We featured Robin McKenna’s new film GIFT in a special session at the CC Global Summit. Inspired by The Gift, Lewis Hyde’s seminal work on creativity, culture, and art, McKenna’s film tells moving stories of remarkable generosity and sharing, from Alaska to Black Rock City to Seoul to New York City. Her work has taken her around the world and into the lives and homes of artists and communities motivated by an intrinsic giving force outside of the market economy, in service of the spirit that moves all artists. In a 2014 interview with Shareable, McKenna says, “I started thinking more about interior gifts, the openness involved in the creative process, the role of chance and accident, the gifts that come to us when we’re ready to receive them. This kind of circulation of gifts has been central to my whole life, the choices I’ve made, and my creative path.”

A call to action to bolster the transformative power of gifting globally, McKenna’s film is a much needed meditation on the role of sharing in the world today.

Sign up for our newsletter to learn more about how we’re working for a more open and transparent world.

In what ways are you inspired by Lewis Hyde’s work? In what ways do you diverge? How do you balance the act of documentary filmmaking with the book’s creative ethnography, and how do you make Hyde’s words come to life for a documentary audience?

I think the book articulated something for me that I had kind of intuited for many years, but hadn’t totally understood until I read it. When I was around 18 I had experiences of, for example, reading William Blake for the first time, or the beat poets, and feeling my heart stop: having the realization “this could change your life.”

Art could transform you, spark something in you that changes you. Then that gift takes shape in you, in its own way, and maybe something else is created, out of that.

I guess the book became that for me – a gift that transformed, shape-changed, and took 5 years to become this film.

I told Lewis I wanted to “remix his book for the 21st century.” What’s interesting is the book was written before the Internet existed, the free software movement, the “sharing economy”, any of this. The book came out in 1983, and it talks about the rise of the market economy and its dominance over the culture we live in. In some ways, considering how much more extreme those influences have now become (now, in the age of Trump, in almost a surreal way, right?) some passages in the book sound almost quaint or naïve. Now we almost take for granted the kind of “market triumphalism” that dominates every aspect of our lives.

Balancing the book and film was challenging! We experience a film so differently than a book – as a medium, cinema tends to be more emotional and experiential. Hyde uses fairytales and folktales as parables to illustrate his ideas. What I decided to do was follow four character-driven stories in different places in the world – and to try to weave the ideas through their stories. This way, the film takes us inside an experience, and a character; my hope is that we have a chance to feel the ideas, as opposed to just having them explained to us in words.

In the book, Hyde writes, “The more we allow such commodity art to define and control our gifts, the less gifted we will become, as individuals and as a society. ” How do you interpret this quote? How do you work within the commodity economy as an independent artist? How do you work outside of it?

I spent some years working more in a TV context, as “director-for-hire”, and could feel a kind of conflict in myself: I knew there was something I needed to do that was more personal, more meaningful to me, that I wasn’t fully doing. And when I read The Gift, it spoke to that – how something is sparked in us, by our experience of art – and needs to come through us, somehow.

When I started making this film in 2013 I stopped working “for hire” almost completely, to just develop this and other personal projects. The Gift film is mostly financed, but not completely: so as producer/director, I’ve had to invest a lot of what I should have been paid to make it, to allow it to get made. So, I guess I’ve been facing the classic dilemma: devoting myself to something I love, not really making a living- basically going into debt.

I guess I haven’t totally solved that one: having to exist in a world where we have to pay rent, where it’s pretty hard to step outside that paradigm completely – although the inhabitants of the factory in Rome (and other people living in squats and occupations) do challenge that paradigm. But I will say that, since I stepped into the world of “the gift” and this film, almost 5 years ago, a circle of gifts and support has appeared. The number of friends who lent me their places, their couches, their support, love and encouragement, cooked meals for me, inspired me, kept me going… all in this kind of web of reciprocity. It’s something I wouldn’t have noticed or named in the same way before working on this project, and I don’t think I could have gotten this far without that support.

How did you choose your subjects for the documentary? How did you find them? What do they all have in common, and how do they differ? How do they relate to the theme of Gift economy?

Hyde talks about this in relation to the tradition of the indigenous tradition of the potlatch, on the Pacific Northwest Coast- where the person who gives the most is the most respected person in the culture. That was one of the first passages that really struck me- I had the thought: imagine if we all saw the world that way, how different the world could be?

