Klang, Mathias,"The Digital Commons: Using Licenses to Promote Creativity."
The paper beings with the concept of property as "mine", which at an early age is always contrasted with the concept of sharing. The new digital age tests out currently property regulation, since things are now copied with ease. Importantly, "that which is owned is no longer simply the item itself but the privileges which it provides to the owner". How, then, do we reconcile property rights and the public domain (the commons)? Property law in Western civilization tends to bestow all rights onto a single person. He defines ownership as a "collection of rights which complement each other and grant to the owner the authority to legitimately enforce conditions". The focus on possesion complicates the property law when dealing with intagible objects.
Klang offers the differing views people have of the commons, citing sources as far back as Aristotle and as recent as Lessig. The first, and considerably widespread, is the belief in the "tragedy of the commons". The second argues that the idea of the tragedy is false since it does not consider the environment in which the commons exists. The commons itself is a considerably vague term (consisting only of notions of property and sharing), and the public doman is defined only as what it is not (it is not legally protected intellectual property). According to Klang, what the public domain is "is our collective culture". He continues to explain the basics of the current copyright law and how owning the content of something limits the creativity of others. Creative Commons was developed to help ensure an ease of sharing and the creativity that the commons encourages. He explains, as most do, the basics to how Creative Commons licenses work, concluding that though copyright is a tricky game, "we can also be certain that we will always need a commons or a public domain from which we can create and recombine into new culture for us to enjoy".
This article provides a great overview of the debate that currently surrounds copyright and Creative Commons, extending into the idea of the commons itself. As we saw, there are those who believe that the commons is nothing but a vast wasteland or an "overgrazed pasture", which my project hopes to discredit by emphasizes the good things that have come out of the commons. There are others who believe in the benefit of the commons, taking into consideration the situation in which they exist and the fact that the web allows for social cohesion and trust among those involved. It is this view that conforms to the models that I expand on, showing the many different ways that online communities have been affected by the commons and vice versa. Importantly, this article explain Creative Commons licenses as well and helps to illuminate the debate about property by offering definitions of terms that are really, less than clear in the law today. It really is the basis for this project.
Carroll, Michael W.,Creative Commons and the New Intermediaries. Michigan State Law Review, Vol. 45, 2006; Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2005-13.
Carroll argues that Creative Commons licenses play both disintermediating and intermediating roles on the Web. He first points out that there is currently a proliferation of them on the web, a development that was quickly followed by search engines designed to look for works with CC licenses. In this way, they have become disintermediaries by enabling end-to-end transactions and become reintermediatiares by allowing new services to be preformed and new online communities to form.
Carroll explains how CC licenses work, stating that "as of this writing, there are 16,000,000 digital objects accessible over the internet linked to CC licenses". Creative Commons not only acts as an intermediary, but enables other intermediaries as well. These include search engines, archives and libraries, producers and publishers ("which facilitates amateur-to-amateur communication"), and CC communities, offering examples of each and how they function. Under CC communities, he describes places that are dedicated to music, visual art, photographs, blogs, and education. This revolution in copyright has helped to spur Berner's-Lee and his colleagues to create a new Semantic Web, which will offer a higher degree of interoperability.
What is most important to the discussion of Creative Commons and online communities in Carroll's article is the vast list of examples he provides. This is an amazing list of the different ways that CC has facilitated different models of online communities. He cites Flickr for photography, which is the largest site for both commercial and noncommercial uses of photographs licenses under CC. It's only one model though and there are many, many more. CC has facilitated new business models as well, which Flickr is not. Magantune is a music site that has created a business in which users can listen to the works for free and then download CC licenses music at the price of their choosing. CC has, as Carroll shows, made a large impact on internet community's, and been used in different models, some nonprofit, some for profit, all based on the communities needs.
Creative Commons. "Monkeyc.net." CC Wiki.
Monkeyc.net belongs to the former photojournalist John Harvey who now uses Flickr to display his work under a CC license. The case study offers a brief overview of Harvey's activity on Flickr- he started in September, 2004 and currently has almost a thousand photos uploaded. Some of his photos have been featured on the Explore page of Flickr due to his popularity. He uses the CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 generic license. According to Bjorn Bednarek, seeing a former professional photographer willing to use CC licenses is encouraging because it helps to "legitimize and popularize Creative Commons". To Harvey, photography is merely something he enjoys and he is glad to share it with others who would like to include it in their own visions. He writes that "the scope is infinite and it sets the images free in so many ways".
Monkeyc.net is one of the case studies featured on the Creative Commons website. It is one example of a more specific case in which CC has become popular and the way it is used is online communites. Flickr has become a huge photography site recently and it provides a great outlet for artists who would like to share their work with others. John Harvey is one of those people who shares the sentiment with UbuWeb that "information should be free to all." However, instead of simply circumventing copyright, he has embraced CC licenses and demonstrated how they can offer an effective solution, especially in a community that has quickly become CC based. Again, this source shows yet another model for online communities and how they handle the copyright problem. The commons doesn't seem so much like the vast wasteland many think it will become, but a rich environment of creative works.
