Shared publicly  - 
 
I just wrote a post on Ev's new Medium about replacing copyright with creditright. I'd like people to discuss it, so I'm linking them here. Read there. Talk here. Pass around. Please. 
70
26
bart brouwers's profile photoRadoslav Dejanović's profile photoDrew Goodman's profile photoPhil Baumann's profile photo
78 comments
 
Great piece! And a wonderful idea. That's really the way I use the creative commons license, now that I think about it.
 
There you go again -- making a lot of sense...
 
I concur.  It's also a great way of promoting forward momentum in creative and scientific (not mutually exclusive) works.
 
If this issue gets so pressed; must producers continue "taking care of" their game for a certain amount of time? It rings similar to me Apple's and Samsung litigation battle currently; and the ferocity that some of these companies exhibit when they believe that another has straight stolen their product
 
Frankly, we've never been able to prevent copying- thank goodness.  How many books would have been lost to the ages if monks in scriptoriums didn't hand copy ancient writings?  How many students, before the internet, were photocopying entire books so they could take home information that was only available for an hour or two at the university library reserve desk?  How many advances in science and technology would be missing without copying?  We've always done it in one form or another- let's just acknowledge it, give credit and move on.
 
+Annabelle Howard Google's new Authorship Algo gives you credit for everything you write on the web and every time you engage on the web. You just need to set up authorship through Gplus. 
 
+Annabelle Howard Anna there are a lot of ways to make money, and changing from copyright to credit right doesn't keep you from selling your work. There is also evidence that sharing actually increases sales.
 
I agree. Trying to hold on to copyrights in todays world, with tons of content out there, just get's more and more absurd. I think the younger generation, who are native in digital and social, will see this just as you do +Jeff Jarvis. Copyright is yesterday - the faster you get your head around it the better. And then you will understand how to benefit.
 
+Annabelle Howard as a writer, you could have a teaser or selected posts available to the public, who can pay a subscription fee to see all your work. Or use ads (depends on how many readers you get). Put in Flattr and/or PayPal to get donations from people who enjoy your work.

Permit sharing of snippets in return for a link to a page with a PayPal button/Flattr to collect donations from.

Demanding payments for sharing and distribution is counter-productive. Look for ways of engaging with your audience so they want to give you money.
 
Agree, creditright would be nice. Still, we would need an agreement that this "address to be pointed to in a space in which it doesn’t matter where or how something is created" is credited every time it needs to be. Could it be a technical trick that enables a publication only after the right credits are given to the right address? 
 
Forcing it would be counter-productive. I credit all the time by linking. If I like a comment in a G+ post, I link to the post and in the "title" section of the link I add "Comment in X's G+ post." It's a habit I encourage and it only takes a minute. If someone grabbed my work and didn't credit it, I'd call him on it. No or negative response? Do it back and maybe have a rant on my blog, then move on.
 
Express shareability/intention with a Creative Commons licence requiring attribution to you and source URL?
 
Interesting concept. I certainly think copyright needs to be revamped.  It should be noted that Zakaria's "crime" wasn't that he copied a paragraph or two from another source ... you will see such "copying" in all manner of writing ... the "crime" was in not acknowledging that he'd copied someone else's words.  People have always been able to "copy" parts of the work of others and in fact it's expected in academia to a degree ... but it needs to be attributed, and it's called "quoting" a source.  So I agree ... what we need is a way to enforce giving credit to the originator, rather than ways to criminalize copying, which is a natural function of scholarship.
 
You are a smart thinker and I always enjoy hearing what you have to say. But in this case your premise is flawed. Writers DO need protection from copying. It's difficult but not futile.  Just think how you would feel if I photocopied your latest book and started selling it online. You would not be very happy when I gave you credit. 
 
Writers need to not try making money from copying. That's what we're getting at. It's like not trying to go fishing using a sieve for a boat! Really, it's a no-brainer. Get people over to your website, engage with them there, and get money from them there.

Copying with attribution acts as advertising. As long as we're not jerks about it we can copy a paragraph or two, then direct people to the website of the people we have copied the paragraph from.

