WWYD: Release All Copyright to the Public Domain for Greater Exposure?
As fas as I’m concerned, the personal finance blogosphere has been turned upside down, and the events may just influence the rest of online media. Strangely enough, no is really talking about it, perhaps because the spotlight is now on other bloggers.
One of the most-read personal finance bloggers, Trent at The Simple Dollar, made the following announcement last week:
“I hereby release all copyright on all written (non-comment) material on The Simple Dollar to the public domain.
What does that mean? If you want to reuse an article from The Simple Dollar in your newspaper, newsletter, or anything else, go right ahead. If you want to hand it out in your Consumer Ed class, print it out. If you want to edit it to suit your own needs, go right ahead. All written material on this site is now in the public domain.
Obviously, if you do use it, I’d appreciate some attribution (Trent Hamm) and a link back to The Simple Dollar (http://www.thesimpledollar.com/).”
Why is this a big deal?
Money of course. The free distribution of his work entails the following:
1. Other sites may copy his work, which in turn could make The Simple Dollar’s search engine rankings go down, drive less traffic to his site, and by extension, generate less ad revenue.
2. Now anyone can sell reprints of his work to other publications. Assuming Trent wanted to sell reprints of his work, that’s more lost revenue.
3. In general, publications need to pay for content. If there are financial publications that need free content, they can now go to The Simple Dollar.
But as Trent explains, he doesn’t write for the money. He’s releasing all copyright in hopes that he’ll reach more people who are in desperate need of help with finances. So for instance, if a community newspaper reprints one of his articles, a person without internet access may find the information they need to change their financial health.
Some people would find this noble; others may find it crazy. The idea isn’t completely unique. Just before content from The Simple Dollar was released to the public domain, Leo at Zen Habits released all copyright, calling his work ‘œOpen Source Blogging.’ Leo explains:
‘œI’m not a big fan of copyright laws anyway, especially as they’re being applied these days by corporations, used to crack down on the little guys so they can continue their large profits.
Copyrights are often touted as protecting the artist, but in most cases the artist gets very little while the corporations make most of the money. I’m trying this experiment to see whether releasing copyright really hurts the creator of the content.
I think, in most cases, the protectionism that is touted by ‘œanti-piracy’ campaigns and lawsuits and lobbying actually hurts the artist. Limiting distribution to protect profits isn’t a good thing.’
Limited distribution or access is essentially the heart of the economy: control a stream of resources or finished goods, and you have the potential of making profit. What Trent and Leo are saying is that people can take their creative works for free so that it’s disseminated as far as possible, all for the reason that their ideas can be spread or improved upon. Profit be damned — not just for themselves — but for whoever else could gain profit from their work.
I admire what Trent and Leo are doing, but it’s not something I’m ready to try yet. Trent and Leo are established bloggers with very large readerships. Although I’ve recently passed my one-year anniversary of personal finance blogging, I’m not as established as I’d like to be. I love writing for a LGBT website, though getting recognition from the mainstream press isn’t the easiest.
If I did release my work to the public domain, perhaps I’d enjoy a larger readership, but I’m not confident that I’d be credited for my work. There is still 37% of the population who would scream, ‘œWhat?! A GAY wrote this! Quick douse me with holy water before I burn in hell!’ Then again, I received feedback from the mainstream press that some LGBT personal finance topics are too political to appeal to a large audience. Casually mention that your finances are different because of marriage discrimination, and I guess that means you’re writing propaganda for a revolt. Heck, maybe releasing my work to the public domain would get my work around questionable editorial decisions and to a larger readership?
But not quite yet. Give me another five years or so, and just maybe I’ll consider releasing all my copyright in later works. I believe that if you truly love an art, you do it for free. I’d love to be a full-time professional writer, but more than that I’d love to be at the point where I can write down the words in my head and never give a thought as to whether I earn a dime. Those are dreams for now. At this moment, I have more practical concerns like earning income and saving.
Dear readers, what would you do? Would you release all copyright of your creative works so that they may be more widely published and/or rewritten for better or for worse? What’s your take on these recent events?
37%? I had hoped it had fallen…but I think the prejudice is, in part, dying out with those who lived in less open times.
I’ve used Creative Commons to release mine with an attribution (which means they have to credit me). Unfortunately, technically scrapers do that. So I’m trying to find a “no spam” part to add.
I’d rather them ask permission so I know where people are using my work. I also love the use of blog track backs, so my readers can see others talking about my works.
But I have a very commentary styled blog.
My professional works, I wouldn’t release the full copyright. I might do some as creative commons, with attribution required, but I doubt I would ever sue anybody unless they made obnoxious sums of money off my CC/C works.
John: I missed this announcement at The Simple Dollar. Interesting topic, but it doesn’t make sense to me why he’s doing this. I agree with you.
Leo’s “Open Source Blogging” idea is inspired by the book Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig… intellectual stuff but I’ve yet to drink the Kool-Aid.
Great post John. I’m with you… I am happy to share what I know but am not willing to relinquish copyright. Why? Because our knowledge and creative works have great value and are in fact a business unto itself. Check out any information products guru making many bucks and they’ll gladly hang on to copyright and licensing.
That being said I offer a lot of what I develop online which can be reprinted with attribution and the byline intact. That is just part of the real world of Internet marketing that leads to the ability to attract prospects (which in turn hopefully become customers).
Keep us posted on the developments as it’ll be fascinating to watch. Perhaps an interesting angle would be to see how this whole issue aligns with the writer’s strike and how companies want more and more rights to creative works yet want to pay less (no royalties, lower fees, etc.) because of all this free stuff on the Internet. By going totally “free” as Trent is doing are we essentially devaluing all of us?
The creative commons (which all of our QC writing falls under) breaks it down a little more specifically– it is legal to distribute anything we write as long as it’s credited, not commercial and not altered.
Personally I don’t care if people distribute my work as long as I’d be credited. If it’s for commercial use so much the better as it shows commercial viability of my portfolio which I could (in theory) leverage to an actual publisher. I have something that people who profit off my work don’t– the ability to create more.
I figure I’ll keep copyrights but just fail to pursue anyone who copies my stuff without ripping it off for their own profit. That way, I keep control of the massive Brip Blap publishing empire.
I don’t mind my work being distributed as long as I’m credited either. I wouldn’t be very happy if someone copied it, changed two punctuation marks and put their name at the top of it. That was my head-scratching moment with Leo and Trent – although maybe they realized that anything short of total openness wouldn’t make the bold statements they wanted to make.