Bledsoe, Elliott. "Lessig's Use of Flickr Photos: is Creative Commons Really a Community?" Creative Commons Through the Looking Glass.
Bledsoe's blog was inspired by a comment Lessig made on his own blog about how, after using a photograph from Flickr in a post, the photographer actually came up to him in Hong Kong. According to Lessig, it was "the most amazing fact of the day". This led Bledsoe to question how, or even if, Creative Commons functions as a community since it relies not only on legal permission but on the idea of sharing and the relationships that sharing facilitates. What makes CC different is that things are not directly shared like they would be in the real world. He compares CC to borrowing a cup of sugar from your neighbor, which involves a direction need and interaction. Using a CC license, however, preempts sharing. Even though someone may not need or want to use the work, permission has been granted anyway without any direction interaction between parties. CC also lacks direct membership which even other online communities have. The point here is that with no central hub and no obvious boundaries in the community, it's actually likely that "members" (those using CC licenses) will feel very isolated. CC then becomes a community only in the fact that it facilitates smaller subcommunities which have come to use it.
This article emphasizes this idea that Creative Commons facilitates communities and, in turn, the commons. Some of the examples of subcommunities that Bledsoe mentions are Flickr and DeviantArt, places that my project hopes to emphasize as models of the value of the commons online and how Creative Commons plays a role in it. Both of them are made possible, at least in part, but the larger CC community. However, the article points out an important distinction. CC itself is not (at least not yet) a community in the same way that Flickr and DeviantArt are. No one has to sign up or login to use CC licenses. No one discriminates against who can and cannot use these licenses and therefore little is shared among users except for their willingness to share. But smaller communities that embrace CC licenses offer the boundaries and distinctions necessary for a community to really flourish.
Creative Commons. "DeviantArt." CC Wiki.
This case study is about the "world's largest, most vibrant, and relevant online community focused specifically on ART" (DeviantArt, or simply DA), which was founded in 2000 by Scott Jarkoff, Angelo Sotira, and Matthew Stephens. The site hosts around 55 million works by 4.5 million users, spanning all categories of art from skins to photomanipulations, animations, stocks, paintings, literature, and more. There are free memberships as well as subscription based memberships. Those with subscriptions enjoy more benefits, such as earning fifty percent of any revenue from prints versus the ten percent non-subscriptions members would earn. DA offers an advertising service (adCast), which gives discounted rates to "non-profit and community-related products".
DA began using CC licenses in November, 2006. The default on the site is still regular copyright, but users have the option of placing their work under a CC license. DA administrators operate under the same system of take-down notices that many places do when works infringe on copyright. If someone complains that their work has been used against their wishes, the administration deletes it. The owner of the deleted work still has the opportunity to argue that it was not copyright infringement though. CC is seen as preferable to watermarking images and though DA doesn't believe it will solve all the problems, it is excited about its ability to help alleviate them.
DeviantArt is a truly wonderful example of how CC, copyright, and online community norms come together. Many users license works under CC, mainly for the purpose of becoming part of a photomanipulation later on. The beauty of this is photomanipulation for many people would be impossible without the stock provided by other artists. This is just one of the things that DA and CC facilitates. However, as an online community, DA also has a standard of norms. The case study briefly mentions the messaging network that helps connect DA users to one another, just one of the services on the site that allows for this community to grow. More importantly, the community knows that many artists do not use CC licenses, preferring to list their own rules in journals or comments on their images when CC does not offer enough. Most artists request a link to the finished work. In this way, the artist can see how their work is being used and the creator of the new work is also able to share their work with others. DA is really a flourishing example of how online communities add to the commons, be it through CC or their own standard practices.
Goldstein, Jim. "Creative Commons." Digital Photo Pro.
Goldstein begins by pointing out that "digital photography has fueled a revolution in online media consumption". Photographers need to be aware of copyright laws. Of course, there is always the problem that copyright can't keep up with the digital world- enter Creative Common's licenses, which Lessig designed to adapt to the 21st century and allow authors to provide freedoms on their work that will help enrich online culture. Goldstein explains the three layers of CC licenses: machine-readable expression, commons deed, and legally enforceable terms. Th question he then raises is whether or not CC is right for professional photographers. He believes that it is important to realize that "image availability is now taken for granted" and is therefore seen not as intellectual property but free content.