Membership of a fan club with privileges is the aim of the game. Money from fans because they like you and they want your stuff, not from a futile effort to leverage an old business model that doesn't work in an age when copying is so easy!
 
Until Ev's new blogging platform isn't private, read-only and whitelisted email based, I'll pay attention to his thoughts on copyright. Whatever he's thinking doesn't apply much to the other platform he made and that's Twitter.
 
+Jim Slaughter I think though his point isn't that writers don't need protection it's that try as we might, in the digital age we just really can't prevent it from happening, so we need to find new ways to approach the problem instead of just trying the same failing plan over and over and over.
 
First paragraph is good but where is the beef?
 
I've always considered that each author really needs to investigate why he/she is writing.
1- They are writing for their own pleasure, need, interest. Money was never the goal. So, copyright is a nonsense since it creates barriers to the work they create.
2- They are writing for a living. This means they do it as a job. This means they must have a business plan of some kind. It also means that 2 things can happen:
2.1- They write under a contract. This way they should make sure they are conveniently paid when signing the contract or on delivery. Making a bad contract is not an excuse to pursuit readers that don't buy authorized copies. If your contract isn't to your liking, do something about it.
2.2- They publish independently. The more they build their name the more they will sell. Attacking readers buy looking at DRM and Copyright will not build your name. It will most probably make you loose money.

So, how should writers make money, as +Annabelle Howard asks above? I think they must find and create their audience. They must spread their works as much as they can, with as little barriers as they can. Remember, copyright doesn't exist to make authors money, authors don't make the "copies" the publishers do. Copyright doesn't protect authors, it protects the business interests of those that profit from the authors work. You may think it's the same, but it isn't. Just make some searching o Google of how much authors make per copy compared to how much publishers do.

The Creators Rights +Jeff Jarvis proposes, stops caring about the commercial part of the problem and assigns Moral Rights to the creation of a work of Art. Why is this a good idea? Because it is in fact more important to an author to make everyone know he/she made that, than it is to protect the right to make copies that was sold to some publisher or other that couldn't care less about the author or the work but only of it's own bottom line.

I support this idea wholeheartedly. (Sorry for writing so much)
 
Why even bother at this point?

If you're going to throw away copyright why care about even attribution?

The logic, taken to its conclusion, doesn't sit well, does it?

Either believe in your ideology and carry it all the way through, or rethink what might be wrong with its essence and question what's holding you back. 
 
+Jeff Jarvis why not use Branch (Ev's other project) to start the discussion, seeing as how that's the synergy of his duel launch?  (Impressive week for one of the best teams on the web).  

Also, what do you think of Maria Popova's Curator's Code project: http://www.curatorscode.org/ ?
 
+Luis Carvalho I made my point. What are you talking about?? What kind of talk is that? Why don't you make a point?
 
+Kevin Skobac Good idea re Branch, but not sure I want to invite people, then I wouldn't see that great and thoughtful comment from +Luis Carvalho above. 
 
+Bryan Wagner-Adair the trouble with control-freakism is people ending up in jail for copying, even for private use. Not fair.

Besides, for every "original" item you show me, I can show where the inspiration is. If a writer doesn't want his or her work copied, don't publish it. That'll save us all a lot of grief.
 
+Bryan Wagner-Adair is it really an authors choice? Even if it is, is it an informed one? Are they even aware of the consequences? I think that most of the times the answer is No to all those questions. That's what needs to change.
 
+Bryan Wagner-Adair  There is a choice how to license things at the moment.  The problem is that the law assumes it can assign this "right" to "copy", and by implication suppress the ability to copy for people who did not get assigned the right or given a license.

A brief glance at the Internet or any PC shows that copying stuff around is a natural activity in the digital world that does not in itself care about rights assigned by one jurisdiction or another.

In short the assignation of a unique right to copy is looking a bit unenforceable.
 
I'm not at all clear on how this is different from CC-By. All of the content I create is licensed as CC-By-SA, and it seems to do everything the article talks about.
 
