Creative Commons

Since April 2005 Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses see: [1]) serve as an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the public to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license an artist can for example invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. In questi giorni ho aggiornato tutte le mie pagine on-line con in marchio del Creative Commons License secondo l’ideologia di condivisione gratuita delle esperienze creative e libera evoluzione delle idee. È una visione alla quale attribuisco molta importanza. È l’inizio di qualcosa di nuovo che viaggia attraverso l’etere. È forse il glimpse di un mondo nuovo più libero e più partecipativo. Se da una parte coloro che hanno interesse nelle leggi sul copyright si stanno movendo in difesa dei diritti d’autore cercando di estenderli addirittura a 95 anni dopo la sua morte dall’altra c’è tutto l’universo della rete impegnato a promuovere una nuova concezione dell’opera con i sistemi peer2peer con il blogging con la volontà di scambiarsi idee opinioni e creazioni. La commercializzazione di un “espressione” sia questa artistica o informativa (e comunque sempre d’informazione si parla) contamina la genuinità del processo comunicativo. La volontà di raggiungere le altre persone con il proprio messaggio dovrebbe essere più importante degli interessi economici del messaggero. Confezionare il messaggio e venderlo sotto forma di prodotto è un processo comprensibile ma la distribuzione del messaggio dovrebbe rimanere gratuita attraverso le fruizioni digitali e sempre e solo senza fini di lucro. La Creative Commons License ufficializza questo nuovo modo di proporre le proprie opere nella meglio conosciuta forma di copyleft. È possibile impostare la licenza come meglio si desidera proteggendo anche alcuni diritti sull’opera fino alla totale copertura. Ognuno alla fine è libero di pensarla come vuole ma nella mia visione dell’arte mettere il copyright ad un “messaggio” è come mettere in gabbia un uccellino. Un’altra importante considerazione da fare riguarda la possibilità di alterare le opere enfatizzando il loro significato oppure esplorando nuove possibilità delle loro rappresentazioni. L’opera dovrebbe essere qualcosa di fluttuante di vivo. Il copyright oltre a imprigionare l’uccellino dentro la gabbia lo imbalsama. L’uccellino è immobile sulla sua altalena non canta non svolazza. Sta lì fermo. Il copyright uccide l’”espressione”. Alle nuove correnti di pensiero il compito di farla rinascere. VISITA IL SITO DEL CREATIVE COMMONS

Damien Carrick: Today we're going to be entering the Creative Commons an online world where films music and even literature are available for free. Now this of course undermines copyright but does it also create whole new business models and income streams for our artists?Cory Doctorow: (quoting Tim O'Reilly): The problem for most authors isn't piracy it's obscurity and where that's not their problem piracy is just a form of progressive taxation.Sandy Grant: Creative Commons licences essentially strip copyright of all meaning and they're not generally likely to be of much benefit to professional creators.[music]Damien Carrick: Music from rock group The Beastie Boys. In a bold move the band has released a number of songs free for download. The Beastie Boys are joining the ranks of thousands of artists who release their work under what's known as a Creative Commons licence. The recent Writers' Festival in Melbourne hosted a forum focusing on this new way of distribution art. Described as 'a lively free-for-all on the notion of free for all' the discussion was chaired by Mark Williams a senior adviser with JDR Legal. A copyright lawyer he opened with a favourite tale involving one of the first-ever pirated works a classic Australian detective novel written in the 19th century.[Reader: On the 27th day of July at the hour of 20 minutes to 2 o'clock in the morning a hansom cab drove up to the police station in Grey Street St Kilda. And the driver made the startling statement that his cab contained the body of a man whom he had reason to believe had been murdered. Being taken into the presence of the inspector the cab man ...]Mark Williams: 'But let me take you back to the scene of the murder about 150 yards from here in 1886 when a body falls out of a hansom cab by the Grammar School in St Kilda Road.' That particular book The Mystery of the Hansom Cab by Fergus Hume who was at that stage a young barrister was first published in Victoria in 1886. It was subsequently immediately pirated and sold into Britain and then sold throughout Europe. It was the first detective novel that then paved the way for detective novels in the French style to be then adopted into English and in fact paved the way for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's very successful Sherlock Holmes character.The interesting thing about all of this of course was that Fergus Hume being a good barrister had secured his Victorian copyright but because of the nature of imperial copyright in those days it meant he lost his copyright throughout the rest of the English-speaking world. The book went on to sell millions and millions of copies. It's barely been out of print ever since. Hume received very very little for his pains. However he was famous and it enabled him to then write another 100 or so novels none of which ever did as well as the first one.[Reader: At the hour of one o'clock in the morning he was driving down Collins Street East when as he was passing the Bourke and Wills monument he was hailed by a gentleman standing at the corner by the Scotch Church. He immediately drove up and saw that the gentleman who hailed him was supporting the deceased who appeared to be very intoxicated. Both were in evening dress. As Royston drove up the gentleman in the light coat said 'Look here cabbie here's some fellow awfully tight you'd better take him home.']Damien Carrick: Nineteenth century novelist Fergus Hume suffered because he didn't seek to protect his work through copyright. In the 21st century we know that constantly changing technology makes it easier and easier to pirate creative works. So is robust copyright protection always in the best interests of the author or artist?Jessica Coates is the project manager at the Creative Commons Clinic which is based at the Queensland University of Technology. She says what's known as 'the Creative Commons' is in the midst of an explosion. It's an international non-profit movement which encompasses a whole series of licences that artists can apply to their work as a way of telling the world how they can and can't use their works when they put them up online.Under copyright law it's technically illegal to download online material or email it to your friends. But in the Creative Commons an artist musician or author can choose from a range of licences that give people greater freedom to use their works. And as Jessica Coates explains it's not just musicians like the Beastie Boys it's authors too; authors like Cory Doctorow.Jessica Coates: Cory is a science fiction author from Canada who many years ago I think it was five or so was releasing his first book with Tor Publishers they're the largest science fiction publishers in the world basically. And he had a lot of experience online he is also one of the co-editors of Boing Boing which is probably one of the world's most famous blogs. He was very keen to explore alternative licensing rules and so he managed to convince Tor Books that it would be a good idea to release his book simultaneously on the bookshelf so a hard copy was going out and then exactly at the same time the entire book was released under a Creative Commons licence online. So you could download for free the entire book rather than buying it.Damien Carrick: For free?Jessica Coates: For free. And under a licence that let you spread it around send it to your friends put it up on your blog put it on your peer to peer network whatever you like burn it down onto a disc they were using a licence that basically allowed you to move it around for non-commercial purposes as long as you attributed Cory.[Reader: Hers! She vaulted the B10K and snipper snacked her sword through two Murks heads two more appeared they had the thing primed and aimed at the main body of Fahrenheit fighters and they could turn the battle's tide just by firing it and she killed them slamming her keypad howling barely conscious at the answering howls in her headset. Now she had the B10K ...]Damien Carrick: Canadian sci-fi author Cory Doctorow was in Australia recently and spoke at the Melbourne Writers' Forum on Creative Commons. The event wasn't a slap-on-the-back-type celebration in fact there was a lot of debate about whether or not the Creative Commons is a fantastic step forward for artists consumers or culture. Sandy Grant publisher of Hardy Grant Books and a member of the Copyright Agency Limited board was one of the speakers.Sandy Grant: Before coming here I looked at Cory's entry on the Creative Commons and it looked really inviting I mean it was active energetic well presented; there's savvy interviews with him that were specially for the site there was links to a Forbes site where he was a bit disparaging about patchouli-scented info-hippies. And really a general positive portrayal of a net visionary to novelist and it's incredibly good marketing and I think substantially driven by Cory's own input and planning actually really impressive. Didn't read the novel sorry but I'm just not a science fiction novelist so even free it wasn't enough to tempt me.The Creative Commons obviously does have some real momentum and something of a cult following and it's got a massive breadth of information when you go there. An amazing amount of music visuals entertainment but to me really it's something of a dog's breakfast with really good quality material of course like Cory's sitting alongside and mixed up with amateur unreadable crap. I think it may be worth your having a brief look at a book The Cult of the Amateur by Andrew Keen and he points out the ease of posting content the Creative Commons ease. I mean is changing your intellectual culture for the worse it's swamping vital and interesting information replacing it with endless bloggers reinforcing their own prejudices rather than expanding their horizons.If any of you are considering taking up Creative Commons licences and offering your work I seriously recommend you first read the Australian Copyright Council information sheet that they've got posted on their website and I can give you a five-word summary: Don't sign up too quickly. The Creative Commons licence you grant is irrevocable. Anything you give away you give away in perpetuity and you risk being exploited by business professionals. An example in the last few weeks being where Virgin took photographs from the Creative Commons put them into mobile commercials and Virgin was able to do this for free. I think even the people in the photographs weren't particularly happy with the way they were portrayed so plenty of egg on the face for the photographer no income and Virgin got something for nothing. So I guess as I said just don't believe all the patchouli-scented info hippies check out the ACC advice and see if this sort of licence really does work for you. And just to quote quickly from the conclusion of that advice 'Creative Commons licences essentially strip copyright of all meaning and they're not generally likely to be of much benefit to professional creators.'But do I think copyright will remain unchanged? No. Do I think people will still be paying for things they really want? Yes I do think they will. Do I think books will be replaced by the net? Not completely but frankly the publisher -- it wouldn't be bad news and we'd be saving heaps of forests printing warehousing costs and other associated costs we'd probably make a more profitable industry if we could get rid of the actual book. And do I think Cory will still be offering everything for free if he becomes as popular as JK Rowling? I doubt it. The level of secrecy and control applied to that release just showed how far owners with something really powerful will go to protect their income streams. So copyright is on the move digital is on the rise but free content in the Creative Commons in my opinion will just be part of the very complex ways that we all receive information in the next decade.Damien Carrick: Sandy Grant publisher and member of the Copyright Agency Limited Board. As he says Canadian science fiction writer Cory Doctorow is at the forefront of the Creative Commons movement. The author maintains that by placing his books in the Creative Commons he's widened his readership and reaped a handsome dividend.Cory Doctorow: I worked in a used bookstore used-new bookstore and I've seen the life cycle of the book customer. The life cycle of the book customer goes like this: young and poor who buys his books. That goes right through uni and then you graduate and you're in your sort of 18-34 golden years and you paid off your student loans and you're a young professional not price sensitive about books and you buy new books. And then as you progress towards retirement you turn back into a used book buyer. And that's just the kind of natural life-cycle of people's price sensitivity to works. And I knew that the people who came in and bought used books would be back in five years buying new books and also at Christmas and birthdays to buy new books and that seemed like the right thing to do and I thought You know it's a really rare bookish person who would say Well having been given all these free electronic texts the last thing I need now is a printed work. After all even I who spends every hour God sends reading off a screen don't like reading long-form works off screens it's not because the screens aren't high quality enough after all they're high quality enough for me to read email off it for 18 hours a day so clearly it's not a problem with the screens. I think fundamentally it's a problem with self-discipline. I think when you're sat in front of a computer that has IM and games and Wikipedia and Google and your banking service from when you remember you haven't paid your phone bill and the grocery service and also that thing you meant to look up before and someone's just sent you an IM and there's 15 more items in your RSS Reader when you're sitting in front of that your work appliance unless you are possessed of almost monk-like self-discipline it's practically impossible to do anything for more than about seven minutes.So what I found having download all these beloved old friends from this news group was that I was really enticed to go back to my bookcase and pull these books down after five or seven minutes with them. Occasionally I'd pick them up and in a queue I'd read them on my phone for a bit but it was a rare day when one of these books acted more like a substitute than an enticement. So I released my first novel Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom in 2003 the same week the Creative Commons licence launched under a Creative Commons licence that encouraged people to download it and share it and use it as they would. And I've done that with all of my books since. And what I found every time is that my books have outsold my publisher's expectations they've outsold the books of colleagues of mine who are mentioned in the same breath as me and in critical columns and so on whose books were published at the same time as mine and that at every instance my publishers have been pleased with the outcome. Indeed there hasn't been a single writer who's tried this who hasn't done it again. Not one writer that I know of in any field who's done a free electronic release to accompany a printed release has decided that this is