Creationism and the creative commons madness - Part 1: The problem

The original idea

This article was originally intended to discuss issues related to accessing and studying published archaeological artefacts, yet the existing situation regarding ownership, intellectual property, and publication rights makes this difficult (if not impossible). My arguments were originally intended to target creative commons legislation, licences, and royalties, and I intended to produce a thorough critique of all aspects that restrict access to and the study of archaeological artefacts by third-party archaeologists and researchers.

The core ideas of this article were initially written on a rough piece of paper while travelling on a bus. The paper was thrown in the bin a few days later as it made no particular sense. What was the problem? I somehow felt there was no reason to rationalise a subject that, by definition, was irrational. To put it bluntly, I intended to write some critique regarding the theoretical framework behind access and publication restrictions, but then I realised that such thoughts could only be recorded on toilet paper. The production of such an article would have demanded a deep dive into legal terminology, the study of which I always considered a complete waste of time; therefore, my article needed to be modified in order to present my arguments in the least factual and most surreal way possible, which I believe matches the existing situation with intellectual property rights, at least in archaeological research.

The key concepts

For those who have no clue what I am planning to talk about and for readers with rigid academic mind-setting, I need to begin my discussion with some definitions. I also need to warn readers that the structure of my arguments will be surreal; therefore, these definitions are only intended to clarify key concepts in the article’s title.

The first term mentioned in the title is creationism: a religious belief that the creation of the universe and life in general originates from the acts of a supreme being, commonly referred to by the majority of religions as God. Creationism is a theoretical belief that contrasts with the theory of natural evolution, proposed by scientists and non-religious individuals. The theory of natural evolution suggests that the creation of the universe and the appearance of life are the result of long-term chemical and biological processes that continue to this day. If one were to put these two theories under a legal framework, creationism would have proposed that the universe is controlled by the laws of God, while natural evolution would have suggested that the universe is controlled by mathematical equations governing nature's behaviour.

The second term mentioned in the title of this article is Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is an actual non-profit organisation in the United States, which deals with the copyright licensing of intellectual property; for the purposes of this article, however, the term creative commons (non-capitalised) is used loosely to refer to the broader process of obtaining a copyright license for any industrial patent, commercial trademark, intellectual property and other piece of creative work in general, which is legally reserved and protected under a government established scheme. I must clarify that I neither intend to attack the Creative Commons organisation nor wish to undermine its role. In relation to intellectual property, the term “creative commons madness” describes the complications of a legal procedure for applying, accessing, and using material that has already been reserved and protected under a copyright license, not necessarily in the United States or under American law. Here, the term Creative Commons is used analogously to the legal frameworks in European countries, specifically Britain and Greece.

Another term used in this article, but not mentioned in the title, is royalties. Although I am not a lawyer and have limited knowledge on the subject, I will attempt a definition aligned with the needs of this article. Readers who wish to know more about the technical details of royalty legislation are encouraged to consult more specialised resources. For the purposes of this article, however, royalties relate to patents, trademarks and intellectual property. Royalty is an amount of money agreed to be paid by one party, referred to as the licensee, to another party, referred to as the licensor. The transaction takes place so the licensee can obtain the legal right to utilise a specific asset (a patent, trademark, or other intellectual property) that has already been reserved and protected by the licensor. For the case of intellectual property, in particular, the reservation and protection of the licensor’s rights are usually done under Creative Commons laws.

The surreal aspect

Having defined the terminology used in this article, it is time to explain the article’s title. This obviously falls within the realm of the surreal; therefore, I need to apologise in advance and explain my reasons. It all began on a sunny July day while walking a friend’s dog next to a nuclear power plant. The scenery was an amazing combination of natural beauty and human intervention, the contrasts of which made great impression to me: on one hand, huge waves battered the shoreline under the roaring of the wind while dark clouds shaded the sky, reminding me the primitive force and beauty of nature; on the other hand, human intervention was manifested through the construction of a monstrous building, housing the tremendous and scary forces of nuclear power. It was as if this specific part of the scenery depicted the eternal battle between man and nature for control over the land, and this contrast made me wonder which is the most powerful: man or nature? Then my thoughts turned to the religious perspective: neither is more powerful than the other, as the powers of both derive from God; therefore, natural order and human intellect are part of the same divine plan, the enforcement of which maintains peace and balance in the universe.

