In one corner we have the Creative Commons UK licenses, finally released after 16 months of deliberation.
http://creativecommons.org.uk/
And in the other corner, we have the newcomer - the Creative Archive License Group (a consortium of the BBC, Channel 4, BFI, and Open University).
http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/
After all the build-up given the BBC Creative Archive project, it's a bit of a disappointment to see that they've decided to spin-off their own license rather than endorse Creative Commons.
In one fell swoop, the BBC has both endorsed the exploration of free-for-non-commercial-use licensing for its content and denied the benefits to the rest of the world. The license is explicitly for "use within the UK".
Two other main difference is a tighting up on the re-use provisions with "No Endorsements" being specified. This will certainly ease the minds of many industry groups - a major sticking point with my own project preparing for CC-AU releases.
Feedback to the Creative Archive:
Thank you for endorsing free-for-non-commercial-use licensing and opening up your collections. This is a move which no doubt can benefit copyright holders across the UK. However you could do better in two respects.
1) Your group has chosen to encourage license proliferation rather than adopt Creative Commons - the de-facto standard platform. In doing so you fail to heed the warnings from the open source software community now suffering from OSS license proliferation, with over 50 different licenses cluttering the scene. There was an opportunity here to learn from their experience. You could have strengthened a global framework but you chose to have your own brand.
If Brazil can pioneer CC Sampling licenses, the UK can pioneer "Country-Specific" and "No Endorsement" provisions through CC without going to the extent of having your own separate platform. Doing so would be a greater service to the UK population, then this current measure, which weakens support for the Creative Commons framework set up to reduce the reliance that copyright holders have on lawyers.
The lack of a joined-up licensing platform with the rest of the world inevitably makes the process of open licensing for UK copyright owners that much more difficult and expensive. This does not serve UK audiences. No country's creative archive should be an island.
2) Your FAQ fails to explain why turning your back on world-wide distribution is a good thing for UK copyright holders. Knowledge and art should not have border patrols. To suggest that world-wide online distribution is "subsidising overseas audiences" is short-sighted and somewhat provincial. Are you sure that restricting non-commercial use to the UK is in the best interest of UK copyright holders?
It does appear that this launch is two steps forward, one step back. Another Betamax vs VHS war could be looming in which UK content providers will be the losers.
Posted by .M. at April 16, 2005 11:42 AM | TrackBack