anything but an enticement and has with subsequent works failed to do it. I think that Ms Rowling would be well advised to try it is there anyone here who really believes that no-one would have picked up Harry Potter and the sequel of great profitability if they'd gotten a free electronic copy; that was driving people to the store at midnight in costume was the fact that they couldn't lay hands on a digital copy? Indeed there was a digital copy 24 hours before that book hit the stands the $20 million spent on secrecy for that book was not only ineffective at secrecy but is best understood as a marketing effort. It's not as though people thought well I've read books one through six but if it turns out that book seven doesn't have a good ending I don't think I'm going to read it. People buy Harry Potter books because they bought the previous Harry Potter books. If you read retail research on book sales the most popular cause of buying a book is a recommendation from a friend; the second is having enjoyed another book by the same author in that series and the third is having enjoyed another book by that author. It has nothing to do with whether or not a free digital copy is floating around on the internet.As Tim O'Reilly the publisher of Reilly & Associates Media says (he's the publisher of the largest tech books press in the world) as he says 'The problem for most authors isn't piracy it's obscurity and where that's not their problem piracy is just a form of progressive taxation'. He can look at the downloads the number of copies on pirate sites of his books and he can look at the sales figures on those books and what he sees is that the only books that experience a small decline in sales as a consequence of free downloads are those books that are already turning over enormous sums of money where the losses are so small as to hardly be missed. And that for the majority of his books that don't fall into that tiny 3% over there on the right-hand side of the bell curve that the free downloads are actually generating more sales for him. And so this has been great news for Tim and it's been great news for everyone who's tried it. Like many things on the internet free downloads are one of those things that only works in practice and not in theory. The practical outcome of people who've allowed their books to be downloaded is that we get more money our works are spread further we have the aesthetic experience of participating in art in a way that is coherent with the realpolitik of technology in the 21st century. After all it's wildly implausible that as the years tick by in this century it's going to get progressively harder to copy. Say what you will about the morals of downloading work the realpolitik of downloading work is that it's already practically impossible to exclude someone from acollection of bits and that impossibility will only increase as the years tick by. [Language]...Enter one of the internet's most famous citizens a face familiar the world over a public identity rivalled only by a handful of corporate giants and global superstars the big copyright C. Everyone knows what Big C stands for. Big C means all rights reserved. Big C means ask permission. Big C protects copyright owners and notifies the rest of us of ...Enter Creative Commons. It allows you to retain your copyright while granting the world permission to make certain uses of it upon certain conditions. If the Big C is like a red light then CC is a green light. If the Big C says no trespassing the CC says please come in.Damien Carrick: As well as questioning the economic value of copyright Cory Doctorow believes it can limit creativity and even freedom of expression.Cory Doctorow: The fact is that the purpose of copyright is to promote the diversity of expression it's not to pick the best works and ensure that they're produced the last thing any of us want our governments doing is deciding what's good and what's bad and then crafting law to ensure that only the good things get produced. Before copyright we had patronage. You could paint a painting if the Pope said so you could make a ceiling up if the Duke said so you could make a sculpture if the King said so. That produced the occasional nice fresco but it was a poor way to manage diversity of expression in a liberal society. The purpose of copyright was to change the arbiters of expression to the marketplace and that's been a reasonably good diversifier of who gets to speak and under what circumstances. But the internet turns out to be an even better one. As we craft policies that amount to a monopoly over expression which is what we used to call copyright before the ideologically loaded term 'intellectual property' was promoted by industry groups in the '70s we used to use the term of art 'author's monopoly' and if we're going to craft authors' monopolies over expression and creativity let's ensure that as we move forward that we increase the diversity of expression and promote the core liberal value of speech and freedom to communicate and to be heard.Damien Carrick: Cory Doctorow author and a big promoter of the Creative Commons.Today we're looking at the brave new world of the Creative Commons which was the subject of a lively forum at the recent Melbourne Writers' Festival.Despite author Cory