For the most part the media publishes content with all rights reserved. This is hardly surprising. The media's content is its stock in trade, its livelihood. The question I would like to explore in this article is whether there is a clear benefit to the media to explore an alternative to such a strict approach to the publication of its content. Obviously an option I would like to explore is the use of an appropriate Creative Commons license instead of the default reservation of rights particularly in light of recent developments in the Creative Commons license space.

There are sound reasons for the media to reserve all rights to its content and they mostly have to do with protecting the content from unauthorised exploitation (commercial or non-commercial) because unauthorised exploitation of that content undermines the commercial value of the content published by its owners. To put it simply, if Acme Newspaper publishes a photograph and story about a newsworthy event on its front page only to find that photograph and accompanying story republished in another publication or on the web without permission granted by Acme Newspaper, the value of that image as a catalyst for sales would likely be seriously undermined and the financial consequences severe.

Of course copyright isn't just about maintaining a stranglehold on content for the sake of protecting sales. It is also about ensuring that the options provided by the bundle of rights comprising copyright remain available to the owner of the content. Copyright protects the right not just to publish and republish your content, depending on the nature of the content itself, it also includes the rights to create a derivative of the content, making copies of the content, publishing unpublished contents, broadcasting or transmitting the content and to perform the work concerned. These rights are often tremendously valuable to copyright holders because they can be critical for the continued commercial value and sustained exploitation of the content.

The challenge with copyright is also what it prevents consumers of that content from doing. Copyright, when enforced, locks content down and severely limits its use without the consent of the copyright holder which may often only be obtained through the use of a typically complex and onerous content license. The process of securing these licenses may be costly both financially and in terms of the time required to negotiate the desired license. While such licenses have their place, when it comes to the use of content published by the media, they can be an unnecessary hindrance to the dissemination of the content which could, in turn, be beneficial to both the copyright holder and the user.

Of course this begs the question when it would be desirable to allow a consumer to make use of content published by the media. Consider a person who picks up a magazine, reads an article she thinks would be of interest to her colleagues and wants to circulate the article to them. They may decide that, based on the article, the magazine is worth subscribing to or at least buying. The magazine publisher (assuming the publisher is the copyright holder) would obviously benefit from this but the reader is prohibited from making a copy of the article and passing it around. At best she could loan or give her copy of the magazine to one colleague at a time.

When we are talking about physical versions of the article the distribution channel may be relatively small and the benefit to the publisher similarly so but when you consider the possible exposure of an online publication to an online audience the number of people who could be exposed to the content increases tremendously. The potential benefit to the publisher could well outweigh the considerations mitigating against allowing this dissemination of the content.

Certain classes of content can be reproduced and disseminated under frameworks like fair use and fair dealing where these frameworks are available but this really depends on the jurisdiction concerned. Some classes of content are not included in these frameworks so this is a pretty limited option. For example, various implementations of fair use and fair dealing (these are not necessarily the same thing) permit people to quote from portions of an article published either in print or online and to reproduce those quoted portions in articles of their own. On the other hand, reproductions of sound recordings, for example, are not included in certain jurisdictions. In South Africa our fair dealing framework does not permit the reproduction of a sound recording without permission from the copyright holder.

Because we increasingly live with, and operate in, the rich media and participatory environment that is the web, limited permitted use of written content is frequently unsatisfactory. We often come across forms of multimedia which we either would like to share with our friends and colleagues or would like to be able to include in our own works, thereby contributing to the development of the original content or the themes expressed through that content. Sharing has become part of a modern experience on the web and a cursory review of the benefits of shared content on the web will reveal the value of being able to share content on the web. We frequently come across a video on YouTube that has gone viral and viewed by millions of people largely because it was shared amongst friends. In the web based advertising boom, sheer numbers of visitors and users can make a content item a particularly profitable work if enough people become aware of it and that can often only happen if the initial visitors to those sites have the ability to share that content. A similar principle applies to new artists eager to create a larger awareness of their music or other multimedia content. There is no reason why the media shouldn't enjoy similar benefits.

There are more benefits to facilitating content sharing for the media in particular. I recently spoke to a publisher of a range of magazines who told me about the numerous requests he receives each day for permission to make copies of an article to share with friends and colleagues or even to make commercial use of a particular piece. He spends a fair amount of time dealing with each request and that time could be better spent furthering his business.

The point is there is a better way for the media to adapt to both protect its income streams and adapt to the social web through Creative Commons licenses which could permit shared content and a variety of uses through an appropriate license. The licenses are available for free and can be readily implemented. Using these licenses does require a paradigm shift because all Creative Commons licenses grant certain baseline rights, irrespective of the specific license used, and these rights do represent a fairly radical departure from what is traditionally permitted by default. On the other hand Creative Commons licenses provide a convenient option to permit sharing and when the license is a non-commercial variant used in conjunction with the recently announced CC+ protocol, consumers can be granted the right to share the content and are, at the same time, provided with an option to license the content commercially thereby protecting the copyright holder’s revenue stream while potentially increasing the audience for that content quite significantly.

Copyright is valuable as a starting point but in the context of an ethos which advocates content sharing coupled with the massive markets that are accessible through content sharing, it doesn’t make sense for the media to reserve all rights to content in all circumstances. Although it does seem pretty counter-intuitive, it is worthwhile exploring Creative Commons licenses for use in mainstream media.

tags: South Africa media-events media mainstream-media copyright reservation-of-rights cc

extracted from: