Not true, allot of music and video is now released under creative commons or similar open licensing. It is not at all the "sole provenance" of software developers. Nonetheless this does not mean that the model cannot be followed for other non-digital creative works.

I presume you are concerned about a sculptor not getting royalties for the cheep plastic knockoffs of his work. While its true he would not share in the profits of the plastic pieces, he would indeed benefit as they would be required to declalre who the original creator was. Thus increasing the popularity and value of his original works. I don't for a moment think that we would see an end to sculpting if we removed the ability to control the distribution of cheep copies. The same is true of painting and other physical visual arts. The real value is in the originals and having many copies floating around will only enhance the demand for the artist's original work.

Copyright adds no value except in the context of current business models of centrally controlled distribution and manufacturing. The power of the internet will NEVER be realized unless we allow free and open exchange of work. Spying on and criminalizing our fellow citizens just in case they might have listened to a copy of a song that was out in zeitgeist is just wrong.

'Cheep' is right.

The power of the internet rests in the hands of those who CONTROL the access, & the distribution of content, ie. businesses. Business are in business to make a profit. Period. 'Creative Commons' is, currently, a 'not-for-profit' business, but you really should read their FINE PRINT about 'third-party options' …

Internet businesses care little for 'content' as such, what they want are 'addicts'. Manufacturers of computers, developers of electronic 'infra-structures' want 'us' hooked. Google, as an example, doesn't really CARE what you search for, or want, they just want you 'on' 24/7.

By the way, plastic 'knock-offs' of an ORIGINAL sculptor's works are not remotely comparable to 'video' or music downloads. Unless you subscribe to the 'parody' FAIR USE schtick …

Personally, I want to get PAID for MY work. And Copyright PROTECTS my efforts.

To those who intend to 'survive' by giving away what they do 'for FREE', well, good luck with that. They'll get bled dry by thankless 'suckers' …

I see the principle problem as one of vision. Mass manufacturing, duplication and distribution have only been with us for a short time. The idea that I can create one excellent thing in my life then sit back and watch the money roll in is also recent, and contrary to popular belief, does not foster creativity or hard work. It is simply the difficulty in mass duplication (hence scarcity) that has created a superb business model for lots of people for the last few decades. It has also resulted in the superstar super rich phenomena and those who have benefited the most are understandably the ones making the most noise. Copyright has enshrined these ideas in Law. However if scarcity is no longer a factor, then enforcing copyright becomes impossible without a police state. A complete change of paradigm is therefore needed.

By the time my son is my age he will be able to scan your sculpted works with a 3D camera and reproduce it using a 3D printer or sculpting machine/robot. He will be able to give a copy of the 3D data file to others who may for a time enjoy or be inspired by the work. This is the future and is no different that downloading a song. If you don't want people to enjoy your works or be inspired by them then don't show them in public. Its as simple as that. Once its out there its out there.

By the way, I believe we are supposed to be discussing new options for Canada. So just because we may find fault with some forms of creative commons it does not mean that we cannot propose a new better one.

I cannot think of one living artist that I know who 'sits on their laurels' counting their money after they've produced ONE object. What a daffy idea .. That's not to dismiss the fact that MAKING one object might well take up to, or more then, a year. That happens quite regularly.

… maybe some day your son will give credit and aknowledgement where his father will not …

… though, to be sure, any 'digital data' photographic image primed with mechanical software both in the camera or within the computer that he may take of an Original's work will be quite a meagre 'repro' in COMPARISON to the Original.

To a professional EYE, his 'photo-copy' will mean zip.

Augustus Saint-Gaudens, a sculptor, as an example can be 'imitiated', but very few will ever have the finely tuned eye-hand-mind co-ordination that he developed over years of practice & execution.

Me thinks, you'll never know or even understand this CURRENT issue until you try making something from scratch with your very own bare hands - no software stuffed computer to assist - just your hands .. Compare that effort to August Saint-Gauden's Art WORK.

Otherwise, I agree that all p.o.v's are welcome in this very broad forum concerning Copying and IP Rights.

