Ever since ASCAP, the performing-rights organization, sent out a fundraising letter to its members in which it singled out Creative Commons as a underminer of copyright, the subject of the business of the creative process has sparked yet another round of online discourse. I was invited by the websbite weallmakemusic.com to summarize the arguments in favor of Creative Commons — a non-profit organization that develops licenses that help artists (musicians, yes, but also painters, photographers, filmmakers, and so on) navigate a world so mightily transformed by the Internet and associated technologies.
I’ll post, for archival purposes, the full piece here in a week or so, once it’s had its run at We All Make Music. The five most pertinent reasons I came up with are (1) Creative Commons is non-exclusive, (2) you choose the license that’s right for your work, (3) Creative Commons is optional, (4) traditional performing rights organizations don’t necessarily have your individual interest at heart, and (5) Creative Commons is wired for networked creation.
The Creative Commons is an important topic for all the art discussed on Disquiet.com — issues of authorship, of sampling, of piracy, and of free distribution (the latter being the reason there’s enough music for me to recommend a legal free download every weekday) are at the core of this site’s mission.
Read the full piece (“Five Reasons For a Musician to Consider the Creative Commons”) at weallmakemusic.com.
For background on that troubling ASCAP mailer, check out the discussion at Molly Sheridan’s artsjournal.com/gap.
More on Creative Commons at creativecommons.org.