I’m Not Against Creative Commons
If you subscribe the the print edition of the British Journal of Photography, you might see my picture in the October 2011 issue alongside an article credited to me and a caption that gives my position as against Creative Commons. Appearances are rather deceiving. While I did say everything contained in that article, I didn’t exactly write an op-ed nor did I agree to actively represent an against position with my face and name.
How Did This Start?
The British Journal of Photography recently published an interview with a photographer who uses Creative Commons licenses. They wanted a counterpoint and, after having found a reference to the fact that I stopped using Creative Commons licenses a few years ago, contacted me and asked if I’d be willing to be interviewed.
I was happy to agree. The way we license photographs and how copyright can be either used or misused is an important discussion in professional photography right now. Furthermore, I’m right in the middle of thinking about Creative Commons licenses again. In other words, I’m on the fence. I figured it’d be an interesting place to provide some commentary.
The interview was last week. I spent a half hour or so talking with the Journal by phone. A few days after the interview, I received what appeared to me to be a rough transcript of my thoughts for review. It was essentially what I’d said without the interviewer’s questions. I made lots of comments and replied, figuring that what I was looking at would be used to pull quotes from.
What did I say in the Interview?
Roughly, I covered two primary points. The first is that I think the Creative Commons is a good idea, but I have been frustrated in the past with the confusion around the licenses. In one case, a Wikipedia editor asserted that they could reassign attribution. In other cases, there was confusion around the meaning of the non-commercial restriction—a point that the Creative Commons is aware of and is working to address. Finally, there is a perception that Creative Commons replaces copyright instead of working within it.
These factors all lead me to re-evaluate my use of Creative Commons licenses several years ago and I decided to step back even though handling licensing on a case-by-case basis isn’t a walk in the park either. At that point, I didn’t want to be on the bleeding edge of licensing. I also wasn’t fully comfortable with how Creative Commons licenses would interact with my new business as a professional photographer.
This led to my second point. The business of photographic licensing has changed immensely in the last ten years. Stock has effectively collapsed as a marketplace for most photographers. In fact, in my own business, residual income from licensing of already created images is fairly insignificant. It’s clear that a Creative Commons licensing strategy could be beneficial to a business model that did not rely on residual licensing.
Then What Happened?
On Tuesday of this week, I got an urgent email from the deputy editor clarifying that the Journal was going to use what I’d said as an article with an ‘against’ point of view piece versus one that was pro Creative Commons. She thought it was clear that the Journal wanted to use my comments this way from the start. When she realized I might not be on the same page, she reached out.
Unfortunately, I was offline Tuesday afternoon and evening and I didn’t get a chance to reply that I wasn’t OK with the usage. By the time I replied, it was too late. The issue had gone to press. The article appears in the issue written in the first person next to my photo and the word ‘AGAINST’ in bright red letters.
Sigh. This is awkward, to say the least. Doubly so if I were to move forward with any future use of Creative Commons licenses.
To be clear, I’ve seen the finished piece and nothing in the body of the article misrepresents my thoughts. The body of the text is consistent with the points I mention above. There’s a big difference, however, between having a few quotes appear in an article and to have my words appear in what appears to be an op-ed written by me. That’s the crux of the problem.
The deputy editor at the British Photography Journal has apologized to me for the misunderstanding and for the fact that it wasn’t caught until it was too late for the print edition. It won’t show up on the web. For the record, I am satisfied that this was an honest mistake in communication. In the future, however, you can bet that I’ll be much more on the ball and looking out for this kind of misunderstanding.
