Every member of your group has done great work. The body of the paper is smooth and the meat and potatoes of the work is done. If I was working on the paper I would go over it again and re-format it. Be proud of your good work and make it look even better. I think that the paragraph headings should be uniform, perhaps bold them and change the font sizes. Other than the asthetics, everything looks great.

Some things I noticed:
- You may want to indicate how many times CC copyright is renewable.
- Under "Limitations" section, you said "the originally copyright law"
- Watch subject-pronoun agreement: if you are using "the creator" (singular), do not refer to him or her as they.
- Under "Enter CC", you mention that CC "will serve." Is it not already serving?
- "creator, or whatever" does not sound very professional, to my mind.
- Watch the slippage into second person (you, your, etc)
- The line about CC being a non-profit organization is a little redundant and can be trimmed.
- Cite sources for types of licenses.
- Under "Non-Commercial," "With this you let others copy... and derivative" is not parallel. You may find it easier to break that into two sentences.
- "This means" struck me as a bit redundant, as you're explaining what it means anyhow.
- Watch out for sentences ending with prepositions.
- Once you're done explaining the types of licenses, there should be another heading or subheading to indicate I've jumped back into the main paper
- "Licenses have based of them" - you probably meant "based off them"
- "By doing this it prevents" - just say "Doing this prevents"
- Watch out for run-on sentences.
- Cite sources in "Founder's Copyright" section
- Excerpt in all caps is distracting and annoying
- Make sure capitalization on headings is consistent
- "The BBC has deemed a necessity for an archive" - would sound better as "The BBC has deemed a free archive a necessity"
- Break up that BBC paragraph to make it easier to read
- The jump to Brazil is abrupt: I liked your earlier heading breakup there. Make it a subheading, if you don't want another heading.
- Same thing with the music industry
- How many rules for samples is "too many"? According to whom?
- "Outfoxed" does not need a comma afterwards
- Again with subject-pronoun: Anyone/anybody is singular; don't use "they"
- "Things like this will be happening more often" - how do you know?
- More sources cited!!
- "A gigantic monetary issue is that of Creative Commons in the cinema industry" - how about, "CC in movies presents financial issues" or something.
- Watch blanket assumptions about smaller studios; cite an example, perhaps, instead.
- "A documentary, ironically enough..." is a fragmented sentence.

In the sentence "To this end, the originally copyright law, enacted in 1790, gave the creator exclusive rights .....", change the word "originally" to "original."

In the sentence "This contract guarantees that after 14 years a work will [ ] into the public domain unless the creator chooses to extend the license for another 14 years." I think you are missing a word where the [ ] is.

Overall, I think the paper is good. It is very informative and I was able to follow it well.

Your paper has great structure-- there is a clear and chronological flow from section to section.

You may want to re-title your "History of Creative Commons" section "Founding of Creative Commons" because you discuss how Creative Commons was created, not its entire history in that paragraph (but that's totally a personal decision).

Overall, your paper was easy to read and very helpful. Great job!!

Do you want any bold on the title page? I would remove it.
I suggest putting a blank line between headings. I would also suggest putting the executive summary on its own page.
In your executive summary, you state the "new form of copyright ranges from graphic designs to music...". I would consider changing this, since there is no valid range between graphics and music. You can range from 0 to 10 or good to bad, but there is no logical range between graphics and music. You have used this as a cliche here so it should be removed.

You used the word "proponent" twice in the same paragraph (Executive Summary). I suggest changing one.
"It currently has some sort of presence in 25 different countries." Change this to remove "some sort of".
"Countries such as England and Brazil..." Change this to "Many countries, including England and Brazil,".

Your "Past Projects of Creative Commons" section doesn't seem to follow the same formatting as the other headings in your paper. If this is supposed to be a subheading, then you need at least one more in this section.

"Instead of using a standard U.S. copyright that will last over seventy years after the creator’s lifetime, Creative Commons and a contributor will ensure that the creative work will enter into the public domain after 14 years." -- I would remove the word "will" from this sentence in all instances.

