In class, we have been studying mechanical reproduction and “the copy”, meaning that once an original piece of art or photography is created, people remake their own versions of that original, reproducing it or copying it on their own. Aside from taking away the essence and a lot of times the intended meaning of the original work when it is attempted to be reproduced, there is generally no fuss about it as long as proper credit has been given to the original artist or photographer instead of the copying artist taking credit for an idea that they didn’t think of themselves. The way that Creative Commons works, is they are the central networking system for people to be able to share and expand their photographs, blog posts, music, and other original material, but only with the proper copyrights given. So, anyone can post anything they’ve created onto the site, and when someone else wants to use any of that work for something of their own, Creative Commons will only allow them to take it with the proper copyrights attached so that the original artist gets all the credit. This alters the way we understand ownership and copyright because in this day, especially with famous photos, quotes, icons, etc, people take things without permission or without knowing who actually created it which is technically stealing and is unfair to the original creator. This website really emphasizes the importance of “giving credit where credit is due”, which is a great thing because it allows the Internet to reach it’s full potential in an appropriate and fair way.
This project affects the subject of a work greatly because when there are several original works available to be borrowed and even modified by the rest of the world, it takes away a little bit of the essence and significance of the original. When something id all of a sudden on the Internet and available to anyone on CC, it spreads quickly and to other parts of the world rather than if the work was just confined to one person or establishment. Once an idea is out there, even if it is not copied, it gives people the opportunity to run with the same idea, but just to carry it out a little differently.
Creative Commons could have altered the works cited in the text Gone With the Wind, the work of Sherrie Levine and Michael Mandiberg because it allows characters to continue on past that one book. A lot of times during “spinoff” or duplicate editions, the same characters are used from a certain original but put in a different plot or story. This is not fair because one person came up with all of those individual characters and every detail about them, so for someone else to be able to take that with no complications is completely unfair. Creative Commons might be able to put a lock on the works cited for Gone With the Wind so that spinoffs or taking of the characters or plot in a slightly different context could not happen.
I think that the Creative Commons Project affords protection to the right of publicity because the CC does not allow works to be used for commercial purposed without the proper consent of the owner. If permission is given, which it not always is because a lot of artists or creators don’t want their creations out for superficial show, but if it is the right to publicity is granted and they can move forward in their efforts.
My Blog 