Vi på Creative Commons Sverige har inlett arbetet med att översätta de nya versionerna av licenserna. I slutet av förra året kom version 4.0 av Creative Commons licenserna och vi arbetar med att starta projektet med att översätta dessa till svenska.
Creative Commons received a grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to survey the licensing policies of private foundations, and to work toward increasing the free availability of foundation-supported works. We are still pursuing this objective, but here’s where we are at the moment.
Tax-exempt private foundations are non-profit institutions exclusively devoted to benefitting the public, by grant-making or direct activities designed to achieve charitable, scientific, educational or similar purposes. Because there is a limit to the funds available to even the largest private foundations, most try to use their resources in a way that will have the greatest impact on the problems they hope to solve. Thus, they make grants to organizations that have shown themselves to be particularly effective in achieving their social goals.
One avenue to greater impact that has not been followed as often as it could be is requiring, or at least encouraging, grantees to make any grant-funded works freely available for broad uses by others, so that those works can not only be distributed for education and research, but readily improved and built upon to create new works in a potentially unlimited trajectory. Even assuring public access just to read the works is important. To take one example, foundations often fund research that is relevant to the welfare of the world’s poorest people – who often live in countries where their own researchers can’t afford to subscribe to the journals in which the work is published. Making articles on advances in medicine available through the internet can speed the transfer of knowledge to places where it is urgently needed – often by years. Licenses that give people the right to download, print and distribute those articles, and to translate or otherwise adapt them to local needs, multiply the already-great value of simple access.
Increasingly, government agencies and intergovernmental organizations are adopting open policies for copyrightable works and data they create or commission. For example, all grants under the U.S. Department of Labor’s Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Program require that copyrightable materials produced be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license, so that those materials may be freely used by all, eliminating the need for costly replication of effort as community colleges put together courses to train workers for new jobs. Foundations have typically made the same requirement for works produced under grants to develop open educational resources, but only a few have extended the requirement to grants for other purposes.
We believe that in almost all cases, the copyrightable works produced with grant funding, as well as works concerning the problems the foundation seeks to address that are created by expert staff or commissioned by the foundation from external experts, will have more impact on those problems if they are published under an open license. In speaking with foundations, we have learned that most of them agree with this in principle – and it’s on their list; but limited time and unlimited demands mean that the issue usually doesn’t get to the top of the list.
There are, of course, grants a part of whose purpose is to provide the grantee with a source of income; in some (but not all) such cases, the income can only be realized by selling copies of the grant-funded work rather than by providing ancillary services. Obviously, it would not be rational to insist on the work’s being openly published in those few cases. We believe that it is appropriate and desirable for a foundation to adopt principles that cover the large majority of its grants, not to invite requests for exceptions, but to be prepared to relax its policy when it furthers the grant purpose to do so.
We have accordingly drafted a model intellectual property licensing policy for foundations, covering their own works as well as grant-funded works. The draft has been vetted by a dozen or more foundations, and has changed significantly as a result of their input. The current version includes a set of alternative provisions to fit some of the variations some of the foundations have told us they would prefer. It remains a draft in the sense that any foundation should feel free to edit it to suit its own needs, and we have accordingly dedicated the current version to the public domain so that not even attribution is required. Of course, we’d love to hear from any organization that adopts it in any form, and comments will always be welcome.
Check out the wiki page where we have several pieces of information, including:
This guest blog post was written by Niki Korth. If you’re in the Bay Area, come see Marc read from his new book at City Lights Thursday night and come hear Niki speak at next week’s CC Salon.
Marc Weidenbaum / Jorge Colombo
In 1996, Marc Weidenbaum founded the website Disquiet.com, which focuses on the intersection of sound, art, and technology. He has written for Nature, the website of The Atlantic, Boing Boing, Down Beat, and numerous other publications. He initiated and moderates the Disquiet Junto group, where musicians respond on SoundCloud to weekly Oulipo-style restrictive compositional projects. He developed the sound design with Taylor Deupree for the 2013 documentary The Children Next Door. Since 2012, he has taught a course he developed on the role of sound in the media landscape at the Academy of Art in San Francisco. He cites Creative Commons as a major inspiration to his work and methodology, and recently paid homage to cherished CC advocate Bassel Khartabil through a Disquiet Junto prompt themed around one of his projects that remains unfinished due to his ongoing imprisonment in Syria. His new book, Selected Ambient Works Volume II, in Bloomsbury’s 33 ⅓ series, takes as its subject the 1994 Aphex Twin album by that name, and much of it is concerned with the album’s “cultural afterlife,” how our understanding of the music has been informed by its adoption by filmmakers, musicians, choreographers, and others. In the following interview, Marc discusses his projects, influences, and his perspective on the role of CC in the music community.
Where does the name Junto come from? And how is it pronounced?
Around the year 1727, when he was barely into his 20s, Benjamin Franklin had the desire to create a small society. He was an enthusiastic society-creator throughout his life. It can be informative to think of the United States of America as just one of the many clubs that Franklin created or helped create, along with militias, schools, fire departments, and so forth. “Junto” was the name he gave to one of his earliest such groups. I believe he imagined it to be a masculine version of “junta.” As for how it’s pronounced, this is at best a guess, but I think it’s pronounced like the Spanish “junta” — which in English we tend to think of primarily as a “military junta” — except with an “o” at the end, as in the English-language word “flow.” Add in whatever constituted a Boston accent at the time. Franklin’s dad was born in England and his mom, I believe, was born in the colonies.
Franklin described his Junto as a club of “mutual improvement,” and it involved regular meetings of men — exclusively men, such were the times — from various walks of life who would meet to discuss politics, philosophy, and business. It was a knowledge-sharing union — part book club, part meatspace chat room, and probably to some extent part fraternity.
I first came across the Junto when I was consumed by a biography of Franklin written by Walter Isaacson, having earlier read and enjoyed his biography of Albert Einstein. I was reading the Franklin book in the months that lead up to the creation of the Disquiet Junto, toward the end of 2011, and in many ways I don’t think that I would have ever started this group if I hadn’t been reading that book at that time. I was always a fan of Benjamin Franklin. I grew up on Long Island in New York, so Philadelphia and Boston and the whole revolutionary period were very close at hand, very prominent in regional memory. My hometown, Huntington, has numerous of these little plaques on the exterior walls of old buildings saying that so and so slept here or so and so died here back in the day. I turned 10 in the summer of 1976. I was an opportune age to have the Bicentennial play a huge role in my imagination.
When you say that the Disquiet Junto project wouldn’t have come into being if you hadn’t read that book, are you saying that the act of naming sort of brought the project into fruition?
Yeah, I think that registers. It’s more than naming, though — it’s the whole broad idea of getting people together as a creative process unto itself, and the benefits of mutual activity, of sharing knowledge and experience. All of which said, when I started the Disquiet Junto, all I was doing was experimenting: putting out a call for participation. I had no idea if anyone would join in the project, let alone whether there would be a second project the next week or the next month. I just employed the word “Junto” when I proposed the first project. I was using SoundCloud as the infrastructure, and on SoundCloud the simplest way to do this is to create what it calls a “group.” To make a group, you need to give the group a name. So, in the name slot I put “Disquiet Junto.”
Anyhow, having a vague historical precedent in mind meant adopting a history, looking to precedents, like the Junto of Benjamin Franklin, and more recently to the artistic movements known as Fluxus and Oulipo. In making creative work, I think it is important to think about who your “parents” are — that’s parents in the metaphoric sense — and you sort of adopt them, creating your “inheritance” of traits, rather than the other way around — you recognize them after the fact. This isn’t about laying claim to legacy; it’s about acknowledging influence, precedent, culture. And I think that’s one of the key aspects of the idea of the Creative Commons as a community, when you think about it in the long term. It’s the idea that open licenses develop an “ecosystem” that enables you to create a collaboration and a lineage not only forward, where others are free to later do the same toward you, but backward, retroactively. I’m hesitant to say the word “ecosystem” because when it’s used these days it can easily be replaced with “shopping mall” — the Apple ecosystem, the Android ecosystem — but it’s the best word for what I’m trying to get at.
If Junto and Oulipo and Fluxus are the adopted histories, what is the more immediate history that led up to Disquiet Junto?
Something important for me happened in 2006. I’d been running my Disquiet.com website for a decade at that point. And that year, Brian Eno and David Byrne were celebrating the 25th anniversary of their album My Life in the Bush of Ghosts, one of my favorite records, and they did a very simple thing that was informed by Creative Commons. They posted online the stems, the core constituent parts, of two songs off this record, and they said to the world: you can remix these, for free.