Yes and if the copy is worthless then what is the problem? Who cares if people are making copies of your works. They are not original so what is the problem? You've kind if made my point for me.

No one is trying to discredit anyone. Under a creative commons approach you ARE given credit and thats exactly what Im talking about. You can be paid for your original work. What more do you want? My son will give credit as would I in such a circumstance.

FYI, I do actually make allot of things with my hands. As well as being a lowly software engineer using those nasty computer assisted tools, I am also a very capable carpenter making toys and furniture. Not a sculpter to be sure, but I believe I have a fair idea of what its like to make something with my very own bare hands. Oh ya and I just finished building our house, all my original design and mostly my work. But this is neither here nor there and I don't believe one creative endeavor trumps another.

I really don't understand what exactly are you're trying to protect? In any case, whatever it is, if you are relying on copyright law to protect it the only winner will be your lawyer.

… Perhaps you are right.

Then again, perhaps you are wrong.

… Ever consider that?

I am, naturally, 'resistant' to a CONCEPT that is increasingly being SHOVED DOWN MY THROAT as an 'Imperative Absolute' - especially thru a medium that is not representative of my work.

The existing Copyright Act, though clearly not 'perfect', works for me. It recognizes, and is applicable to, what I do. Plus, it gives me a modicum of 'insurance' & 'assurance' that what I create is MINE until such time that I either sell it, license it, or give it away.

What's more, the Copyright Act is a legal 'tool' generated by 'my' government that currently best represents my interests, and 'memory roots'. It is not a 'business structure', albeit 'non-profit', like the Creative Commons whose 'head office' is in the United States of America.

One of the 'illusions' of the web, to my mind, is the IDEA that it is 'global'. In actual FACT the web represent less then 1/6ths of the GLOBAL population.

And, as I've stated elsewhere in this forum, that 1/6th is predominately male, of a certain age, who have disproportionate amounts of 'disposable income', a propensity for 'techno-gadgets' and a kind of mind-set that is somewhat EXCLUSIVE of the REST OF THE PLANET who are NOT 'plugged in'. By far the largest 'interests of the web', as you know, are porn & gaming. Cumulatively, why on EARTH would I 'buy into' an ENVIRONMENT that is so ALIEN to ther rest of the world-?

At least with the Copyright Act, I have the SENSE that the 'legislation' ACKNOWLEDGES the Real Time & Space Reality of my physical & mental being within a geographical territory currently known as 'Canada'.

This 'Canada', as I both know & experience it, is an amazing amalgamation of temporal and sensual converging realties that intersect with my living being. This 'framework', as artificial a construct as it may be, does GIVE ME a sense of Place & Identity, that, to date, I do not GET from the internet or it's spokes-MEN.

Moreover, your TONE, Sir, is indicative of the 'web tone' that is 'turning me off'. And frankly, I don't think I am alone in this thought, or feeling.

Until such time that the web is a bit more INCLUSIVE and REFLECTIVE of the LARGER Realities of the REST OF THE PLANET, I doubt I will be much interested in SUCCUMBING to it's 'Rules' or web-centric 'WANTS'.

Finally, that you are able to BUILD with your hands is great. But until such time that you do attempt to SELL what you build, I don't think you are going to appreciate the perspective of those who make THEIR LIVING from the unique singularity of WHAT they MAKE. There IS, by the way, very much a difference between the works of the Great to the works of the amateur or mediocre. You KNOW this from your OWN WORK. Try SELLING it as your OWN …

In doing so, you will DISCOVER as you DEVELOP that as you IMPROVE and SHARPEN your OWN abilities that your IDENTITY becomes increasingly interwoven with what you make, so much so that at a certain point your WORKS are 'identifiable' as YOURS by OTHERS. It is also at that point when you will recognize that you are not longer LEARNING, but TEACHING. It is also at that point when you will SEE that in order to SURVIVE by your work, you MUST claim it as your OWN. 'Copyright' is a 'mechanism' that IDENTIFIES and DIFFERENTIATES your work from, and FOR, others.

