Week 7 Tutorial - Creative Commons

 Some Rights Reserved by TilarX, 2007

1. What is creative commons, and how could this licensing framework be relevant to your own experience at university?

Creative Commons (CC) is a not-for-profit organisation that offers authors of creative works a flexible, alternative and free approach to licensing. In response to the global Copyright/Public Domain dichotomy of licensing, the organisation provides authors with a range of flexible, mix-n-match licences that can be applied, free of charge, to any works they might create, including those made available to others via the web.

By selecting one or more of the following licences, authors have more freedom to display, disseminate and share their works with web users without relinquishing credit for the works or fundamental authorship. Visit the Creative Commons website for a full description and terms of each licence and licence combination.

Attribution | CC BY
 Share Alike | CC SA
Noncommercial | CC NC
No Derivative Works | CC ND

Creative Commons Australia is the affiliate of the CC organisation, being responsible for administering Australian CC licences.

As a university student, I could envisage these kinds of 'middle ground' licensing tools being adopted by undergraduate and postgraduate students to retain a sense of ownership over academic and creative works without prohibiting other students from accessing, using, sharing, or learning from them. The stop-motion short films we created in Week 2 of this course are just one example.

2. Examples of works that are licensed through Creative Commons.



 Thomas Bower, 2008

Photo sharing social media site Flickr encourages the use of the Creative Commons licensing framework. The example here is a peice of digital artwork that was created by Thomas Bower in 2008. The work uses approximately 4000 images from Flickr that are licenced under one or more types of Creative Commons licence.

The music band Radiohead is well known for its espousal of the Creative Commons, both ideologically and practically speaking. The music video included here - 'House of Cards' - was created using laser 3D Plotting technology, and is licenced under the Creative Commons framework.

3. An academic article that discusses creative commons.

As recently as January of this year, Laura Gordon-Murnane penned a succinct analysis of the 'Free Culture' movement entitled, Creative Commons: Copyright Tools for the 21st Century (2010). The article, which appeared in Online journal, describes three major events and a general ideological shift that fished the Creative Commons from the proverbial 'thinktank' and transplanted it into the twenty-first century and increasingly common usage.

The author cites two significant twentieth century revisions of United States copyright laws (the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1988), along with the advent of the internet and the beginnings of the movement away from a read-only, analog-format culture as the principle triggers for the Free Culture movement. The Creative Commons (CC) is described as a 'new category' of copyright protection that has developed in response to the peculiar nature of a burgeoning read/write culture spear-headed by Web 2.0.

Far from singing uncensored praises for the 'Some Rights Reserved' option, Gordon-Murnane outlines both the benefits and drawbacks associated with adopting the framework. Perhaps the most significant of the drawbacks mentioned is the 'irrevocable nature' of CC licences: essentially, content creators can opt to cease distributing work under a CC licence, however, those copies of the work already distributed cannot be withdrawn or retrieved (Gordon-Murnane, 2010). The ease of disseminating and copying digital content online, coupled with this provision of the CC framework mean that potential CC licensors should carefully consider how they want their works to be used by others, now and in the future.

Creative Commons vice president Mike Linksvayer makes the comment to the author that, where Noncommercial (CC NC) licences are concerned, licensors should expect some uses of their work that do not meet with conservative definitions of that CC licensing tool (Gordon-Murnane, 2010, p.21).

It is surprising that this course has provided me with my first contact with the Creative Commons, given that Creative Commons licensing tools (which have parallels with Richard Stallman's GNU General Public License model for software) were released publicly in January 2002... Even more interesting was the note that appears at the bottom of this article when printed from http://www.onlinemag.net/:

"Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission."

Clearly, despite widespread adoption of the framework by academic institutions, libraries, museums, and more recently, scientific communities, some reservations are still harbored by well-informed members of the creative community.

4. What is Portable Apps, and how is it useful?

Let's begin by considering what Portable Apps are and who uses them. Portable Apps - or portable application software - run from portable drive devices, such as CDs, iPods, USBs and external hard drives. Rather than storing files and settings on the host computer or operating system, all configuration files necessary to run the application are stored with the program files on the portable device.

