Creative Commons
These contemporaneous notes are from IRC #Transmission.cc
13:21 < simon-w-speaking> a lot of groups tried to build networks which are not metarable
13:21 < simon-w-speaking> and cooperating with other groups
13:21 < simon-w-speaking> and political forces
13:22 < simon-w-speaking> google knows that
13:22 < simon-w-speaking> like the web 2.0 businesses are in favour of net neutrality and in favour of free networks
13:23 < simon-w-speaking> google gave a big fund to a company called fun
13:23 < simon-w-speaking> you can be a bill
13:23 < simon-w-speaking> you can be a linus = you share your connection and everybody share
13:24 < simon-w-speaking> if you\re an alien you pay fun
13:24 < simon-w-speaking> and bill is the bill gates
13:24 < simon-w-speaking> move on to creative commons discussion
13:24 < simon-w-speaking> another way of defining free networks
13:24 < simon-w-speaking> peco agreement
13:24 < simon-w-speaking> peering agreement underlies net neutrality
13:25 < simon-w-speaking> question: to be able to share you need a domain name
13:26 < simon-w-speaking> answer some use protocols which are not with fixed ip numbers, a big topic
13:26 < simon-w-speaking> that's picopeer.net
13:26 < simon-w-speaking> pico peering :)
13:26 < simon-w-speaking> \
13:27 -!- simon-w-speaking is now known as christian_ahlert
13:27 < christian_ahlert> christian introduces the creative commons
13:27 < christian_ahlert> I'm going to give a quick introduction, then I wanna go interactive
13:27 < christian_ahlert> I want
13:27 < christian_ahlert> to address specific licensing structures for audiovisual content
13:28 < christian_ahlert> the Creative Commons license is usually attached to a website, it can be attached to different forms of content
13:28 < christian_ahlert> it consists of 3 layers
13:28 < christian_ahlert> human readable (a deed that describes what a specific license allows)
13:28 < christian_ahlert> lawyer readable (the license itself)
13:28 < christian_ahlert> computer readable (metadata)
13:29 < christian_ahlert> that last allows us to search for content by searching for how you're allowed to use something
13:29 < christian_ahlert> Google, Yahoo or Cretive Commons provide searches with this specific functionality
13:29 < christian_ahlert> Creative Commons (CC) exists in 40 countries - we (I) work in England and Wales
13:30 < christian_ahlert> We (openbusiness.cc) have just completed a survey for the Arts Council about how artists use the CC licenses
13:30 < christian_ahlert> we discovered 60k or so links to CC licenses from websites in the UK
13:30 < christian_ahlert> flickr (for example) provides CC licensing as a way of sharing images.
13:30 < christian_ahlert> It's interesting that for audiovisual material (google video, youtube etc) does not require or promote CC licensing
13:31 < christian_ahlert> so lots of online video infringes copyright
13:31 < christian_ahlert> but lots of major copyright owners are now approaching Google and Youtube (etc) to get them to host their content
13:31 < christian_ahlert> this is a new development, it certainly wasn't happening a year ago\
13:32 < christian_ahlert> We are now seeing smaller players distributing content online, and some (like Revver.com) allow people to download and share this kind of material using CC licensing
13:32 -!- You're now known as maxigas-test
13:33 -!- You're now known as maxigas-learns-i
13:33 < christian_ahlert> the metadata infrastrucutre allows for remuneration for content producers
13:33 < christian_ahlert> 'youtube stars' are just starting
13:33 < christian_ahlert> :)
13:33 < christian_ahlert> now I don't really know where to go with this
13:33 < christian_ahlert> I could go on but do you have questions?
13:33 -!- christian_ahlert is now known as questioner
13:34 < questioner> in CCc you can define non-commercial proijects
13:34 < questioner> but what does non-commercial mean.. has it been tested in court?
13:34 -!- sungmi [n=h2dj@81-6-226-240.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk] has joined #transmission.cc
13:34 -!- questioner is now known as christian_ahlert
13:34 < christian_ahlert> yes, the definition of non-commercial is fuzzy and I can't give you a a clear cut answer. Nor can anyone else.
13:34 < christian_ahlert> you can ask any lawyer, and depending on context, you'll get a different answer
13:35 < christian_ahlert> But CC has been tested a few times, in the Netherlands and Spanish courts, but that wasn't about commercial/non-commercial aspects.
13:35 < christian_ahlert> The best advice that I can give is that if the usage scenario you're dealing with is perceived by you as non commercial, it's non commercial.
13:35 < christian_ahlert> this can get tricky, of course
13:36 < christian_ahlert> I've had to face this recently
13:36 < christian_ahlert> We have been distributing content on google. video. But google is commercial isn't it?
13:36 * christian_ahlert is being quite unclear about this and making it hard to annotate usefully
13:36 * christian_ahlert basically doesn't know.