And at the time, I was not unfamiliar with this concept, but I was relatively unfamiliar with the idea of someone that prominent doing this so comfortably. I was a very big fan of remixes. Remixes form a huge part of the way that I understand music. I remember when I was attending college, in the mid-1980s, buying an extended version of a song that I liked, by an Australian band called INXS, and I remember being astonished by how listening to the remix could kind of make you completely rethink the way that you relate to the original, and that moment was really important, realizing that altering something does not detract from the original, but can enrich your understanding of it. Part of the reason that particular remix registered with me was because it sounded the way the music sounded in my memory — the parts I liked, the parts my memory would often play on repeat when I wasn’t actually listening to the original version of the song.
So, anyhow, back in 2006 I checked out the Eno-Byrne website for their Bush of Ghosts remix project and listened to the music that was created using their stems, and although I was inspired by the idea of this thing, I just couldn’t stand listening to it. The resulting works were just really uninteresting to me, mostly bland house and routine techno tweaks of the source material. I was disappointed — it was crazy that some of the best music that I’d ever heard was being turned into something so lackluster. So my first thought was — my immediate thought was — why isn’t so-and-so doing this, what would it sound like if person X did a remix based on this material. I wished that people whose music I admired would contribute to this Eno-Byrne thing. And so I sent out emails to some of these musicians to see if they would participate, and I don’t think anyone said no, if memory serves. This led to the compilation Our Lives in the Bush of Disquiet featuring Roddy Schrock, Stephane Leonard, John Kannenberg, Mark Rushton, and (DJ) Morsanek, among others — a dozen acts in total. I initially posted the compilation at archive.org and, later, at the Free Music Archive. Between downloads and streams, it’s nearing on 80,000.
That project led to a series of such projects, each of which followed a similar approach. I would come up with an idea, send out the description, and collect pieces by the invited musicians. Despite the Downturn took issue with a peculiar article about filesharing by Megan McCardle. Anander Mol, Anander Veig was a holiday remix album commissioned by Tabletmag.com. Lowlands: A Sigh Collective was a response to criticism of artist Susan Philipsz winning the Turner prize in 2010. And then LX(RMX): Lisbon Remixed involved the sounds of the city reconstructed by eight musicians — including Steve Roden and Stephen Vitiello — as inspired by a photo exhibit by Jorge Colombo, best known as the artist who does “the iPhone covers” for the New Yorker, though he is much much more than that. And all these projects of mine were posted for free download, with a Creative Commons license.
My next project after those was significantly more open-ended. I got 25 musicians to make pieces of ambient music based on each other’s Instagram photos: essentially they were asked to imagine that the assigned image was the cover of their next single, and to then go and record that single. It’s titled Instagr/am/bient. That came out at the very end of 2011, five years after the Bush of Disquiet project, and between Free Music Archive, SoundCloud, and the Internet Archive, Instagr/am/bient is nearing 120,000 streams and downloads.
This project was as essential an experience for me as was the Eno-Byrne Bush of Ghosts remix opportunity. Several things made Instagr/am/bient different, key among them that it was more of an open call than my earlier, invite-only projects, and because the compositional prompt was also less deterministic. My experience of it was also different — I came to be interested in how a group of 25 musicians doing something had a lot more energy, a lot more online communication, than a group of 8 to 12 musicians had in the past. Instagr/am/bient was a self-contained Creative Commons community — they each made music based on each other’s photos. I wondered, then, what would happen if I opened the floodgates wider still — and that thinking in turn led me to try out what became the Disquiet Junto approach.
Could you say more about this collaborative aspect of Instagr/am/bient and how it led to your conceptualization of the Disquiet Junto?
The important aspect of the Instagr/am/bient project was the fact that the musicians were supporting each other, and the relationship wasn’t just between the musicians and the audience, but amongst the musicians themselves. Each participant was creating the “prompt” — the Instagram photo — that served as the inspiration for another’s composition, as well as taking one of the prompts for their own composition. So the process created an “ecosystem” — there’s that word again — where the musicians themselves created the energy source — forgive the somewhat hippie tone to that phrase — for the project.
In turn, by sharing the “final” product with a Creative Commons license, those who are listening in on the conversation are allowed to actually join the conversation, and potentially expand it into a new conversation. So listening becomes a context for production. As one example, an Instagr/am/bient track by the OO-ray, aka Ted Laderas, who is based in Portland, Oregon, titled “Silhouettes,” based on a photo by Naoyuki Sasanami, who is based in Tokyo, Japan, has been used subsequently in dozens, I think, of videos by various people.
This experience of Instagr/am/bient was a big part of making me think: Wow, what if that unexpected result was the goal? What if I decreased the importance of the listener-as-consumer, what if the listener is secondary, and the interaction of the musician-participants is primary, but we as listeners can still enjoy the end result, and listen in to the “conversation,” to observe the interaction between the musicians. To be clear, this isn’t to put aside the role of the listener-consumer — just to delay it a step, and to first extend the musician interaction.
How does this idea of diminishing the role of “the listener” inform live performance?
We’ve done four Disquiet Junto concerts so far. They’ve happened in New York, Chicago, Denver, and San Francisco. The thing I explain before each of them is: We’re all here in the audience to watch and listen to a concert. But what we’re really here to do is to watch the musicians interact with each other. At each concert, everyone performed original work based on the same compositional prompt. This sort of changes the concept of “listening” — it’s like, don’t just watch the people playing and absorb it, but watch them interact, watch how they pass the proverbial baton to each other, watch how they in the audience themselves react to the performances. So it’s sort of like having the online version of the Disquiet Junto collaboration happen in person.
So, is it a live composition among the group of participants? Are they making new compositions, or playing preconceived works from the original prompts?
So far, these live Disquiet Junto concerts have all involved around five to seven solo performances per concert, though some of the participants bring in collaborators. Each concert has a prompt from the Junto as their subject. If memory serves then so far they’ve all used the same prompt, which is the first prompt from the Disquiet Junto project series: record the sound of ice in a glass, and make something of it.
We’ll be doing something similar alongside the launch events that are happening for a book I have just had published by Bloomsbury. This book is about Aphex Twin’s 1994 album Selected Ambient Works Volume II. My book is part of the 33 ⅓ series. Its U.S. released date is mid-February 2014, and in England it’s April. For each of the bookstore readings I’m doing about the book, I’m trying to arrange for there to be musicians present who will be playing something that was inspired by the Aphex Twin album, and that’s filtered through a prompt from a previous Junto project. In this case it’s wind-chime based piece, informed by a track on the Aphex Twin album that is often referred to as “White Blur I.”
I should mention that the Creative Commons was a significant influence on my Selected Ambient Works Volume II book. Much of the book is concerned with what I term the album’s “cultural afterlife”: that which happened to the music after it was released. I explore how the album’s tracks, which are all but one lacking titles, were given names by listeners. I interview a composer who transcribed the tracks for traditional chamber music ensemble, and two directors who used the music in their films, and a choreographer and sound designer from two different contemporary dance ensembles who used the music in performances. I talk about unofficial, unlicensed remixes, as well as official, sanctioned licensing of the music. My sense that our understanding of the album has been informed by these subsequent uses takes a cue from the old Brian Eno and Peter Schmidt koan from their Oblique Strategies set: Repetition is a form of change. The music itself hasn’t changed in 20 years, but its repeated use and reuse has changed our understanding of the music.
It sounds like a lot of your projects involve you acting as a facilitator, or framework builder, of collaborations. Is it difficult for you to imagine doing this without access to a large network of musicians, as you have? In other words, do you have any advice for people who may be interested in trying to do something similar, but don’t have access to as wide of a network?
Well just to begin with, it’s totally cool that you used the word “network,” but that’s a word that I tend not to use. There’s something a little possessive inherent in the term that doesn’t feel collaborative to me. It’s kind of OK as a noun, but as a verb it really is not a word I’m going to use.
Because it’s only one person’s network?
It can imply that one person’s network is exclusive from another’s. It can put the person whose network it is in contrast with the network itself. It’s a person’s network, rather than a network in which the person is a participant. This is why the word “community,” for all its overuse, is preferable. The word “community” isn’t sufficient, but it’s better than “network.” The word “network” tends to emphasize size, rather than being about connections, and better yet the interconnections. When I hear “network” I see “Rolodex.”
What about “internet”? As a word or concept, not the internet itself? Since what we understand as the Internet is a network of networks, that would seem to emphasize the connections and overcome the possessive character of the term.
