It has come to the attention of Creative Commons that there is an increased use of CC licenses by cultural heritage institutions on photographic reproductions and 3D scans of objects such as sculptures, busts, engravings, and inscriptions, among others, that are indisputably in the public domain worldwide. A recent example is the 3000-year-old Nefertiti bust on display at the Neues Museum in Berlin that the museum licensed under BY-NC-SA. The practices vary widely, from using a CC BY license, to using our most restrictive license—CC BY-NC-ND.

Most of these objects have been in the public domain for a long time now, indeed many that have never been subject to copyright. The copyright holder is the only person that can apply a CC license to a work. If the work is in the public domain, no copyright licenses should be applied, and in the case of CC licenses, which are designed to only operate where copyright exists, the application of a CC license is ineffective. In these cases, if anything, the Public Domain Mark or the CC0 public domain dedication tool should be applied to confirm worldwide public domain status.

If the work is in the public domain, no copyright licenses should be applied, and in the case of CC licenses, which are designed to only operate where copyright exists, the application of a CC license is ineffective.

Some of these claims are being made over the 3D scans and photographic reproductions of objects, not necessarily over the objects themselves. However, digitization by itself doesn’t create copyright or similar rights because in the vast majority of jurisdictions there is no originality involved in making a faithful digital reproduction of a creative work. In most of the cases, these reproductions follow very well-established industry standards for preservation purposes. Even when these scans are the result of skilled labor, these reproductions are still insufficiently creative to be granted copyright protection almost everywhere.

In some of these cases, the application of CC licenses has been applied over contested objects, where cultural stewardship and ownership of these objects is the subject of legal, political, and diplomatic discussions. Creative Commons is exploring this issue and recognizes that CC licenses do not sufficiently address these issues. However, in these cases, it is particularly meaningful to pay attention to the cultural prerogatives that enure to the communities of origin, including decisions on digitization and access restrictions and conditions.¹

Creative Commons licenses are tools to allow users to better understand what permissions are being granted to the public by the creator of the original work. When a CC license is misapplied, the ability of CC licenses to be a standard signal for communicating copyright permissions is undermined. Mislabelling works creates confusion among re-users of works and limits the rights of the public to benefit from the global commons.

We acknowledge that in some cases cultural heritage institutions use CC licenses in order to get credit for their work or to indicate the provenance of the digital surrogates. There are better, more appropriate technical tools to achieve that goal, including metadata and machine readability standards.

Lastly, we understand the concerns over revenue and profit that some cultural heritage institutions express when evaluating open access policies. However, claiming copyright over public domain works and successful revenue strategies are different conversations that don’t belong in the same space. If anything, there is a growing amount of evidence that shows that the associated costs for licensing images dwarf the potential benefits or revenue streams for licensing images.²

Creative Commons licenses are not tools that should be used to limit the possibility of discovery, sharing, and re-use of the public domain. Cultural heritage institutions should embrace open access policies as part of their institutional missions to grant access to culture and information to the public.

Creative Commons is making efforts to offer more training and education activities to cultural heritage institutions on open access. We are also working in partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation on a Declaration on Open Access for Cultural Heritage, that we expect to launch at our Global Summit in May 2020. Engage with us in this conversation at @openglam.

 

---

References

1. Pavis, Mathilde and Wallace, Andrea, Response to the 2018 Sarr-Savoy Report: Statement on Intellectual Property Rights and Open Access Relevant to the Digitization and Restitution of African Cultural Heritage and Associated Materials (March 25, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3378200 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3378200

2. Crews, Kenneth D., Museum Policies and Art Images: Conflicting Objectives and Copyright Overreaching. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 22, p. 795, 2012; Tanner S. Reproduction charging models & rights policy for digital images in American art museums: A Mellon Foundation funded study. Online: King’s College London, 2004. 57 p.; Foteini Valeonti, Andrew Hudson-Smith, Melissa Terras & Chrysanthi Zarkali, Reaping the Benefits of Digitisation: Pilot study exploring revenue generation from digitised collections through technological innovation, Proceedings of EVA London 2018, UK.

The post Reproductions of Public Domain Works Should Remain in the Public Domain appeared first on Creative Commons.

