Joint Conf on Dig Libraries 03 Closing Keynote


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Joint Conf on Dig Libraries 03 Closing Keynote

  1. 1. DIGITAL FAIRNESS & the FAIR USE EQUILIBRIUM OR Grand Central Station Recycles The New York TimesThe New York Times (and other lessons from the 2nd Enclosure) Closing Keynote Joint Conference on Digital Libraries Rice University, Houston May 27-31, 2003
  2. 2. [Suggested] Stages of Digital Library Development Stage Date Sponsor Purpose I: Experimental 1994 NSF/ARPA/NASA Experiments on collections of digital materials II: Developing 1998/199 9 NSF/ARPA/NASA, DLF/CLIR Begin to consider custodianship, sustainability, user communities III: Mature ? Funded through normal channels? Real sustainable interoperable digital libraries     Howard Besser. Adapted from The Next Stage: Moving from Isolated Digital Collections to Interoperable Digital Libraries by First Monday, volume 7, number 6 (June 2002), URL:  
  3. 3. “There is no ‘left’ or ‘right’ in debates over copyright. There are those who favor ‘thick’ protection and those who favor ‘thin’. “ Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyright and copywrongs: the rise of intellectual properrty and how it threatens creativity. New York, NYU Press, 2001, p.14.
  4. 4. “The field of knowledge is the common property of all mankind “ Thomas Jefferson 1807
  5. 5. NEW YORK: The New York Times has started replacing 70 open-framework newspaper recycling bins on Grand Central's platforms and in the terminal with cages intended to make it difficult to retrieve free papers, presumably sending readers to the newsstand. Fifty new bins have been installed with metal mesh sides and tall, covered tops capped by a narrow chimney slot where newspapers can be tossed in, but not easily pulled out. Other bins will be retrofitted. The cages have sparked 10 formal complaints from Metro-North Railroad riders, much more informal grousing and a fair amount of ingenuity to thwart their intended effect.   Riders wishing to pass along their papers leave them folded on the cages' top. Those papers are quickly snapped up by thrifty fellow commuters… The Times first asked Metro-North to adapt its bins several year ago, but the railroad didn't want to pay for the work, railroad spokesman Dan Brucker said. Now that the Times is footing the bill for the retrofit and upkeep, Metro-North agreed to the change. The Times would not release the cost, but Brucker estimated it would exceed $50,000. "How many papers do you have to sell to make up the cost?'' Brucker said. "They have to not have them stolen and sell 80,000 papers at 75 cents apiece to break even, the way I figure it.'' Toby Usnik, director of public relations for The New York Times Co., said the purpose of the project "was to keep people from picking through the recycle bins.'' He declined to provide information about the paper's hoped-for financial gain. Brucker conceded that the new bins held some advantages for the railroad, even though they run the risk of alienating riders.   “The people who are selling newspapers in Grand Central are our tenants, and they are paying rent that supports the transportation system, so it is logical to allow the Times, with definite perks for us, to limit the free papers.''   The railroad first started recycling papers in 1991, saving $413,000 in garbage hauling fees. Almost immediately, it became the nation's largest newsprint recycler, Brucker said, collecting five tons a day. That figure quickly dropped to four tons, as riders took newspapers, and recycling, into their own hands. The four-ton figure has held steady ever since, Brucker said.    
  6. 6. Federal Judge Upholds Giuliani's Policy on Arresting the Homeless Metropolitan Desk | December 29, 2000, Friday By DAVID ROHDE (NYT) 936 words Late Edition - Final , Section B , Page 1 , Column 1 ABSTRACT - Federal District Court Judge John S Martin upholds Giuliani administration policy that allows police officers to arrest homeless people who sleep in cardboard boxes in public; issue arises from suit filed by Augustine Betancourt in 1997 when he was arrested, held, and strip- searched after sleeping in Manhattan park (M) A federal judge has upheld a Giuliani administration policy that allows police officers to arrest homeless people for sleeping in cardboard boxes in public. Judge John S. Martin Jr. ruled on Tuesday that a 1969 Sanitation Department regulation barring people from abandoning cars or boxes on city streets could be applied to homeless people sleeping in boxes. .
  7. 7. The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. Anatole France (from The Red Lily, 1894)
  8. 8. August 30, 2002 BiodiversityBiodiversityCommonsCommons // WSSD Market Law Norms Architecture Information “Modalities of Constraint” on Open Access to Information Adapted from: Lessig, L. Code and other laws of cyberspace. NY, Basic Books, 1999.