I’m not sure I’m ready to use it that way, but I do like this idea of using the word “internet” to describe something that is not “the internet.” This discussion reminds me of a recent interview with Kim Stanley Robinson, the science fiction writer, where he says something similar about the word “sustainable.” He takes issue with it for various reasons, key among them that it allows people to continue their capitalist and consumerist ways without reflecting on the role those ways play in the issue in the first place. He tries out a different word, “permaculture.” Rather than “it’s sustainable so I’ll buy it,” this other word emphasizes that it is permanent, so it’s more like “it exists, and I’m going to continue to use it.” So, I feel like “network” is like “sustainable,” and I’m trying to find a “permaculture” alternative to it. Perhaps “community.” Perhaps “internet” could work. Doesn’t feel quite right at the moment, but it’s an interesting nudge in the right direction. Come to think of it, pretty much the only time I think I actively employ the term “network” is in terms of “network” — or “networked,” more often — communication and creativity, which aligns with your “internet” idea.
Anyhow, with that “network” stuff out of the way, let’s get to your question. So, for people who don’t have a wide address book of potential collaborators but want to try building something like Disquiet Junto, I would say: Just work with the people you know. Look, I didn’t think that I had this “network,” either. Sure, I had gotten to know musicians, mostly tangentially, over the years, and I knew that a sizable percentage of the audience of my Disquiet.com website self-identified as musicians, in contrast with “listeners who don’t make music.” But when I posted the first Disquiet Junto project, I felt like I’d bought a keg of beer for a party that no one might even show up for.
If you’re creative and you have a group of like-minded people who inspire you, then that’s your group. It doesn’t take much. It’s not about an end result. It’s about an ongoing, refreshing, rewarding sense of engagement. Just work with the people you like working with, and it’ll build from there. This isn’t about scale. It isn’t about: Well, we have this many hundred participants, but how do we get to a thousand? You don’t make a garden in your backyard and start worrying about increasing your tomato haul or the density of flowers. You just tend to it, and watch it grow, shaping it as it goes, as time passes, as the seasons change, as you learn from experience.
Man, first “energy source” and now “online community as a garden.” I sure can come across like a digital hippie. Please let people know that’s not how I come off in person.
So how did you first become interested in Creative Commons? How did you first hear about it?
I have no idea. I mean, I have no specific memory. I imagine that it was an article in Wired — because back then, that was the main channel through which things like that were communicated. Or maybe, since I was into the Internet Archive so early, it could have been through there that I saw a license, and then I followed that through.
Since 2012, I’ve taught a class at the Academy of Art on the role of sound in the media landscape. I talk in the class about an early open source text, The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric S. Raymond. And I talk about the ideas discussed there – about the decentralized, at times frenzied and random organization of a bazaar and how it contrasts with the perfection-oriented, often exclusive and severely hierarchical mindset of the cathedral as an organization.
And even though this book was released in 1999, which is already 15 years ago, and Creative Commons was founded just 2 years later, many students are not aware that these alternatives to closed-source, super-hierarchal production methods exist. That said, they’ve come up in the culture, so it isn’t alien to them. It can be exciting for them to think about these alternatives – that by sharing and enabling more eyeballs, or eardrums, to encounter your work, you can get better feedback that helps you to develop it, and very often giving people the license to remix your work can help you to see and hear it in ways you never imagined before. More important that that, the model of the Creative Commons maps in ways to human interaction that the more traditional marketplace model does not.
Have you had any non-computer or non-music based experiences that have also contributed to your sharing-driven creative outlook?
One specific experience comes to mind: I took a two-week trip by myself to Scotland when I was in my mid-20s, and I was amazed by the “Right of Way” laws in the United Kingdom that permit free travel on certain routes between public places, even when those routes involve passage through an area of private property. This was completely mind-blowing to me at the time, since I came from the United States where “private property” is synonymous with “restricted” and “off limits” and often involves someone who’s more likely to shoot than to call a lawyer.
When I was in Scotland I walked along these Right of Ways, completely fascinated by the opportunity, the concept, and the experience. And there is a connection between this idea, and these memories, and what I’ve done since that point in my life. There’s something in that walking through the shared geography of Scotland that relates to how I think about culture. In the early 1990s, my head was deep in what some people tried to call “avant-pop,” especially writers like Jonathan Lethem and David Shields, who were doing inquisitive meta-works that involved pre-existing texts and drew from influences in an acquisitive manner, and to me this relates to the idea of property being left open for creative use. It’s like a creative stroll.
I also think about how artistic awards shape culture. I’m not a big fan of things like the Oscars. Think about contemporary Hollywood films. Their composition and construction is often motivated by the pursuit of the Oscar, and the Oscars in turn dictate that movies have to operate following certain types of roles, with main stars, supporting roles, and so on. Imagine if the system was changed, and there were an Oscar for the best ensemble drama. The very next year there would be movies that de-emphasize a main role in favor of a collection of roles. This isn’t just about the Oscars. There are reward structures throughout culture that define the way that people and works participate, how they’re conceived. The law plays a role. The law codifies the way that music is handled and that defines how cultural objects are shaped. I’m not saying get rid of the law. I’m saying look at the unintended ramifications of the law.
What was your motivation behind doing the Disquiet Bassel project?
Just about every Disquiet Junto project originates not as a project but as me thinking about things and trying to shape my thoughts into the form of a compositional prompt. I don’t set out to make a project involving the tone of rooms. I become fascinated, for example, by the idea of room tone and then I try to figure out how to explore that fascination by asking people to make music related to the idea. I try to turn my interest into a compositional prompt as a means of exploring it further.
So, what happened with the Bassel situation is that I was taken by several factors, in particular the passion of people whom I admire, such as Barry Threw. I knew about the Free Bassel activity, and had talked with him about it, but a video I saw of him speaking really hit me. I read a lot of Kafka at way too young and impressionable an age, so the idea of prison is a powerful one for me, especially wrongful imprisonment.
Although I’ve never met Bassel Khartabil, I read about his activity in the open-source community and about his work promoting Creative Commons and the role of open source in a part of the world that has a very different take on freedom of expression, and I was really moved by it all. And I was aware that, with the second anniversary of his arrest coming up, the timing was useful to get people’s attention.
Could you say more about the idea of risk-taking, and the process of facilitating collaborations and open submissions that can be very unpredictable?
It was several months into the Disquiet Junto when I realized that part of what made it function was that people who participated felt comfortable failing. Initially the idea of the four-day window for participation in each project was to give people a solid deadline. But an unintended result was people felt comfortable posting work because listeners would understand that the work wasn’t necessarily finished. It gave them an “out.” A community of people making music under the same restrictions can be, in its own way, freeing.
I think we had like 40-60 participants the first week that I did Junto. At the time I didn’t even know if there would be a second one. At the time it felt like hubris that there was a four-digit number for the project — “0001″ — which is certainly a naming structure that I borrowed from the Long Now Foundation. You know, how they have a zero before the year to make you think in terms of 10,000 years, not 1,000 years? For example, right now it is 02014, not 2014. Who knows if we’ll actually get to one thousand? Who cares? I like this idea of a numbering system that forces you to think about the future, whether or not you get there.
What areas of the future are you forcing yourself to think about?
I’ve been really interested in the idea of what a record label is, and in many ways I think that the best record labels are like communities. Think of the acts that were on Motown, the acts that were on Blue Note — they were more like subsets of a broader, loosely structured community that the audience was able to get a taste of through the release of the music. Musicians and songwriters would move between albums, between groups. A backup singer or instrumentalist would later be a headlining musician, and the audience was along for the ride. Whereas record labels now are more like marketing firms that find the act and then obtain the rights, so it’s more like licensing products. Sure, there are collaborations. Elektra, ECM, Ghostly, and Warp are great examples of record labels where artists still intermingle in interesting ways.
I am really interested in: What should a record label be like today? How has the Internet changed things. If you were to reverse-engineer a record label, then I feel like the Junto is closer to what a record label might try to be than an actual record label is today. I think it’s always important to ask, when you import something to the digital world, when you port a pre-digital system to a digital system: How does it change, and what pre-Internet assumptions have come along as baggage?
And in saying that, it’s important to clarify that when I talk about Creative Commons licenses, I’m essentially always thinking of it in terms of a particular license, which is the one that gives the ability to remix, the one that allows for “derivative” works. And I’m troubled by the fact that a lot of Creative Commons use does not actually employ that. For example, I’ve written a lot about the netlabel community. There are about 600 netlabels at this point that actively release music by musicians with the permission for that music to be downloadable for free. And that’s an incredible world of music. But an oddly small percentage of those netlabels employs the license that allows for creative reuse, which I find disappointing. So I’m always pushing for people to think beyond the non-commercial download, and to think about the creative re-use. I’m also wrestling with the word “derivative.” It seems to have a negative cast to it. There may be a better word, a word that makes the benefits more self-evident.
What interests you about creative re-use? Why do you think it is important, for yourself as well as others, and how did your view of it impact the prompt you created for the #FreeBassel Disquiet Junto?
