Na afloop is er een gesprek/discussie over auteursrecht en muziekcultuur. Hierbij zal ik Paul Keller (Creative Commons Nederland) vervangen als moderator. Verdere deelnemers aan dit gesprek zijn Pitto (DJ, winnaar Grote Prijs van Nederland in de categorie dance), Joost Gerritsen (De Gier | Stam & Advocaten) en Mirko Tobias Schaefer (faculteit Geesteswetenschappen UU). Meer info is hier te vinden: http://www.xpertcmkb.nl/?p=1527

I’m very interested in the response on this theme, although it’s still kinda rough around the edges. I still need to find some time to replace the Dutch names for English, write something down on how to use the theme  and there’s probably tons of stuff that might need some tweaking, but at least it’s in the repository.

If you’re interested in using it yet something is keeping you from doing this feel free to contact me and I’ll see what I can do to help you.

Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank:

- Paul Keller (Creative Commons Netherlands) for recognizing the potential use of this theme for other local CC chapters around the world.
- Mike Linksvayer and Nathan Yergler from Creative Commons.org for their enthusiasm, help and infrastructure.

Today I’ve launched the new Creative Commons Netherlands (CC NL) website. CC NL asked me to make their website more similar to the creativecommons.org version, which I did and the result can be viewed online. We used the USA design (thanks to the USA webteam!) as a guideline and tweaked it until we were satisfied. A more in depth posts will be posted in the portfolio after the dust settles.For now I’m too occupied with finishing other projects.

RiP: A remix manifesto is a documentary film about copyright and remix culture.

So I went to their download website and went looking for a dowload option. Instead I got this message:

I interpreted this message as: the people inside the gated community may download a documentary on remixing and download culture and for those outside you may jump through some more hoops before you will be able to watch the same film streaming. As you might understand I am confused and even insulted by this difference in treatment. Why treat your audience outside (in this case the US) differently from those inside the US? Especially when the subject of the documentary is about remix and download culture. A global culture. Not just a North-American culture. What are the arguments that support this difference in treatment?

Update: Huh? Found this snippet in Brett Gaylor’s bio on the ‘global’ website, which makes the difference in treatment of the audience even weirder:

He is also the web producer of the Homeless Nation.org, a web project dedicated to bridging the digital divide – allowing everyone to participate in online culture.

(emphasis is mine)

Update2: You can find the documentary also here in case you’re not willing to be treated differently from our North-American friends. Yes, controlling downloads based on geography is a failure.

Update3: Brett Gaylor (as far as I can tell it is genuine) responded in the comments and I have responded on his comment.

Update4: Brett’s email bounched. Brett, if you’re reading this I tried to email you at your first name at opensourcecinema dot org and it did not work.

I wrote this summary of the first Creative Commons tech summit in 2008 at the Googleplex, however somehow it ended up in being a draft in Wordpress for more than a year. I decided to add links and publish it although in the meantime two follow up conferences have already been held. Maybe it still holds some value. Enjoy my rather lengthy ’summary’.

Thanks to Creative Commons.org and The institute of Sound and Images I was able to join the first Creative Commons Tech Summit in San Francisco. Since the amount of participants was limited to 100 people I decided to write a summary for those not able to attend on this blog. There have been more people writing about the summit and the whole thing is made available on Youtube as well. I hope this summary will be of use to you. Feel free to comment. More after the jump..

Joi Ito – CEO of Creative Commons – welcomes the participants of the first Creative Commons Tech Summit with a short keynote. In this he reflects on the start of the Internet and the first fights on keeping the Internet and open place for anyone regardless of politics. He does this by referring to the old discussions surrounding the use of the (open standard) TCP/IP protocol instead of some closed proprietary standard. He uses the example of interoperability as a starting point to explain his view on Creative Commons which consists of two points:

1. Creative Commons is open for anybody, even those Creative Commons might disagree with. Anyone should be able to use the licenses or implement the technology developed by CC.
2. Creative Commons does have a political agenda, but in a very pragmatic manner. Creative Commons strives towards openness and sharing. CC hopes that the use of the licenses and the technology will nudge those not so open or willing to share yet, towards a more open and sharing attitude.

