February 25, 2007  ·  Lessig

an-inconvenient-truth-702835.jpg DasLeben.jpg

Two friends of Creative Commons have been nominated for won an Oscar: Board member Davis Guggenheim‘s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” and Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (husband of Christiane Henckel von Donnersmarck, original director of Creative Commons International)’s film, The Lives of Others.

Friends are to inspire. And so they have.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    I still scratch my head in amazement that “An Inconvenient Truth” is not under a copyright license allowing noncommerical redistribution.

    What was the purpose of making this documentary?

    Everything and the kitchen sink needs to be thrown at this crisis so it makes no sense for All Rights Reserved to slow down the dissemination of such media. We can always play games with mother nature and even flirt with the idea that we’re in control. But in the end, she wins in 7.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    I just found this quote:

    Al Gore says:

    Tipper and I are devoting 100 percent of the profits from the book and the movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming.

    This is good. Now just slap a CC NC-BY license on those puppies and we’re aligning our energy efficiently. Otherwise, All Rights Reserved is in direct conflict with the goal to “spread the message”.

    Or am I missing something?

  • LESSIG

    You’re not missing anything about what would be best, or about what Gore would want (I suspect). But the film is owned by someone else. The press needs to be to them to make it BY-NC free.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    LESSIG says:

    The press needs to be to them to make it BY-NC free.

    I’m sorry, I don’t understand. To be what to them?

  • lessig

    People need to press the owners of the film to set it free. Neither the star (Gore) nor the director (Davis) has that freedom. Sounds like a simple thing to organize around, no?

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    We could try talking first. I tried to find a contact for “Paramount Pictures” on their website but I can’t seem to get the information without installing proprietary software on my system (Flash).

    So, I wrote an email to a generic Paramount Vantage email address basically asking who makes the licensing decisions. Unless I’m mistaken, Paramount Vantage is “charged with producing, purchasing, distributing and marketing” an Inconvenient Truth.

    Perhaps if we can open a dialog with the “owner”, we can free this media?

    info@participantproductions is where I tried. No response thus far.

    Any other suggestions?

  • http://www.Videokarma.com VideoKarma

    Peter-

    about your first commnet, I agree 100%.. The film did not even begin to touch on oter serious implications of golbal warming.. It’s the ultimate issue facing us as a species !!

    Consider that O2 levels are down from a high of around 35% (pre-industrial revolution) to as low as 7% in big cities like Tokyo!

    Yikes !

  • Simon Stolzenbach

    When Florian and his wife Christiane Henckel von Donnersmarck now moving to Hollywood, we will have presently the first Hollywood Blogbuster under CC license, isn’t it? It will be interesting!

  • Alan

    If this is the biggest moral, ethical, etc. issue facing our time, why did Gore not just distribute the film for free from the beginning. Why did he sell the rights so that the commenters here have to talk about some owner.

    Where is Gore’s responsibility in this?

    The answer lies in the money. Like the carbon credits he purchases from himself, there is more to this story.

    If this was only about the great GW, then free distribution would have been the way.