Sunday, November 8, 2009
The Creative Commons project alters the way we understand ownership and copyright because it allows for a more open use of creative works. The copyright is not taken away, but instead refined and focused to the specific needs of each creator, and possibly even for each creation. A more open use of creative works can affect the subject(s) of the original work if the CC user alters (aka: "remixes") the original in any way; this would obviously change the meaning and intent of the original artist.
Creative Commons licensing would definitely have changed the works of Sherrie Levine and Michael Mandiberg in that it would have removed the perception of their works as "stolen" properties, and by that token, the "edgy-boldness" factor would also have been lessened with a permission for use.
Film is mentioned as a CC option for licensing but not the persona and use of persona of an actor/actress starring in a film. In my understanding of the Creative Commons project, the protection to the right of publicity (i.e.: the Bela Lugosi case--see Legacy) would not be within the scope of the license choices offered by the CC project.