After this short keynote Nathan Yergler – CTO of Creative Commons – introduces Ben Adida – Creative Commons’ W3C representative –. Adida has for quite some time been working on the Creative Commons Rights Expression Language (ccREL) as a replacement of the machine-readable metadata used in the past which worked, but was a bit of a dirty solution. Adida starts of with an explanation of the different CC license layers. Every CC license consists of three layers:

1. A so called human readable version of the license which explains the license and its conditions in layman’s terms.
2. A so called lawyer readable version of the license, which explains the license and its conditions down to the nitty-gritty details in lawyer’s jargon
3. A machine readable version, which consists of a piece of text/code easily parseable by machines.

Why is there a machine-readable version asks Adida rhetorically. Because we want to be able to let software (’machines’) be able to assist and advise us in the use of CC licenses. There are numerous ways in which this can be done. For instance by using the machine-readable licenses and some software we can ask the software to return us only those works that allow commercial use from a specific author. The old techniques used would allow this as well, but it has several flaws which Adida points out in his presentation. In general the old methods allows to easily make mistakes. It also meant that you had to repeat certain information in order to make it both useful for people as well as machines.

By combining content and meta information in a visual way, human-readable AND machine readable way, we only have to write it once, thus making it easier and less error prone to do. For example a title written for people, should also be used for the ‘machines’ to gather the title information of a work. CcREL aims to do this. It describes both information about the work and the license used using HTML in combination with RDFa. There is a common base set of fields to be filled in, such as attribution name, title, license etc. The base set is, according to Adida, designed to be extended with your own particular fields. Now by using ccREL it allows us to work towards the semantic web (data web) in which services, information and content can be interpreted and used by machines in numerous ways. Adida briefly mentions that there are also other ways (Adobe’s eXtensible Metadata Platform aka XMP) to use ccREL in case you cannot or don’t want to use HTML. More information about ccREL can be found in the paper written by Adida et all (PDF).

Following Adida is a panel in which Asheesh Laroia, John Willbanks and Nathan Yergler talk more about the CC specific technology initiatives.

Nathan Yergler talks about ccREL and how it has been put into practice already within the CC license chooser and the CC+ possibilities. It has now been made more clear in the license chooser that adding extra (although still optional) information it becomes easier for people to give attribution in the right way or to get more info about a specific work or author. It also allows you to add information where a user can obtain information about clearing rights that are not pre-cleared by your CC license. The latter is also know under the name CC+.

John Willbanks – Vice President of Science Commons – is next. His presentation is a very quick (about 10 minutes) overview of the Science Commons initiatives derived from Creative Commons. He notes that science has quite different needs compared with culture. According to Willbanks Science Commons is about rights such as reference, extending and integrity. Science Commons aims to make the already existing databases full of scientific data interoperable and more accessible so data can be easily shared. The presentation Willbanks gave made it hard to grasp what exactly Science Commons was doing and how developers or those interested in Science Commons could use or contribute to it.

Finally Asheesh Laroia – Software Engineer at Creative Commons – gave a rather minimal presentation about lib license, the software built upon the Adobe XMP SDK for reading and writing license information in a wide range of media formats. Without any examples or demo it was quite hard to get an idea of the benefits using this library. A pity since I happen to know what it can do and how it may save precious time.

After a short break the summit continues with a panel consisting of Gunar Penikis, Lucas Gonze and Stephen Lau on digital asset management on the web and desktop.

Gunar Penikis – Product Manager for Adobe’s Extensible Metadata Platform (XMP) – talks about XMP, an open, standards-based technology for the capture, preservation, and interchange of metadata across digital media. XMP makes it easy to keep track of digital assets while not getting into the way. It allows to write and read metadata in a wide range of media formats and is integrated in the Adobe applications making it easy for creatives to keep track of digital assets. Creative Commons’ Liblicense makes use of the Adobe XMP SDK which is licensed under the BSD license.

Stephen Lau – Developer Evangelist at Songbird – talks about integrity and the different types of metadata. He makes a distinction between local subjective metadata, such as your favorite songs and the global objective metadata such as the artist of a song. Songbird needs to deal with both and show this to the user, while also keeping into account the integrity of the data. Interestingly Songbird allows to parse microformatted data and can combine this with the metadata already known into the file.