  9. 9. Law Market Norms Architecture “Doctrine of First Sale” NYT vendors (point of sale) Personal / Common Property Trash Cans / Recycle Bins Copyright NYT Inc. (business plan) NYT Mission? Bin Architecture NYCRR Code 1085:6 Recycle Value “Fair Use”? Methodology: Staff Clean-up / Vol. Deposit “Quality of Life” Laws Re-sale by Homeless Charity? Social Safety Net?
  10. 10. A Flexplay DVD differs from a conventional DVD only in that it has a limited-time viewing window that begins when the consumer chooses to remove it from its packaging. After the allotted time, the disc becomes unreadable by the DVD player. For more information about how the Flexplay technology works, click here. Flexplay Benefits By utilizing Flexplay DVDs, content providers gain the advantages of increased distribution control while reaching a broader audience. Consumers, in turn, are provided many new outlets from which to purchase rental-priced DVDs without the need for returns or the incurrence of late fees. For more information on the benefits of Flexplay technology, click here. Flexplay Applications Flexplay technology can be used in a variety of industries and applications including: music, movies, video games, television and software. Flexplay DVDs are also suitable for promotions and any other applications developed by Flexplay’s clients. Persistence?  Flexplay DVDs What is Flexplay?
  11. 11. “Flexplay” : How it Works • All DVDs are optically read via a laser beam. The laser beam focuses through the surface of the disc onto an information layer and is then reflected back to the DVD player’s photo detectors. Because DVDs are optically read, the clarity and transmission of light through the disc’s surface are critical to playback performance. Flexplay has developed a proprietary process that makes a DVD unreadable by the DVD player’s laser beam after a pre- determined time period lapses. For more information on Flexplay's proprietary technology, contact Flexplay at
  12. 12. New York Times May 4, 2003, Sunday NATIONAL DESK Software Bullet Is Sought to Kill Musical Piracy By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN (NYT) Some of the world's biggest record companies, facing rampant online piracy, are quietly financing the development and testing of software programs that would sabotage the computers and Internet connections of people who download pirated music, according to industry executives. The record companies are exploring options on new countermeasures, which some experts say have varying degrees of legality, to deter online theft: from attacking personal Internet connections so as to slow or halt downloads of pirated music to overwhelming the distribution networks with potentially malicious programs that masquerade as music files. The covert campaign, parts of which may never be carried out because they could be illegal under state and federal wiretap laws, is being developed and tested by a cadre of small technology companies, the executives said.
  13. 13. ''There are a lot of things you can do -- some quite nasty,'' said Marc Morgenstern, the chief executive of Overpeer, a technology business that receives support from several large media companies. Mr. Morgenstern refused to identify his clients, citing confidentiality agreements with them. “ “Software Bullet Is Sought to Kill Musical Piracy” Andrew Ross Sorkin, New York Times May 4, 2003, Sunday
  14. 14. • “spoofing”: spreading copies of fake music files across file-sharing networks… • using ''chat'' features in popular file- trading software programs by sending out millions of messages telling people: ''When you break the law, you risk''When you break the law, you risk legal penalties. There is a simple waylegal penalties. There is a simple way to avoid that risk:to avoid that risk: DON'T STEAL MUSIC.''DON'T STEAL MUSIC.''
  15. 15. • A program, dubbed ''freeze'' locks up a computer system for a certain duration -- minutes or possibly even hours -- risking the loss of data that was unsaved if the computer is restarted. • an attack on personal Internet connections, often called ''interdiction'' prevents a person from using a network while attempting to download pirated music or offer it to others. • ''silence'' scans a computer's hard drive for pirated music files and attempts to delete them • a “Trojan horse” rather than a virus, redirects users to Web sites where they can legitimately buy the song they tried to download
  16. 16. “A federal judge ordered Verizon to provide the RIAA with the identities of customers suspected of making available hundreds of copyrighted songs. The record companies are increasingly using techniques to sniff out and collect the electronic addresses of computers that distribute pirated music. “
  17. 17. U.S.Patents and Copyrights Congress is authorized: “To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 Clause 8
  18. 18. References to “Intellectual Property” in U.S. federal cases 0 500 1000 1500 2000 "Intellectual Property" "Intellectual Property" 1 0 4 9 15 11 56 341 1721 1900- 1919 1920- 1929 1930- 1939 1940- 1949 1950- 1959 1960- 1969 1970- 1979 1980- 1989 1990- 1999 “Professor Hank Greely” Cited in Lessig, L. The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a connrcted world. NY, Random House, 2001. P. 294.