Well, there's "fair use" and then there's getting ripped off. Writers need to protect their income source (many of us self publish) and also promote ourselves. It's tricky.

I have protected my online educational content and have 22,000 people paying to use it. Teachers do not copy my games. But, now I am publishing a series of plays for schools. Teachers are notorious for "making copies" and not thinking of this as much of a crime. I understand. I was a teacher. How do we encourage users of our work to do the right thing? 
 
Except +Kevin O'Brien CC-By-SA is still a form of copyright, it's still focused on the "copy" not on the work itself. That's what needs to change.
 
+Annabelle Howard take a look at +Techdirt proposal of Cwf+Rtb (Connect with Fans + Reason to buy). There's a lot of ways you can make it work, enforcing Rights to Copy is the unfairest of them all. :)
 
I'd actually leave that, it's part of the moral right to be identified as the author. What it does is give permission to copy as long as you credit the author.
 
+Jason Stewart I was just quoting from Jeff's opening line where he said that "writers don't need protection from copying", as though that is a true statement. It isn't. If you start from a false premise there isn't much chance that you're going to arrive at a correct conclusion. 
 
+Luis Carvalho I'm not sure what the distinction is that you are drawing. CC-By-SA says you can use my content in any way you like, so long as 1. I get credit for my work; and 2. you share your use of it equally. I thought it addressed what the article was talking about, and since it already exists it might make sense to use what is already here.

So what exactly would you suggest that "focuses on the work" that addresses the concerns in the article?
 
+Annabelle Howard let's look at what you're saying here:

Well, there's "fair use" and then there's getting ripped off. Writers need to protect their income source (many of us self publish) and also promote ourselves. It's tricky.

Stop thinking of copyright revenues as a source of income. That's the problem. Move away from the copyright. Drop it. Let it go. Now try other ways of getting money off people.

I have protected my online educational content and have 22,000 people paying to use it. Teachers do not copy my games. But, now I am publishing a series of plays for schools. Teachers are notorious for "making copies" and not thinking of this as much of a crime. I understand. I was a teacher. How do we encourage users of our work to do the right thing?

By giving them a reason to pay you that isn't, "Or I'll take you to court."

Make fair use versions immediately available and paid-for works available to paying customers. Give them tiered options for paying more or less for your work. Use copying as advertising. Try it in tandem with what you're doing now. Then PM me to let me know how it's going. I'll do an interview on my blog to promote you.
 
Taking the commercial part of the Rights to Copy out of the picture. They don't belong. In today's world, copying is as natural as breathing, and as inevitable. Pretending to create specific rights to make copies and assigning them to this or other entity is just that, pretending.

Focusing instead on the Rights of the Creator, such as credit, removing the copy limits is way more important to any author. Also a lot more consistent with the reality. Whether you want to or not, whether you allow it or not, copying is going to happen. Even with that broader permission allowed by CC-BY-SA there's no guarantee that all copying will obey those premises. You may find about it, or not.

Why worry about it? Why focus on the copy? Make it free to copy, or better, forget about the copying, just say that you want the work to be known as yours, and let it grow. Like a son/daughter raise it, then set it free.

I believe that my modest work as an author, isn't really mine. It belongs to those that enjoy it. I was just the vessel that, for better or worse tried to give it form. I think that is the thinking behind the concept of publishing, I read it as making it Public. Your experience may vary... :)
 
+Luis Carvalho Ah, I see what you are getting at now. I think the way I use CC is not too far from what you describe, actually. But how far would I want to take it? The GPL, for instance, is based firmly in copyright law. So would your proposal be that we get rid of all licensing of Open Source software and just make Public Domain? I would not support that. 
 
+Kevin O'Brien Yes, it would need adjustments to each and every usage that is now under the umbrella of copyright. In essence, an Open Source project only really asks that attribution is kept and that the result of any transformation is kept under the same principle.
I can see the need to create some additional Creator's Rights that will cover the needs of different types of work. But in essence, it applies quite well to OSS.
 
