I’m liveblogging the 4th annual Gikii conference, kindly hosted by IViR in Amsterdam. (Gikii Programme)
Incentives and Constraints for Dutch Public Broadcasters to Adopt Creative Commons Licensing
Maarten Brinkerink and Inge van Beekum
Review of the (really neat and amazing) Images for the Future project.
Using CC-BY-SA as preferred license. Also only publicly showing images / content in low quality.
Economic arguments – state’s TV licence fee, membership contribution, and indirect profits.
Production quality arguments – recontextualization, cultural heritage and the cultural and collective memory.
What are the incentives for public broadcasters to sign up?
Me: not sure why this is the preferred license for a public institution. I think that CC-BY (or even a public domain dedication such as CC0) is best bet to match public remit.
When people say “creative commons license” must always unpack – there are six very different main licenses and not all of them open under the open definition. http://opendefinition.org/
Creative Commons licenses incompatibilities : when sharing needs to be rationalized
Melanie Dulong de Rosnay
CC as goal to facilitate sharing and remix.
Does the CC math 11 options reduced to 6 options, with 4 versions, over 50 jurisdictions = too many licenses (Amen to that!). The lawyer readable code is often not that readable to lawyers or humans. There are issues around mixing the licenses and incompatibility on their face (CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-ND for example) and more subtle problems (like around database rights) Unported has problems around scope and how everything plays out in each jurisdiction.
Three options to help simplify based on community input:
– Collection (re derivative works)
Representation – this is the warranty problem of how do you make sure that whoever licensed content under CC had the rights to do so and cleared it for other infringement. How to solve this problem, as the question is really difficult for the licensor to answer?
Collection – more clarity needed around want is a collective work and what is an adaptation.
Me – all great points. I’d say that the guidelines are interesting — the core is that they may not be part of the actual contract/license, but they build up a community of practice to bake in the understanding to how it would be interpreted (this is part of the Open Data Commons ODbL discussion as well).
Copyright and torts
(for lack of a given title)
NB that this is a new paper and not Location, Location Still Matters: Pop Stars, User-Generated Popular Culture & The Dislocation Of Non-Location as in programme
The combo of torts and copyright. Long separate in many ways, but the core bit is the analysis of actors and the nature of the injury. Property right analysis (copyright) focuses on “do you have property” and “was there a taking around the property”. Shows that copyright may be immature in that it doesn’t take into the arguments around the nature of the injury.
His end policy argument – judges should put in fair use into questions around amateur remix.
Interesting point about moving fair use from a shield to a sword and that judges in the US can make this switch within the law.
Me – parallels to Patry’s SCL talk from earlier this year Crafting an Effective Copyright Law and readers should listen to it if able.
Protecting the public domain: a five point plan’
Digital environmentalism — mixing parallels from environmentalism to digital domain.
Key parts from environmental / biology:
– survey of world flora and fauna – you know more and more about rich global diversity
– biological wealth – pharma prospecting
– conservation – saving what remains
– restore the wild lands
In the digital domain:
– comprehensive survey of global knowledge
– can build the digital wealth
– need for digital sustainability
– can we save what remains – public domain in IP
– restore the wild lands – maybe a safe harbor in copyright