Hyde focuses on the Kwakuitl, now call themselves Kwak’wakwala, I did a bit of research, reached out to the community in Alert Bay, BC, and they connected me with a young artist and carver, Marcus Alfred, who was 30 and planning his first potlatch- spending years saving money, so he could give it all away. I went to BC and met Marcus and his family, spent time in the workshop where the guys were carving- and found the potlatch really was at the centre of a whole system of values, a way of seeing the world. Still going strong in the 21st century. That kind of amazed me. I think that’s when I became convinced I could make this a character-driven film.

So some of the stories, like the potlatch, connect very directly to the book. The artist Lee Mingwei, whose work I read about and loved, many years ago: Buddhist-influenced, confounding the boundaries between art and life, creating trust between strangers. While making the film, I looked him up – and discovered, synchronistically, that his work is actually directly influenced by Hyde’s thinking.

I wanted a Burning Man story as well, if only because it’s such a visually surreal and fantastical world. When I interviewed Larry Harvey, one of the founders of Burning Man, he told me when they decided to proactively make the idea of “gift economy” one of the core principles of the event, it was actually inspired by having read Hyde’s book-! Which I didn’t know, and was fascinated to hear.

The last storyline I found, an abandoned factory in Rome illegally occupied by 200 migrants and precarious workers, protected by art and artists- is maybe the less obvious story, in connection to the book. But Hyde writes “There are many connections between anarchist theory and gift exchange as an economy.” It was a story about art, that also had some political edge to it- that spoke more directly to the state of the world right now.

The themes of circularity and storytelling are central to Lewis Hyde’s book. How do you draw on these themes, and how do you interpret them? How do they relate to your film?

In the film, as he prepares for the potlatch, Marcus says “The more you can give, the bigger a chief you are. To see how many people you’re able to bring to your potlatch: and if you’ve helped people along the way, then that part shouldn’t be a problem, because the circle just goes around and around. And if somebody starts to drop off, then it no longer remains a circle.” He’s talking about reciprocity, the circle of the gift, how what we’ve given comes back to us – not always the way we expected.

All the stories have an element of this circularity- and it becomes also metaphorical, speaking to our inner gifts. “What we’ve been given needs to be given away, not kept”. Hyde begins by talking about this in terms of actual gift exchange, but then it becomes about the creative gift- that comes to us in a way we can’t demand or buy, that’s bestowed, in the manner of a gift- and that, as creative people, we need to give away again, to share and express.

You could say each of these stories, and the experiences behind them, have been a gift, entrusted to me – now I need to release this film into the world, and share the stories again, so the gift can keep moving. ☺

Why are the commons important? How can the commons and gift culture provide an antidote to the prevailing currency of excess?

Many years after The Gift, Lewis Hyde wrote a book called Common As Air, exploring this idea of the cultural commons. Of course there’s a lot of overlap between the ideas, like the importance of protecting shared spaces outside the market economy. He writes,

The free market is surrounded by full and well-elaborated speech, but the commons is not. It is therefore hard for us to reckon the value of our common assets, and hard to know how best to protect them, keep them lively, and continue to engender them. It is hard to be good stewards of a wealth so few can see or seem to care about.

In the potlatch story in the film, Marcus’ father Wayne says, “Wealth is many many things – Not just money. Money burns the cheapest of all of them.” The Gift is about the value of something that can’t be measured or counted in numbers. Protecting our common assets, and shared wealth, including the planet we live on… I think it’s becoming more urgent to consider the importance of protecting this wealth, and these spaces, before they’re bulldozed completely.

The post GIFT film tells the story of sharing around the world appeared first on Creative Commons.

After more than two years of dedicated effort by an extraordinary group of CC francophone community members from more than 8 countries around the globe, we are delighted to publish the official translations of our 4.0 licenses in French. More than 220 million people around the world speak French as a primary or secondary language, and French is an official language in more than two dozen countries. This effort magnifies the reach and understanding of our licenses across all continents.

The French language translation involved two face-to-face meetings in 2016, the first in Paris and the second in Ouagadougou. Unique to this translation is that participants from both civil and common law legal traditions converged on a common translation of the six licenses. CC thanks the tireless efforts of translation leads Nicolas Jupillat of CC Canada, Daniele Bourcier of CC France, and Patrick Peiffer of CC Luxembourg. These three were supported in their efforts by many over the course of the translation work, including Esther Ngom from Cameroon and Prof. Tonssira Myriam Sanou from Burkina Faso, who co-organized the Ouagadougou meeting.

The translations and the face-to-face meetings would not have been possible without funding by Wikimedia Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.