I make my living as a writer. I cannot afford to live without income. Can't give away my work.
+Wendy Cockcroft I really appreciate your practical suggestions. Are you suggesting that seeing  "free and limited version," "one not-free, full edition," and "not-free classroom set" tiered options of my plays side-by-side would be enough to prompt those who do pay for one copy not to make a bunch of copies? I'm not disagreeing, just trying to get clarification. This is a real-world problem I'd like to solve :)
By the way, all the work I'm referring to (games and plays) are sold through my non profit.
 
I don't think there are "Magic Wands" +Annabelle Howard.

What I do think is that giving the persons a Reason To Buy, will work a lot better than threats. Think, everyone can get a copy of whatever, what can you give them that they can never find anywhere? What can you offer that it will make them consider buying from you a better deal than a free copy? There's always something. Time, for example. Your presence. Something scarce that only you can provide and that it will add value to the product. I believe you will find it. :)
 
+Annabelle Howard I'm in the same boat, in some ways, except I don't make a living as a writer.

Are you suggesting that seeing  "free and limited version," "one not-free, full edition," and "not-free classroom set" tiered options of my plays side-by-side would be enough to prompt those who do pay for one copy not to make a bunch of copies?

If the prospect of them making copies is the issue, it's worth making a deal to cover that. Remember, there's no real way of checking whether they do or not so attempting to make per-copy sales is out of the question. Even a paper book can be photocopied. The trick is to make it more expensive to copy it by those means than to buy the book. That discourages photocopies.

Okay, what about a deal with schools with discounts for multiple copies/downloads? They get a special PIN to use for that particular school PLUS a bonus of some kind for each new school or whatever they recommend. Perhaps this would be more copies or another product. The idea is they are encouraged to encourage more people to pay for copies. It all works out in the long term. You need a tracker script to find out who is downloading and how many downloads are being made. This will give you an indicator of how many copies you're selling.

I'm not disagreeing, just trying to get clarification. This is a real-world problem I'd like to solve :)

If schools are over-copying, they're not the best people to try to make money from.

Actually, a per-school deal for unlimited copying of particular books/plays would be better for you in terms of guaranteeing income and overcoming our natural sneakiness as people.
 
+Jeff Jarvis I'm in agreement that today's seemingly perpetual copyrights are an abomination. However I do wonder how the system you are proposing will really allow creators to profit from their work. "Social Credit" seems like an ephemeral concept, that is only really valuable for feeding one's ego and not your family. This seems like it might be OK for prolific artists, but what about the person who has only a few or perhaps only one tale to tell? Could Harper Lee and J. D. Salinger have profited from "social credit"? Would they have even desired it? Speaking engagements etc are fine, but what if you're a recluse who hates social interaction. My point is that, for some, royalties are the only real option for support, how can the system you propose protect them?
 
My point is that, for some, royalties are the only real option for support, how can the system you propose protect them?

What about NOT relying on royalties? In an age when copying has never been easier, it's a stupid, pointless way to carry on.
 
Ummm... how about just shortening the copyright royalties time back to reasonable number of years? Say, ten? 
 
How about considering a career in something else? Being an artist that lives of the rent of only one work, not only all it's life, but 70 years after, how is that right?
We then go back to the same question, why the decision of living from writing if you don't intend to write? How does that make any sense?
 
+Wendy Cockcroft GREAT suggestions! You are so right about the school market not being the easiest place to make money, but education is what I do, mostly.

A whole school won't want a copy of a play, only one teacher and perhaps a class, or a small group in an after-school program. These sorts of purchases are often paid for out of the teacher's pocket. However, these plays and accompanying games will be connected to the new Common Core standards so there's a healthy chance of them being ordered through the school so an unlimited copy option is also perhaps a good idea. Then again, teachers know teachers in other schools . . . suddenly I have no income and my work is being used all over the place.

Teachers can make totally free copies by using the school's paper and copier. I can't make it cheaper than free! I really do rely on honesty and integrity. I think putting a face to the site, a real person, would have some impact. I'm one writer working for a non profit, not a huge corporation like Pearson or Scholastic.