  19. 19. Occurrences of the phrase “intellectual property” per 100,000 U.S. Federal Cases 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1900- 1919 1930- 1939 1950- 1959 1970- 1979 1990- 1999 "Intellectual Property"/100K Cases “Professor Hank Greely” Cited in Lessig, L. The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a connrcted world. NY, Random House, 2001. P. 294.
  20. 20. Patentable Subject Matter “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter or any new and useful improvement thereof” U.S. Code Section 101 (1982)
  21. 21. Total U.S. Patents 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 Total Patents Aharonian, Greg (Internet Patent News Service) 05-28-01 Personal communication. Cited in Lessig, L. The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a connrcted world. NY, Random House, 2001. P. 318-319.
  22. 22. “Software” Patents 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 "Software" Patent Class 364 & 395 Combined Aharonian, Greg (Internet Patent News Service) 05-28-01 Personal communication. Cited in Lessig, L. The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a connrcted world. NY, Random House, 2001. P. 318-319.
  23. 23. Threats to the Public Domain in the Digital Environment • U.S. Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) • U.S. Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998 • U.S. Uniform Computer InformationTransactions Act (UCITA) • Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) • U.S. Collections of Information Anti-Piracy Act (CIAA) (1999) • U.S. Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). • E.U. Database Directive (1996)
  24. 24. “Patents proclaim exclusive right of use and, often, nonuse. The suppression of invention denies the rationale of scientific production and diffusion.” Robert K. Merton, “A Note on Science and Democarcy,” Journal of Law and Political Sociology 1 (1942): 115,123.
  25. 25. Market + Technical Constraints: Information Gradient
  26. 26. GDP $0.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00 $35,000.00 $40,000.00 Luxembourg Jersey FaroeIslands Kuwait Chile Belarus Bulgaria Peru Jordan Bolivia Vietnam Myanmar BurkinaFaso Comoros GDP
  27. 27. 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 8000000 9000000 10000000 Japan Poland China Philippines Kazakhsta Mauritius Morocco Senegal Uganda Honduras Tunisia Northern Banglades Hosts Internet Hosts
  28. 28. Internet_Users (1000s) -20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 United Netherlands Austria Greece Egypt Lithuania Bangladesh Uzbekistan Sudan Haiti Paraguay Suriname Solomon Guinea- Micronesia, Cayman Niue
  29. 29. Julian Birkinshaw and Tony Sheehan, “Managing the Knowledge Life Cycle,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 44 (2) Fall, 2002: 77. And then ?????
  30. 30. “The field of knowledge is the common property of all mankind “ Thomas Jefferson 1807
  31. 31. November 11, 2002 BiodiversityBiodiversityCommonsCommons // World Heritage A definition of the “Public Domain” “The public domain is a range of uses of information that any person is privileged to make absent individualized facts that make a particular use by a particular person unprivileged.” Conversely: “The enclosed domain is the range of uses of information as to which someone has an exclusive right, and that no other person may make absent individualized facts that indicate permission from the holder of the right, or otherwise privilege the specific use under the stated facts.” Yochai Benkler, “Free as the air to common use: First Amendment constraints on enclosure of the Pulic Domain,” NYU Law Review Vol. 74 (May, 1999):362.
  32. 32. “Map of the public domain and adjacent terrain” From: Pamela Samuelson, DIGITAL INFORMATION , NETWORKS & PUBLIC DOMAIN, Presented at the Conference on the Public Domain, Duke University Law School, November, 2001
  33. 33. Public Domain or “Commons”??? • A commons is a circumscribed (limited/conditional) domain of use • Protects patrimonial / property rights required by owners as required by owners • Is compatible with market mechanisms • Can protect organizational/individual “moral rights”
  34. 34. Public Domain or “Commons”??? • A commons is a circumscribed (limited/conditional) domain of use • Protects patrimonial / property rights required by owners as required by owners • Is compatible with market mechanisms • Can protect organizational/individual “moral rights”
  35. 35. Digital Commons? Digital resources as “public goods” are: • non-rivalrous (near-zero cost for additional increments of use) • non-excludable (i.e.of potentially universal benefit) • universally accessible (potentially) • But economic inequities and newly emergent legal/technical barriers may deny these benefits Reichman, Jerome H. and Paul F. Uhlir, Promoting Public Good Uses of Scientific Data: A Contractually Reconstructed Commons for Science and Innovation.