Limitations section-"Had this law remained intact Creative Commons may have never been developed, but since its inception it has undergone many changes, primarily as a result of the influence of large corporations wishing to hold copyrights as long as possible. " Split into two sentences. Watch your commas.

**The information in your licensing section is wrong. I would suggest looking at the Creative Commons website to find information regarding the licensing and how it works. You are trying to say that specific options are the licenses themselves, which is wrong. This entire section of the paper should be rewritten. It is a major component, and if it is false, you will lose a lot of credibility.**

Lastly, I suggest giving the paper a major proofreading overhaul and rewording some sentences. Check primarily for fragments, run-ons, and comma use. I see a lot of words that can be removed in sentences as well. (i.e. first sentence under Share alike license--"And the fourth type of license is called the Share Alike license." THIS is why they teach you not to start a sentence with "and" early on. We know now that you can, but in this case, it should be removed.

Your paper's organization and use of citations is excellent. I am enthralled to finally see someone that knows how to properly cite within sentences.

• I couldn't check your source, but in their original press release say that BBC Creative Archive will be based on the Creative Commons model . I'm not certain whether they actually used one of the licences or one of their own. Good to check accuracy.
• Might be worth mentioning the Wired CD where you talk about music.
• The section where you talk about all these different examples (music, BBC archives, games, etc.) would probably be good to organize into subsections. Consider the other suggestions that readers have given you about subheadings as well.
• You might still want an introduction separate from history, but I think that the history section might serve.
• I suspect that the rather long legal code excerpt is not necessary. People would find other parts more interesting and convincing (such as the examples later on).

Under your “Enter Creative Commons section, I think it would help if you added a few sub headings under there or at least some bullets of where you talk about the types of licenses you can apply for with Creative Commons. The whole section is just pretty long where you talk about a few different topics within the same section. For example, if after the first paragraph of that section you made a new subheading with something to do Types of Licensing Available through Creative Commons or whatever, it would help you be able to understand that there are 4 different kinds of licenses you can get, right now it all sort of runs together and its hard to absorb what you just read about one kind of license before you are already reading about a new one.

This is just my opinion, you can ignore it if you want, but I think a better title for your “Applications” section could be something like Creative Commons in Use Today or pretty much anything more specific that gives us an idea of what the section will include before we read it. Applications could mean a variety of things.

I did learn something about Creative Commons, especially since I didn’t know anything about it before, but overall it does provide a good overview of what it is and everything.

The paper flows quite well and is structured nicely. The one thing that I was wondering is why would someone choose to use the liscense? In what situations warrant the use of the liscense? Aside from that it is all good. The structure is nice and the headings set it apart.

Keep up The Good Work

G. Babinec

Regarding your questions:
- Headers: Most of the headers are excellent and make it easy to see where you are and where you're going. The only areas I would think about changing are "Past Projects", because to me it seemed like you were going to talk about the work of the founder, not the history of copywrite; and the "Applications" section. Perhaps "Creative Commons in the World Today" or something like that would help clue me in. In addition, I thought the Applications section was long enough to need some subheadings, especially since it breaks into three nice areas all on its own.
- Recommended font: What you have looks good, is clean and legible. If you want to do something a little crazier, something like Jester or another near-Arial-clone might be nice.
- It is easy to read and flows fairly well. I would break up the really long paragraph under "Enter Creative Commons", and maybe get rid of the all-caps on the excerpt from the Creative Commons legal disclaimer. That sort of thing gets annoying to read. You may also want to look at a few other longer paragraphs in other sections to see if you can break them up a little.
- Most surprising: The entire Applications section was fairly new material for me, and I was surprised to hear about the BBC making a video decoder.
- 3 Things to Change: 1) Shorter paragraphs. That will make the document a lot easier on my eyes and help me to follow your flow of ideas without getting lost if I have to glance away for a brief moment. 2) In the "Is It Used?" section, I would like to see more sources. Where are you getting this "millions"? And overall, what kind of quality does the Creative Commons produce? Are there other recognized and commended works licensed under Creative Commons? 3) Perhaps a little more in the Future Applications to show what kind of impact the science project may have.
- One Thing to Add: Think about talking about why the copywrite law changed in the 70's and who benefits. You do mention this a little, but perhaps you can expand.
- Flow: It flows mostly well; I like how you organized your topics.
- Purpose: Your purpose came across very clearly. You may want to show more why Creative Commons trumps regular copywrite.
- Ideal: Yes, I understand what Creative Commons is about. Nice job.
- Confused: Not at all.

