I've seen Dvorak's name tied to several ridiculous theses. My guess is that he's simply a polemicist hoping his outrageous claims will win him recognition and fame (not that I can criticize anyone for that). I was interested in what he had to say as long as I thought he was the keyboard guy. Now he just gets a sigh.

Dvorak's main argument here is inane. He makes it sound very easy to place things in the public domain--just by saying they're in the public domain, apparently--and that CC is just a needlessly complicated way of putting stuff there. If you can just write, "PUBLIC DOMAIN" on a document, why do you need CC? Anybody who's spent even ten minutes on the CC site knows the answer to this question and why Dvorak's argument is so problematic. To put it simply: CC isn't the same as the public domain. Simple, obvious point, yet one that Dvorak doesn't grasp.

His other argument--that CC is stripping away the last vestiges of fair use--is also dumb, mostly because he's conflated CC with public domain--a major error. CC doesn't challenge fair use, nor does it say that the same fair-use policies that regulate commercial publication aren't available for CC-licensed documents.

To put it simply, Dvorak's research is wack. He doesn't understand CC, and I hope his article doesn't mislead others who might otherwise be interested in what CC has to offer.

no doubt. lot's of complaining. bad analysis. for instance, note that he's leading people to believe that the noncommercial clause is standard on all CC licenses.

course the kicker is here on the second page:

"That's what's bothersome. Creative Commons trying to insert itself as another layer into a system that already protects content developers like me to an extreme. I mean my grandkids will own all my writing exclusively until 75 years after I'm dead, unless I sell all the rights to someone else. What more do I want from copyright?"

that's right, dvorak. you are on the opposite team which is why CC licensing doesn't serve your needs.

chalk this article up in the FUD column.

Matt's right; Dvorak is a blowhard. This is the same guy who said Apple computers weren't manly enough for PC users.

As Brendan Riley points out, he's also dead wrong about copyright. It's now opt-out, not opt-in, as he implies.

The Register has a take on this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/21/creativity/

It goes into some tangential issues of remixing and compensation.

- J. Tirrell
http://www.jtirrell.com

Thanks for the link to The Register. It captures how I often feel about GPL and similar copyrights. I'm a fan of the BSD model -- if I say you can use something, I generally support making money with it.

My views are shaped by having been a member of the Dramatists Guild of America. The contracts in the guild are very strict. No one can change a line without the written consent of a playwright. Unlike television or film, we do not sell our rights. Our names must appear at least as large as the names of directors, often larger. (Thought some of us opt for no name at all or nom de plume.) Income rights are well-established, too. We are well-protected from producers trying to claim they didn't make money because fees are calculated by tickets sold, not net income.

I am an odd creature, I admit, as a playwright / programmer / teacher. I value my art and recognize that most great artists produced works for clients. Amazing how competing for jobs, be it theatre space or church commissions, results in better art. Of course, when public tastes change, some art will drift away. That's culture for you.

Community projects are fine for some things. I fully support Mozilla, Eclipse, and Open Office. They produce and share tools, not the actual creative content. We need to remember the difference. I know when I am in "writer mode" I think every word I put to paper is a part of my soul. When I am coding, it is different. No idea why.

I know there have been "group" writing projects, but most are pretty sloppy. Community development seems to work better. Maybe the "tech" community shouldn't try to view all creative expression the same way.

You'd be interested in what Richard Stallman (Free Software community) has to say on the subject. According to him, you're right--we can separate "creative works" from "non-creative works." The first can be protected by copyright or whatever, the latter should be open and free for everyone to use how they will. I'd say it follows what you're saying here; the TOOLS and TECHNIQUES should be free, yet the artifacts that result from the use of these tools and techniques are private.

My own belief here is that you can conflate the two. If you author a play or program a compiler, I don't see much difference from a legal or ontological perspective. Indeed, I know folks who use PERL to produce wonderful poetry. The further we get from expressivism, the happier I'll be...;-)

One of the things I think we have to be careful of is that writers have been acculturated--for several hundred years--to see writing as a solitary process and to believe in the expressivist point of view of writing as the product of the writer's soul. I think it's important to remember that these concepts of creativity as an isolated process (as opposed to intertextuality or social constructionist based views) go back to the time of the Statue of Anne--the introduction of formal copyright in Western culture--and were ideas promoted then by those with commercial interests in owning IP. They have evolved and propogated since then with the encouragement of publishers.