I don’t take much stock in fixed cultural objects as ends unto themselves. For example, I don’t really have favorite movies or books — I love Citizen Kane, Dawn of the Dead, and Playtime, but I especially love them in the context of their creators’ other work. I have favorite authors, favorite directors, favorite actors, and I enjoy work in that context. When I read a Don DeLillo novel, or a Mira Grant novel, or a Richard Stark novel, or a Michael Brodsky novel, or a Joanna Scott novel, or one among many types of things — novels, comics, essays, tweets, Instagram captions — by Warren Ellis, I enjoy it in the context of their broader work. Same for musicians and architects, even journalists and politicians. And that’s just speaking of the individuals’ own “careers,” for lack of a more nuanced term.
An original piece of work is also part of a broader community, part of various ongoing continuities — it’s about the type of work that it is, how it fits into the broader scope of that work. You don’t just write a sonnet from scratch. It is always informed by and reflects back on previous sonnets. You always draw material and references, often subconsciously.
So, I started thinking about the work that Bassel hasn’t finished due to his ongoing imprisonment, such as his Palmyra project, which involves mapping an ancient architectural site using computer graphics. And I thought: this is something that we can help to keep alive, while he’s not around. And not only can we keep his projects going, but we can do so in new and unexpected ways. We aren’t taking his CGI architectural endeavor and completing it. We are, in the course of the Junto project, creating sound and music to accompany his work. This is something he might not have even considered. There’s something, also, metaphoric about how adding sound to his CGI work brings that work to live. This idea of keeping something alive, of keeping his ideas alive, is part of the reason the idea struck me as worth pursuing.
What did you think of the resulting works? In reading through the comments people wrote about the story behind each of their compositions, I was really interested in how many people researched the history of Syrian music and integrated some of these sounds/ideas into their works. This adds a lot of depth and also brings it away from being political, approaching it more from an angle of cultural history.
I’m always anxious when I do anything related to social or political issues in the context of a work like the Disquiet Junto. I generally steer away from it. It’s amazing how a turn of phrase can turn something from a collaborative project into a heated side conversation, so I am always trying to create a situation that is warm and inviting. In this case, that meant something that came from a place of mutual concern and caring about this person, about Bassel, about creative work that has been cut off. For the Junto members, I think the idea of the unfinished artistic project was what they related to in particular. I didn’t want people to be put off by it in the sense of thinking their compositions needed to address the political situation, necessarily. It was important to me that the Bassel project wasn’t “special,” that it was just another project in an ongoing string of projects. It could only work if we treated it as business-as-usual. Part of business-as-usual is asking people to, when posting their tracks, describe their creative process. That’s where a lot of the communication between the participants occurs — that and them commenting on each other’s tracks. And this isn’t to say all my projects are pacifist, but the ones with a strong unified opinion, like Despite the Downturn and Lowlands: A Sigh Collective, are focused on art as their primary subject.
You make reference to Oulipo as an influence behind Disquiet Junto. Could you say more about this? What relation do you see between Oulipo and creative reuse, especially in the digital age?
The most concise way to get into that is to compare it with another popular form of creative reuse: fan fiction. Fan fiction often works within the universe created by and defined by the source material, whereas Oulipo tends to walk up to the edges of that universe and say, “Oh, there’s a wall here, so let’s break through it or paint on it” or something like that. The difference isn’t a binary one. Lots of fan fiction actively flips the source material, changing gender, setting, plotlines. Oulipo is a little less of a collective, communal effort, and often works with material that isn’t as hallowed as the subjects of fan fiction, but the parallel is clear. I think Oulipo — along with Fluxus — exists as a keen pre-digital premonition of the collective consciousness that seems at work within, that seems alive within, communal creative activity.
This is not just the first CC0 translation—it is the first official translation of any international CC legal tool. Under CC’s new legal code translation policy, translation teams work closely with CC Legal to create official linguistic translations of the original English text. These translations are equivalent to the original English: when you create or reuse a CC0 work, you may now refer to either English or Dutch. (You can read more about official translations in our new FAQ entry.)
We are excited to mark this event. CC0 and the 4.0 licenses are designed to be as fully international as possible, and to support that goal, they should be available in languages everyone reads. (Ported versions of 3.0 and earlier have generally been published in the official language(s) of the appropriate jurisdiction, but the ported licenses are not equivalent to the international licenses and may not be substituted as references.) Working with our affiliate teams to produce official translations is a detailed, painstaking endeavor, involving a lot of correspondence on precise word choices, and the first teams have been tremendously helpful to us as we developed the process. There are several teams currently working on more translations of CC0 and the 4.0 licenses, so look for more announcements in the coming months.
CC0 was launched in 2009, and is designed to allow creators to dedicate their work to the public domain by waiving all their copyright and neighboring and related rights in a work, to the fullest extent permitted by law. If the waiver isn’t effective for any reason, then CC0 acts as a license granting the public an unconditional, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use the work for any purpose. CC0 has been adopted widely by institutions, governments, and individuals for data and other material that can be freely reused without restriction.
All language versions of CC0 now indicate that official translations are available.
This is the final installment in our five week blog post series on the Affiliate Team project grants. You’ve heard about projects in Africa, Arab World, Asia-Pacific, and Europe. Today, you’ll hear about projects from our Latin America region, including: a report on the evolution of the academic journals’ presence and dissemination in Chile, a School of Open course for librarians on copyright led by Colombia, El Salvador, and Uruguay, and a free music festival and open source website from Guatemala and Uruguay.
Chile: Promotion of Open Knowledge in the Chilean Academia: Ways to Facilitate Adoption of Creative Commons in the Academic World
by project lead Francisco Vera
In Derechos Digitales, we have been working almost 10 years on copyright and access to knowledge issues, by doing public advocacy on copyright reform and working with Creative Commons licenses to enable all kind of creators to share their works in the digital environment, through the use of these tools.
One of our stronger research lines has to do with scientific and scholarly work, how this knowledge is being disseminated, and how we can improve that process to make this information accessible to everybody interested.
Following that path, since 2008 we have been researching academic journals production and their publishing terms, along with creating legal guides to academics to get a sense of how to use CC licenses and make them able to share their work. That allowed us to publish a couple books with our findings and internal policy recommendations.
Thanks to the CC grant we were awarded, we have been able to resume that work, updating our figures from the 2008 research and taking one step further, conducting field research on the academic community about the way they publish and manage that content, and if they are aware of the CC and Open Access movements.
At this point, we have interviewed scholars from the major Chilean universities in different fields on exact and social sciences to be aware of their perceptions and needs regarding open access. In parallel, we are researching academic publications to determine how the situation has evolved from 2008 to this day, in terms of journal continuity but also in terms of how these deal with publishing formats and licensing terms.
We hope, by April this year, to have a step forward on our diagnosis of the academic dissemination environment, and with more insights of the academic world, a report that speaks on the evolution of the journals’ presence and dissemination. We also hope to have performed a couple workshops with government officers and academic community, in order to boost open access and open licensing initiatives.
Colombia, El Salvador, Uruguay: ABC of Copyright for Librarians
by project lead Maritza Sanchez
A CC grant made possible that since August 2013, three Creative Commons chapters -Colombia, El Salvador and Uruguay- are working to adapt an online course for librarians about copyright and with an eye on the Open world.
The project aims to develop the necessary open educational resources (OER) for an online course, self-taught and in Spanish, that will be available through the School of Open, and eventually in the OER projects of the chapters developing the course (i.e. Internet Activa and Artica).
Why Basic Copyright Concepts for Librarians? It is not a secret that many librarians and libraries in Latin America work with little or no knowledge about the copyright frame. We want to offer this target group and other related professionals (e.g. academic researchers, teachers, OER developers, librarian students, archivists, museum workers, all those interested on heritage conservation, etc.) the basic knowledge for their work.
We believe that this knowledge is much needed right now and will also be useful to promote CC licenses among librarians in the region.
The material in this course will be open as a self-guided course that can be tapped on demand — individually, at a user-preferred time and date. Moreover, the course can be harnessed as a group, from a collective or specific institution, to be facilitated according to the possibilities and conditions of a given community.
We are currently finalizing the legal and pedagogical review process of the last module of the course that we have titled, “ABC Copyright.” The legal review ensures the strengthening of self-learning potential of all students, while the pedagogical review is valuable to contextualize accurately and clearly each module to Latin American culture. We are also working on building a communication strategy which will be essential once the course is published at the School of Open for the dissemination to the audience of this open educational material. We have already developed the graphic concept, which we share as a preview in this post! We are at the stage of creating new graphic elements that will complement some of the most complex issues and will make their assimilation much easier.
We are working with love and energy so that very soon all those curious and interested can learn, share and supplement the online course, ABC Copyright for Librarians in Latin America!