  36. 36. Culture/ “Norms”: (Civil Society/Organizational/Individual) Law and Policy: (Intl./Natl. / Private Sector / NGO ) “Architecture”: (Logical -Technical Solutions) The Commons Framework: Addresses all four “modalities of constraint” Market / Economy: (Business Plans and Models)
  37. 37. Normative Change: Global Community • At global scale it is essential to recognize barriers to free and equitable sharing of data, information and knowledge • To accept the notion of fairness as fundamental to international justice (and thus “fair use”) • A clear consensus must be developed in support of the Global Commons • International Organizations have a critical role to play as advocates and supporters
  38. 38. “The Death of Distance”???: “denationalization”??? / “despacialization”???
  39. 39. Organizations Networks of practice How does this model apply at the international scale?
  40. 40. Well… Still… “Collocation” & “Clustered Ecologies”“Collocation” & “Clustered Ecologies” • Industrial clusters : South Lancashire (Norman smiths, 1066 and all that…) • Silicon [loc] – “Valley”, “Alley”, “Glen”,“Forest” • “Fashion” cluster (Italy) • Formula One cluster (London)
  41. 41. Knowledge Flows? “Leaks”? or “Conscious Sharing”? • Subcontracting • Joint ventures • Cross licensing • Portfolio Sharing • Collaborative Research Grants • Universities (as vectors) • PUBLIC DOMAINPUBLIC DOMAIN // COMMONSCOMMONS • OPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCE
  42. 42. Normative Change: Institutions Business Planning”, “Mission Drift” and “Organizational Self-Interest – Popular rhetoric of “hard-headed”, “realistic” “business planning” may confuse programmatic efficiency, rigor and financial accountability with narrowed mercantile/ proprietary interest – These are not the same thing – Governments and not-for-profit NGO’s exist because they fulfill missions that are not reliably or appropriately met by for-profit organizations – For these, the ultimate measure of success is fulfillment of mission (not revenue, per se)
  43. 43. The act to incorporate the American Museum of Natural History, which passed the New York State Congress on April 6, 1869, states: The American Museum of Natural History, to be located in the City of New York for the purpose of establishing and maintaining in said city a Museum and Library of Natural History; of encouraging and developing the study of Natural Science; of advancing the general knowledge of kindred subjects, and to that end of furnishing popular instruction. The 1996 strategic plan, adopted by the Board of Trustees on December 10, includes the following statement of mission: To discover, interpret, and disseminate -- through scientific research and education -- knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the universe. Institutional Mission of a “Not-for-Profit”
  44. 44. Scientific Senate Ad Hoc Committee of Data Access Proposed Institutional Policy and Guidelines on Access to Collection-based Information Preamble Through their collections natural history institutions house a permanent record of the world's biodiversity, earth history, and cultural change, as well as, in their libraries and archives, a written record pertaining to these subjects. These collections serve as essential resources for a broad user community, from scientists and other scholars who seek to understand and interpret the natural world, to those concerned with preserving biological and cultural diversity, to countries and peoples attempting to promote their well-being through sustainable use and conservation of their natural resources, to societies in general through educational outreach. Because of the critical services that collections-based information provides to society, the curatorial staff of the American Museum of Natural History endorses a policy that makes data freely available in a timely way to the user community, with restrictions to be noted below. Collection-based information For the purposes of this document, collection information is defined to be those data (whether in electronic form or not) directly linked to the Museum's scientific collections, including but not necessarily limited to specimen or object identification, provenance, and disposition, such as is provided by catalogs, label information, images and field notes deposited with collections, and other associated descriptors. Excluded by this definition are unverified and preliminary data or notes as well as interpretive data and conclusions that are derived from specimens/objects in the normal course of scientific and scholarly research. It is assumed that free, open, and timely access to these kinds of data will result from standard avenues of scholarly publication and dissemination. American Museum of Natural History Scientific Senate
  45. 45.
  46. 46. “Traditional scientific norms promote a public domain of freely available scientific information, independent choice in the selection of research topics, and (perhaps above all) respect for uninhibited scientific invention.” Arti Kaur Rai, “Regarding Scientific Research: Intellectual Property Rights and the Norms of Science,” Northwestern University Law Review 94 (1999): 77, 89-90.
