• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Scaling Social Curation: The @DiscoverTotems project Monkigras 2013

Scaling Social Curation: The @DiscoverTotems project Monkigras 2013



Best Practices for Scaling Social Curation in the Cloud using Open Source, Cloud Computing, PaaS based on experiences building the DiscoverTotems project. DiscoverTotems is a Socially-curated Digital ...

Best Practices for Scaling Social Curation in the Cloud using Open Source, Cloud Computing, PaaS based on experiences building the DiscoverTotems project. DiscoverTotems is a Socially-curated Digital Repository of Culture, Language, Art and Writings about Totem Poles.
Video of the presentation is now available here on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l9hXIsgc80&feature=share&list=PLCqwGkIBqarfQ6PMMLCD7alLswBMpuak3



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



6 Embeds 86

http://lanyrd.com 53
https://www.rebelmouse.com 17
https://twitter.com 9
http://eventifier.co 5
http://feeds.feedburner.com 1
http://www.linkedin.com 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • (Left to right) Idle No More co-founders Nina Wilson, SulviaMcAdam, Sheelah McLean and Jessica Gordon
  • http://bethechange2012.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/idle-no-more-4-women-founders-clr.jpg
  • And this is the age of MapsFlickr: @Batclubhttp://www.bridgeandtunnelclub.com/bigmap/outoftown/california/losangeles/hollywoodblvd/index.htm
  • Maybe you don’t recognize it by it’s First Nations name But by the name of the British Chap who “discovered” named Captain George Vancouver in in November 1792In typical British fashion, he fell out of favor with the political elite & in obscurity 3 years after he return at the age of 40
  • http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/lewisandclark/images/lcp0030.jpgImage:Library of Congress
  • http://www.anglican.ca/relationships/files/2011/06/School.jpg
  • http://walkergoldsmiths.com/files/Hok-Hok-Dance.jpgKwakwaka' wak carved wood Crooked Beak mask worn by dancer at Potlatchhttp://walkergoldsmiths.com/another-kind-of-potlatch/
  • The word "Totem" is derived from "ototeman" of the Ojibwa tongue, which means, "his brother-sister kin". The origination of the totem pole is shrouded in mystery. Each carved figure denotes either a family or a tribal history.The totem carver was a gifted member of the tribe and their ability to translate a cedar tree, with spacing, form and symmetrical lines, into a three dimensional carving was an artistic effort of the highest degree. These towering totems, often reaching a hundred feet into the sky, are found only on the Pacific Northwest Coast. These monumental efforts of another age are truly arresting and whatever their significance, they are bright beacons of the past that cast their beams on us today.A great collection of masks and carvings inside; collected over the last 40 years by the owner who often traded food for carvings. I'm told that in blueberry season they have the best pie in town.No carver information on the poles outside.The original Tomahawk owner, Chick Chamberlain, began collecting interesting hand-crafted artefacts from the Indians themselves about 80 years ago, when most people thought they were worthless. Now they are indeed of great historical value.During the Great Depression when many families, white and non-white, had little money, Chick often exchanged the curios for food or at the nominal amount. Included in the collection were hand made pots, drums, cooking utensils, large and small totem poles, masks and other beautifully carved objects.Tomahawk's famous hamburgers are named after some of the Indian chiefs Chick had known over the years, a sort of memorial to his friends: Skookum Chief, Chief Capilano, Chief Raven, Chief Dominic Charlie, Chief August Jack.
  • Who Owns Photos and Videos Posted on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter?52tweetsretweetWell, it depends on what you mean as “own.”  Under copyright law, unless there is an agreement to the contrary or the photograph or video is shot as part of your job, a copyright to a photograph generally belongs to the creator.  As the copyright owner, you own the exclusive rights to display, copy, use, produce, distribute and perform your creation as you see fit and approve.  As the subject of the photograph, you have a right to publicity – which allows you to get paid for the commercial use of your name, likeness or voice.But what happens when you decide to post that picture on the Internet – perhaps on Facebook or Twitter (using Twitpic), or some other social network or photo-sharing site?You may be shocked to find out that once you post on these sites, that although you still “own” the photograph, you grant the social media sites a license to use your photograph anyway they see fit for free AND you grant them the right to let others use you picture as well! This means that not only can Twitter, Twitpic and Facebook make money from the photograph or video (otherwise, a copyright violation), but these sites are making commercial gain by licensing these images, which contains the likeness of the person in the photo or video (otherwise, a violation of their “rights of publicity”).FacebookUnder Facebook’s current terms (which can change at anytime), by posting your pictures and videos, you grant Facebook “a 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”). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.”  Beware of the words “transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license.”  This means that Facebook can license your content to others for free without obtaining any other approval from you!  You should be aware that once your photos or videos are shared on Facebook, it could be impossible to delete them from Facebook, even if you delete the content or cancel your account (the content still remains on Facebook servers and they can keep backups)!  So, although you may be able to withdraw your consent to the use of photos on Facebook, you should also keep in mind that if you share your photos and videos with Facebook applications, those applications may have their own terms and conditions of how they use your creation!  