Guatemala, Uruguay: Promoting Free Music in Central and South America
by Meryl Mohan (project lead: Renata Avila)
This project, a collaboration between CC Guatemala and Uruguay, was drafted following the suggestions of six bands who are starting to use open licenses in Guatemala. It represents a unique opportunity to reconnect and expand the open license network in the Latin American music community, consisting of an open call for free music followed by a week dedicated to festivals and concerts in multiple jurisdictions. Each country will have at least ten bands participating, and is combined with training for musicians, producers, artists, and copyright experts to explain artists’ rights, how copyright law affects music, and the power of sharing. The activities will be posted on an open source website filled with the LP of Latin American free music, photos and videos of the workshop, a free music declaration, and showcase of successful cases in Latin America and all the activities of the free music week. Since it’s open source, anyone can use it to recreate the same project in their region or country.
I recently interviewed Dr. Phil Venditti, professor of communication studies at Clover Park Technical College in Washington State (USA). Phil teaches public speaking and other oral and written communication courses. In 2010 Phil learned about the Open Course Library project and became an enthusiastic adherent. Phil developed two courses in the Open Course Library, wrote a textbook which he licensed CC BY, and has since saved his students roughly $60,000 by using open educational resources (OER).
The Open Course Library was Phil’s first exposure to OER, but it wasn’t his last. He testified to the State Legislature in favor of a bill which would have mandated that all educational materials created by state postsecondary education employees be openly licensed. As President of FACTC — the Washington Faculty Association of Community and Technical Colleges, Phil has promoted adoption of OER by college faculty members throughout his state. FACTC passed a resolution in 2012 endorsing the ideal of OER on economic, educational, and moral grounds.
Phil recently went on sabbatical and decided to interview 50 prominent speakers to gather tips on effective public speaking for his students — and for the world because all of Phil’s work and videos are openly licensed under CC BY 4.0 license. Nearly 30 hours of his videos can be browsed at Phil’s YouTube channel. Speakers included in the project are 29-time Emmy winner and “Almost Live” alum Bill Stainton, Tacoma News Tribune Executive Editor Karen Peterson, former NFL quarterback Jon Kitna, Tacoma Mayor Marilyn Strickland, and wildlife artist and conservationist Becci Crowe. To complete the project, 40 of Phil’s public speaking students and a team of editors from Clover Park’s Media Design and Production program spent more than 700 hours reviewing and editing the interviews. When it is launched online in May of this year, the project will offer a database of free, CC BY-licensed materials at cptc.edu/fifty-wise on subjects ranging from how to conquer stage fright to how to organize a presentation.
On March 20, the “50 Wise Speakers” project will be presented in a red-carpet gala at Clover Park Technical College.
Phil says OER has changed the way he thinks about teaching and learning.
“I believe that the essence of education should be sharing. Every day I ask myself, ‘How can I help connect more people to more information that might change their lives?’”
Following Phil’s lead, what will you share today?
As of today, CC Syria community leader Bassel Khartabil has been in prison for two years. Today, we join the worldwide open community in honoring Bassel and insisting that he be freed.
Amnesty International and Front Line Defenders have produced this excellent video about why Bassel’s story is important to our community, featuring interviews with CC co-founder Lawrence Lessig and the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Jillian York.
“Bassel could have gotten out, but he chose to stay. And that decision was very costly for him, and it was an important decision for us. It symbolized his commitment to making this democracy possible, and to continuing the work to spread that message. And we owe him for that, and we have an obligation to do as much as we can to keep the world aware of this incredible person.” – Lawrence Lessig
In honor of Free Bassel Day, our friend Niki Korth has compiled a cookbook in honor of Bassel, featuring recipes submitted by people who know Bassel or are involved with the #freebassel campaign. You can read the cookbook online or download a PDF (469 KB).
Niki is planning to release a Version 2 of the cookbook, so it’s not too late to submit a recipe.
We honor Bassel today and look forward to the day he is freed.
Over the past few weeks, we’ve been featuring some of the amazing activities of our global affiliate network. Learn about a Finnish team building a CC plugin for WordPress, an open data symposium in Japan, a series of School of Open workshops in Kenya, a booksprint in Morocco, and much more. Take a tour of the CC communities in the Arab world, Africa, Asia-Pacific, and Europe.
Open educational resources aren’t just a good idea; they’re the center of a global movement that’s transforming how education works worldwide. Browse the resources from Open Education Week to learn more.
Longtime CC community leader Bassel Khartabil has been in prison in Syria since 2012. Join the worldwide open community to honor Bassel this Saturday, March 15. If you’re in the Bay Area, join us at the Wikimedia offices in San Francisco.
Learn how a proposed US law would weaken public access to federally funded research.
Is Getty Images’ new photo embed service a step in the right direction?
- Join us in San Francisco for a discussion on free culture and social justice.
- The CC Europe team has been following the proposed changes to EU copyright law. Read their analysis and recommendations.
- “People should support Creative Commons if they care about what they’re doing, and they want to get their work to as many people as possible; if they care about collaborating with people all over the world together and coming up with something beautiful.” Khalid Albaih is on Team Open.
Creative Commons is thrilled to announce that we will be reviving CC salons on a quarterly basis starting March 27!
Years ago, CC ran a series of CC Salon events in the Bay Area, informal events that brought together creators of all kinds to talk about how and why they choose open in their fields. CC salons continue to occur all over the world, but on March 27, CC will host a salon on social justice and open innovation right here in San Francisco.
This informal event will feature short talks from guests in local nonprofits and the free culture community, as well as lots of interesting people to network and socialize with. It’s free and open to everyone.
Joshua Knox, Brute Labs
Joshua Knox is co-Founder and CFO for BRUTE LABS, a non-profit out to prove that anyone can do good. BRUTEs use design and technology to create sustainable social entrepreneurship. Our small, all-volunteer team has launched 11 projects around the world and across a broad spectrum of causes; from cyclone relief in Myanmar, to clean water wells in Ghana, to a bio-diesel project with Stanford. Our open source altruism has also garnered multiple design awards from AIGA and Adobe as well as partnerships with local businesses, the city of San Jose, Google, Nike, Facebook and many more.
Niki Korth, Writer and Free Culture Activist
Niki Korth is an artist, writer, and free culture enthusiast/activist who resides in the triad of the creative arts, technological literacy, and human rights. Together with Clémence de Montgolfier, she co-founded The Big Conversation Space (TBCS), an art, research, and consulting organization based in Paris and San Francisco that acts as a participatory production platform for books, media, and games involving free speech, art, technology, politics, philosophy, and the occult. TBCS has exhibited and lectured internationally at venues including Palais Tokyo (Paris), TCB Gallery (Mellbourne, Australia), Yerba Buena Center for the Arts (San Francisco), and Human Resources (Los Angeles).
Their most recent projects include Letters for Bassel and The #FreeBassel cookbook, both dedicated to creative and participatory methods of advocacy for the release of CC community member Bassel Khartabil, who has been detained in Syria for the last two years. They also have a book coming out in summer 2014 titled I Can Do Anything Badly II, which uses conversational interviews to explore the intersections of DIY and Free Culture in the arts, the internet, sociology, and design.
Korth is also an advocate for trees and sustainable urban planning, and works in marketing and operations at DeepRoot Green Infrastructure, a San Francisco–based company that provides arboriculturally-oriented products and services for the built environment.
In the spirit of McLuhan but in the age of the Internet – she believes that we all own the message, humans as much as plant life. But the medium may have a mind of its own.
Supriya Misra, TeachAIDS
Supriya Misra is a Senior Project Manager at TeachAIDS, where she helps lead the development, maintenance, and expansion of TeachAIDS products. Founded at Stanford, and recognized as an innovation that will “change the world” by MIT Technology Review, TeachAIDS is a nonprofit social venture that creates breakthrough software to solve persistent problems in HIV prevention. Used in more than 70 countries, TeachAIDS provides the most effective HIV prevention software to educators, governments, and NGOs around the world – for free.
With a background in behavioral health research and expertise in innovative applications of new technologies in preventative care, she has previously worked at HopeLab and the Institute for Brain Potential, and co-authored a handbook on the neurobiological basis for forming positive health habits. She holds an M.A. and a B.A. with Honors in Psychology, with a concentration in Neuroscience, from Stanford University.
Rachel Weidinger is the Founder and Executive Director of Upwell, a nonprofit PR firm with one client, the ocean. At Upwell, Rachel leads the development of cutting edge big listening practices. She couples this big data approach with the resiliency-increasing tactic of campaigning across a distributed network to increase online attention to ocean issues. Because of Rachel’s vision, the ocean community knows the baseline of online conversation for its issues for the first time.