13:37 -!- christian_ahlert is now known as adnan_questionni
13:37 < adnan_questionni> sharealike/non-commercial is quite like GPL
13:37 < adnan_questionni> you can argue that sharealike/attribution is non-commercial because it counteracts the commercial enclosure model of IP
13:38 < adnan_questionni> if you allow people to share content and insure it remains 'free', you take away the commercial value of the thing for the copyright industry
13:38 < adnan_questionni> I think there should be a new definition for commercial for this context
13:38 < adnan_questionni> a rethinking of the commercial definition is necessary
13:38 < adnan_questionni> I think by-sharealike is already a non-commercial approach
13:38 -!- adnan_questionni is now known as christian_ahlert
13:38 < christian_ahlert> I contest that
13:39 < christian_ahlert> many business models revolve around sharing content, gathering a user-base, making money through content in a new way
13:39 < christian_ahlert> hollywood value chain is about unit sales
13:39 < christian_ahlert> that has something to do with copyright but it's much more associated to distribution
13:39 < christian_ahlert> all I'm saying is: this is a very different area
13:39 < christian_ahlert> we didn't see people making business out of CC licensed material a few years ago
13:39 < christian_ahlert> revver.com is a good example
13:40 < christian_ahlert> I watched a video on google video to a video that said it had been uploaded through revver, but there was no link back from google video to revver or mention of CC
13:40 < christian_ahlert> so you can see that this whole area is highly confusing.
13:41 < christian_ahlert> It's like the wild west. Big companies like Google basically say 'people are going to upload stuff, and we're going to link to a CC license, what do we do if someone infringes sometihng'.
13:41 < christian_ahlert> I always say: do what you usually do
13:41 < christian_ahlert> take it down
13:41 -!- christian_ahlert is now known as adnan_questionni
13:41 < adnan_questionni> maybe it would be useful to talk about all the diff. licensing
13:42 < adnan_questionni> as a film maker what worries me most is that you're being ripped off by big companies using your content
13:42 < adnan_questionni> this isn't the case with share-alike/attribution
13:42 < adnan_questionni> the CC licensing model might well destroy its original approach of making something like the GPL for media
13:42 < adnan_questionni> because it's so confusing, artists, filmmakers, musicians don't know how to deal with it
13:42 < adnan_questionni> the GPL for media is (in my personal view) what I think we need.
13:42 < adnan_questionni> It should be easy
13:43 -!- adnan_questionni is now known as christian_ahlert
13:43 < christian_ahlert> there has been lots of criticism within CC internationally
13:43 < christian_ahlert> Stallman has chosen to say that since you can make a CC license that says you can't create derivitives (one of the key freedoms) CC is not free, and you don't understand what I'm talking about.
13:43 < christian_ahlert> There is a layer of confusion
13:44 < christian_ahlert> but I would say that at least CC does provide some degree of clarity
13:44 < christian_ahlert> it is more or less a statement of intent
13:44 < christian_ahlert> if someone (a big media provider) rips you off, you would have a reasonable case
13:45 < christian_ahlert> one thing I realised as a result of our survey was that many people in the UK didn't choose to allow people to make derivatives.
13:45 < christian_ahlert> are uk creatives just stingy?
13:45 < christian_ahlert> the fair dealing exception in the UK is really confusing
13:46 < christian_ahlert> in the states it's fair use for the purpose of commentary
13:46 < christian_ahlert> ripping off tony blair speaking on the BBC on iraq would be fair use in the US - if you're illustrating a point
13:46 < christian_ahlert> in the UK that wouldn't necessarily be the case
13:46 < christian_ahlert> 'fair dealing' is far more complex and untested.
13:47 < christian_ahlert> ask a lawyer - and they'll give you a bunch of different answers, but most of the time, if you ever want to go commercial with your content, you'll have to get permission
13:47 -!- christian_ahlert is now known as adnan
13:47 < adnan> 'bound by law' is a CC licensed comic that explains all this quite clearly at Duke Law School
13:47 -!- adnan is now known as questionner
13:48 < questionner> I just produced a film that highlighted some of the illegal aspects of the war in Iraq by the UK government
13:48 < questionner> and we used clips from Panorama / Newsnight and other major programmes
13:48 < questionner> it's about 80 mins long, and the whole thing is made from mainstream stuff
13:48 < questionner> we distributed as 'non commercial, not for sale' on DVD
13:48 < questionner> we'd like to put it online
13:49 < questionner> on google video and youtube
13:49 < questionner> how do we sit legally?
13:49 -!- questionner is now known as christian_ahlert
13:49 < christian_ahlert> I don't know.
