Running and Passing.

I recently read the Lawrence Lessig book Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy and have been toiling with the idea of licensing some of my work under either a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License or a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

My reasons for licensing would be  fourfold, 1) inspire others to create work and modify my ideas 2)  make people more away of my work, by allowing it to be easily distributed, remixed, etc 3) create a community, collaboration, etc, between myself and others 4) foster a greater awareness for the Creative Commons.

I developed my passion for creating photography and art through appropriation. My primary introduction to photography was through PC based digital imaging. However, I had no camera or digital camera, so I began my creating my own digital work the incorporating appropriation and collage .  I was concerned about copyright and my ability to create unique work. Thus, my early efforts were very layered. This method of learning no doubt grew my desire to create work with a more personal foundation. However, even when creating unique imagery, I would be fooling myself to think that outside influences are not present. To this day, I still occasionally utilize appropriation when creating work.

I owe some part of my education to the fact that I was able to copy, disassemble and manipulate work to which I held no copyright. My early work was quite amateurish and at no point was I competing with professional outlets or hindering artistic economics. I recognize that the ability to non-commercially appropriate work helps to greatly expand distribution. It can also inspire, educate and give voice to a new generation of creative thinkers, tinkers, and the media minded. So long as individuals are compensated for professional work, those producing amateur derivative works are likely committing no wrong.

I’d love for people to taking something away from my work, be it educational, aesthetics, or a simple story. The complexity of copyright and the current state of cultural sharing/stealing is something that I find confusing. Every time I open a file on my computer a virtual copy is made. I see no immediate reason not to use the CC to license the work, but am concerned when dealing with the future licensing issues and the perceived lack of control I would have over any work.

Would I not be in a better situation if I simply reserved all right, then enforced my right to copyright on a case by case basis? I would be more than willing to work with parties interesting in licensing works under alternative terms, some of which would include CC, but those seem to be best dealt with on an individual basis.

No one may doubt the strict authorship of a piece of audio/video/imagery, but who should decide when, where, or under what conditions it is appropriate to use this media? It is certainly true that once media is digitized it is immensely more hard to control it’s distribution and usage.

I’m learning more and more about utilizing a Creative Commons license and am hoping to receive some community feedback. For now, I am simply questioning the appropriateness of licensing the work and seeking examples of individuals who have successfully used Creative Commons to licensed work and maintained a professional/fine art/commercial standing.

I have started by licensing my Flickr imagery, an audio artwork, and this post.

Any opinions, comments, or suggested reading would be most appreciated.

This post by Matthew Kowal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.