Previously, Rachel was the Senior Manager of Marketing and Communications at TechSoup Global where she provided marketing vision and leadership for TechSoup Global, and the TechSoup Global Network of partners in 36 countries. She has also worked with social enterprises including NTEN, Common Knowledge, the Black Rock Arts Foundation, SF Environment, Copia, and the Xtracycle Foundation.
Rachel has a B.Phil. in Interdisciplinary Studies from Miami University’s Western College Program, and completed the coursework for a masters in Arts Policy and Administration at Ohio State University. When she’s not working to save the ocean, she makes preserves, swims in the Bay, and gardens at her tiny home in San Francisco. She is obsessed with whale sharks.
This post is part of a project aimed at mapping myths and obstacles around Open Educational Resources, conducted by Creative Commons Poland.Where do myths about OERs come from?
The Open Educational Resources (OER) movement has emerged to transform and democratize access to education. Governments, companies, teachers and learners around the world are making OERs and using them in various ways. But just the fact that there is growing number of projects and people making resources available to copy, remix and share freely does not guarantee a systemic change in education.
OER projects around the world face similar barriers: from limited understanding of the idea of OER by decision makers (sometimes educators as well), to PR campaigns directed against openness (1). During many workshops and trainings with teachers and textbooks authors, we found most of the arguments brought against OER to be myths. They are born from confusing OER’s with many things that they are not, and from identifying them as radically different than educational resources produced by traditional publishers.
Without efforts to raise awarness about benefits of OER, there is a great risk that pervasive critical voices (coming mainly from commercial educational publishers) will change the attitude toward OER of teachers, learners in all ages and parents of school pupils. Such criticism is widely observed in response to the growing popularity of OERs. It is worth noting that the false alarms start especially when governments start thinking about open educational resources, and invest public funding into their production and support.
Mapping the myths
To help fight these myths and misunderstandings, we started mapping them and providing model answers. We are working on a mythbusting guide that will offer simple, easy to use guidance, in a question and answer format. This can be useful for people advocating OER, as well as educators searching for practical answers for their doubts and journalists writing about OER.
We started with a survey among OER community experts and an examination of existing media reports on OERs. It’s interesting that when you take deep dive into press articles, you will find extremely varied opinions about OERs. They are either a mainstream, successful trend in education – or a way to destroy the publishing market and reduce teaching quality. It is much more insightful to ask about OER experts and teachers.
Fig. 1. What are most typical arguments you hear against Open Educational Resources? OER community experts survey.What do users think?
In another survey, conducted by authors of the report “An OER COUP: College Teacher and Student Perceptions of Open Educational Resources” (2), 11% of teachers and 6% of students perceived the quality of OER textbooks as being lower than the quality of traditional textbooks they had used in the past. In all cases, these users indicated technical problems or general poor text quality as reasons for giving a low rating. However, according to teachers’ definition of the problem, access to the Internet and students’ feedback and preferences were at „heart of what made the OER texts worse for these teachers”. For example, one of the teachers wrote: „Students have limited access – they want print sources [because] that is what they are used to.” The other teacher simply wrote „That it’s online.”(3)
This survey mirrors what we can easily observe during trainings for teachers and what so-called “open washing” makes even worse: a popular definition of Open Educational Resources as just free (gratis) resources online. Most of myths about OER are based on this misunderstanding. Furthermore, critique is often not specific to OERs, but to any type of content available on the Internet. For example, OER can be distributed in many formats, including print, so the argument that OER forces specific equipment investments is rather unjustified, as it applies to all digital resources.
Fig. 2. Example of OER misconception that all digital, freely available resources are open in a strict sense
In reports from Boundless (4) and EduCase (5) published in 2013, we can see significant growth of OER use in Higher Education (research at the K-12 level in this area is still limited). According to EduCase, 71% of respondents say they used freely available open educational resources (OERs) in the past year, 10% of them use OER „all the time”. Both reports covered only university students in the U.S. In other countries like Belgium, Netherlands and Norway we can observe even higher usage of OER. This is a clear effect of well-established programs for providing open digital resources for teachers, supported or even run by the government. At Belgium’s KlasCement platform, one in three teachers have registered and about 70% of Belgian teachers use it. WikiWijs from Netherlands has more than 100% per year growth of the level of remixes of open educational resources available on the platform and is expanding to higher education.
It is difficult to present a definitive report, but arguments gathered offer strong evidence of how useful and powerful OERs are. This trend will be growing as OERs are promoted by public institutions and attract users searching for resources that are not only cheaper, but also more adaptable. For these reasons, we should be prepared to answer a growing number of questions about what OERs are, and what they are not.
The perspective of authors
Many organizations wanting to create educational materials find out during negotiations with authors that most of them are ultimately willing to openly license their materials. However this often requires overcoming their personal fears about OERs. Many authors are unfamiliar with the concept of an open license and open educational resources. Even if they hear about them, Saylor.org found that “chief concerns included the loss of control of materials, commercial reproduction, and loss of traffic/ad revenue” (6).
Explanation of open licenses is a battle with false perceptions and fears regarding potential profits and losses. Authors and publishers often have preconceptions that publishing in an open model is somehow inferior to traditional publishing. And it’s not only about lowering the quality, but also about losing profits: monetary, website traffic, or the strength of an author’s brand. For efficient discussion and negotiation with educational and scientific authors, it is important to understand how the process works and how they are paid. Teachers often make a lot of resources as part of their work, while textbook authors are often paid through contracts, not based on copies sold.
It is important therefore to explain that Open Educational Resources can be produced and distributed in various models – from voluntary work (like Wikipedia) to a contracted, paid and reviewed process like California’s and Poland’s public textbook programs. Authors also tend to avoid thinking about ways of receiving more profits by taking control over their work, instead of depending on intermediaries like publishers. The new opportunities arising from open publishing are diverse and are growing each year, as more and more services and start-ups are focusing on OERs. Changes in publishing models are also a part of OER-related challenges to consider.Mythbusting
Criticism of Open Educational Resources has many roots. Some of them are justified and definitely require more work from the OER movement and projects involved in making OERs. More research is needed to generate clear evidence for decision makers. On the other hand, a lot of arguments against OER are based on misconceptions, which also require further explanation. We aim at mapping what problems about OER are raised by the press and the public, and how they can be practically answered. If you would like to engage and support us in doing this, feel free to write: firstname.lastname@example.org
(1) Black PR around Polish e-Textbooks, Michał “rysiek” Woźniak, http://rys.io/en/94
(2) Bliss, TJ, Robinson, J., Hilton, J., & Wiley, D, An OER COUP: College Teacher and Student Perceptions of Open Educational Resources, Journal of Interactive Media in Education (JIME), 2013 Spring Issue, availabe online jime.open.ac.uk/article/2013-04/html
(4) Boundless Report: Ushering in a Post-Textbook World, http://blog.boundless.com/2014/02/boundless-report-ushering-post-textbook-world/#more-1026
(5) ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology 2013, http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/ecar-study-undergraduate-students-and-information-technology-2013
(6) A Case Study in Obstacles to and Strategies for Negotiating the Relicensing of Third-Party Content, http://www.saylor.org/2013/04/a-case-study-in-obstacles-to-and-strategies-for-negotiating-the-relicensing-of-third-party-content/
This week the US House Representatives introduced H.R. 4186, the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology Act of 2014 (FIRST Act). The stated goal of the proposed law — “to provide for investment in innovation through scientific research and development, [and] to improve the competitiveness of the United States — is worthy and well received. But part of the bill (Section 303) is detrimental to both existing and proposed public access policies in the United States.
Section 303 of the bill would undercut the ability of federal agencies to effectively implement the widely supported White House Directive on Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research and undermine the successful public access program pioneered by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – recently expanded through the FY14 Omnibus Appropriations Act to include the Departments Labor, Education and Health and Human Services. Adoption of Section 303 would be a step backward from existing federal policy in the directive, and put the U.S. at a severe disadvantage among our global competitors.
The White House Directive, NIH Public Access Policy, Omnibus Appropriations Act, and the proposed Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR) all contain similar provisions to ensure public access to publicly funded research after a relatively short embargo (6-12 months). These policies make sure that articles created and published as a result of federal funding are deposited in a repository for access and preservation purposes. In addition, the policies provide for a reasonable process and timeline for agencies to development a plan to comply with the public access requirements.
The FIRST Act would conflict with each of these practices. Instead, if enacted it would permit agencies that must comply with the law to:
- Extend embargoes to federally funded research articles to up to 3 years after initial publication, thus drastically increasing the time before the public has free public access to this research. We’ve said before that the public should be granted immediate access to the content of peer-reviewed scholarly publications resulting from federally funded research. Immediate access is the ideal method to optimize the scientific and commercial utility of the information contained in the articles.