At first I struggled to grasp the link between Portable Apps and the Creative Commons, however, I stumbled across PortableApps.com, which provides a directory of 'free open source software and freeware portable apps'. It seems that both Portable Apps and the Creative Commons subscribe to certain ideals associated with the 'Free Culture' movement. The suite of programs provided on PortableApps.com, for example, is free of charge; the suite is also free from spyware and advertising, doesn't require you to declare your personal details, and won't pester you to purchase or download further software. Essentially, there is no question of users choosing between privacy and accessibiliy, as is the case with many social networking websites and standard software applications. Like some Creative Commons-licenced works, Portable Apps are also free in terms of copying and sharing the software: this characteristic is in line with the tendency of 'social media' devices and applications to facilitate the dissemination of knowledge and culture freely amongst users worldwide.
Various other benefits are commonly associated with Portable Apps including the convenience of reliable transfer of your personal settings, bookmarks, email, et cetera to any Windows computing platform.

Mozilla Firefox (Portable Edition) is an example of a Portable Apps browser combatible with Windows and Wine (Linux/Unix) operating systems. Not only is the software free (excepting downloading 'costs'), but the application allows users to use a familiar and customised browser on any compatible PC without inadvertently installing program files and leaving personal data behind.
OpenOffic.org Portable is a complete office suite (word processor, spreadsheeting tool, and presentation, drawing and database utilities) with the same benefits.

Reference List

Bower, Thomas. (2008). 2500 Creative Commons Licences [Digital artwork]. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from http://www.flickr.com/photos/qthomasbower/3640362081/

Gordon-Murnane, L. (2010). Creative Commons: Copyright Tools for the 21st Century. Online, 34(1), pp 18-21.

Week 7 Lecture - Culture is Not a Crime

For the last lecture on Web 2.0 and virtual communities, Adam took the reins. He was at the helm again this week for an eye-opening lecture on Open Source software and Creative Commons licences.

The idea that 'social media' (or social social technologies) exist largely to facilitate collaboration, community and the dissemination of culture amongst like-minded individuals is at odds with and somewhat hampered by intellectual property laws... At least, as far as they can be applied to copyright and licencing laws for created works, including music, text, images and audiovisual content.

Most of us are very conscious of the stringent copyright laws that 'protect' various physical objects and intellectual ideas - we could hardly avoid this little guy - © - if we tried. It's attached to the logos, catch phrases, images and other works generated by millions of companies worldwide. It's a stamp of secrecy and exclusivity that prohibits users from downloading, trading, creating and sharing ideas, information and content without the permission of the 'original' author.

In his book, Viral Spiral (2010), David Bollier suggests that the advent of the internet, free software and the World Wide Web have been world-changing sources of empowerment for the 'commoners' of the digital age - he's referring to you and I, of course.
  
"Ordinary people went online, if only to escape the incessant blare of television and radio, the intrusive ads and the narrow spectrum of expression. People started to discover their own voices . . . and their own capabilities . . . and one another."

 Bollier's 'viral spiral' describes the 21st century shift of the attention of a growing number of everyday people (A.K.A. commoners) from commercial to homegrown media genres: the ensuing barrage of content creators (artists, 'techies', activists, scientists, et cetera) saw the need for an online commons. The result was the 'free culture' movement. Bollier's support of the Creative Commons is linked to his belief that the ability of the internet to 'virally propagate creativity' has the potential to disseminate a novel idea across physical boundaries to a person or group that can truly benefit from it (Bollier, 2010). Secondly, Bollier refers to the "messy, irregular, indeterminate, serendipitous" process of change that epitomises life and innovation online (2010): the Creative Commons not only facilitate the flow of creativity and culture that is necessary for continued development across all facets of society; CC also provides a framework far better suited to the peculiar nature of online data content and creator/user interactions.

True to form, Bollier has made a digital version of his book available on the web under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence.



I must admit, that I had no idea, prior to attending this lecture, what the Creative Commons are or that there had ever been an issue in applying traditional intellectual property laws to online content. The concept of making content accessible in order to serve the needs of society and fellow creators, and to foster more liberal cultural sharing amongst creators worldwide is intriguing to me. As a graphic design student several years ago, I was drilled quite comprehensively in the strict practices of using others' content and protecting my own creations. The emphasis was on ensuring one's own creations were safe from those unseen online enemies poised to pilfer, defile, and rip-off to make a tidy (and undeserved) profit. I'm now left wondering why the Creative Commons were never discussed during my studies... and whether it might have been more wise to discuss ways to generate the greatest common good through sharing, rather than 'fencing off' digital works from my fellow commoners.

Reference List
 
Bollier, D. (2010). Viral Spiral. London; New York: The New Press.

Week 6 Tutespark - Who owns online content?