13:49 < christian_ahlert> send me a link, I could have a look and then ask a lawyer
13:49 < christian_ahlert> IANAL, so I'm very careful about giving legal advice
13:49 < christian_ahlert> we have a lawyer that works for us, he can look at it for you.
13:49 < christian_ahlert> my feeling is that it would b e ok, but it depends a lot on how you use each one.
13:50 -!- christian_ahlert is now known as questionner
13:50 < questionner> quite often it's a chunk of 10 minutes from one programme
13:50 < questionner> because it highlights the breaking of specific laws
13:50 -!- questionner is now known as simon_answering
13:50 < simon_answering> major media newscasters do syndicate each others feeds - sometimes without telling or asking
13:50 < simon_answering> this happens with satellite feeds as well.
13:50 < simon_answering> it's outside the legal framework - more or less a peering agreement
13:50 -!- simon_answering is now known as christian_ahlert
13:51 < christian_ahlert> copyright infringenment happens all the time
13:51 < christian_ahlert> what happens depends on who you are, when you do it, and in what context
13:51 < christian_ahlert> we work with a broadcaster
13:51 < christian_ahlert> they were pissed off by their documentary leaking onto youtube
13:51 < christian_ahlert> two months later someone uploaded their own documentary onto youtube
13:51 < christian_ahlert> youtube took it down saying you can't use it for commercial purposes
13:52 < christian_ahlert> so at the moment it's a really tricky area
13:52 < christian_ahlert> it depends on how much risk you want to take, whether you want to sell your video, whether you're doing it for 'good' reasons or not
13:52 < christian_ahlert> you can embarrass people who might want to sue you
13:52 -!- christian_ahlert is now known as adnan
13:52 < adnan> that's why we should drop the whole non-commercial thing
13:53 < adnan> it doesn't translate between cultures or legal systems
13:53 < adnan> everyone understands 'commercial' differently
13:53 < adnan> so maybe we should just drop it
13:53 -!- adnan is now known as christian_ahlert
13:53 < christian_ahlert> if you offer something on youtube, potentially you reach the whole world that has internet connections
13:53 < christian_ahlert> what people then do with that content depends on so many different factors
13:54 < christian_ahlert> all I can say is that creative commons as such offers a t least a clearer framework than current default copyright
13:54 < christian_ahlert> or lack of license (same thing)
13:54 < christian_ahlert> most of the people we spoke to used CC because they found it practical
13:54 < christian_ahlert> I will send some links about this issue to simon later on to redistribute
13:54 < christian_ahlert> so far there hasn't been a legal case that has tested the definition of non-commercial use.
13:55 -!- doyoung_ is now known as doyoung
13:55 < christian_ahlert> be aware that until the GPL was tested in court (it took 15 years) we didn't know it would work
13:55 < christian_ahlert> it was tested in Germany and basically it was done really badly
13:55 < christian_ahlert> the legal community that looked at this decision thought it sucked.
13:55 -!- christian_ahlert is now known as simon_questionni
13:56 < simon_questionni> how does CC licensing get embedded in video content in different formats. how is metadata added?
13:56 < simon_questionni> CC has these three layers (human, lawyer, computer) readable.. has anyone used?
13:57 -!- simon_questionni is now known as creative_commons
13:58 < creative_commons> hi
13:58 < creative_commons> talk about what kind of licences are availble other thaN CC
13:58 < creative_commons> are people ware that there are 6 CC licences
13:59 < creative_commons> then what are the problems
13:59 < creative_commons> 1. attribution = author
13:59 < creative_commons> 2. attribution-sharealike
14:00 < creative_commons> 3. commerc
14:00 < creative_commons> commercial
14:00 < creative_commons> non commercial
14:00 < creative_commons> no derivatives
14:00 < creative_commons> derivatives
14:01 < creative_commons> flikr doesnt always represent licences well you cant sort within flickr
14:02 < creative_commons> saul says cc is a statement of intent, acording to lawyers hes spoken too
14:04 < creative_commons> saul says he uses public domain in that he uses remixed con ten t so doesn't feel he can release or add a cc label to some thing
14:05 < creative_commons> christian says that if you wanna remix it helps to use cc as u know that you can easily use something
14:06 < creative_commons> christian says that it is about content
14:06 < creative_commons> oops again
14:06 < creative_commons> context is the issue
14:07 < creative_commons> openrights grroup are discussing these issue in uk
14:07 < creative_commons> and free culture groups also talking about this openknowledge foundation
14:10 < creative_commons> within context of RDF project we do need some kind of notification about status, cc, public domain, or c
14:16 < creative_commons> jamie k says google buying of u tube is a way of them making advertsing out of copyrighted material
14:17 < creative_commons> topic moves onto economy
14:18 < creative_commons> saul introduces copy can a way of asking for donations for u to then release content onto the internet
14:18 < creative_commons> in development
back to London, October 2006