Plus, I don't agree about the "sloppiness" of group writing projects. For instance, for instance, what about Ezra Pound's role in the writing of the Waste Land and Maxwell Perkin's role in working with Thomas Wolfe's Look Homeward, Angel? The more enlightened view of writing, of authorship, which such as CC promotes might define these "editors" as additional authors in the work. So whaf I think we have happening here is a redefinition of Foucalt's author function from an open source/CC perspective. I also think that there are plenty examples of "group writing projects" which are not sloppy, but to date they are mainly a part of more technical/professional writing and not more creative projects such as fiction until we move into the realm of film where many great projects we should attribute to more than just the screenwriter, but many other's who contribute to the film's production. Consider also musical compositions by multiple band members.

The reason why we don't see this as much in creative text writing? Perhaps because, once again, because we've been acculturated to think of creative writing as a solitatary process and have yet to evolve the skills/best practices for collaborating effectively.

The creative process is usually initiated and directed by an individual. I've worked on mural projects, stage plays, in film, on radio, at newspapers, and on and on...

Writing an initial draft is a solitary effort.

In theatre or film, you write the draft and then submit it to a board. In theatre, the draft is workshopped, updated, and then finalized. The workshop is meant for the author -- you sit off to the side and listen for problems. Sometimes a dramaturg or director offers an idea, but usually they tell you "this isn't working" and leave it at that.

Film and television are different beasts. The scope of film and its visual nature goes far beyond what a writer concentrating on a small stage can accomplish. The script is sold, the rights surrendered, and you know the director and actors will hire other writers to change everything. I'm not a fan of film, since you can often tell what was written by whom. Lines and ideas are recycled because they seemed to work well enough in other scripts.

Television fears creativity, which is why what you write goes through so many layers. Some shows manage to break free of the controls, but not many. On most dramas, a single writer creates the treatment of an episode or even writes it as a short story. A team then edits and refines the script to fit the show bible -- and air clock, both first run and syndication clocks. The writing of dramas tends to be better, and I think it is no accident fewer cooks are involved in the actual story, if not the final script.

Murals and larger artworks are designed and sketched by one person, suggestions made, revisions created, then a team assembled to make the work happen. A single person is the "author" and the results are usually identifiable.

Poetry? Short stories? Novels? I don't want to see the novel created by a team of writers. A pair is somewhat workable, but the people have to share a common vision of the work. Usually one does the work and the more famous writer lends a name to the cover.

The individual does gain something from self-expression that cannot be initially found in a group effort. Once the initial creative act is complete, an editor, director, or audience can help refine the work by seeing what the creator missed in the draft. For me, all the works I create begin as a mental release. Once they are "created" the refining is through writers groups and workshops. Refining might be "creative" but it isn't "creating" in my view.

Programming or non-fiction just doesn't feel the same when I'm involved in those tasks. I can't explain it, but I just don't get that emotionally invested in a technical manual or a piece of software.

I do know video game writers (not programmers) and they are emotionally invested in the original story lines. They care a lot about their stories being treated with respect. Most of them also want to write more traditional works.

This is a particular interest of mine:

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/010441.html

I have been reading a lot of neuroscience for the last year, including items from other countries and cultures. I'm curious because it seems there regions of the brain involved in creative expression, regardless of culture.

The Scientific American: MIND is a great resource on these issues. I notice most MIND articles are written by European researchers. They seem far more interested and less restrained.

Back in the days of the paper media, before the internet challenge, people were kept dumber than Dvorak. If anything, Dvorak serves as a benchmark for ignorance.

The sad truth is that because of his standing in print media, he's considered an expert by people who are not as computer literate as my mother. As a writer, he's actually pretty good - but his writing is in desperate need of a lobotomy from his opinions, because his opinions are antiquated.

In the context of the Creative Commons, consider this: Dvorak only exists in print media. The way he makes money is by appearing in print media. The only way he can stay employed, as far as he apparently sees, is print media.

Ultimately, he's stuck in the tar pit and telling everyone that it's nice, warm and inviting. :-)

KnowProSE.com