Samuel Levinson Paper on New Communication Technology Legal Issues The topic that I have chosen to write my paper

on is that of the Creative Commons copyrights. With a large network involving potentially billions of people those who post content on the internet may share information concerning e!ucation science entertainment or one"s own creative presentations #creativecommons.org$. %owever this e&change of information online may potentially violate the copyrights hel! my companies an! in!ivi!uals. With social me!ia an! networking websites such as 'ouTube it may be !ifficult to regulate content an! some in!ivi!uals may not reali(e what is an! is not infringing on another person"s copyright. In this paper I plan to research Creative Common"s role in solving the problem of copyright infringement as it relates to content poste! online. This topic interests me because it is relevant to those who use social networking websites an! the numerous in!ivi!uals who post on 'ouTube. I en)oy viewing vi!eos on 'ouTube an! at times the vi!eos are clips from television shows an! movies. The in!ivi!uals who post this content may be violating copyrights that belong to the pro!ucers of the film or television show therefore I woul! like to un!erstan! the legal issues surroun!ing this sharing of information online. This topic is relevant to the ma)ority of internet users because it may place restrictions on creativity an! what may or may not be poste! to the internet. Create! in *++* in !irect association with a law professor from Stanfor! ,niversity Creative Commons has ma!e it easy for a company or in!ivi!ual to allow for the legal use or sharing of copyrighte! pro!uctions. The power to make !ecisions about one"s own material still belongs to the original pro!ucer only by giving permission through Creative

Commons !oes one willingly share part of the copyright with others online. There are variations in the licensing options which allows the pro!ucer of content to control what the public !oes with the material #In!iana.e!u$. Some pro!ucers may have a rela&e! viewpoint in regar!s to the public an! they may simply wish to be cre!ite! for their material while others may be more restrictive allowing only portions of content to be use!. Those who choose Creative Commons are able to make it clear how they want their work to be use! an! this eliminates any -uestionable areas for those wanting to use copyrighte! content on a social networking website #In!iana.e!u$. In or!er to make this a stan!ar! protocol on the internet more companies will nee! to )oin in the effort to make content more accessible online. When posting material to the internet there is a complicate! area involving what is free!om of e&pression an! what is copyright infringement. There is a !ebate between the right of the public to e&press themselves online an! the right of a company who has investe! effort into a presentation. The opportunity also e&ists for those wishing to moneti(e their copyrighte! material to place restrictions on content that woul! allow anyone to use the material if they are willing to pay a fee #In!iana.e!u$. .ne concern of the companies that hol! copyrights is that an internet user may be making money from a character or movie that !oes not belong to them essentially stealing another person"s intellectual property. This coul! even lea! to concerns involving counterfeit material. /ccor!ing to the Creative Commons website the organi(ation seeks to allow in!ivi!uals to use the creative aspect of the internet while still following the law in regar!s to copyrights. This is to allow the average in!ivi!ual using the internet an! the companies that own copyrights to reach a comfortable balance between creativity an!

infringement #creativecommons.org$. Tra!itionally one must have a!vance! permission to use any form of copyrighte! material online. I un!erstan! this reasoning as it is important to avoi! plagiarism an! by posting another in!ivi!ual or companies work on a website one may be insinuating that they own the material when in fact they may not. I think that if a company owns a movie a character or a song that it shoul! belong to them if they own the copyright but with the wi!e an! !iverse use of content by many online in!ivi!uals some may believe they are paying tribute to a copyrighte! pro!uction by featuring it on a social me!ia website. It woul! seem that Creative Commons is aiming to allow the common in!ivi!ual to have access to a wealth of information an! content online without these in!ivi!uals becoming !igital pirates #creativecommons.org$. Creative Commons provi!es 0copyright licenses an! tools1 so that creative in!ivi!uals an! even large companies may allow a fair use of their work instea! of a complete restriction on their content #creativecommons.org$. It is e&plaine! that through this type of sharing the company or content creator gives a level of permission for the sharing or re2posting of content for the benefit of the ma)ority of internet users. The website mentions that a copyright un!er the banner 0all rights reserve!1 woul! essentially become 0some rights reserve!1 #creativecommons.org$. Content that may potentially enhance our knowle!ge such as scientific !ata woul! now be available an! no longer be hi!!en from the public !ue to copyright restrictions. This allows for a more informe! an! also entertaining internet e&perience while the owners of copyrights continue to hol! control over the e&tent to which their content may be use! by others. Those choosing to participate in the pool of Creative Commons woul! be giving a certain amount of permission to have their content e!ite! !istribute! or altere! by internet users.

