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

The original idea

This article originally intended to discuss issues related to accessing and studying archaeological artefacts that have already been published, yet the existing situation with ownership, intellectual property and publication rights makes this difficult (if not impossible) to happen. My arguments were originally planned to target creative commons legislation, licences and royalties, and my intention was to produce a thorough critique on all aspects restraining the access and study of archaeological artefacts to third-party archaeologists and researchers in general.

The core ideas of this article were initially put down on a rough piece of paper while travelling somewhere 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 rationalising on a subject that was by definition irrational. To put it down 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 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 that 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 the readers that the structure of my arguments is going to be surreal; therefore, such definitions are only there to inform on some key concepts of the article's title.

The first term mentioned in the title is creationism: this it is a religious belief, where the creation of the universe and life in general originates from the acts of a supreme being, commonly referred by the majority of religions as God. Creationism is a theorised belief and contrasts with the theory of natural evolution, which is proposed by scientists and non-religious individuals. The theory of natural evolution suggests that the creation of the universe and the appearance of life is the result of long-term chemical and biological processes, which still carry on. If one decided to put these two theories under a legal framework, then 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 defining the behaviour of nature.

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 statement “creative commons madness” is used to describe the complications of a legal procedure related to applying, accessing and using material that has already been reserved and protected under a copyright license, not necessarily in the United States and not necessarily under American laws. Here, the term creative commons is used in analogy to the legal frameworks existing in European countries, and more specifically Britain and Greece.

Another term that will be used in this article, yet is 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 behind royalties legislation are encouraged to look the term up in 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 in order for the licensee to obtain the legal right to utilise a specific asset (patent, or trademark, or intellectual property) which 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 belongs to the sphere of the surreal; therefore, I need to apologise beforehand 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 pictured the eternal battle between man and nature for control over the land, and this contrast made me think which one is the most powerful: man or nature? Then my thoughts were diverted to the religious perspective of things: none of the two is more powerful than the other as the powers of both derive from God; therefore, natural order and human intellect are all part of the same divine plan, the enforcement of which asserts 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 and 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 straight-forward 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 come down to copyrights, some people protect their creations legally from others until they manage to exploit them financially and become rich. Others prefer to protect the paternity of their creations so that they can cash some fame and publicity in the future. This explanation probably sounds too simplistic, though I doubt it is too 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 or 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 is aware that technological and intellectual progress cannot advance without competition; therefore, any legislation on copyrights is designed to protect the creators, but at the same time it is not meant to eliminate the competition among them. Depending on the situation, inventions and some forms of intellectual property can only be protected for a limited number of years, while the situation with trademarks could be slightly different. Occasionally, the cost of maintaining a copyright licence for a long period of time is preventive; therefore, a relatively new creation is released to public access earlier than expected. The terms and conditions for obtaining a copyright licence vary and there are regional legislations that differ. Legal frameworks are constantly evolving and there are serious intentions towards producing a global and homogeneous legal framework, which could be applied across different countries simultaneously. This is probably the result of worldwide trade agreements aligned to 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 are different and so is their contribution towards global progress; therefore, different creations cannot be measured against the same standards. I can definitely see the point why technological inventions can only be protected for a number of years, and I definitely agree that patents should be released after a certain period of time. After all, given the rapid technological advances of the 20th and 21st century, 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 in order to generate competition and to increase the demand for specific new inventions. Often, such corporations are not afraid to see their stock-price falling in order to make a noble point that the only way forward is through open access and open competition.

In terms of trademarks, I can see that the situation is different. At the moment there are large companies and other multinational corporations, the trademarks of which have become an element of historical recognition. There are products of specific manufacture, the brand of which was originally established longer than a century ago; therefore, such trademarks carry a 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 cause any obvious problems when protecting trademarks and patents. 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 in other forms of intellectual property, the producers of archaeological work feel the deep need of protecting their ideas from potential theft. One might argue that it is not archaeological researchers who wish to do that, but the publishers responsible for the publication and the commercial exploitation of their work. As it will be demonstrated in the relevant article (Part 3), this is definitely not true. Even though there are copyright restrictions on archaeological books and periodicals imposed by the publishers, 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 discuss a few other examples from the commercial arts, which demonstrate the broader problems behind creative commons restrictions (Part 2). In my opinion, if there are problems with such restrictive laws for the exploitation of mainstream commercial arts, leading to the gradual abandonment of such restrictions, what is the point of keeping these in less commercial forms of arts, such as research in the arts and the humanities?