Lucas Gonze – ex-Yahoo Music – talks about the web of songs in which every song has its own unique single url. His presentation was more of a philosophical and visionary nature. If every song would be retrievable using the web and “music could become a first world region of the web”. This could be beneficial for both artists, labels as well as music lovers. It reminded me of the whole short links ecosysteem in use by Twitter and mobile applications. Where due to the limited amount of characters in a text message one needs a as small as possible link. One could easily use a similar system to make music behave more in a web-like manner.

After the panel Mike Linksvayer – Vice President of Creative Commons – gave a talk titled “Digital Copyright Registry Landscape”. In it he gave an overview of the (perceived) need for registries in the digital domain and the existing solutions and future challenges. He starts with an interesting historical quote from the Creative Commons FAQ shortly after it was launched:

“Is Creative Commons building a database of licensed content? Absolutely not. We belief in the Net, not a centralized, Soviet-style information bank controlled by a single organization.[...]”

Now Creative Commons has organized a summit to discuss just the possible uses of a database like this. It illustrates the change of heart Creative Commons has made towards copyright registries. For now Linksvayer gives some possible arguments why registries might be useful and why they want to explore the copyright registries concept further:

• Dealing with orphaned works
• Dealing provenance, ownership and authenticity of works
• “Eat your own dogfood” type of proof of the CC developed technology which should allow you to create a copyright registry.

The demand for registries more or less confirms this since the list (UGC upload filtering, license management, media organization, collective rights management, cultural heritage, tracing content location and timestamping) Linksvayer sums up, mainly consists of identification issues such as ownership, provenance and authenticity of content.

He also described several types of registry with examples: built solely as a registry (Registered Commons, Safe Creative), built upon an existing data such as an archive (Open Library, Musicbrainz), internally or needed to offer others as a service (NoAnk Media, not sure how this relates to the first type of registry) and as a side effect of a different type of service for instance a metadata database (Jamendo, Attributor). The examples in the text above also gave presentations later that day.

Linksvayer continues with some of the challenges a registry faces:

• Reliable identify works
• Reliable identify owners
• Namespace monopolists (Identifiers are only obtainable for a fee)
• Making it webby
• Benfits VS Costs (who pays and how much?)
• Scams
• Metacrap (incomplete or wrong metadata)

Next to these challenges are also the challenges that deal with supporting the commons such as making it interoperable and semantic web enabled, open services using open standards and free software and dealing with public licenses. Linksvayer summarized it in my view perfectly with the last slide in which he states that the Web is “the” registry and asks the oncoming presenters of the different registries: What does your “registry” add to the web? After Mike’s talk set the context for the rest of the afternoon in which some of the registries mentioned in his talk presented themselves to the audience.

Devon Copley – CTO of Noank Media – was the first speaker to talk about their type of registry. They want to solve the problem (at least seen from the perspective of content holders and creators) of ‘unlicensed P2P‘ and get creators paid for their work. Copley states that ‘unlicensed P2P’ benefits nobody. Not the creators/content holders, not the ISP’s nor the end-users. A bold statement, but his arguments such as “unpopular content is hard to find” and “download performance is poor as ISPs restrict P2P bandwidth” or “ISPs want to promote green isp services with licensed content ” to fund this statement are in my opinion questionable and weak. The only ones ’suffering’ from ‘unlicensed P2P’ are the content holders / creators. He goes on to present their solution which is to use ISPs as gatekeepers which end-users pay to gain access to content. The ISPs will distribute the revenue back to the content holders. Since the problem only exists for 1/3 of the stakeholders I doubt this model will solve the problem. After this he goes into more detail on how to support this ’solution’ using their platform.

Next is Robert Kaye – Musicbrainz –
Musicbrainz started as an alternative to Gracenote. Musicbrainz is all about music metadata. No metadata no findability. No good metadata and the data does not exists. Do it wrong and you get metacrap and you’ll get into liability trouble. For a copyright registry metadata is paramount, without metadata you cannot find the content. Web of data.

Joe Benso – Business Developer at Registered Commons –
Registered Commons is a content registry where companies can verify content for commercial purposes. Finds transparency important for a registry. Free service to register works of any type. Timestamp service (using A-cert). Ca cert is used for user trust certification as the highest level and email verification is the lowest form of trust verification. They also allow users to add limitations on the usage of the work by using the moral rights. Service for new business models.