When governments choose to use Creative Commons licenses to preserve and share cultural knowledge, like Indigenous languages, it illustrates how our licenses can help create a more accessible and equitable world. 

Recently, CC India’s Global Network Representative (GNC) Subhashish Panigrahi brought to our attention that the Indian state of Odisha licensed 21 dictionaries—in all 21 Indigenous languages that are spoken in the province—under CC BY. This opens them up for adaptation, distribution, and remixing by anyone.

Download or view all of the dictionaries here. 

Global Voices underlined the particular significance of this announcement in a tweet, posting: “India is home to over 780 languages and approximately 220-250 languages have died over the last 50 years.” 

The Indian state of Odisha publishes online dictionaries in 21 indigenous languages https://t.co/MCZ6NkLuDG India is home to over 780 languages and approximately 220-250 languages have died over the last 50 years. pic.twitter.com/zx1t8ROA1a

— Global Voices (@globalvoices) October 24, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8">

We couldn’t be happier to see CC licenses being used to facilitate translation projects and sharing that could ultimately help protect Indigenous languages, knowledge, and culture. We hope that other governments and policy makers around the world will take heed and similarly make valuable content and tools like these dictionaries openly available to the public. 

If you work with a government or institution that needs consultation on how to use CC licenses, please email us at info@creativecommons.org.

The post Indian Government Releases 21 Dictionaries Under CC BY appeared first on Creative Commons.

A key principle of the open movement is that the power of information relies on its accessibility. As researcher and activist Bushra Ebadi expressed to us recently, “Access to information is intrinsically tied to the right to know and the right to exist.”   

We often receive stories from around the world illustrating how Creative Commons (CC)  licenses have unlocked critical information, giving voice to those who have been silenced or marginalized.

Recently, we learned that Russian news outlet Meduza used the CC BY license in a campaign to help free journalist Ivan Golunov by raising awareness around him and his work. We decided to reach out to Meduza via email to learn more. Editor in chief Ivan Kolpakov’s responses are below. 

This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length. 

---

Why did Meduza decide to license Ivan Golunov’s work under CC BY?

Meduza’s investigative reporter Ivan Golunov was arrested on June 6, 2019 in the center of Moscow. From the very beginning, we understood that our reporter was being persecuted because of his work. The people who we believe were behind his arrest are probably characters from his articles (for example, Golunov is famous for his anti-corruption investigations). Very quickly we realized that the smartest answer to this attack was to put Golunov’s work into the spotlight as much as possible. So, a couple of days later, we licensed all of Ivan Golunov’s work on Meduza—more than 100 articles—under a CC BY 4.0 license.

What was the result of that decision? 

The result was incredible. Hundreds of Russian media outlets republished Golunov’s pieces. Including national newspapers, lifestyle magazines (including Men’s Health Russia, GQ and Glamour), niche websites (e.g., Sports.ru), feminist websites, regional press outlets, etc. 

I think it was the first time in the history of Russian media that one journalist’s articles were published at the same time in every outlet. It was an important part of this unprecedented campaign of solidarity with Golunov that began among journalists, and later became more widespread, including the general public. 

The result? The system gave in: Ivan Golunov was released on June 11, 2019.

Do you think this application of a CC license is a useful case study for other news outlets? 

I do. It’s an amazing example of solidarity among journalists, and works perfectly to counter external threats—even when those threats are very powerful. It’s also a good reminder of the role of mass media: To find what’s hidden and to spread it widely. 

At Meduza, we believe that freedom of information and the free distribution of information are key conditions for achieving positive changes in society. It’s hard to find a better illustration of this idea.

Learn more about this story and Ivan Golunov’s work here. 

The post How a News Outlet Used CC BY to Help Its Journalist appeared first on Creative Commons.

Crafting and maintaining a consistent style is essential to establishing and promoting an organization’s brand. 

As with any organization, Creative Commons’ (CC) brand should help CC build trust with its stakeholders and the broader open movement, as well as maintain and grow CC’s reputation, legitimacy, and leadership in the Global Commons.