You should read the fine print to make sure you are not agreeing to something that you don’t want to have happen.TwitterTwitter’s photo sharing service, Twitpic, just updated their terms of Service on May 10, 2011 (which, of course, can and will be updated at any time, from time to time).  By uploading content using Twitpic, you are giving “Twitpic permission to use or distribute your content on Twitpic.com or affiliated sites.”  You are also granting “Twitpic a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and Twitpic’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.”The terms go on to state that you also grant “each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service.  The above licenses granted by you in media Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your media from the Service provided that any sub-license by Twitpic to use, reproduce or distribute the Content prior to such termination may be perpetual and irrevocable.”Twitpic/Twitter is probably more problematic than Facebook — They can sell your images and videos if they want! First, there is no definition of “Service” on their site (they need to find a more detailed oriented internet attorney to draft their terms (Twitpic, call me)), so your photo could be used throughout the Internet.  More troubling is that your photos and videos may be reprinted and used in anything without your getting paid a dime – books, magazines, movies, TV shows, billboards – you get the picture!Second, Twitter can create derivative works from your creations.  A derivative work is anything that is built upon your work (like adding your video to a TV show, putting your photo in a montage, etc.).Third, even after you delete your photos from Twitpic, Twitter and Twitpic can still use your creations for a “reasonable” amount of time afterwards.  So what would be a reasonable amount of time to continue using your photo after you terminate the “license” if your photo or video is incorporated by Twitter or Twitpic in a larger work — perhaps forever if it would cost them money to remove!Lastly, since Twitter/Twitpic can grant others to use your photos (and make money from it without paying you (remember the nasty word “royalty-free”)), even if you terminate your Twitter/Twitpic account, the rights they grant to others can never be terminated! Twitter has a deal with World Entertainment News Network permitting them to sell Twitpic content with no money to you!Celebrities and celebrities-to-be, beware!  Your right to publicity (e.g. your right to get paid when others use your name, likeness, voice for commercial gain like product or sports endorsements) is stripped away each and every time you post on Twitter!  You or your intellectual property attorney should read the fine print before you post your photos or videos on Twitter or Facebook!December 19, 2012 UPDATEInstagramWell Facebook was at it again (changing their terms of service for their latest acquisition, Instagram).  The proposed changes are to take place on January 16, 2013.  Basically, Instagram had a brilliant idea to generate money off the backs of their members.  The proposed terms of service explicitly state “To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you. If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf.”This means thatInstagram can make money from advertisers that want to use your face or pictures of your loved ones on any advertising (TV, web, magazines, newspapers, etc.) and never pay you a penny!  Even worse, if you are under 18 (which means you don’t have the legal capacity to enter into a contract) you are making a contractual agreement that you have asked your parents permission to agree to the Instagram terms.  This not only is an egregious position (see discussion above about rights of publicity), but defies logic — Instagram acknowledges that minors can’t enter into a contract, but nevertheless for the under-18, force them to agree by (unenforceable) contract that they have permission anyway.  Go figure!  [Finally there is a reason to go back to the old 2-hour Kodak Carousel slide shows of aunt Sally's vacation.][December 21, 2012 UPDATE]Instagram announced today that it was backing off of its proposed T&C’s to be able to sell content without paying the members.  But a closer look of their replacement terms of use are just as bad.  “Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service’s Privacy Policy. . .”  This means that Instagram can still sublicense your photos to any company for a fee (without paying themember)!  And it gets worse.  For instance, let’s say a posted photo is of a celebrity.  Instagram then licenses that picture to an advertiser.  But then the advertiser gets sued by the celebrity for violation of their right of privacy (who in turn sues Instagram).  You the poster would have to indemnify Instagram because in section 4(iii) of the terms, “(iii) you agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owed by reason of Content you post on or through the Service.”  Bottom line – Instagramstil gets to sell your pictures without paying you and you can be liable in the event they have to return that money to the advertiser!
  • http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/creative-commons-and-sharing-web/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/anned/4415694832/sizes/o/in/photostream/
  • John Palfrey is Professor of Law @ HARVARDUrs Gasser Fellow @ Harvard Law School @ Berkman Research Center for Information Law