Javier Prenafeta – Safe Creative –
Safe Creative is similar to Registered Commons and also attempts to solve the questions regarding ownership of a work, the license of a work and changes in the work. Unfortunately the speaker is not a native English speaker and is somewhat hard to understand. As far as I could understand they are using a similar system as Registered Commons. Both operate as a register which can lower the possibilities for copyright issues and thus liability sometime which came up a lot during this summit.

Rich Pearson – Attributor.com –
Attributor is monitoring registered content using crawlers. As far as I understood the difference between them and Safe Creative or Registered Commons is that they are not only a registry, but also somewhat of a watchdog for the registered content. So it allows them to identify new licenses, ads in relation to the content (and thus checking for license compliancy) and so forth. He ends his talk with a short summary about what a registry should contain and how this relates to their service.

Aaron Schwartz – Open Library –
Open Library is a project initiated by the Internet Archive. It’s a website with a page for every book ever published. Twenty million books indexed at this moment which can be changed in wiki-like manner. The interesting aspect of this project in my opinion is a side-project with CC in which they try to calculate the current copyright status of a book and so you can tell if it’s in public domain or not. They are also combining forces with Mediawiki so they can combine Open Library with Wikipedia.

Pierre Gerard – co-founder Jamendo –
Jamendo is a cc-licensed music sharing website similar to Simuze. They allow artists to upload their work and listeners to download music for free. They have a large amount of free music (approx 10.000 albums) and are backed by venture capitalist Mangrove Capital Partners (Skype). They share (the ad revenue with the artists 50%) and try to create partnerships with commercial entities. They act as a short of stock catalogue and also have to deal with registry like issues such as authenticity and ownership of a work and creator. At the moment they are still sorting this out.

Panel discussion:

I havent’t written everything down said during this session, but I tried to gather the bits that I found interesting. I’ve tried to gather the names of people including any links to them on the Web. In some cases I have forgotten or could not hear the name and thus no info is presented on these people.

Nathan Yergler starts with asking if the panel has been approached by content creators to supply Musicbrainz or any of the other panel members with metadata. Kaye states that most labels are not very good at keeping inventory and that their data in general it too crappy for his community. Swartz states that the book world is a lot better and that Open Library actually gets metadata from new books every week. Copley is asking Pearson about their platform and if they are using something which allows content creators to add information for commercial licenses such as the CC+ and how they have or are implementing something like this. They are interested in this, but are implementers and are not working on inventing something in this realm on their own. CC-rel might be a possible option according to Copley and it seems that Yergler agrees on this but remarks that it was not targeted at this particular use. From the audience there is a question regarding the use of Attributor in the academic world. Pearson states that they have not yet looked in the specific needs of the academic world.
Wendy Seltzer – Berkman Center – asks about the possibility of assurance in relation to the level of confidence on the copyright status of a work. Like a clearance service. Some entities would like to have this so they can be very sure that they will not be sued using the work. In other words liability comes up again, which was and seems to be a hotter topic in the USA than in Europe. Interestingly none of the mentioned projects by any of the panel members offers this service and they seem to feel a bit uneasy about this question and in fact do not seem want to offer such a service due to the high risks. In my view the use of a (commercial) registry becomes questionable if it cannot or is not willing to take this risk. Kaye seems to share this view and point this out, sadly there was no follow-up on this.

Longevity is a question posed by Riana Pfefferkorn. What if a registry disappears or goes bankrupt? What happens with the registry data? The more open ‘registries’ (Musicbrainz and Open Library) state to provide dumps and allow the data to be transferred by third-parties. Of the more commercial registries only Registered Commons answers that they have a record on file (paper) and Benso allows mentions their ties with the University but keeps this vague.

Brion Vibber – Wikimedia Foundation – is asking about the possibilities for having a feasible method which allows to make the distinction between almost certain all rights reserved material and content which may be freely shared. Since most content based fingerprinting is easily ‘circumvented’ using lossy formats and changing just a few bits due to for instance resizing he wonders what other options are available. The panel responds and states that the best algorithms seem all to be locked up in proprietary systems and the inner workings are not very well known.

Luis Villa asks Registered Commons about their use of moral rights in their system. Benso states that it basically allows content creators to add extra information or limitations to their content besides the license.