- Fulfill access requirements by providing a link to a publisher’s site. However, this jeopardizes long-term access and preservation of publicly-funded research in the absence of a requirement that those links be permanently preserved. A better outcome would be to ensure that a copy is deposited in a federally-controlled repository.
- Spend up to 18 additional months to develop plans to comply with the conditions of the law, thus further delaying the plans that are already being organized by federal agencies under the White House Directive and Omnibus Appropriations Act.
This bill is scheduled to be marked up in the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology tomorrow, March 13.
But there are better alternatives, both in existing policy (e.g. White House Directive), and in potential legislation (e.g. FASTR). Here’s what you can do right now:
- Send a letter to members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee opposing Section 303 of the FIRST Act.
- Use the SPARC action center to customize and send letters directly to your legislators. Tweet your opposition to Section 303 of the FIRST Act, or post about the bill on Facebook.
- Write a letter to the editor or an op-ed for your local or campus newspaper. You can write directly to them or by using the SPARC legislative action center.
- Share this post with your colleagues, labs, friends and family.
On the 18th of February, Creative Commons organized a debate on „Really Open Education. Domestic Policies for Open Educational Resources”, hosted by Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein, MEP. The meeting brought together almost 40 experts and stakeholders from a range of educational projects, national schooling systems, and national and international non-governmental organizations across Europe.
The debate started with a presentation of three national initiatives. Hans de Four, founder of the Belgian KlasCement, presented the project. KlasCement started as a bottom-up initiative to create a portal for sharing content among teachers. Currently, 70 000 teachers are members, and share 30 000 items, over half of which are available under a Creative Commons license. OERs on the site are downloaded 300 000 per month. de Four talked about the significance of having a bottom-up project, which is able to tap into the grassroots energy of teachers. At the same time he underlined the importance of the support of the Flemish government, which ultimately began supporting the project and is now a governmental initiative. de Four also mentioned the challenge faced by teachers when dealing with unclear copyright rules – especially the difference between which uses are allowed in the classroom, and which are allowed online. According to de Four, reforms that would clarify and standardize these rules for both online and offline education would be much appreciated by Belgian teachers.
Robert Schuwer from the Dutch Open University presented the Wikiwijs initiative – a repository similar to KlasCement, but different in several key ways. Wikiwijs is a top-down project, launched in 2008 by the Ministry of Education. All content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution or Attribution-Share Alike license. WIkiwijs has a peer review mechanism for ensuring quality, as well as quality marks certified by partner organizations. Schuwer explained that the goal of Wikiwijs is not just to increase the development and use of OERs, but to support teachers in professionalization and the creation of their own teaching materials or courses. The system makes available to Dutch teachers 650 000 content building blocks and 35 000 full lessons. Schuwer ended with providing a broader policy perspective – the Dutch government has recently announced a program that will provide EUR 1 million a year for development of open education at the higher education level.
The third speaker was Piotr Dmochowski-Lipski, director of the Polish Center for Educational Development. He presented the Polish open e-textbooks initiative (together with the educational resources repository, Scholaris). The e-textbooks project, which forms part of a larger “Digital School” initiative, will create a set of 62 publicly funded textbooks on 14 subjects by 2015. After presenting the project, Dmochowski-Lipski focused on policy issues related to the project, initially by relating to a range of European and Polish strategic documents. According to him, the project is a response to an egalitarian approach to educational matters in the Polish society, and growing belief that “What is 100% funded by public money should be free and accessible”. Dmochowski-Lipski demonstrated how open education fits into a broader public debate on copyright and funding of different forms of creativity, by presenting “pros” and “cons” raised by actors in the Polish debate. He ended by declaring commitment of the Polish government to developing OERs, coupled with a careful approach to copyright matters.
During the fourth presentation, Teresa Nobre from Creative Commons Portugal presented the preliminary results of a study of educational exceptions and limitations, which she has been investigating as part of the “OER policies for Europe” project (the full results will be available during 2014 Open Education Week). The presentation demonstrated the fragmented landscape of user rights that allow teachers, educators and students to quote works, make compilations for educational purposes, and transform works. This fragmentation leads to uncertainty and additional costs related to rights clearance, especially in international projects. On the one hand, this demonstrates the advantage of OERs as content that provides users with certainty about allowed uses. On the other hand, it shows the importance for reform and modernization of the copyright system in Europe.
The meeting ended with a speech by Ricardo Ferreira from DG Education and Culture, who presented the European “Opening Up Education” initiative. Ferreira argued that education is not just public spending, but an important investment for society. For this reason we need to bring education into the digital age, and at a time of budget cuts, increase its cost efficiency and effectiveness. Open education is an approach that can be helpful with regard to all these issues – especially if introduced as part of a comprehensive education reform. With regard to OERs, Ferreira stressed the complementarity of OERs and traditional resources – combined with the freedom of choice by teachers – as the basic principle. Finally, he described the importance of supporting grassroots initiatives – with this goal the “Opening Up Education” portal was created as a common access point. This, coupled with an Open Access requirement included in the Erasmus+ program, will according to Ferreira provide support for the growth of OER projects in Europe.
We hope that the event provided an opportunity for participants to learn more and discuss open education initiatives taking place in EU member states. We plan to continue this discussion, which hopefully will lead to the adoption of OER policies across Europe.
On the 18th of February, we are organizing a policy discussion about domestic policies on open education. The meeting is hosted by Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein, MEP and will have the format of a working breakfast. Our guests will include OER experts from Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal, as well as representatives of the DG Education and Culture, responsible for implementing the „Opening Up Education” initative.
During the meeting we would like to discuss how to implement open education projects as part of this initiative, both at European level and in member states. We hope that best examples of domestic policies will provide inspiration for other states.
Please join us in the European Parliament in Brussels on the 18th of February, 8.15-10.00. If you plan attending the event, please RSVP by sending email to: email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
More information can be found on the page of the event.
(This post is part of Copyright week, during which a range of organizations highlights key principles that should guide copyright policy – right in time for the European copyright consultations. Please also read posts published previously on the CC blog: on the public domain and on Open Access. Today’s theme is “You bought it, you own it”).
It’s ever harder to tinker with things
We live in societies, in which equipment and gadgets are ever more often „black boxes”. As users and consumers, we don’t have access to their internals – we cannot fix them, adapt them, modify. Sometimes it’s an issue of having advanced technical skills, and sometimes of owning a really strange screwdriver that will fit proprietary screws. And companies differ in their approaches – with a spectrum running between gadgets that just won’t open, and those that allow a „do it yourself” approach.
With physical objects, we understand well what owning them means, and how much control over them we have. But the same issues of ownership and control apply to symbolic goods – the digital files and content streams through which we experience our culture, education and science. In their case, it’s easy to confuse ownership with mere possibility of access and use – but without real control. And copyright is the mechanism that determines the extent of your ownership of a work.
What about digital files?
Some aspects of what you can do with digital files are determined by technology. You chose „copy”, but nothing happens the digital management system, defined by the seller, has just kicked in and limited your rights as an owner. But copyright choices made in license agreements, as well as general rules of copyright, are just as important. Even if you can copy a file, you might still be committing a crime.
True ownership of works in digital formats faces today many challenges. The shift to cloud computing, and concurrent rise of streaming services, significantly complicates the issue of our rights as users. Ever more often we access works that seem and feel as if they were really owned, but in fact are only made available to users as a service – with a very limited set of attached user rights, and with a reserved right of the content owner to cease the service at almost any moment.
How to give others the right to “tinker”?
But the opposite question can be asked – what can we do to provide users with rights, if we believe that cultural, educational or scientific works should be tinkered with, fixed, reused, recycled, copied and passed on to others?
At the technical level, all this can be done with files by virtue of their character as digital object: copying is error-free and costs practically nothing. Reuse is easy with a range of cheap or even free digital tools. The Net is an underlying infrastructure for sustainable and effective sharing. But things are more complicated at the legal level. Default copyright law makes digital content equivalent to physical objects that are meant to be carried – but lack handles; meant to be opened – but are fitted with non-standard screws. User rights are limited as they are by default reserved by rights-owners.
Open licensing, of the type that Creative Commons promotes, is a solution to this problem. For this reason, public policies need to address licensing, and not just technical or economic barriers to access to culture and knowledge. Many Open Access policies avoid licensing issues. They are still a huge step towards making culture, education or science available. But they stop short of giving us rights beyond access itself. This fact might have historic reasons, as Open Access to scientific research – as a movement – has a much longer track record than similar movements in culture or education. And in science, reuse of the research paper is not a significant stakes – one does not experiment with the scientific paper, but with formulas and materials described by it.
Educational resources want to be tinkered with
The case is very different with education, where educators work directly with content. The best of them tinker and reuse them in the process – and then have an urge to share with their peers. Similar arguments could be made with regard to culture, where what we now call a remix fit into a long tradition of artistic practise. The argument is in particular strong for public domain works – heritage that’s meant to be shared and used.