To my mind, it is a perfectly acceptable 'identifier' to establish 'trespassing boundaries'. And, as I've also said elsewhere in this forum, I no longer work 'for FREE'. If you want what I've got, well then, you're gonna have to pay for it. Copyright makes that 'negotiation' CLEAR.

…

You might also want to consider how the REST OF THE WORLD will react to the current prejorative elitism of the web when they 'catch up' and far surpass the 'do this/do that' somewhat imperial 'Americanisms' of the day …

Misinformation like yours simply harms the debate. I can't begin to detail how wrong you are. Perhaps you can start here..
http://creativecommons.ca

Ok. Lets correct some misinformation.

See: Creative Commons ORG, the 'parent' of creative commons.ca

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ca/legalcode.en

Creative Commons is a 'non-profit' BUSINESS, with a CEO and a Board of Directors. It is not a LAW enacted thru Parliament.

p.s. And that BUSINESS is situated in the United States of America. Your data under their 'Canadian Attribution' is still governed by THEIR TOS in the U.S. of A. Read the fine print.

Thank you.

Perhaps you regard the Canadian Red Cross Society as simply a "subsidiary" of the American Red Cross Society? Having a "Board of Directors" doesn't automatically make it into a "business". I suspect Revenue Canada (and the IRS) would be very interested if it did.
The relationship between the Canadian Creative Commons "organization" and it's American counterpart is very similar.

In none of the above cases, are these a "BUSINESS". They are non-profit organizations.

From the US version of the Creative Commons site:
"Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making it easier for people to share and build upon the work of others, consistent with the rules of copyright.
We provide free licenses and other legal tools to mark creative work with the freedom the creator wants it to carry, so others can share, remix, use commercially, or any combination thereof."

Carefully note, they do not "license" the works, they "provide free licenses" that *anyone* (even non-lawyers) can use to license their own works..

And from the Canadian site:
"As a response to the growing need for an alternative to copyright in the United States, Creative Commons, led by Internet legal guru, Lawrence Lessig, was launched in 2001. The first project of Creative Commons was the development of a set of user-friendly licences which would enable creators to share their work under certain conditions. By tagging works as free to copy and share, Creative Commons also established a means for artists to draw inspiration from a fast-growing repository of free culture. "

BTW, I *do* read the licenses, and I understand them, and use them.

I think you confuse the organization that created the licenses, with the licenses themselves.

I can release creative works, which I still hold the copyright on, under any of the variations of the Creative Commons licenses.

Perhaps a comparison between the Open Software Foundation (http://www.gnu.org) and the GPL license(s) would help you to understand the relationship between an organization and a publication - which in this case happens to be a "template" license which can be used to release your creative works under.

The Open Software Foundation does NOT "own" Linux or many of the myriad projects released under the GPL. To even imply such is absurd.

Likewise, to imply that any works released under a Creative Commons *license* has ties to the organization that created the license is absurd.

There is no "parent company" -> "child company" relationship involved here. To quote directly from the Canadian Creative Commons history page:

"Creative Commons Canada was founded in Fall 2003 by Project Lead Marcus Bornfreund, with the generous support of the University of Ottawa Law & Technology Program and the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. We are grateful to their faculty and students for helping get the project off the ground - special thanks goes out to cyberlaw guru Michael Geist, copyright law prodigy Daniel Gervais, and public interest dynamo Philippa Lawson. "
As I stated originally, misinformation like yours harms the debate.

What debate?

Under Canadian LAW, if you are the creator, you hold the Copyright to your own work. Period. The Creative Commons is an 'attribute template' as you say designed for the internet community to attempt to create some kind of 'global' bond of 'respect'. All well & good, but it is not LAW.

The Creative Commons.ca page you cite, is covered by a CC Canadian 2.5 'license', noted at the bottom of the page. That 'link' redirects you to Creative Commons. ORG. At the bottom of THAT page, you'll see this - "This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full licence) available in the following languages:English/French". Click that.