After this session there was a break which was followed by the ending session led by Ben Adida. In this last session in which there is a plenary discussion Adida poses the following questions for the audience to consider:

• What do we need out of copyright 2.0 / registry 2.0?
• What collaborative technology efforts are needed?
• What role should CC not play?
• What role should CC play?

Gunner – Adobe – states that copyright 2.0 is about trust. Personally I think he is right considering the ongoing remarks on authenticity, provenance ownership and in a certain way liability. Another speaker remarks that indeed trust is an issue. Followed up by another speaker  in the audience adding that he also thinks that the element of trust is now being wanted due to the Industrial model in use at the moment. Instead he proposes to use the Safe Harbor model to deal with trust in a ‘webby’ like manner.
Hanno Kaiser advocates that the copyright system should be reformed towards its original goal of creating incentives, shorter terms, opt-in and change the default into a more pro deratives approach for all non-commercial use. Yet commercial use is difficult to define. Non-commercial should always be permitted. Ito adds that in Japan a bill has been proposed which suggest to do just this what is being advocated by Kaiser. In this bill all non-commercial use is allowed without permission and all works would be default licensed under a Creative Commons non-commercial license and thus it would require a fee to use the work for commercial purposes.

Brion Vibbor – Mediawiki – states that the commercial and non-commercial distinction is quite hard to make and might even cause issues unlike the use of open source licenses which do not make this distinction between commercial and non-commercial

Michael Carol – CC board – states that a copyright registry should not be merely a ‘property map’ but preferable a creativity map and let people use the registry to register their works even if they do not want to enter in to the commercial market space. Similar to the attribution requirement of the CC license or the ‘ego’ aspect of open source licenses.

Mark Graham – OER Commons – states that is still very important to reach out and let people outside the obvious circles get into contact with CC and its licenses and get educated about the possible uses. Louise Villa acknowledges this and adds that Creative Commons licenses alone or some platform is not enough to use the licenses. People need to be educated on the usage and pro’s and cons of CC licenses.

An audience member states that it is important to have a (open) standard for accessing these registries and make it easy to use them. There is some discussion on this point but it seems that there is no consensus on how to achieve this.

I had the chance to pose my question with regards to non-commercial vs commercial and how to define this. I’m not sure if people understood my point which was that commercial should be defined by CC, then all licenses should be non-commercial and add CC+ as extra option for the commercial use. In hindsight still will still not solve the definition issue with what exactly commercial is.

It was an interesting conference and I’m impressed by CCrel, but I still have a lot of questions with regards to copyright registries although I have to admit that there might be more use for it than I initially thought. Not only because of liability, authenticity, provenance or ownership but because of findability. As Robert Kaye – Musicbrainz – stated without metadata you can’t find the data and in my view a registry is nothing more than a big database full of metadata.

Wow! So Ridley Scott of Bladerunner and Alien fame is working on a Bladerunner ‘inspired’ prequels available on the web under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. Can’t wait to see them!

See also the slightly longer announcement on CC.org.

Hallo Jan,

Bedankt voor je reactie. Excuses voor mijn late reactie.

Je vraagt:

“Waarom zou mijn pragmatische keuze in dit opzicht de geloofwaardigheid van het boek aantasten? Heb je het al gelezen? “

Nee, ik heb het boek (nog) niet gelezen, maar ik zal proberen mijn eerste reactie te verhelderen, daarbij wil ik graag opmerken dat het niet mijn intentie is of was om je persoonlijk aan te vallen.

Uiteraard staat het je geheel vrij om welke vorm of licentie voor je eigen werk te kiezen. Daar heeft niemand iets mee te maken. Ik zeg dit, omdat ik de impressie kreeg dat je ietwat gepikeerd leek te reageren op mijn eerste reactie. MAAR als je schrijft over open source en open standaarden dan mag ik wellicht wat verbaasd zijn over de uitspraken die je doet naar aanleiding van een vraag omtrent het beschikbaar stellen van je werk. Deze uitspraken leden er toe dat ik je geloofwaardigheid in twijfel trok. Het gaat dus niet alleen om de keuze voor het reguliere auteursrecht, maar vooral om de uitspraken die je doet om deze keuze te beargumenteren. Je geloofwaardigheid in twijfel trekken is wellicht wat te hard, daarom zal ik trachten mijn eerste reactie te verhelderen.