With that in mind, we decided to create a CC style guide for CC staff, affiliates, community members, and CC Chapters to use as a reference when creating content specifically for CC as an organization. 

In this guide, you’ll find information on CC’s: 

• Mission and brand tagline
• Mood board
• Brand identity—including information on our logos, fonts, color palette, and visual elements
• Publications style—including guidance on tone, specific language, abbreviations, acronyms, titles and capitalization, numbers, spelling, punctuation, referencing and licensing, and writing tips

Although important, this style guide shouldn’t feel restrictive or diminish creative expression. 

Instead, it should serve as a useful and inspirational guide for anyone creating content specifically for CC as an organization, such as CC staff and members of the CC Global Network. This style guide is also not final and/or comprehensive, it’s the beginning of a longer process to flesh out, define, and standardize CC’s style in order to portray our brand more clearly and consistently. 

Remix this guide for your own use!

We also decided to publish this guide under CC BY and share it externally so that it can be adapted by anyone for their own personal and/or organizational branding needs. If you’re just starting out as a freelance photographer or emerging as an industry thought leader, for example, we encourage you to adapt and remix this guide to build your own! 

We’d love to know how you use this style guide, so tag us on social media when you do!

Download the CC style guide here.

Please note: Our plan is to revisit this guide annually, with our first review taking place in early 2020. Be sure to send us your suggestions for potential changes and/or additions before December 31, 2019 by adding comments to this online document. (Although this is our preferred method for feedback, we will also accept direct emails to victoria@creativecommons.org.) 

The post We Created a CC Style Guide; It’s Yours to Remix appeared first on Creative Commons.

The story of the Creative Commons (CC) logo is linked to the story of CC. 

In 2002, just one year after the founding of CC, designer Ryan Junell accomplished the difficult task of designing a logo that is distinctive, yet teaches through its design. Over time, the CC logo has become a recognizable symbol of the open movement, even accepted by the Museum of Modern Art in New York as a permanent addition in 2015.

Once the logo was designed, however, it was difficult for Junell to decide on the font for the rest of the CC mark. Generally speaking, designers make their choice on typography based on readability and distinctiveness. Sans typographies, for instance, are considered a standard basic element because of their clean shape and lack of ornaments, keeping the writing structure intact. That allows the text to be combined with other visual elements without competing on information hierarchy or expression. In a way, sans typographies provide both a neutral and an eloquent voice. Junell probably had that in mind when he selected the elegant Akzidenz Grotesk font (designed in 1898!) for the CC logo. 

Since 2002, CC licenses—and the CC logo—have been used to share and make freely available billions of works in the Global Commons. CC has also grown to include an active Global Network, consisting of 41 local CC Chapters and over 450 members who use the logo to support their work. 

Due to this growth, we realized in 2018 that the original Akzidenz Grotesk font was not ideal for members of our Global Network to adapt and remix. We wondered: Can we develop an open-licensed Creative Commons font? Thanks to the kind support of a CC member, we did. 

Today, we’re happy to introduce—and make freely available—CC Accidenz Commons.

CC Accidenz Commons was designed by Archetypo, a research and type design collective based in Germany and Chile. Archetypo designed the font under these basic premises:

1. To establish a quality framework for a typeface based on the original design of Akzidenz Grotesk
2. To improve the original canonic design that precedes Helvetica and optimize it for better Webfont visualizing 
3. To design a versatile text weight to be used in CC’s identity and logo, as well as in headlines, presentations, and other text applications

“We wanted a new Akzidenz version with less contemporary expression,” Archetypo explained, “[while] trying to remain close with the original metal carving of the font.” This meant:

• Re-drawing the original Akzidenz Grotesk font, using different wide and long proportions. In the process, we considered the use of low caps and relative weight for better visualization in text applications.
• Including small openings in the blank space of a sign where elements connect, such as on top of the “n” and at the bottom of the “a.”
• Re-drawing many of the  curves, unifying lower and upper cases.

The end result was CC Accidenz Commons: a contemporary, versatile, and neutral version of Akzidenz Grotesk. Download the font here, and start remixing!

The post Introducing CC Accidenz Commons: An Open-Licensed Font appeared first on Creative Commons.