Creative Commons is Not a Copyright Alternative
You know I have to jump in after I hear something a few times in a short period. In the last few days, it was: Should I do creative commons instead of copyright?
Huh? Well, if everyone can get legal advice online, I figure I can too. So I Googled “creative commons vs. copyright,” and a ton of resources pop up that suggest that creative commons is on a continuum between copyright and public domain, such as this:
Usually, the charts have language like “Creative Commons offers an alternative to traditional copyright.” Creative commons is widely viewed and welcomed as an opportunity to expand the availability of creative works to others to build upon legally and to share.
This isn’t wrong, wrong. But it is misleading and almost always misunderstood without context. These comparison charts refer to symbols only. That said, even when the chart says it refers to the rights represented by each symbol, they still aren’t quite right.
In the United States, a copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy and distribute a creative original work (such as a literary, musical, or artistic work), usually for a limited time. The owner of the copyright is the human who created the work, unless (1) there is something in writing to the contrary which is signed by the human who created it, or (2) if the human who created it did so as part of their duties as a W-2 employee. In those two limited circumstances, the owner is the person or organization so designated in the written document or the employer, respectively.
There is no need to register the work in order for it to be copyrighted.
There is no need to use the © symbol for it to be copyrighted.
If the work is the type of property eligible for protection under US copyright law, it is copyrighted, automatically, upon creation. Period.
Accordingly, the absence of a copyright symbol, or the inclusion of some other symbol, is not an indication that the work is not copyrighted.
So what is Creative Commons? Creative Commons are copyright licenses. You know all about licenses because I can’t stop talking about them😅. (If you are new, first, welcome; now go here to find out about licensing your expertise).
Creative commons is not a copyright alternative. First comes the copyright. Then comes the license. The issue is—what form will the license take?
A license to use the work can be granted in many ways—in writing or verbally, exclusively or non-exclusively, with conditions or without conditions, for a fee or for free, and so on. A license is a contract, and the parties can negotiate whatever terms they like.
Creative Commons licenses are simple, standardized copyright licenses that can be used to give the public permission to share and use your work without paying a license fee. There are a limited number of pre-set conditions that you can elect to apply to the license. You can find out more about creative commons licenses here.
There are many great uses for creative common licenses, such as for setting the terms for use of the material you publish on your website without having to negotiate (or pay a lawyer to prepare) a written agreement. What they are decidedly not good for--creating an IP-based revenue stream with your expertise. Hit me up with any questions.