Additional Notes:

I love your cover page. Nice creative touch.

Again, a few places looked rather thin on sources; watch for the areas where you went for several paragraphs with only a single citation. In those areas I was left wondering where you got all that information.

Michael Rodriguez
Stephanie Ting
Amanda Grcevich

Jessica, Bryan, and Casey

Thank you for reviewing our white paper. Your comments and suggestions were a big help. We will certainly take them into account when we rewrite our paper.

We have a couple questions for you. First, you suggest that the technology portion of our paper was confusing, could you give some feedback on how to clarify this section. Also, you said the License’s section of the paper was confusing to, do you have any suggestions to clarify this section.

Thanks again for your feedback.

Mike, Stephanie, and Amanda

Bryan, Casey, and Jessica:

I wanted to offer some feedback on your project. (I"m not in your class but am the OSDDP Co-Director and the Director of Professional Writing.)

You've done a nice job of pulling together an introduction for people unfamiliar with Creative Commons. Because one major goal is to polish this work so that it can go into the the OSDDP Guide for others to use, there are a few revisions to consider:

• All direct quotations of sources need to be indicated by use of quotation marks so that readers can distinguish your writing from the source text. There are quite a few instances in which you've footnoted the source as if you've only paraphrased or summarized it, but you've actually used the source word-for-word, which always requires use of quotation marks. When you don't use quotation marks, it tells the reader that you are paraphrasing the source. Because your paper is about copyright and intellectual property, you have to be especially careful about careful attribution.

• This bring up another related issue: You have drawn heavily from outside sources, which is fine. Can you find a way to make your contribution to this subject stand out? What do readers get from your synthesis that they couldn't get directly from the Creative Commons sources you cite? Can you achieve a better balance between your writing and the text from the sources?
• The "Summary" could provide an "informative summary." The current summary is "descriptive," which means that you describe what the paper is about ("This paper includes . . .") rather than provide the gist of the information. The summary section on a white paper should be like an abstract (a highly condensed version of the paper, actually). So it might begin like this: "An alternative method of copyrighting intellectual property, Creative Commons licensing allows . . . "

(Those are the "global issues.")

Formatting:

• For White Papers, it's important to use conventional (and reader-friendly) formatting since readers expect certain things from them and they get read in a hurry. For printed documents, that means using a familiar font size and type (such as Times New Roman, 12 pt.) and standard, 1-inch margins all around in full block style (all is flush left except perhaps major headers).

• For Web documents, it's helpful to use parenthetical documentation. Footnote documentation (especially using Word's automatic footnote function) is very tricky to convert to HTML because it requires you to insert anchor and return tags for each note. (Word will do that when you convert it to Web Page (filtered), but the resulting HTML is often a mess.) Given the points mentioned in 1 and 2 above, using in-text, parenthetical documentation would also show more clearly to your readers which writing comes from sources and which is yours.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful.

--Dave Blakesley

We have enjoyed reading and learning more about the different aspects of Creative Commons. We have completed the editing and proofreading process of your white paper. Attached is a copy of our group memo and a copy of a mark up of your white paper.

Bryan
Casey
Jessica

We are going to be editing and reviewing your white paper.

Jessica
Bryan
Casey

The purpose of this issue is to give an introduction to Creative Commons. This introduction will give faculity and students a overview of creative commons.

Our group have done a project and have begun on the rough draft of our white paper.

Our group members include Michael Rodriguez, Setphanie Ting, and Amanda Grecvich.