  • http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/creative-commons-and-sharing-web/For almost a decade, there have been alternate ways for creators on the web – both pros and amateurs – to license their photos, writing, movies, and music. This Creative Commons approach wasn’t just some arbitrary legalese: It was a way the world could build on creatives’ work. Re-use it. Re-mix it.It’s what made the web a place where individuals were not just creators, but part of communities that valued sharing.By creating legal frameworks for licensing content in more flexible ways than traditional copyright laws, Creative Commons became a core part of the original Web 2.0 movement. That movement conceived of a web where platforms should strive to enhance – not put walls around – sharing communities.But today Creative Commons isn’t as easily accessible in our most popular social networks. And that means we’re at risk of losing much more than the web we have already lost.Because Creative Commons embodied an ethos of sharing that went beyond just show-and-tell. It’s been a vital part of sharing on the net, which has given all of us access to no-cost printing presses in the form of blogs; cheap ways to create, edit, and share videos and photos; and democratized distribution channels such as YouTube and Reddit.Photographers have used Creative Commons to build their name and reputation – take Scott Beale of Laughing Squid as an example. Writers more focused on spreading their ideas than on reserving their exclusive right for the rest of their life (plus 70 years) have used it to find wider audiences – whether they are academics, or writers of sci-fi for teens like Cory Doctorow.While CC licenses are used in many ways – sometimes to find a way to make more money, sometimes as a way to simply be part of a shared culture – it has always been about building on the work of fellow citizens.But that ethos isn’t something espoused by popular photo-sharing site Instagram or its new owner Facebook – which since 2008 has been the net’s biggest repository of photos.Yet you might think those services do believe in the idea of a commons. From Facebook’s statement of its principles:People should have the freedom to share whatever information they want, in any medium and any format…. People should have the freedom to access all of the information made available to them by others. People should also have practical tools that make it easy, quick, and efficient to share and access this information.And even more explicitly, in his founder’s letter before the Facebook IPO, CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote:Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission – to make the world more open and connected.We should judge a company by its actions, not by its statements.Say you have a gallery of photos of human rights abuses that you uploaded to Facebook – and that you want the world to see, and newspapers to print. Well, there’s no option for that on Facebook.Try to license an Instagram photo via Creative Commons. It’s not that CC isn’t the default mode — there’s not even an option for it. You get your copyright for a hundred plus years, and Instagram gets a license for that duration too.Facebook is about Facebook. Sharing to them means sharing … on Facebook. Connecting with other people means connecting with other people … on Facebook. Like the old joke about fortune cookies, you have to append “on Facebook” to get the real meaning.Creative Commons embodied an ethos of sharing that went beyond just show-and-tell.Instagram is still young, so perhaps it can buck its corporate master. But it’s yet to show a commitment to doing right by users and the public, and the recent decision to prevent Twitter users from seeing Instagram photos inside Twitter makes it highly unlikely the company considers being part of a larger sharing culture a priority.Twitter, which only recently began to control photo sharing, will also have to decide whether it wants to support an open content ecosystem. While I’m still hopeful, its recent, ridiculous dictates about displaying tweets outside of Twitter.com and its limits on third-party clients and APIs throws into doubt whether Twitter will embrace CC licensing of photos.Thankfully, Flickr remains CC-friendly. Once the star of online photo sharing, Flickr made CC licensing famous and easy. Yahoo’s new CEO Marissa Mayer seems to have revitalized it through a just-launched mobile client that creates the possibility that “Flickr has the opportunity to become the new Flickr.”YouTube followed Flickr’s early example, eventually making it simple to add CC licenses to a video. Google+ already has CC-licensing for photos you share on its social network. Just look in Settings under Privacy and Permission. Slideshare offers a CC-license option for presentations, too. SoundCloud, a service for sharing music online, makes it simple as well: Musicians upload music, choose a license, and then allow others to remix it, rework it, republish it, use it in a film, etc.We should judge a company by its actions, not by its statements.In the last week alone, nearly 19,000 tracks were uploaded on Soundcloud under one of the CC licenses.In that same period, not a single photo was uploaded to Facebook or Instagram with a visible CC license.It’s not that it’s technically or legally hard. All it takes is a couple of flags in a database and a little user-interface work. Mostly it just takes a belief that part of your company’s job is to help sharing culture grow.Now, there actually is a way to license your Instagram photos under Creative Commons. Philip Neustrom, one of the founders of the non-profit LocalWiki, decided to do something about it with I Am CC, which lets Instagram users sign up to have all their Instagram photos automatically have a Creative Commons license. Neustrom also built an API so people can search those photos.But this service exists only because Neustrom thought it was important and long overdue, and so he built it himself. None of the $750 million that Facebook doled out for Instagram has gone to adding a CC field to their photo database.I asked Facebook twice by e-mail for comment on why there’s no support for CC licensing in either Instagram or Facebook. The company did not respond.The silence is telling.Facebook and Instagram will never add CC-licensing because they’ve got you and your attention and your content – which leads to money and power. When you’ve got that, who cares about principles?

Scaling Social Curation: The @DiscoverTotems project Monkigras 2013 Scaling Social Curation: The @DiscoverTotems project Monkigras 2013 Presentation Transcript