Creative Commons

How does the Creative Commons project alter the way we understand ownership and copyright?

Creative Commons allows people to set levels of reproducibility for their works — gives an alternative to all-or-nothing approach to rights.

The aim of creative commons is to create a richer public domain, and allow image creators a common “area” filled with content they can reuse and remix — depending upon the level of rights selected by the initial creator of the work.

How does this project affect the subject(s) of a work?

A model release is required just as with a photograph released under traditional copyright.

In 2007 Virgin Mobile Australia used images from Flickr released under Attribution license in a bus stop ad campaign. One image was of a fundraising carwash that included a 15-year old girl from Dallas Texas. The girl sued Virgin Mobile, but the case was thrown out because of lack of personal jurisdiction — the ad campaign that incorporated the photo was run in Australia.

Despite this, in my opinion, the 15-year old girl had a strong case. As stated in all the creative commons licenses, publicity rights reside with the individual. So even though the photographer had released the photo under the Attribution License, he did not have a release form the subject of the photograph, and therefore Virgin Mobile would have been required to get a waiver before using the photo for commercial use.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/technology/01link.html?_r=1
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions - When_are_publicity_rights_relevant.3F

Does the Creative Commons project afford any protection to the right of publicity (the Bela Lugosi case)?

The case mentioned above is also relevant for the Bela Lugosi case. Since publicity rights remain with the individual, permission would have been required before using an individual’s likeness for commercial uses. Not sure about transferability of those rights to his heirs, however...

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions - When_are_publicity_rights_relevant.3F 

How would a Creative Commons license have altered the works in our textbook reading (Gone with the Wind, the work of Sherrie Levine and Michael Mandiberg)?

If creative commons had existed at the time, Margaret Mitchell would have been able to license her work with a no derivative works clause that would have prevented others from using her characters in new works, or she might have specifically allowed others to create derivative works and encouraged them to share alike. I do not see, however, how the creative commons license would have extended the life of the copyright, or transferred the rights to her heirs.

As well, in the works of Sherri Levin and Michael Mandiberg, if Walker Evens had had the option to use creative commons licensing, he could have specifically ascribed the level of reproducability.