Who owns the content we put on the internet on various sites?

In the wake of the Web 2.0 movement, the average prosumer has been very active in terms of producing a range of creative media, including original photos, video, audio and text.

In the physical world, empiricism rules. Intellectual property and general property laws ensure clarity of ownership of objects and (physically or verbally documented) ideas. These laws also protect the rights of the owners of those ideas and objects to profit from their creations... But how does this apply to online digital systems and codes? If an idea is documented in the form of a binary code and uploaded to the web for the viewing or listening pleasure of anyone with internet access... are all property rights forfeited? After all, the purpose of the two-way web is to facilitate the dissemination and sharing of knowledge and culture in the guise of digital bytes.

My background research for this response included signing up for a Yahoo!7 ID in order to access the kind of terms and conditions document we tend to sign without reading each and every time we join a 'social media' site or group. Article 9 from the Yahoo!7 Terms of Service explains that Yahoo!7 does not 'claim ownership' of the content you submit on the service... unless, of course, you upload that content to a 'publicly accessible area' of the service (i.e. Message Board, Photos, Briefcase)! In such cases, Yahoo!7 reserves the right to "...use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display..." (Yahoo!7, 2010) such content, including photos, graphics, audio and video.

Similarly, Facebook's comparable terms agreement assures us that we as users retain full ownership and control over all content and information we may choose to upload or post on the site (2010). Of course, content that is covered by intellectual property rights (i.e. photos, video) is subject to Facebook's "... non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License") (2010).

Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0 sums up the confusion and scramble for rights in two emerging 'realities' that concern the future of the web:
1) Data is POWER; and
2. A war will be fought over control of the data (Karp, 2008).

I think it’s unlikely we will see the cycle end any time soon — with the disintegration of distribution monopolies, the new power in media is in the data. That’s how Facebook got it’s $15 billion valuation — the potential to exploit its users’ data.

Karp asks us to question the fairness of an exchange wherein users must give up control over their data for a 'free' service... I would answer that free social media services are not, in fact, free. Many users of services like Twitter, Facebook, and Yahoo!7 (myself included) have paid, and continue to pay for these services with the rights to their own private information and the data they will create and share via those service providers. This data is a powerful and underestimated digital currency.

Will you continue to pay for web services in data dollars. Or, like Robert 'Che' Scoble (Carr, 2008), are you leaning towards some kind of alternative action, be it legal or otherwise. What are the alternatives?

Reference List

Carr, N. (2008). Scoble: Freedom fighter or data thief? [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2008/01/scoble_freedom.php

Facebook. (2010). Statement of Rights and Responsibilities [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/terms.php?ref=pf

Karp, S. (2008). The Coming War Over Data on the Web [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 10, 2010, http://publishing2.com/2008/01/03/the-coming-war-over-data-on-the-web/

Yahoo!7. (2010). Yahoo!7 Terms of Service [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Week 6 Lecture - Social Social Technology Technologies

The influence of the internet has reached into every major domain of our lives: business, education, social networking, romance, parenting, banking, marketing, advertising, recreation, travel, news and reporting, arts and culture, politics, information gathering… and the virtually unstoppable dissemination of culture.

The advent of ‘Web 2.0’ or Read/Write Web (Berners Lee, 1999) has seen users take control of new communication technologies and challenge the media user/producer dichotomy that epitomised web 1.0 in its heyday.

In an interview with the BBC’s Mark Lawson, Tim Berners Lee shunned the idea that debate surrounding Web 2.0 is simply a question of weighing up the advantages and disadvantages and deciding whether or not it would be better to “turn the whole thing off” (2004). Berners Lee describes this latest evolution as the progressive fulfilment of his original conception of a user-friendly web. When asked if exposure to unsolicited content and the risks of identity theft outweigh the social advantages of Web 2.0, Berners Lee suggested that the current web network simply “…allows people to do what they want to do more efficiently… in an information space which doesn't know geographical boundaries” (2005).

Just as in the ‘physical reality’, then, the onus for protecting the interests, property and safety of users is firmly on the users themselves. Enthusiastic media users crossing the divide by producing and distributing their own original material on the web may be less aware of the possible drawbacks, however.

Many users will be familiar with persistent junk mail and chain mail messages forwarded to them by supposed friends, as well as viral agencies hoping to create potential ‘viral hits’ for a range of businesses (The Oxford Dictionary, 2010). Musicians, artists, authors and filmmakers too are locked in a love-hate symbiotic relationship with ego-centric users: they both depend on and prohibit the file sharing or virtual ‘word-of-mouth’ necessary for popularity and success.