Doctorow's strong endorsement of Creative Commons publisher Sandy Grant thinks a lot of Cory's grand acclaims are little more than hype.Sandy Grant: Well it was a big surprise to be here talking about the future of writing and everything in a digital era and end up in a marketing forum for books. It's good that if giving stuff away is going to sell more books that makes me quite happy as a publisher but I'm not sure that it's really the subject or what will be important going forward. And I do like Cory's arguments where he drifts away from telling me how to sell more books and into his democratisation and papal frescoes. But I'm worried that instead of papal frescoes he's encouraging mass graffiti and that really that's what's happening on the web rather than an era where we're getting good quality and interesting things happening. We're just having people scrawling all over it.So I guess I also worry that here we are we've got to this bold new era and I know that Creative Commons is relatively successful but when I look at websites and the use of websites the ten most popular websites are run by News Limited News Limited Fairfax Fairfax PBL and so it feels very undemocratic to me it feels like the old major media companies reasserting power with worse information than they used to provide us. So I'm not sure yet that we're getting everything we need.Damien Carrick: Cory Doctorow believes that the internet has revolutionised and democratised access to high quality information. He disagrees with Sandy's description of the Creative Commons as yet another fly-by-night cult phenomenon.Cory Doctorow: So I want to talk about whether or not Creative Commons is a cult phenomenon because he used that phrase before. I think it's a strange characterisation of a cult phenomenon when you consider that the licences have been available since 2003 and in that time more than 160 million works of them licensed under Creative Commons and there are projects under way in 81 countries if that's a cult I don't know what a religion is.Man: 200 people on MySpace.Cory Doctorow: Well is that an empirical view? Because it doesn't jibe with the actual experience of people who use Creative Commons. Like the shibboleth that the internet is full of uninteresting things produced by untalented people this seems to be one of those things that is uttered by people who inhabit an internet other than the one that I look at. My universe of things that I know are worthy and well-produced and interesting that I would want to click on and that I know about and that are one click or fewer away is larger than the universe of things that I could conceivably click on between now and the day I draw my last breath. So I don't know what internet you're using. But the internet that I'm using is chocka with brilliant wonderful heartwarming artistic well-executed and interesting work produced by people of every description. And while it's true that many of the major internet sites are owned by large corporations although it's not NewsCorp it's Wikipedia and Yahoo and Google and NewsCorp bought MySpace most of those are not publishing platforms we understand them. You know the fact that Hotmail sat at the top of the internet hierarchy for a number of years in terms of total traffic doesn't mean that Microsoft has changed the way we consume news it means that Microsoft is offering free email. So this is like saying Well the majority of words written are written by people who are writing shopping lists therefore the dominant form of literature in the English speaking world is shopping lists. Indeed I think the way that most of us consume culture on the internet involves a much broader diversity of culture than you could get particularly in the offline world and even historically in the offline world. But we live in an era of increased media consolidation and the only hedge I see against that is the fact that the internet has dramatically lowered the surf cost for finding the right material.Damien Carrick: Science fiction author Cory Doctorow spruiking the joys of the internet and in particular the Creative Commons.Jessica Coates from the Creative Commons Clinic says it's an increasingly mainstream forum for artists to publish and share their work and it's not just fringe or up-and-coming artists who are climbing on to the Creative Commons bandwagon.Jessica Coates: At the moment it's being used by everybody and anybody. The very first people to pick it up were clearly people out of the open source software movement it's very related to that. And re-mix artists people who really want to be able to spread stuff around the internet and make changes to it. But now it's growing a great deal in the education and government communities a lot of public funded material is put out under Creative Commons licences now purely because the idea is if the public has already paid for it then they should be able to use it without having to pay for it again. So that's what these licences are useful for. And bloggers use it video artists use it film-makers use it photographers use it on Flicker absolutely everybody and anybody.Damien Carrick: What about musicians? I mean given there's a lot of online music out these days are there a lot of musicians who have Creative Commons?Jessica Coates: It's almost probably the biggest single group of creators using Creative Commons are musicians and that's because of course musicians have been challenged by the digital environment a lot more because of their whole digital downloading of music.Damien Carrick: They've been blind-sided by it essentially.Jessica Coates: Exactly and so they had to deal with it first. They had to come to terms with exactly how it's going to affect their business models and because of that they're exploring more different and unusual business models which involve things like Creative Commons. So a lot of quite big names have now used Creative Commons licences like the Beastie Boys but then a lot of small artists also use Creative Commons licences. That's probably the largest group using it. It's the kind of people who are just interested in getting their material out there and getting as many people as possible hearing it and that's what Creative Commons licences are particular good for.If you wanted to take full advantage of the internet to make your material available and as a publicity and distribution resource then basically putting your material up on one website and locking it on that website using copyright law isn't the most effective way to do that and people are gradually realising this and realising that by being a bit more flexible with their copyright management they can often get much larger returns back.Damien Carrick: They can reap profits?Jessica Coates: There's anecdotal evidence at least that there are certainly a lot of increases in sales for people who let their material be used a little bit more freely rather than trying to lock it down a hundred per cent.Damien Carrick: But is Cory Doctorow maybe the exception? I'm thinking with the musicians how do they reap profits how do they make money out of sending it all out there for free?Jessica Coates: Well if you speak to many people in the music industry you'll find most musicians nowadays do tend to make most of their money out of concerts and t-shirt sales and those kind of things rather than off-selling individual CDs. Most of the money for the CDs basically goes back to the music publishers because of the large costs that they put into putting those CDs out. And so using your music as basically an advertisement for yourself as a band is a perfectly legitimate business model nowadays in fact Prince himself just released his new album in the UK and he sent the album out with every copy of I think it was the Sun Herald a newspaper basically he sent a full copy of the entire album all the artwork exactly how you would buy it in a CD shop in this newspaper for free. And he was basically doing it to publicise the tour that he was about to run in the UK which then sold out.Damien Carrick: So musicians have to effectively kiss goodbye to the intellectual property in the music in the hope that it will become as you say an advertisement for the other products that they can sell on the back of their music.Jessica Coates: Well this is the good thing about things like the Creative Commons licences you aren't actually kissing goodbye to your intellectual property...Damien Carrick: It's acknowledging the realpolitik though it's acknowledging the reality that you can't enforce this intellectual property so let's just move on. That is what it's saying?Jessica Coates: It's basically recognising that in this day and age controlling every single copy of your music is not the most effective way to make money. It may have been that maybe 50 years ago but nowadays there's much better ways to promote yourself and to basically earn a living as a musician. And people just want to explore that like the good thing about things like Creative Commons is they provide you with a fairly safe legal basis for doing that kind of exploration and you can try it and if it doesn't work for you then you don't have to do it again.Damien Carrick: Any other examples you want to tell us about the good the bad and the ugly of the Creative Commons?Jessica Coates: One particularly interesting website that's running under the Creative Commons licences at the moment is Revver which is basically a YouTube type environment so it's a place where you can put up your videos whatever videos you want and put out there for people to see. But the great thing about Revver is that they will embed an advertisement in that video and they will split the fees that they get from the advertisement with the person who's put up the material. So basically it's YouTube but you get paid for your work if it gets popular enough. So the way they do this is they embed the advertisement and then they release the material under a Creative Commons licence which is the attribution non-commercial and no derivatives licence so that allows people to move their material around for non-commercial purposes as long as they don't change it in any way. So basically it's what we call the advertising licence because it lets as many people as possible see the material you can put it on your blog you can put it on YouTube you can email it to all your friends but it doesn't let them change it or use it for commercial purposes or anything like that. And using this licence is actually fundamental to their business model because if you're going to make money off