At the bottom of the 'License' is this: "Creative Commons is not a party to this Licence, and makes no warranty whatsoever in connection with the Work. Creative Commons will not be liable to You or any party on any legal theory for any damages whatsoever, including without limitation any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising in connection to this licence. Notwithstanding the foregoing two (2) sentences, if Creative Commons has expressly identified itself as the Licensor hereunder, it shall have all rights and obligations of Licensor."

In other words, you are LICENSING your work TO Creative Commons. (ie. LICENSOR is Creative Commons.) And that's not 'absurd', that's the FACT. I strongly advise you to read ALL third-party clauses as stated on the parent site.

I also reiterate, Creative Commons is not conducive to ALL creative acts.
At best, it is a web-centric 'good will handshake'. It is not LAW.

I suggest you talk to a lawyer. Ask her about the differences between copyright law and what a copyright license is. Ask if they have any "template licenses" around the office.

If I license a work under any of the variations of the Creative Commons license, I still hold the copyrights. Nor am I licensing it to any "organization" you insist on calling the "Creative Commons".

To properly parse the above, you have to recognize that as a creator of a work and the holder of the copyrights, I am the LICENSOR, no one else.
In the examples you cite, it refers to works that the Canadian Creative Commons organization holds the copyright on (they are the Licensor). They do NOT apply to works that I hold the copyright on.

As you state, Creative Commons licensing is not "law". It is simply a license. It also happens to be a license whereby I can release my works to public view and allow public adaptation and usage of my works, while still retaining the copyright protections granted to me under copyright LAW. Different versions of the Creative Commons licenses grant different rights to the user/view of the material.

I will admit that all the Creative Commons licenses are most applicable to digital works, or works that can be digitally formatted (CD, DVD, Flash, ePaper, etc, etc). In that sense, your "web-centric" comment is spot on. If it can be digitized, it can be on the web. If you can come up with specific examples where copyright law needs adjusting and the content *cannot* be digitized, I would be interested to hear it. For the most part, the whole copyright debate is about the effects digital data (and ease of copying) has on our copyright laws.

I beg to differ. By using the Creative Commons 'license template' with their trademarked LOGO, you are subscribing to their TOS. I suggest you talk to a lawyer.

You might be interested in these remarks from the support docs from Creative Commons.ca:

See: http://creativecommons.ca/documents/educommons_FAQ.pdf.

From that source -

"To offer a work under a Creative Commons, or other, copyright license you must be the person who OWNS the COPYRIGHT in the work or have their permission.

CC licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has
obtained your work under an CC BY-NC-SA license, from using the work according to
that license. You can stop distributing your work under an CC BY-NC-SA license at any
time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist
under an CC BY-NC-SA license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies
included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think
carefully when choosing an CC BY-NC-SA license to make sure that you are
comfortable with the consequences.

The CC BY-NC-SA Legal Code has been drafted with the intention that it will be
enforceable in court. However, we cannot predict how different courts across Canada
will react to a certain provision."

(Note, no mention is made how this will stand up in an international court or outside of Canadian COPYRIGHT jurisdiction … )

Anyway, all this is somewhat immaterial, in that, for you, the CC license suits your ambitions. That's great. You choose to distribute your work as you wish. And that's fine.

What I take exception to is the increasing presumption that ALL 'creative works' must be 'filtered' thru the web and thus succumb to 'web-centric' protocol & constructs.

There is no question that this is a timely debate. The infinite replicating capacity of data and the resultant ease of transmission HAS changed the relationship of the 'creator' to their product' - IF, and only if, they USE data. Many do not. Items that are created by hand, do not. Sculptors, painters, metal workers, furniture makers, performance artists, hand-drawn type designers - those who create 3D works do not NECESSARILY use 'digital data'.

The 'blinkered' perception of the web community about how 'the rest of the world' lives - and WANTS to live - is somewhat … o'what's the word … PRESUMPTIOUS.

BTW.. I strongly suggest you actually READ the information available at:

http://creativecommons.ca