This is where Creative Commons comes in. It serves to improve the granting of permission with legal licenses that allow photographers to decide what rights to give away without the hassle of hoping internet users go out of their way to personally ask permission. The licenses are designed to be as clear as possible, so most if not all users can easily disguish what rights are given and what rights are not. CC has already developed a passionate following and even the heavyweight Flickr has adopted these licenses. The CC+ license was designed specifically for photographers; it enables publishers to pursue commercial rights and other services beyond the normal noncommercial CC license. So then, that's the answer to Goldstein's question? He doesn't have one. Instead, he argues that the use of CC is a personal choice for each photographer, but that they should consider the pros and cons of the different licenses.
While the article doesn't delve to deeply into the choices photographers have to make when deciding whether or not to use a CC license, it gives both a simple and easy to understand overview of Creative Commons and outlines the factors that affect photographers in the digital world. And while he poses more questions than he answers, it does leave readers with food for thought. In a world where content is assumed to be free and especially with photography, where keeping a name attached to an image is difficult, to say the least, what choice do you think you would make? He points out the important things to consider when deciding; perhaps most importantly, once something has a CC license, you can't change it back.
tagged copyright creative_commons digital_photography by kristea ...on 07-APR-09
"This is a community music remixing site featuring remixes and samples licensed underlicenses. You are free to download and sample from music on this site and share the results with anyone, anywhere, anytime. Some songs might have certain restrictions, depending on their specific licenses. Each submission is marked clearly with the license that applies to it."
Katz also examines the realm of digital sampling, but he does so with a keen detective’s eye, looking at the practice from the outside-in. He uses three case studies to show the main uses and techniques employed with digital sampling. First of which is a “song” created by Paul Lansky with recordings of human voices speaking random words entitled “Notjustmoreidlechatter.” The complicated issue of speech and music is addressed through this first instance of sampling and Katz identifies the specifications and implications of either one. Secondly, he compares two pop songs, Camille Yarbrough’s “Take Yo’ Praise” and Fatboy Slim’s “Praise You,” which uses bits of the former in its creation of the latter. Finally, he breaks down the numerous sampled bits in Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power.” Public Enemy’s strong political message coupled with the nature of his samplings creates one of the most powerful sample-ridden songs of contemporary music.
Katz only does so after first clarifying with the reader what exactly sampling is. This definition has been found in the majority of the sources, but none went on to detail the legal issues as well as Katz. He also goes on to explore the question of originality and immorality in terms of remixing and sampling. Nevertheless, his case studies have proven most useful in determining the full extensions of digital sampling in music and his insight into its effect on music today. He also lightly touches on the various effects parodies have upon the original work, if any, and acknowledges the complexities within the industry when it comes to approval for such works. This book could possibly be the best source found thus far, seeing as it is not overly specific in its subject matter, yet it explores enough topics in a reasonable level of detail to be reliable.
tagged camille_yarbrough copyright copyright_act creative_commons digital_sampling fatboy_slim international_copyright_law morality music music_industry notjustmoreidlechatter paul_linsky phonorecords piracy public_enemy remixing sampling speech by minglet ...on 25-NOV-08
This source happens to be a blog entry written by a visiting professor at Washington College of Law who is also on the board of Creative Commons at the college. The blog is a response to a Sixth Circuit court interpretation of the Copyright Act in the case of Bridgeport Music vs. Dimension Films which stated that artists must either have a license or abandon their sampling. Carroll then continues to explain a few stipulations in the Copyright Act and their involvement in this court decision, namely Section 114 and Section 106.
Carroll analyzes the courts assessment of de minimus in the Copyright Act and how it was originally interpreted in the local Bridgeport court. In the appellate court, however, Carroll finds fault with the way the court approached its decision, moving straight to Section 114 instead of focusing on Section 106. He disagrees with their reading of the Act and consequently, their decision to remove de minimus from the realm of sound recordings, stating that he does not believe there is a “statutory basis for the rule announced by the court in this case.”
Carroll’s stance in the Creative Commons forum at a prominent law school in the United States, as well as his origins in, and knowledge of, international copyright law once again present the material in a newly-cast light. The case he references is one of much importance to the focus of this final paper and his commentary on the subject is clear and well-formed. This source provides a very narrow view into one single court decision that acts as a useful spotlight among other more general sources.
You may generate maps interactively at planiglobe. Zoom in and out, search for places and add your own locations to a map.
The ps- and ai-versions (which you can download) are compatible to the PostScript® level 1 language and the Illustrator® 7 format, respectively.
These formats are vector based graphic formats which overcome resolution limitations usually found with JPEG or GIF formats. You can select and edit single objects or groups of lines, points or polygons and change graphic attributes such as size and color. Check with you favorite graphics package for the ps- or ai-format support.
The Journal is open access. Articles accepted and published in the Journal will be free to read for anyone with internet access. This increases the visibility of scientific communication, both to other researchers and to the public at large. The research will not be held captive by for-profit publishers or buried in stacks of university libraries. All papers accepted for publication will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License 3.0 .