By the way, these plays were published in the old-fashioned world of 30 years ago. They sold to all 50 states and 10 other countries. The NYTimes and International Herald Tribune wrote about them. The rights recently reverted to me and I'm determined to bring them into the 21st century learning space.

Many thanks for helping me think about this +Wendy Cockcroft  and +Luis Carvalho :)
 
+Luis Carvalho Great suggestions. Thanks for the encouragement. Maybe I could offer a Skype session with a classroom that buys a full set? Or . . .
 
Exactly... Or... Leave it open... Decide on a case by case basis. Just give them something that they can't have anywhere else. Imagine that you could talk to the whole class that will enact the play. Talking with them about the play or whatever else. But, only to "paying customers" :)

Better yet, when you find that another school used the work without paying, instead of calling the lawyers, call them and tell them how wonderful the experience was on the other schools. :)
 
+Annabelle Howard no problem. In the age of easy copying you have to be a businesswoman first, writer second.

A whole school won't want a copy of a play, only one teacher and perhaps a class, or a small group in an after-school program. These sorts of purchases are often paid for out of the teacher's pocket.

A one-off per-class copying fee, with some kind of bonus for referrals that get you paid would be the thing to do there. Teacher pays once for X number of copies, perhaps 30. 30 x the price of one copy isn't going to work. 4, maybe 5 x the price of one copy ought to do it.

However, these plays and accompanying games will be connected to the new Common Core standards so there's a healthy chance of them being ordered through the school so an unlimited copy option is also perhaps a good idea. Then again, teachers know teachers in other schools . . .

Don't be afraid of that; use it as advertising! People are greedy. Play on the greed. If they want an extra ten copies per referral or something, use that. Leverage it!

suddenly I have no income and my work is being used all over the place.

Not if you leverage the desire to get more free stuff. Remember, if you track the number of and encourage direct downloads, perhaps with a bonus, you get more money in.

Teachers can make totally free copies by using the school's paper and copier.

Which the school has to pay for. Copier ink and paper costs add up. Deal directly with the school or school authorities if you're worried about the teachers.

I can't make it cheaper than free!

Agreed, but you're not giving it away, you're looking for ways to squeeze money out of them without relying on per-copy sales.

I really do rely on honesty and integrity. I think putting a face to the site, a real person, would have some impact.

Relying on honesty? Bad idea. You're better off trying to leverage the essential douchebaggery in human nature. It's more profitable. Sorry, but it's true and I don't sugar-coat the truth.

Whatever you do, don't beg or try the Princess Di puppy eyes trick to make people feel sorry for you and pay you. What you're aiming for is to provoke a desire to give you money because you're a deserving professional. Put ads on the site to increase your revenue. Squeeze, squeeze, squeeze, but don't make it too obvious. Can you make deals with toy or educational materials suppliers to pay for advertising?

I'm one writer working for a non profit, not a huge corporation like Pearson or Scholastic.

Working for other things as well might open up your options. Times are tough and no one could blame you for it.

By the way, these plays were published in the old-fashioned world of 30 years ago. They sold to all 50 states and 10 other countries. The NYTimes and International Herald Tribune wrote about them.

Put that on your site, with scanned cuttings or other proofs. Those are great selling points!

The rights recently reverted to me and I'm determined to bring them into the 21st century learning space.

Go for it! But leverage the market, don't try to lock it down. Work with human nature, don't try to control or manipulate it. People are naturally selfish. If you add value to your downloads, people will come to you for the work.

Add other things to the site, perhaps a blog. Need help? I'm a web designer.
 
+Annabelle Howard It seems I was a bit hasty in skimming through the wikipedia article about Baen: one of the letters is about educational materials.
http://www.baen.com/library/palaver10.htm

One quote: "So it's almost embarrassing when I tell colleagues that the National Academy Press is on track for a record year in book sales. And it dumbfounds them when I mention that we make every page we publish in print available online -- free."
 