Je lijkt het uitbrengen van je werk onder onder een minder restrictieve licentie dan het algemeen geldende auteursrecht gelijk te stellen aan het gratis beschikbaar stellen van je werk. Daarbij geef je de impressie dat deze keuze voor een vrijere licentie in plaats van gebruik te maken van het reguliere auteursrecht een binaire keuze is: het is of geld verdienen of een vrije licentie hanteren

“[...] Het in de markt zetten van een boek kost geld (eindredactie, ontwerp, opmaak). Die kosten moeten met relatief kleine oplagen worden terugverdiend. [...] “

“[...] waarbij de kosten voor eigen rekening komen. [...] “

“[...] Bij uitgevers staan de CC-licenties op de agenda en het zal dan ook een kwestie van tijd zijn voordat we in Nederland boeken vrij kunnen geven onder die licenties. Omgekeerd is er wel wat werk te doen bij potentiële lezers, zelfs geïnteresseerde lezers, die blijven steken bij het ‘ha, gratis!’. Ook bij CC-licenties is het noodzakelijk dat lezers kopers worden.[...]”

Het vrijgeven van je werk onder minder restricties dan het regulier auteursrecht betekent niet dat je dat werk ook gratis ter beschikking dient te stellen. Het betekent ook niet dat je het werk op je website als een ODF of PDF bestand dient te plaatsen. Of jij een PDF bestand op je website plaatst is dus niet relevant. Wat wel van belang is, is dat je het juridisch mogelijk maakt dat dit kan en gezien je opmerking:

“Overall gaf voor mij de doorslag dat op deze manier de bibliotheek van Nederlandstalige boeken over open source en open standaarden groeit en een plaats krijgt in de reguliere boekhandels, waardoor mensen die niet direct met het thema te maken hebben er wel tegen aan kunnen lopen.”

wil je juist dat meer mensen in aanraking komen met je werk en zou je derden de mogelijkheid kunnen bieden jouw boek verder te mogen verspreiden. Echter jouw huidige keuze beperkt dit nu juist.

Stel dat jouw keuze was gevallen op een minder restrictieve licentie die anderen ’slechts’ de mogelijkheid biedt om je werk te mogen verspreiden c.q. te delen. Zoals de meest restrictieve Creative Commons licentie, namelijk de CC-BY-NC-ND. Een combinatie van je werk licenseren onder bijvoorbeeld deze licentie tezamen met het uitbrengen bij een uitgeverij is daarbij goed mogelijk en mijns inziens een perfecte match voor jouw doel. De uitgeverij hoeft niet (onnodig) bang te zijn voor commercieel gebruik, je maakt gebruik van licenties met een soortgelijke achterliggende gedachte als de materie waarover je schrijft en je bereikt ook nog eens veel meer mensen dan alleen de potentiele kopers in de boekhandel, want derden mogen je werk voor niet-commerciele doeleinden verspreiden en delen. Je zou dus kunnen stellen dat een licentie die minder restrictief is dan het reguliere auteursrecht meer waarde aan je werkt toekent dan sec het auteursrecht.

Zoals je terecht opmerkt doet Lawrence Lessig, na eerst zijn boeken onder het reguliere auteursrecht uit te brengen dit nu ook. Het heeft dus zelfs de oprichter van Creative Commons enige tijd gekost om tot inzicht te komen dat het licenseren van een werk onder een minder restrictieve licentie dan het auteursrecht commerciele verkoop niet uitsluit! Ook andere mensen zoals Frans Nauta of David Bollier brengen hun werk uit bij een uitgever en licenseren het onder minder restrictieve voorwaarden dan het reguliere auteursrecht. De licentie is dus geen belemmering om het werk ook commercieel te verkopen, je breidt slechts je markt uit met nieuwe lezers en potentiele kopers.

Je opmerking met betrekking tot dat lezer die blijven steken bij het ‘ha gratis’ zoals je dat noemt is wellicht deels een verklaring waarom je niet voor minder restricties hebt gekozen. Je lijkt in die uitspraak dezelfde retoriek te hanteren als de muziekindustrie hanteert tegen het downloaden. Elke download zou namelijk 1 op 1 gelijkstaan aan een gemiste verkoop. Dit is feitelijk onjuist en is inmiddels meerdere malen weerlegd in diverse onderzoeken (zie bijvoorbeeld dit onderzoek).

