Background

• Creative Commons licenses allow content creators "to share and build upon the work of others, consistent with the rules of copyright...[and]...to mark creative work with the freedom the creator wants it to carry, so others can share, remix, use commercially, or any combination thereof." When choosing a CC license over traditional copyright, there are two key factors an author needs to consider: 1) Can the work be modified? and 2) Are commercial uses of the work allowed?
  
• http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses

• I am personally working under the assumption that "rights" to material written for the Empire Report will remain with the original author(s) and that EmpireReport.org will be listed as the publisher. This will allow content creators final say over the licensing of their work, with Empire Report becoming the conduit to help this work reach a larger audience. (Editorial material written specifically by "the Editors" slightly complicates this distinction, but I think will naturally fall under the conditions below.)
• Given this, I still believe that Empire Report has the obligation to encourage use of a license that encourages republication of content by other organizations, independent of their intended final use, while also allowing for revenue generation by the orginal authors and/or Empire Report as the publisher.
  

Default Creative Commons License

• To meet these goals, I would like to see Empire Report choose the "Attribution No Derivatives 3.0 (By-ND 3.0)" license as a base for content created by outside authors for the site. This would ensure that other sites can freely re-use our collective work, as long as they attribute the original author/publisher and make no changes to the work.

• The Creative Commons By-ND 3.0 license also allows for "commercial use" of the work, allowing others to include it in paid publications, etc. Six months ago, I would have been adamantly against this, but after careful research of the topics involved, I have come to change my mind. Mainly due to the fact that since Empire Report plans to generate revenue for the creators of content on our site, we need to be willing to allow others to also use commercially.
  
• Under the scenario outlined above, Empire Report would actually be licensing the work from the original authors, and without a commercial license, we ourselves could be breaking our licensing terms if we do not allow commercial re-use of material. (I could easily be wrong here with this circular logic. Please see below for further discussion of "commercial vs. non-commercial" issues.)
  

Contributor Prerogative

• Individual contributors would also have the ability to choose a different default license for their work, or to choose a different license for each individual piece of content on a case-by-case basis. This would allow an author to contribute most of their work via Creative Commons, while still granting them full copyright control for specific stories. If a non-commercial license is chosen for specific stories, Empire Report should then seek and be be granted publication rights for these stories. (In practice, I see this being as simple as a check-box during the story submittal process, but could become very important from a legal standpoint in the long-term.)
  

Story Footer

• Ideally, I'd like to add a footer to each story (on both Web page and through the RSS feed) that includes the specific licensing terms for that story, attribution credit for the original author and publisher, and (here's the BIG one) an attached advertisement/sponsorship from the site for a local business. This would help ensure that stories read through RSS and/or redistributed elsewhere could continue to bring in some revenue (hopefully) even if read "off-site." (An explanation of this general "feed footer" technique is described by Merlin Mann at 43Folders.com.)
  
• http://www.43folders.com/feedfooter
  

Crowd-Funded Stories

• I expect that stories funded for Empire Report using the Spot.us crowd-funding model, would also be licensed as Attribution No Derivatives (By-ND), but with NO ability for the author to alter this license as described above. If outside sources have collectively paid to compensate an author for their time to research and write a story, I believe this story should be freely re-publishable by other publications, whether their operations are commerical or not.
  
• One additional model that Spot.us uses is the ability for an outside news organization to reimburse the original contributors in return for short-term exclusive publishing rights. In this model, the organization is allowed to publish the story first, after which time (say a week, for example) the CC license becomes effective and others may then freely redistribute the work.
• http://spot.us/pages/about
  

Non-Commercial Restrictions

• As with many aspects of new media, the issues around "commercial vs. non-commercial" use are uncharted territory. Even Creative Commons themselves have not legally defined the distinctions between the two, and are conducting a study this year to learn how their users interpret these terms.
• This issue could effect Empire Report in several ways:
• As an intended non-profit organization can we re-distribute "non-commercial" stories?
• Does the display of advertisements/sponsorships on the website constitute "commercial use"?
• Is there a legal difference between general ads and those "attached" to a story or via RSS?
• If we ever charge a "subscriber fee," what are the impacts for "non-commercial" works?
• Would implementing a micropayment system (say 1¢/article, for example) restrict the use of non-commercial work, or would we just make these stories available for a fee of 0¢?
• I'm NOT a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but I found the two articles below to be helpful in wrapping my mind around these evolving issues:
  
• http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/01/how-creative-commons-complicates-the-gatehouse-linking-case/
• http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/9554

Outside Content

• Finally, Empire Report will need to pay careful attention to these issues as we redistribute any content that originated from outside stories.
• How is the outside content licensed?
• Are we bound by those licensing terms, or did we get a specific waiver for this use?
• Can we display/attach ads?
• Are there unintended consequences of choosing a CC licensing scheme?
• How do we react if requested to remove a story over a difference of opinion on licensing terms?
• When do the lawyers come in?
• And how do we legally protect ourselves over copyright disputes?
  

Conclusions

• As I mentioned above, six months ago I would have been adamantly against using a "commercial" license of any kind. I am a rather an anti-corporate kind of guy who believes that out-of-control capitalism is largely to blame for the ecological peril facing the planet. Nevertheless, I have come to see that Empire Report will never be successful unless we can generate some revenue to compensate content creators for their work. I also believe that even if we allow commercial redistribution of our work, the major benefits will be seen by those authors writing directly for Empire Report.
• In general terms I have come to characterize this approach as "we make a dollar and compensate the author, allow the work to be freely re-distributed so outside sources can also make a nickle, we get the credit and name recognition, and everyone wins." Some business entities may use our license terms against us and exploit the situation, but I think these will be few and far between, and am willing to take the gamble.
  

Just my 2¢,
BC

"Thoughts on Creative Commons Licenses" was written by BC Capps for EmpireReport.org and was originally posted on March 28, 2009. This story is licensed for reuse under CC BY-ND 3.0. If redistributing this work in any way, this footer is considered to be part of the original story and must be included.