WOW +Wendy Cockcroft ! You have been so very helpful and given me lots to think about. How kind.

I would LOVE a blog. I've been looking at WordPress and like what I see. Help would be great. Here's my email: Annabelle@AmericanLearningLeague.com
 
Emailing you now. I'm a Pirate Party supporter so helping you to become successful advances our reform agenda. If we can prove that copyright revenues are not the best form of income for writers, we can work towards reform that benefits everyone. AND I get to make the Party look good!
 
As an aside, +Annabelle Howard Wendy just used what she's telling you to do. See? It works. And it's awesome not only the results, but the actual doing. Who says work is not about being awesome? Good job +Wendy Cockcroft. :)
 
Thanks! I write all the time for my activism. It's unpaid but I'm hoping to get around to maybe writing an ebook about it down the line.
 
Interesting approach. With ideas, it's always been a best practice to use credit and proper attribution. But in today's online ecosystems, even linking to a source seems to be too much of a hassle to prevent the likes of Lehrer and Zakaria from bothering to link to their sources — which would have been enough. We don't even need MLA, APA, or Chicago style for attribution. Let's direct this question, the how, to the systems we use and ask why it's still "so hard" to universally link to a source at the paragraph, or idea level.

cc. +Alex Schleber 
 
I  love how many of you -- especially +Wendy Cockcroft --  have addressed +Annabelle Howard 's challenge to support her work (though I dont know what happened to your initial comment, Annabelle).
 
Thanks for creating this line of thought +Jeff Jarvis . I took my initial comment down after I read the ones that followed it because I was afraid I was off topic! This has been enormously valuable for me. How generous G+ people can be :)
 
Could anyone clarify for me the difference between Creditright and Creative Commons ?
Thanks !
 
+Fouad Yammine: Not much of a difference. Go to my blog post (below) and you'll see some other examples that come out of creditright, such as embeddable articles that travel with brand, advertising, analytics, and links. That's more than giving permission to use content under certain circumstances, a la CC; it's a way to attach a business model and relationship to content that does travel. 
There are also other business models at stake -- e.g., a writer wanting credit for her ideas so she gets hired to give speeches or consult. More here:
http://buzzmachine.com/2012/08/17/copyright-v-creditright/
 
I use creative commons on one of my blogs and many of my pictures for the exact reason that creditright makes sense.  I'll never make fair market value for the time it takes me to create these works.   What I hope to get out of CC is the credit I deserve which I then use to my advantage elsewhere. 
 
something I've been thinking about since the crack-downs on sampling back in the late 80s:

Why, under rules even high school students can grasp, can you write an academic work using other people's research, reasoning, & conclusions, and be utterly in the right by simply crediting your source (footnotes and bibliography, baby!)

BUT if you're a musician who wants to use a recording of a drumbeat, or a guitar lick, you have to call in the lawyers and put up sometimes astronomical sums of money to do it? Why won't simple attribution in the liner notes suffice?

(forgive me if this has been covered above: I'm just starting here, and this text is hot in my copy-buffer and I don't want to lose it. Now, to catch up!)

PS: Hi, +Wendy Cockcroft !
 
Copyright has been mutated into a tool for the "intermediaries" between the creators and the audience anyway: Music labels, book publishers etc.

Remember when audio books were new, and some book publishers had the gall to release audio versions of books they were licensed to print - without telling or giving any money to the author? They had some very strange interpretations of copyright and publishing contracts then...
 
+Jeff Jarvis I wish only that you would not use the term "moral right."  It comes from the French Civil Code tradition, and is very different in character from the US/UK tradition.  Call it an exclusive right, like the US Constitution's language says.  We are fortunate in that our Constitution lets Congress define what exclusive rights authors and inventors get, even if they haven't actually been doing that in a clueful way for some time now.
 
+Seth Johnson : I see, in the front pages of many books authored by UK writers, the phrase "moral right."
Do you know when this entered usage? (I don't see it in books authored by N.Americans, BTW)
just curious...
Add a comment...