Wat betreft het boek van Holland Open. Ik geef daarbij aan dat ik het jammer vind dat er dus niks anders mee gedaan mag worden dan het gratis verspreiden. Dat je mijn argumentatie daaromtrent niet onderschrijft is prima, maar je klinkt nogal verongelijkt en doet eerder vermoeden dat je boos of verontwaardigd bent over mijn reactie dan dat je het inhoudelijk oneens bent over mijn argumentatie.:

“Het punt over het lesboek van Holland Open geeft ook weer aan dat het dus feitelijk nooit genoeg is.”

Je lijkt dus niet te begrijpen waarom een CC-BY-NC-ND licentie onzinnig is voor het onderwijs. Daarom zal ik hier ook nog even verder op in willen gaan. Voor een club die Holland Open heet en zich profileert als:

“Ons doel is belangenbehartiging en het stimuleren van initiatieven in de domeinen: Open Standaarden, Open Source Software & Open Content “

is het nogal vreemd om de meest restrictieve licentie te kiezen. Dat is mijns inziens niet alleen onzinnig en onlogisch voor gebruik in het onderwijs, daar het onderwijs een speciale positie inneemt in de Auteurswet waarbij je je kan afvragen in hoeverre deze meest restrictieve Creative Commons licentie uberhaupt steekhoudend is, maar ook nog eens het ‘verkeerde’ voorbeeld geven. Je zou van een dergelijke organisatie namelijke verwachten voor zoveel mogelijk openheid te gaan.

Echter, het gaat er niet om of iets ‘genoeg’ is, het gaat erom wat de feitelijk toegevoegde waarde van een licentie is.

In het geval van Holland Open kun je afvragen wat de toegevoegde waarde van de licentie is en zou je kunnen stellen dat het als PR voor de minder ingewijden wordt ingezet en dus geen meerwaarde biedt voor het onderwijs.

Tenslotte, door je argumentatie en uitspraken ter onderbouwing van je keuze voor het reguliere auteursrecht trok ik je geloofwaardigheid in twijfel, maar dat was een te harde en te snel getrokken conclusie. De materie is tenslotte nog vrij vers en onontgonnen en ook ik heb hiermee geworsteld, zoals je nog kan zien aan de Creative Commons licentie die ik voor mijn blog had gekozen en inmiddels is gewijzigd naar de licentie die mijns inziens nu beter bij mij past, namelijk CC-BY. Dank voor de terechte opmerking daarover. Daarom nog deze reactie en wellicht is het iets wat kan bijdragen aan de keuze van je gereedschappen in je werk als auteur.

Ps: Wat betreft het jaarboek heb je helemaal gelijk. Ik zal tzt contact opnemen met Hans Sleurink.

Een van de projecten waar ik de afgelopen tijd (inmiddels al ruim een jaar) mee bezig ben geweest is de Beeld en Geluid wiki:

De wiki beoogt kennis over de collectie van Beeld en Geluid te ontsluiten. Centraal staan films, radioprogramma’s en televisieproducties die in het kader van Beelden voor de toekomst gedigitaliseerd worden.

Op deze wiki staan biografieën van personen. Naast allerlei gegevens over de persoon is er een overzicht van het oeuvre én een beschrijving van programma’s waarin een persoon te gast was of onderwerp van gesprek. Op de wiki staan ook producties beschreven, zoveel mogelijk de makers genoemd en zijn producties ingedeeld in genre en op decennium. Aan de hand van veel verschillende onderwerpen wordt de context van film, radio en televisie beschreven.

Mijn werkzaamheden in dit project varieren van het aanpassen of ontwikkelen van de vormgeving en extensies tot het updaten en ondersteunen van het redactie team. Inmiddels zijn er meer dan 2500 (dit is uitgezonderd overleg pagina’s pagina’s, doorverwijzingen etc) aangemaakt en hebben bijna 650 mensen zich als gebruiker aangemeld. Heel netjes voor een website die pas zeer recent onder de aandacht wordt gebracht.

Persoonlijk vind ik het daarnaast fantastisch dat de inhoud van deze wiki is gelicenseerd onder de Creative Commons Naamsvermelding-GelijkDelen licentie, waardoor ook anderen gebruik kunnen gaan maken van de informatie van deze wiki.

Zie ook de promo op YouTube hieronder:

(thanks MOMI )