I must admit that my personal views on the subject ‘man versus nature’ are a bit different; however, on that specific day, the religious perspective that bases the beginning of everything on divine will, appeared suitable for answering an archaeological question that bothered me for a very long time: had the world been created by God in such wise and well-planned manner, would God need to remind us that He reserves the ownership of His intellectual property according to creative commons legislations? And presuming he did, would humans need to pay their royalties to God for utilising His assets? Surreal as it sounded, my question had a simple and direct answer: there are no Creative Commons for God’s creations, as the Creator of the universe is beyond any human laws, licences, or royalties. So, why would humans stress themselves over the creative commons of their own small and insignificant intellectual creations, when the Greatest of all Creations was handed to us for free?

I guess there is no straightforward answer to this. I think most of it comes down to profit and publicity, two of the most overpriced values characterising the short-sighted side of human nature. When it comes to copyright, some people legally protect their creations from others until they can exploit them financially and become rich. Others prefer to protect the paternity of their creations so they can cash in on future fame and publicity. This explanation probably sounds too simplistic, though I doubt it's far from the actual truth. I need to be fair, though, and accept that although I disagree with the whole process, there is absolutely nothing wrong with reserving and protecting a trademark, invention or intellectual property through legal means for any of the above reasons. After all, it is all part of human nature.

I also need to stress that all relevant laws carry a deep sense of wisdom. The system recognises that technological and intellectual progress cannot advance without competition; therefore, copyright legislation is designed to protect creators while not eliminating competition among them. Depending on the situation, inventions and some forms of intellectual property can be protected for only a limited number of years, whereas trademarks may be protected for a longer period. Occasionally, the cost of maintaining a copyright licence for a long period is prohibitive; therefore, a relatively new creation is released to the public earlier than expected. The terms and conditions for obtaining a copyright licence vary, and regional legislation differs. Legal frameworks are constantly evolving, and there are serious efforts to develop a global, homogeneous legal framework that could be applied across different countries simultaneously. This is probably the result of worldwide trade agreements aligned with the strengthening of a large global market.

Personal perspective

My personal view on copyright licensing is that we cannot put all eggs in one basket. Human creations differ, and so do their contributions to global progress; therefore, different creations cannot be measured by the same standards. I can definitely see the point of why technological inventions can only be protected for a limited number of years, and I agree that patents should be released after a certain period of time. After all, given the rapid technological advances of the 20th and 21st centuries, it is totally clear that after ten or twenty years, any ‘new’ invention will already be obsolete. In support of this point, there are large international corporations that prefer not to protect their patents but to share them openly to generate competition and increase demand for specific new inventions. Often, such corporations are not afraid to see their stock prices fall to make a noble point: the only way forward is through open access and open competition.

Regarding trademarks, I can see that the situation is different. At the moment, there are large companies and other multinational corporations whose trademarks have become an element of historical recognition. There are products of specific manufacture, the brands of which were established more than a century ago; therefore, such trademarks carry historical importance that needs to be recognised and protected. Furthermore, a trademark is like a name: it relates to the ‘personality’ of a specific product and should be treated as an element of individuality.

In my opinion, copyright legislation does not pose any obvious problems for trademark and patent protection. The situation is, by contrast, different when it comes to artistic or other forms of intellectual property, for which the establishment of restrictions through Creative Commons legislation offers some security to the creators of various ideas, but only makes things difficult for everybody else. By the term arts, I refer to any form of artistic expression related to entertainment, including applied arts and scientific research in the arts and the humanities in general.

In one of the following articles, I plan to discuss in more detail the problems generated by Creative Commons restrictions on archaeological research. As to Creative Commons restrictions on other forms of intellectual property, the producers of archaeological work feel a deep need to protect their ideas from potential theft. One might argue that it is not archaeological researchers who wish to do that, but the publishers responsible for publishing and commercialising their work. As demonstrated in the relevant article (Part 3), this is definitely not true. Even though publishers impose copyright restrictions on archaeological books and periodicals, in reality, there are many other restrictions on archaeological materials that extend far beyond the publication process.

Before discussing any of these parameters, it is perhaps better to consider a few other examples from the commercial arts that demonstrate the broader problems behind Creative Commons restrictions (Part 2). In my opinion, if there are problems with such restrictive laws governing the exploitation of mainstream commercial arts, leading to their gradual abandonment, what is the point of keeping them in less commercial forms of art, such as research in the arts and the humanities?