The Journal is free to publish in. Unlike some open access journals, there are no fees for publishing in the journal. The Journal is operated on a volunteer basis with some institutional support from the Center for Transportation Studies at the University of Minnesota. The costs are reduced as there is no paper version of the Journal, which is online-only.
The Journal is peer-reviewed. All scientific articles are reviewed by other researchers in the field for their scientific merit on questions of transport and land use (including originality, accuracy, relevance, importance, and transparency - including comprendibility and reproducability). Reviews, Opinion, and Commentary are reviewed by the editors.
Open Source is a conversation, four times a week on the radio and any time you like on the blog. We designed the show to invert the traditional relationship between broadcast and the web: we aren’t a public radio show with a web community, we’re a web community that produces a daily hour of radio.
"Full copyright applies to most stuff on the web. But this search helps you find photos, music, text, and other works whose authors want you to re-use it for some uses -- without having to pay or ask permission."
Call#: Van Pelt Library K1401 .L47 2001
The Future of Ideas was Lawrence Lessig’s precursor to Free Culture. It is extremely tech-heavy and goes into great detail about the history and infrastructure of the internet, and the principles the internet was built upon. He describes how these values of freedom and the free interchange of ideas are being corrupted by the extreme of copyright control in our society. The drastic increase and rapid changes in technology have gotten out of hand, and there is no longer a balance between public and private goals. Our past traditions can still come into play, and changes in technology do not have to alter our law or culture. The DMCA is a good example of a flawed law put into place as a response to changing technology. The juxtaposition of the early internet to what it is now is striking – the extremes of copyright and the lack of works in the public domain have severely stifled creativity.
The three main sections of the book are a discussion of the importance of “the commons” on the internet, how to recapture online creativity and innovation, and how to stop the increasing restrictions on the internet. The first section details the need for more free resources on the internet, and a realm of works that are owned by everyone, without control to their use or access. Lessig explains in detail the principles of the GNU/Open Source movement, and how important it is to the innovation commons, moreso because large companies lack the ability to quickly adapt to technology changes. The second section illustrates how the constraints that stifle creativity on the internet need to be removed, and gives examples of online innovation such as HTML books, mp3s, and online cultural databases. The need for new models and new ideas is strong. The third section shows how the law is being manipulated by corporations, and their increasing control over web content. Copyright and patent laws have been virtually re-written to stifle the creativity of individuals, and increase the control of government-backed media conglomerates.
The book is as pessimistic as Free Culture, but does offer some ideas as to how to alter this negative process. Lessig introduces the ideas of Creative Commons and 5-year copyright term renewals, if desired by the copyright owner. He emphasizes the importance of removing special interests, and finding new ways to spread information for free. He also encourages individuals to go after large corporations if they provide false claims to copyright.
This book is extremely important because of how it details the internet and online copyright issues. It very accurately describes the foundation of the internet, and shows just how far away from that beginning things have gone.
Call#: Van Pelt Library KF2979 .L47 2004
Lessig illustrates a wide variety of specific examples, offers a thorough discussion of the important issues, and describes complex legal and economic issues in very easy-to-understand language. His mission seems to be to get this information about the current state of American copyright out to the public, since they are the ones being most harmed by the extremes of copyright control. The two main arguments are that over-extensive copyright goes against the tradition of developing new creative works from what has come before, and that the continuing extension of copyrights is unconstitutional (by ignoring the wording of the law that states a copyright will be for “limited times”). The lament is for the lack of a plentiful public domain, and how that negatively affects transformational and innovative expression. It also prevents important information from being disseminated to the public.
Much of the book centers on the Eldred v Ashcroft case which made it to the Supreme Court. The case focused on the two issues mentioned above. Lessig’s honesty about the arguments and outcome of the case are refreshing, but his overall view is pessimistic. The Supreme Court decision was against Eldred, stating that Congress can continue to extend older copyrights at their discretion, setting up a system of lobbying and corruption.
Lessig’s dislike and distrust of extremes is clear, and he does offer some ideas for a more moderate copyright culture in the US. One of the ideas expounded is Creative Commons, a way for content owners to license their own work, and start creating a richer public domain. It is now up to creators and artists themselves, since large corporations and Congress seem to be working together to restrict the public domain.
The goal of Creative Commons is to build a reasonable layer of copyright for the public to access. The licenses are simple, and easy to read - no need for a lawyer. There is a variety of licenses offered, so the creator can choose what they want; somewhere between “all” and “no rights reserved”. It gives copyright owners a wider realm of freedom, but also creates a world of content that others can use and build on.
Call#: Van Pelt Library K1401 .L47 2001
This project is a systematic study of why and how it makes sense for commercial companies and noncommercial institutions active in culture, education, and media to make certain materials widely available for free, and also how free services are finding new (sometimes commercial) ways of becoming sustainable.
Site includes MP3s of lots of the shows.