At issue here might be described as a case of content mediation catching up to technology. One outcome of the ‘virtual gold rush’ of intellectual property exchange, transfer and storage online is a growing tension between accessibility and ownership of digital content in cyberspace; between who owns content in cyberspace and who should own content in cyberspace (Bennett, 2000). The tension expands today as users, lawyers, companies and other bodies disagree over the translation of traditional intellectual property law to digital communication media.

Oliver Bennett of the Berkman Centre for Internet and Society at Harvard University proffers several alternative approaches to intellectual property protection more suited to digital works, including the various licenses of the Open Source Movement (2000). This movement has generated provisional permissions from content-authors for other users to copy, download, share, and/or modify their works and any underlying source codes. Founded on the idea that the sharing of information is a crucial part of disseminating culture amongst and across generations, there is an underlying assumption here that ‘network effects and ethics’ will encourage users to honour the relaxed approach to intellectual property rights (Bennett, 2000).

Reference List

Bennett, O. (2000). Intellectual Property in Cyberspace 2000: Alternatives to Intellectual Property.
     Retrieved September 9, 2010, from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/syllabus/

Berners Lee, T., & Fischetti, M. (1999). Weaving the Web: The Past, Present and Future of the World
     Wide Web by its Inventor. Britain: Orion Business.

Lawson, M. (2005). Berners-Lee on the read/write web. BBC News. Retrieved September 9, 2010, from
     http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4132752.stm

Oxford Dictionary. (2010). Oxford Dictionaries: Viral. Retrieved August 20, 2010, from
     http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0929700#m_en_gb0929700

Week 6 Tutorial - Very Gold Coast, Very Cheese-C

As part of the 'culture jamming' theme that we have been exploring recently, a group of fellow would-be jammers and I have been wracking our brains for a good jam that will get noticed by mainstream audiences... and preferably not result in jail time!

Early discussions included Meter Maids, the Q1, and various other Gold Coast icons which are not, in fact, strictly Australian in terms of ownership, design, or culture . From these discussions we decided that as Gold Coast citizens, we are not completely satisfied with the 'prostitution' and commodification of Gold Coast culture, especially considering the cultural losses incurred by Gold Coasters over the last few decades.

In order to achieve this, we have decided to parody the rather forgettable and now defunct Very Gold Coast, Very GC Gold Coast Tourism campaign (2008) that met with 'confused responses from Gold Coast locals as well as the tourist market (Gold Coast Business News, 2009). In fact, the majority of people that I spoke to about being involved in jamming this campaign either had not heard of it or did not remember it until their memories were jogged with video clips of the television advertisements that were supposed to reinvigorate the Gold Coast tourism industry and rejuvenate the face of the Gold Coast itself (Gold Coast Tourism, 2010). This lack of familiarity and enthusiasm (and occassionally an outright disgust) for Very Gold Coast, Very GC suggests that Gold Coast locals did not feel a sense of reality or connection reflected in the campaign.

By meeting with and interviewing well-known locals and iconic fixtures in the community (such as Captain Fat of Surfers Paradise); gathering film footage and original photos of the less marketable features of the Gold Coast (various run-down buildings, untended scrubland, litter-covered parks, et cetera) and some groups and icons interviewed Gold Coast locals perceive as truly reflective of the Gold Coast, we hope to put a new spin on this campaign that might also draw attention to community issues in need of attention.

One of the key issues we would like to address is the research that suggests that the Gold Coast has the highest rates of homelessness in Queensland. According to 2006 census data, Queensland is ranked second in terms of homelessness (69 homeless per 10 000 people), with over half of all homeless Queenslanders under 25 years of age (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008). These statistics are reflective of Australia-wide findings.

By reworking the original Very GC campaign videos, and rebranding the campaign as Very Gold Cost, we hope to place a greater emphasis on this issue and appeal against the diversion of taxpayers dollars away from issues that require scrutiny, and towards one fruitless media campaign after another.

Reference List

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). 2050.0 Australian Census Analytic Program: Counting the Homeless, 2006 [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 8, 2010, from http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/57393A13387C425DCA2574B900162DF0/$File/20500-2008Reissue.pdf

Gold Coast Business News. (2009). Very Gold Coast campaign canned as GCT gets serious [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from  http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/57393A13387C425DCA2574B900162DF0/$File/20500-2008Reissue.pdf