equivalent...

 

[Oblimo]

With copy-left devices such as the CCC, commercial rights are withheld, not with the intention of selling those rights in the future, but to keep derivative works as freely available as the original.

 

[fifty5]

With copy-left devices such as the CCC, commercial rights are withheld, not with the intention of selling those rights in the future, but to keep derivative works as freely available as the original.

Sure. I was just trying to say that it needs thinking about carefully. Give away what you want, that's a good thing, but it might be a mistake to do so without knowing all the implications. If the guy's happy with that, all power to his elbow, it's second only to the generosity that allows commercial exploitation as well - knowing that the free rights still exist in full.

 

[Iconoclast99]

I can't see any problem myself but I would PM Laurel just in case.

And the chances are that you will be ripped off sooner or later and that you will not be credited.

I realize that, but I would be ripped off regardless (assuming that I write something with at least minimal commercial potential for shovelware ripoff artists)

My purpose is to explicitly, as the copyright holder, allow unrestricted noncommercial use of my work. Send a million copies to close friends, print it out and line your birdcage, write a parody making fun of the concept, whatever. As long as user follows the restrictions in the CCC deed.

Information wants to be free!

Iconoclast

 

[fifty5]

Information wants to be free!Iconoclast

Good on yer!

Is your story going to be "information"?

 

[Iconoclast99]

I'm with you entirely on principle, but be very sure that this is exactly what you want to do.

My question is why you are trying to retain commercial rights. If that's so that no one else can (legally) make a profit from your work, then fine, if very hard to enforce - you'd not just have to discover that someone was doing it, but then maybe have to pay to get the evidence.

If your aim is to keep an opportunity to make money from it yourself, then I'm afraid you're cutting your own throat. In almost every case I've heard of, those who are prepared to pay want an assurance that the same work isn't available for free somewhere else - which is just what this would prevent you from doing.

Your points are well taken. Copyright law is convoluted, and payment for publication of a creative work is at times even more so. First publication rights, first publication in a specific country or continent, first publication in a specific format (electronic, paperback, hardcover, etc.) and exclusive rights for the work all have different recompense to the author of the work. I appreciate your concern but even though I am a Virgin here I am not unaware or naive.

I don't believe that anything I write will have significant commercial potential for quite some time. I don't particularly care if Joe Blow in Moose Groin,Ohio makes a couple of bucks by ripping off my work. If, on the other hand Stephen King or J.K. Rowling rewrite my work and present it as their own (Ha! I wish), the Creative Commons license takes care of that.

To me the whole copyright/payment thing is in a state of flux right now and it will be years before it settles on some recompense method that is mutually acceptable to creators and users in different fields.

Information wants to be free!

Iconoclast

 

[fifty5]

Information wants to be free!Iconoclast

Do your thing! I suspect your writing talent might be more significant than copyright.

Get writing and worry about the law afterwards.

 

[sr71plt]

Not sure I follow. Copyright isn't convoluted at all. What you are discussing here is use rights, not copyright at all. Copyright is automatically held by the originator (or the employer in a work for hire arrangement) until/unless the originator assigns copyright to someone else (holding copyright is like being pregnant--you either are wholly so or not at all). What use a work is put to is another animal altogether--not copyright. CCC is a satisfactory way to assign use rights--but this Web site has simpler arrangements and you won't be able to dictate other conditions on the site--you'll either accept the use conditions they set (their nonexclusive publication rights to the material, which is the minimum they could require and publish the material here at all) or not post here.

 

[Iconoclast99]

Not sure I follow. Copyright isn't convoluted at all. What you are discussing here is use rights, not copyright at all. Copyright is automatically held by the originator (or the employer in a work for hire arrangement) until/unless the originator assigns copyright to someone else (holding copyright is like being pregnant--you either are wholly so or not at all).

I misspoke. "Misspoke"sounds so much better than the word "lied". I have such dislike for the extension of copyright to a bazzilion years after the death of the creator of the work that I tend to start foaming at the mouth.

What use a work is put to is another animal altogether--not copyright. CCC is a satisfactory way to assign use rights--but this Web site has simpler arrangements and you won't be able to dictate other conditions on the site--you'll either accept the use conditions they set (their nonexclusive publication rights to the material, which is the minimum they could require and publish the material here at all) or not post here.

I have no intention of trying to abrogate the site rules and conditions. My sole purpose is to explicitly provide a general release of my copyright for noncommercial purposes.

Information wants to be free!

Iconoclast

 

[gauchecritic]

Abrogate, misspoke and bazzillion all in the same post. You have my admiration.

 

[evanslily]

Deleted