100 million monkeys, but still no Shakespeare*
There seems to be something of a concerted campaign on denigration underway at the moment directed at Creative Commons in, amongst others, the Register and elsewhere. The attacks seem to be based on a combination of misinformation and a misapprehension of copyright law (one writer in particular being ignorant of the copyright law of the US even while using it as the basis of his argument). Look at this example from the Register:
“A Linux advocacy group emails me to ask permission for a reprint of an article, and I’m delighted to grant it. The Daily Express asks for permission, and I tell them where to shove it. Now that’s a freedom I don’t have by adding an unnecessary license to my work.
Now let’s say the Linux advocacy group has been taken over by people I don’t like. It asks for another reprint. I can change my mind, of course, but that’s because I haven’t signed over my rights under an irrevocable license. (And very few people tagging their work with Creative Commons licenses seem to realize that they’re irrevocable).”
Actually under copyright law having given that blanket permission to the Linux group he would not be able to revoke the permission unless the right of revocation was explicitly included in ther original permission - they don’t need to ask for further permission unless the original permission was explicitly restricted (note: I am not a lawyer, but this is the advice I have been given).
Anyway, the point of this is that I have been at a conference today reviewing a report (commissioned by CIE) about the potential of Creative Commons for public sector bodies making their material available for public use and repurposing.
It seems to me that this could be a fruitful way forward. We already know that teachers, for example, are concerned that resources they want to use should be cleared for educational use without having to contact each content provider directly, and the same issue applies to libraries and museums (and their visitors), as well as the FHE sector. To be able to make that permission explicit in a simple and understandable fashion seems to me to be particularly advantageous for the sorts of material that the museums service want to distribute: education packs, online exhibitions and activities, information about collections.
Of course there are some potential pitfalls too, in particular the issues of pre-existing terms and conditions applying to material; the sometimes uncertain nature of the ownership of collections (such as documentation that consists of letters from the Town Clerk saying “Thank you for your kind donation, it will make a valuable addition to the museum” but neglecting to say what the donation actually was); the problems of aggregating material released under different licences; and the sometimes conflicting requirements of the FoI and the DPA. Still I’m feeling quite enthused at the moment, so I’d better send out some emails before the weekend arrives and my keenness gradually dissipates.
One potential issue not covered by the existing England and Wales licence is the question of endorsement, or rather the possibility of seeming endorsement given by material from a trusted source such as a museum appearing in a context that the originating institution (or its managing body) might not approve. I think this is not likely to be a huge issue though, and it seems that a disclaimer in addition to the CC licence would be OK, as long as it does not conflict with the terms of the CC licence. So now to crack on and set up the working party.
Two further thoughts: a) despite working in a local authority for more than ten years, it is still a source of perpetual amazement to me how long it takes to get anything done once you move beyond the confines of a single small service (this is common to all large organisations, I believe); and b) I really liked the ‘Creative Commies‘ image and must steal borrow it if I end up doing a presentation on this subject.
As the quantity of material that is available to be used/re-used/re-purposed continues to grow at a huge rate, Creative Commons opens up a way for content providers, and particularly those in the public sector, to explicitly make material available for their target customers in a straightforward, simple and easy to understand way. As for the rest of the monkeys, they can just keep on typing.
Note. I started writing this on the train in Waverley Station. The train was subject to ‘severe delays’ because ‘a vehicle collided with a bridge in the Abbeyhill area’. It made me wonder how First ScotRail categorises delays, or whether there was some sort of national standard for train operating companies. Perhaps like this:
- Delay
- Severe delay
- Exceptional delay
- Leaves on the line
- Wrong sort of snow
- Etc…
The train was eventually cancelled. I must say though that unlike in the good old days, they were very good about keeping pasengers informed.
*With apologies to Andy Toone from whom I stole the title then adapted it.