  47. 47. • Individual creators of knowledge: “moral rights” vested in created work • Respect for the integrity and original context (“provenance”) of work • Acknowledgement • Full accounting for use • Respect for legitimate restrictions on use “Normative Change”: Individuals
  48. 48. “Normative Change”: Individuals • Commons planning must: • Make careful provision for full and appropriate acknowledgement of authors and institutions • Use best available tools and methodologies to return sensitive and detailed measures of impact
  49. 49. “The substantive findings of science are a product of social collaboration and are assigned to the community. They constitute a common heritage in which the equity of the individual producer is severely limited. An eponymous law or theory does not enter into the exclusive possession of the discoverer and his heirs, nor do mores bestow upon them special right of use and disposition. “Property rights in science are whittled down to a bare minimum by the rationale of the scientific ethic. The scientist’s claim to “his” intellectual “property” is limited to that of recognition and esteem which, if the institution functions with a modicum of efficiency, is roughly commensurate with the significance of the increments brought to the common fund of knowledge.” Robert K. Merton, “A Note on Science and Democarcy,” Journal of Law and Political Sociology 1 (1942): 121.
  50. 50. “Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain.” Vanna White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.; David Deutsch Assoc., 989 F. 2d 1512, 1514 (1993), 27. [dissent by Judge Alex Kozinski]
  51. 51. ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING IN SCIENCE SEIZING THE MOMENT: SCIENTISTS' AUTHORSHIP RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE This new report is the result of a AAAS project that examined intellectual property issues associated with electronic publishing in science. The emergence of electronic journals in scientific publication has the potential to transform the management and communication of scientific information, and stakeholders associated with scientific publishing are engaged in assessing their promises and pitfalls. What seems clear is that electronic publication is not likely to reach its full potential without a stable legal framework that balances the protection of researchers' intellectual property with the open dissemination and exchange of scientific information. The report of the project describes the challenges that advances in information technology pose for intellectual property law, and identifies a set of "core values" that should be embedded in a system of scientific publishing. Those core values can serve as a basis for defining a common ground on which all stakeholders can build new publishing systems and legal frameworks. The report recommends new patterns of licensing that will enable scientists and scientific publishers to build a publishing system that will promote broad access to and use of scientific information, all within existing copyright law. Guidelines for authors and publishers are offered for preparing licensing agreements. The report was prepared by AAAS with the assistance of a diverse group of experts representing the range of backgrounds and perspectives participating in ongoing debates about the future of scientific publishing. The project was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. For more information, contact Mark Frankel. Developing Practices and Standards for Electronic Publishing in Science Defining and Certifying Electronic Publication in Science
  52. 52. WHO?
  53. 53. Peshawar, NWFP, Pakistan October, 1994 Consider the convergent legal, market, cultural and technical forces that have shaped these lives…
  54. 54. Peshawar, NWFP, Pakistan 1994
  55. 55. In Pakistan: Within the past 50 years 32 universities and more than 100 colleges, training institutes and other specialized institutions of higher education have been founded [Syed Haider Abbas Zaidi, “Higher Education Pakistan” ] Market + Technical Constraints :Information Gradient
  56. 56. College of African Wildlife Management P.O. Box 3031 Moshi Tanzania Fax 255 55 51113 Tel 0811 520360 . COLLEGE OF AFRICAN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, MWEKA Market + Technical Constraints :Information Gradient
  57. 57. From: “xxxxxx” <> To: Subject: RESERACH PAPERS REQUIRED Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 09:54:37 +0500 Dear sir, I am a student of MSC. Veteterinay Parasitology in UAF(Pakistan).I need your help because of that these research papers are not available & I could not purchase these research papers which are mentioned in below list with related to some research topics which are below as (1) Epidemiological evaluation of cattle lice/buffalo lice(or) Epidemiological studiessurey cattle lice buffalo lice . (2) Prevalence of cattle lice on calves (or) Prevalence of sucking & chewing lice on cattle (3) incidence (or) Prevalence of sucking & chewing lice on cattleI will be thankfull to your if you will send to me these research papers on my postal address (or) because of that I can not purchase them. (4) Taxonomical study of different species of cattle lice. Please send to me these research papers as early as possible . Postal address :Dr . xxxxxx House#xx, Street# xx, Bazar # x Razabab, Faisalabad Pakistan Email address: xxxxx@
  58. 58. RESEARCH PAPERS REQUIRED 1: Colwell DD, Clymer B, Booker CW, Guichon PT, Jim GK, Schunicht OC, Wildman BK. Prevalence of sucking and chewing lice on cattle entering feedlots in southern Alberta.Can Vet J. 2001 Apr;42(4):281- 2: Chalmers K, Charleston WA. “Cattle lice in New Zealand: observations on the prevalence, distribution and seasonal patterns of infestation.” N Z Vet J. 1980 Oct;28(10):198-200. 3: Chalmers K, Charleston WA.”Cattle lice in New Zealand: observations on the prevalence, distribution and seasonal patterns of infestation”. N Z Vet J. 1980 Oct;28(10):198-200. [SNIP]