ads you want as many people as possible to see it. Every single time a person watches one of these Revver videos then a slight micro-payment goes back from the advertiser and Revver splits that with you 50-50. Revver's actually just announced in 18 months they've paid $1 million to people who've uploaded their material to their website and there's one particular example the Diet Coke and Mentos video which is very popular among videos that hopefully at least some people have seen that's been downloaaded a good several million times and the creators of that had in mid last year they made over $US40 000 from just the advertising that attached to it by Revver so by now I'm sure they've made even more.Damien Carrick: Jessica Coates from the Creative Commons Clinic at the Queensland University of Technology.That's the Law Report for this week. A big Thank You to producer Anita Barraud and to technical producer Carey Dell. GuestsSandy Grant Senior executive Hardie Grant Publishing member of Copyright Agency Limited BoardMark Williams Senior adviser with JDR Legal and copyright lawyerJessica Coates Project Manager Creative Commons Clinic Queensland University of TechnologyCory Doctorow Canadian science fiction author and creative commons advocate Further Information Melbourne Writers FestivalCreative Commons debate featured at 2007 Melbourne Writers Festival

Creative Commons è 3.0 senza DRM Tratto da Punto Informatico del 27/02/07 San Francisco - Come previsto sono state formalmente annunciate le nuove licenze Creative Commons che giungono così alla versione 3.0 un aggiornamento che porta con sé alcune novità sostanziali e che conferma dopo un lungo dibattito in seno alla comunità CC l'incompatibilità delle licenze con il DRM. Simbolo stesso del copyleft del nuovo concetto di diritto d'autore che trova in rete le sue applicazioni più interessanti e che adegua il controverso concetto di "proprietà intellettuale" alle nuove esigenze dell'era dell'informazione le CC 3.0 si propongono come uno strumento se possibile ancora più internazionale. Tra le novità più significative delle 3.0 infatti c'è la suddivisione delle licenze generiche di base: da un lato quelle americane già operative dall'altro quelle "generiche" ora definite unported in quanto non ancora "localizzate" sulla base degli ordinamenti dei diversi paesi. Una novità che dovrebbe consentire un più facile porting dell'infrastruttura delle nuove licenze negli altri ordinamenti. Se sono nate negli USA infatti le CC fino ad oggi sono ormai state implementate in una 30ina di diversi paesi tra cui l'Italia con un complicato procedimento di ricezione nei singoli ordinamenti che ora si ripeterà ma che dovrebbe risultare meno ostico alle folte comunità CC locali. "Il nuovo set di licenze - spiegano i promotori di CreativeCommons.org - si basa sui principi della Convenzione di Berna per la protezione delle opere Letterarie ed Artistiche sulla Convenzione di Roma del 1961 sul trattato sul copyright dell'Organizzazione mondiale del commercio del 1996 sul trattato sulle Rappresentazioni e i Fonogrammi dell'Organizzazione sempre del 1996 e sulla Convenzione universale sul Copyright". Ma sono loro stessi ad avvertire che poiché le singole convenzioni internazionali vengono recepite con differenze dai diversi paesi che le adottano l'utilizzo dei principi generali che queste prevedono "non è in sé sufficiente" a garantire la disponibilità delle CC nei diversi paesi. Per questo una clausola delle CC 3.0 prevede che la licenza sia efficace nei limiti previsti dalle implementazioni di questi trattati dalle diverse leggi nazionali. Un altro aspetto decisivo per la diffusione delle CC contenuto nella nuova stesura è la maggiore attenzione che queste devono prestare alle questioni legate ai diritti morali e alle società di raccolta dei diritti (in Italia la SIAE). Un aspetto definito appunto "moral rights harmonization" spiegato nel dettaglio (in inglese) a questo indirizzo. C'è poi maggiore chiarezza sul rapporto tra autore e utilizzatore dell'opera: si è infatti lavorato per impedire che vi possa essere un'errata attribuzione o una implicita relazione o associazione tra le due parti (chi realizza l'opera e chi nei limiti delle CC decide di farne uso). "Abbiamo deciso - spiegano gli sviluppatori delle CC - di rendere questo rapporto esplicito sia nel Legal Code che nel Commons Deed per garantire che mano a mano che le licenze continuano a crescere e ad attrarre un gran numero di autori e aziende non ci sia confusione sulla materia". Più chiara anche la questione del riutilizzo e manipolazione dell'opera: l'adozione di una "Creative Commons Compatible License" sulle opere emerse da una manipolazione (prevista da una specifica licenza CC) consentirà più facilmente di sottoporre anche queste ultime a CC nello spirito della "flessibilità" da sempre coltivata dalle Creative Commons. Sul fronte DRM come accennato "nell'ambito delle discussioni con Debian era stato proposto di consentire il rilascio di certe opere con DRM in CC in determinate condizioni un'ipotesi nota come parallel distribution language ma questo concetto non è stato incluso nella versione 3.0 delle licenze CC". Per l'Italia dove al momento è possibile utilizzare le CC versione 2.5 il sito di riferimento è CreativeCommons.it.