Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization that works on specific issues within America in regards to certain copyright issues. However, it differs from what I personally have thought of in terms of copyright and privacy provisions. When I think of copyright, I think of an individual or a specific company owning the rights to something, whether that be a song or a product; this person or persons has complete control over the copyrighted item and nobody else is entitled to it whatsoever unless given full permission to do so. This means that the product at hand cannot be altered nor can anyone else take credit for it. In contrast to this strict view I formerly had, CC works to loosen these boundaries and allow copyright holders the opportunity to allow certain outsider usage while keeping their ownership intact. Thus, the public is allowed limited usage. What I found interesting is that CC is not for those who wish to have full copyright. These licenses seek to expand the world of copyright and in a way redefine copyright (well, at least what I formerly thought of as copyright). With CC rights holders can allow certain access and control to the public. Moreover, the subjects within the work at hand should be aware of the kind of copyright at hand and thus are aware of what that means in terms of usage and public usage. If the work is altered in any way the licenser needs to attribute credit to the original rights holder(s). Thus it works on “some rights reserved” as opposed to “all rights reserved”.
Written in 1939, “Gone with the Wind” is a famous American romance story. The original text would be impacts by Creative Commons as it would be open to alteration; users would be able to change it before its publication. Thus, the text would have been changed and different. In terms of classical texts that remain in our history, I think that this process done by creative commons is detrimental to classic texts; it changes the entirety of what it means to be truly “classic”. Additionally, Bela Lugosi v. Universal Pictures was a case in 1979 that was looked at by the Supreme Court. This case relates closely to Creative Commons for the copyright of the Dracula/Lugosi personality could not be protected. The Supreme Court struggled with making the decision in this case because Lugosi’s personality was extremely similar to that of his Dracula character. Ultimately, Universal Studios won the case mainly because the more public aspect or parts to his personality/character were not protected and could not be protected by copyright laws. In this instance then, Creative Commons would not deliver any protection as well because it was a part of the public domain.