Companies organi(ations an! in!ivi!uals that have chosen to engage in Creative Commons inclu!e 3oogle 4lickr the Public Library of Science an! the whitehouse.gov website #creativecommons.org$. /!vocates of sharing the copyrighte! content of companies an! others in!ivi!uals woul! state that they are seeking the free!om of e&pression online an! not to simply obtain free content without paying #In!iana.e!u$. Some companies have lashe! out at social me!ia websites claiming that piracy of content has taken place. 4or e&ample the entertainment company 5iacom sue! 3oogle over a portion of 'ouTube"s user uploa!e! vi!eos for the infringement of their copyrighte! material on the website #pbs.org$. The controversy between 3oogle an! 5iacom involve! the posting of pirate! copies of vi!eos on 'ouTube that 5iacom owne! the copyrights to. 6ven though 'ouTube !i! not en!orse those that poste! content belonging to 5iacom the vi!eo hosting website !i! nonetheless have copyrighte! material on its servers. 'ouTube"s argument woul! be that they are not able to control all of the content that is user generate! whereas 5iacom woul! state this is not a reasonable e&cuse. In this case 5iacom was not willing to give internet users the right to use their material an! when such material was poste! without permission the company took action #pbs.org$. .ne coul! argue in !efense of 5iacom that if they are not giving permission through Creative Commons to have their content share! online that internet users shoul! respect their !ecision. In the case of this lawsuit against 3oogle the court !eci!e! that 'ouTube was un!er obligation to remove vi!eos that violate! 5iacom"s copyrights as soon as they !iscover the offen!ing material. ,n!er the 7igital 8illennium Copyright /ct it woul! not be fair to hol! 'ouTube responsible for content on the website that was not poste! by

the 3oogle company itself #pbs.org$. 7ue to the !iverse nature of websites such as 'ouTube if the court ha! rule! in favor of 5iacom in!ivi!uals woul! potentially claim that this was an attack on free!om of speech online. Therefore it woul! only be 'ouTube"s responsibility to take action against specific users instea! of 5iacom placing severe conse-uences against the entire online entity of 'ouTube #pbs.org$. 4or companies such as 5iacom that hol! concerns relate! to copyright infringement the court"s ruling basically resulte! in a lack of action with the potential for piracy to continue as long as there are 'ouTube users who hol! an uncaring attitu!e towar!s copyrighte! content. Without Creative Commons the amount of available information may be potentially limite! an! it is through this organi(ation that we may have less of a limit on content but still be within the law in regar!s to copyrights #creativecommons.org$. The struggle between free!om of e&pression for internet users an! copyright protection for companies may be a less heate! battle with the e&istence of organi(ations such as Creative Commons but as long as there are in!ivi!uals who post content belonging to others there will always be an online fight against piracy. The rights of the ma)ority of in!ivi!uals an! what is consi!ere! fair use by some !oes not necessarily translate into what is lawful accor!ing to legal stan!ar!s. It seems that in or!er to avoi! piracy that many companies may reluctantly )oin organi(ations such as Creative Commons so that they will have some control over their material while reaching a compromise. I think Creative Commons is a great stri!e in helping to calm the conflict between internet piracy an! the general use of content.

9ibliography

0/bout Creative Commons1 Creative Commons /ttributions :.+ License *+;; <http=>>creativecommons.org>about? @im 8in)eong 0The Creative Commons an! Copyright Protection in the 7igital 6ra= ,ses of Creative Commons Licenses1 Aournal of Computer28e!iate! Communication *++B <http=>>)cmc.in!iana.e!u>vol;:>issue;>kim.html? /rcamona Cob 0What the 5iacom vs. 'ouTube 5er!ict 8eans for Copyright Law1 Public 9roa!casting Service #P9S$ *+;+ <http=>>www.pbs.org>me!iashift>*+;+>+B>what2the2viacom2vs2youtube2ver!ict2means2 for2copyright2law;D:.html?