Makers, hackers and fixers teach us about the advantages of truly owning the things we have. And if you agree that we should be able to lift the hoods of our cars and fix them – then you should also care about real ownership of non-material good. This means caring about how copyright affects such ownership, and monitoring practices of commercial entities in this regard. But it also means open licensing of works – so that our education, culture and knowledeg is something that can be not just passively experienced, but tinkered with.
PLOS is pleased to announce the redesign of PLOS.org, which completes phase two of our website overhaul. The new landing page now enables visitors to navigate more quickly and easily to the information they need. Highlights of the new site also include a rotating carousel of PLOS’ most recent announcements, a news feed and a featured article from our suite of journals.
Phase one of our overhaul last year included updates to the journal websites. We are always looking to improve. Please send PLOS feedback as you navigate the new site. Comments are welcome at email@example.com. Thank you for supporting PLOS and its mission to transform research communication.
PLOS has been using the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license for almost 10 years as the default for the research that it publishes. On November 25, 2013, Creative Commons unveiled the next generation of open licenses to support the sharing of content. The new licenses are the result of an open community process with stakeholders from a wide range of domains, including research, education, and the creative arts, and PLOS is proud to have been involved in the effort to make the licenses work for researchers.
Two aspects of the Version 4.0 licenses are particularly important for researchers because they address issues that could have made reuse of published research more cumbersome. Firstly, the re-use rights for data within an article are made clearer and more consistent between different countries and regions.
Second, the licenses provide flexibility on attribution. This is important for research, and particularly for text and data mining, where a multitude of articles might be analyzed together. It doesn’t make sense to list every paper analyzed with each and every search result. It does make sense to link from each result to a page recognizing all the contributions. The new licenses still absolutely require attribution but allow all attributions to a large corpus to be collected together.
Another important aspect of the new licenses is that they combine the experience of several years of developing localized license variants into one international license, ensuring global compatibility and ease of use for all researchers, wherever they may be based.
PLOS will be publishing new articles under CC BY v4.0 beginning in mid-December for PLOS ONE and from January 1, 2014 for all other PLOS journals.
The CC BY license has long been an important part of realizing our aim, of creating the largest possible pool of accessible, re-usable and interoperable research content possible. Open Access is about more than content being free to read; it must also be free to re-use, and re-combine, not just with other articles, but with all forms of research information. The new version of the Creative Commons licenses, the global standard for web based content, is an important part of the toolkit for making that vision possible.
The following ‘letter to the editor’ was submitted to Science October 4, 2013 and was published on Sciencemag.org December 5, 2013.
John Bohannon’s News story “Who’s afraid of peer review?” (special section on Communication in Science, 4 October, p. 60) incriminates many Open Access (OA) journals. Our journal, PLOS ONE, was not implicated. It rejected the fraudulent paper promptly and for the right reasons, as Bohannon acknowledges. Still, the “study” was disappointing: It was not controlled, which would have required seeking to entrap a matched set of closed-access journals, yet it claims that a source of the problem is open access. It then concludes that profitability for OA journals is driven by volume, without acknowledging that the same is true for closed-access journals. The issues raised by Bohannon’s exercise are not about open access journals; they are about science and technical publishing and the peer review processes used throughout the industry.
In the short term, all scientific publishers have a responsibility to reinforce and strengthen pre-publication review. We must improve the efficiency of peer review and continue to perform checks that uncover conflicts of interest, identify financial disclosures, confirm author affiliations, and ensure compliance with international standards of animal and human testing.
Even with these tools, peer review will never be flawless. As Editor-in-Chief Marcia McNutt points out, it is “time-honored” and “the gold standard” (Editorial, p. 13), but that doesn’t mean our methods of evaluation can’t and shouldn’t be improved. This is the real challenge. And this is why PLOS is working to transform scientific communication by developing better measures of scientific quality both before publication (currently traditional peer review) and after publication (currently the dreaded impact factor).
To this end, PLOS is developing Article Level Metrics (ALMs) that enable the scientific community itself to confer on a research contribution its credibility, relevance, and importance, independent of the journal in which it is published. Peer review at its best is a continual process of critique and assessment.
Elizabeth MarincolaChief Executive Officer, The Public Library of Science, San Francisco, CA 94111, USA. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
The post Letter to the Editor of Science, by Elizabeth Marincola appeared first on The Official PLOS Blog.
The Council of the European Union, comprised of Ministers of member states, debated last week on the topic „Open Educational Resources and digital learning.” The debate was held during the meeting of the Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council on the 25-26th of November.
The meeting was related to the Commission’s „Opening Up Education” initiative, which was launched at the end of September and in which the development of OER policies plays a key role. Yet the scope of debate at the Council meeting was broader, and didn’t seem to be well connected to the “Opening Up Education” project. The Council did not provide a written conclusion on the matter. Based on limited available information (see the minutes of the meeting, p. 10), it seems that the Council focused primarily on broad issues related to digital learning and MOOCs (which are drawing significant attention from the public as well as policy makers).
Similarly, the brief position paper prepared by the Lithuanian Presidency, titled „Presidency Discussion Paper: Open Educational resources and digital learning”, does not provide a substantial viewpoint on OER. It lists advantages and challenges, and suggests that „time is ripe for a debate at European level on the opportunities and challenges which Open Educational Resources will undoubtedly bring”.
The „Opening Up Education” communication provides a much stronger view of OER as advantageous for education in Europe. It’s good news that representatives of the Ministries of Education are discussing OERs. But if the Council meeting is treated as a sample, there is still much work needed at the national level, so that policymakers are provided with a clear sense of the benefits of open education and the role of OERs within digital learning frameworks.
(Short report from the meeting is available on the Open Education Europa portal).
Now when you shop with Amazon, via AmazonSmile, 0.5% of eligible purchases can be donated to PLOS, at no cost to you.
PLOS will direct proceeds from this program to support authors who are unable to pay all or part of their publication fees.
Sign up today to help PLOS remove barriers to participation in Open Access publishing.
Remember: PLOS only benefits when you purchase through smile.amazon.com (not amazon.com). Initially you select “Public Library of Science” as your charitable organization and it should autoload on each visit.
(This guest post is written by Lisette Kalshoven from Kennisland)
The Netherlands has been a strong OER (Open Educational Resources) country since 2008 when the report on Education and Open Educational Resources was released by the Education Council. Because of the advice given in the report, the OER platform Wikiwijs was created to help teachers navigate through OER content and create their own. This was an enormous step forward in the world of OER. However, it has not proven to be the revolution in educational resources that some had hoped.
Although the platform Wikiwijs (now: www.wikiwijsleermiddelenplein.nl) gave teachers the opportunity to use, share and create (Open) Educational Resources, this is not enough to change the way we in The Netherlands produce and use educational resources. This is due to the bigger issues surrounding OER in The Netherlands:1. Strong regulations on educational material
In the Netherlands there are strong governmental regulations on what is high enough quality material to be taught in our schools. There are standardised tests in the final years of high school and learning materials developed especially to train students for the test. It is therefore very difficult for a teacher to develop OER material that completely fits the government profile.2. Who is paying for it?
The teachers are worried about the OER approach because they are afraid that content creation is going to be piled up on top of their regular workload. Who is going to pay for the time they spend on developing their own teaching materials? Are some much-needed hours for grading being allocated for work on OER platforms, or should teachers consider it a hobby and work on this in their free time?3. Teachers do not understand copyright
Ignorance about copyright is abundant in society, teachers not excluded. Even if teachers create new materials they often do not have the know-how to license it so that their fellow teachers can use it legally. And if they are aware that they have copyright on the materials they create (or use), there is an Education exception in the Dutch copyright law which adds up to the confusion.4. Wrong financial incentive
The Dutch government gives schools earmarked money to use for schoolbooks. That is why schools can’t use this money for anything else but books. Parents do not care about the pricing of schoolbooks because they do not feel like they are paying for the books themselves. Cost-saving discussions therefore will only be fruitful at a national level.What do we have to do?
We can do a lot to entice people to make more use of OER. There is much to be gained with an awareness programme for schools throughout the country. A lot of teachers already have the intention to create OER but are not aware of the possibilities and restrictions caused by not licensing them appropriately. We need to make OER more bottom-up than top-down.
Also, a lot of ground can be gained by taking the discussion back to the national level. Though OER was a priority for the Dutch Government in the late noughties, it seems to have withered substantially with the new minister(s) of education. If we can take some of the enthusiasm for OER present at the EU level (propagated by my fellow Dutchperson Neelie Kroes) back to the national debate, maybe we can solve bigger issues such as the earmarked schoolbook money and the time allocation for teachers.