  59. 59. Article 17. Exchange of Information 1. The Contracting Parties shall facilitate the exchange of information, from all publicly available sources, relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account the special needs of developing countries. 2. Such exchange of information shall include exchange of results of technical, scientific and socio-economic research, as well as information on training and surveying programmes, specialized knowledge, indigenous and traditional knowledge as such and in combination with the technologies referred to in Article 16, paragraph 1. It shall also, where feasible, include repatriation of information. Convention on Biological DiversityConvention on Biological Diversity
  60. 60. “Common Knowledge” Creating the Biodiversity Knowledge Commons Business plan and implementation strategy A proposal developed with contributions from American Museum of Natural History Biodiversity Conservation Information System BirdLife International Conservation International Global Biodiversity Information Facility Inter American Biodiversity Information Network IUCN Environmental Law Commission IUCN Species Survival Commission IUCN The World Conservation Union IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas NatureServe North American Biodiversity Information Network Rio Tinto Society for Conservation Biology The Nature Conservancy TRAFFIC International UNEP- World Conservation Monitoring Centre Wildlife Conservation Society
  61. 61. You're probably familiar with the phrase, "All rights reserved," and the little (c) that goes along with it. Creative Commons wants to help copyright holders send a different message: "Some rights reserved." For example, if you don't mind people copying and distributing your online image so long as they give you credit, we'll have a license that helps you say so. If you want people to copy your band's MP3 but don't want them to profit off it without your permission, use one of our licenses to express that preference. Our licensing tools will even help you mix and match such preferences from a menu of options: Attribution. Permit others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and derivative works based upon it only if they give you credit. Noncommercial. Permit others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and derivative works based upon it only for noncommercial purposes. No Derivative Works. Permit others to copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based upon it. Copyleft. Permit others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work. Creative commons: Licensing Options
  62. 62. When you've made your choices, you'll get the appropriate license expressed in three ways: 1. Commons Deed. A simple, plain-language summary of the license, complete with the relevant icons. 2. Legal Code. The fine print that you need to be sure the license will stand up in court. 3. Digital Code. A machine-readable translation of the license that helps search engines and other applications identify your work by its terms of use. If you prefer to dedicate your work to the public domain, where nothing is owned and all is permitted, we'll help you do that, too. In other words, we'll help you declare, "No rights reserved." Creative commons: Licensing Options (cont.)
  63. 63. International Applicability? What legal standing will CC licenses have outside of the United States? We and our lawyers have worked hard to craft the licenses to be enforceable in as many jurisdictions as possible. That said, we can not account for every last nuance in the world's various copyright laws, at least not given our current resources. We hope, as our resources and network of allies grow, to begin offering licenses designed for specific jurisdictions sometime in 2003. Please note, however, that our licenses contain "severability" clauses -- meaning that, if a certain provision is found to be unenforceable in a certain place, that provision and only that provision drops out of the license, leaving the rest of the agreement intact.
  64. 64. SO, What is being done? : Relevant Projects: U.S. National Science Digital Library Open Archives Initiative WHO/ HINARI (BioMedical Information) Creative Commons (Creative Arts) BioMed Central Free Medical e-Print Archive AAAS: “Electronic publishing in science seizing the moment: scientists' authorship rights in the Digital Age”
  65. 65. What the Commons might provide…?
  66. 66. SO, What is to be done? Conservation organizations are asked: to subscribe to Global Commons Principles. Specifically: – To commit to organizational knowledge assets (analog and digital) to free, secure and persistently available use for non- commercial (research, education, applied [conservation] ) uses (provided guarantees of organizational and individual “moral rights”). – To make implementation of the Commons an organizational priority and commit significant institutional resources to Commons development. – To display the Commons logo as a part of organizational displays (digital or analog).
  67. 67. “Intellectual property law assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages other to build freely on the ideas that underlie it. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate: It is the means by which intellectual property law advances the progress of science and art. We give authors certain exclusive rights, but in exchange we get a richer public domain.” Vanna White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.; David Deutsch Assoc., 989 F. 2d 1512, 1514 (1993), 31. [dissent by Judge Alex Kozinski]
  68. 68. " processes have an historical contingency that prevents universal explanation." Richard Lewontin in The Triple Helix