A: First and foremost this website is not an easy one to navigate. Just thought I'd throw that out there. ON A MORE RELATED NOTE, CC seems to be a tool for novices in the realm of the copyright. Im not sure that this project alters the way i understand the copyright, but rather, it makes the experience a bit more streamlined, user friendly, and intuitive.
Q: How does this affect the subjects of a work?
A: In the case of Nine Inch Nails' Trent Reznor, CC has had a very positive effect. One commenter said Reznor's decision to release his album for free was "selling free, and it works everytime." Reznor is not only just selling free here, but is also using the hype created by a free albums release as incentive for listeners to be even more inspired by his band's work and encourage fans to buy the next time a retail release debuts.
Q:How would creative commons alter artist's works form our reading?
A: I think it would alter their meanings substantially. The work of artists like Sherrie Levine would no longer have such a strong message if their sources were licensed by creative commons. Duchamp's work would have been up for grabs so any budding artist who wished to do something as provocative and insightful, as Levine did, could do so.
Q:Does CC afford any protection to the right of publicity?
A: It doesn't seem to really. If you use creative commons, as Reznor said, people can take it and do with it what they will. But this confuses me. Does the artist receive any cut at all when people use their work? It doesn't seem like they do. I think that is the point of the project all together, expressing yourself and letting anyone use it and enjoy it without permission. If you were to license a character you played in a film with CC, anyone could use it.
No comments:
Post a Comment