Additional thanks for their valuable contributions goes to: Dr. Etienne Alla from Côte d’Ivoire, Simon Ayedoun from Benin, Florian Ducommun of CC Switzerland, Mawusee Komla Foli-Awli from Togo, Abdou Malam Garba from Niger, Moumouni Krissiamba Ouiminga and Philomène Medah from Burkina Faso, Primavera De Filippi and Batoul Betty Merhi of CC France, Christophe Traisnel, Anne-Laure Riotte, and Gwen Franck, former CC Regional Coordinator for Europe.

For details about the translation and additional contributors to the process, please see the notes posted to our wiki here. You can expect details about the public discussion process, language choices, and other decisions to be documented there in the coming months.

The post CC accueille les francophones: Welcome the CC 4.0 French License Translations! appeared first on Creative Commons.

by Fernando Paniagua, Andreu Meixide. Photos provided by Ester Villacampa.

More than 1500 people attended the last edition of BccN (Barcelona Creative Commons Film Festival), celebrated in this city from June 7th to 11th. In 2010, it was the first worldwide festival for films licensed under Creative Commons, and eight years later, it is much more than that. With digitalization, there comes a new distribution of power, the critical review of intermediaries, and the active role of citizenship both in the reception and the creation of content. Creative Commons licenses are a tool that helps us to deal with these motivating changes, in particular with intellectual property in the digital era. They are part of our political stance, in the intersection between free culture, common good and cinema, as we are constantly fostering new models of positive social relationship based on the logics of the Internet.

BccN has been hosted for all these years by MACBA (Contemporary Art Museum of Barcelona), but screenings are also set up in cinemas (like Zumzeig this year) or public spaces as determined by the community. BccN puts different topics on the table through films, performances, discussions and hybrid shows (such as live cinema or work in progress). This year, the programme conceived by Panorama 180, the non profit organisation behind the festival, drew an imaginary line from communities to Commons, under the slogan of “Sharing is caring” – communities that fight to preserve either their rights or their natural resources. Among international guests, OvO (a duo with Noriko Okaku and Akihide Monna), offered a workshop and a performance in the consideration of memory, and Marc Meillassoux, the young director of Nothing to Hide presented his work. The film deals with surveillance and the misleading argument of “I have nothing to hide”

On Saturday, we also released the digital platform CCWorld (Media Commons Network). CCWorld is a network of festivals from all over the world, which aims to share, extend and promote audiovisual works that follow openness and free culture criteria. CC World is a network of free adhesion and peer collaboration on a global scale for local action and transformation. Since 2012, Panorama 180 puts at disposal of any interested collective or person all the materials generated in the realization of its own festival (from films to press notices), with the only condition that they return to the community new materials and knowledge acquired. This is intended to guarantee the sustainability of a common resource, as well as its renewal.

As a result, there are more than 25 nodes holding fully self-managed festivals around the world which, at the same time, are part of a collaborative and decentralized governance network. Organizers of Bogotá CC & New Media Film Festival (running for three years now), Valladolid CC Film Festival (5 editions), La Conca de Barberà CC Film Festival and the one which will take place in Prague next year were invited to the meeting. Each of them have their own flavor, from small locations to big cultural events.

CCWorld, as each of its festivals, tries to put a spotlight on the benefits of free circulation of culture and technology, as well as their transformation and appropriation by small communities. We believe culture, as any other Common, should be treated as a right instead of something to speculate with, and digitalization opens the window to collaboration and community. This is the reason why we would like to invite local collectives to join the community in order to share their own festival.

Enjoy this content? Sign up to our newsletter for more!

The post CCWorld: Connecting Worldwide Creative Commons Film Festivals appeared first on Creative Commons.

Jessamyn West is a famous librarian, a former Metafilter admin, and a Vermont information technologist with a passion for open knowledge.

West has been blogging about library technology since 1999 at librarian.net and on her blog jessamyn.com since 1999. She also has a prolific Medium presence and an entertaining and informative newsletter about libraries and information access, called TILT. In addition to moderating the online Metafilter community, West has worked with Open Library, Harvard University, and the Rutland Free Library. An inspiring library activist, she designed the library “warrant canary,” and last year, she spearheaded the Librarian of Progress campaign, which encouraged the Library of Congress to modernize for the 21st Century.

You made a website during the nomination process of the Librarian of Congress called “The Librarian of Progress.” Can you talk about Carla Hayden’s nomination and then appointment as the Librarian of Congress? What do you think is going to happen with the new LOC and how do you think it’s going to affect copyright in the future?

I think there’s a couple things that pile in together, right? Number one, I feel like the Library of Congress has been a little bit of a ghost ship for the last five, maybe even 10 years. James Billington, who’s this eminent historian, headed the institution as if it were like a history center. But not quite a library and certainly not a public institution that is the world’s largest library. I think when a lot of us were looking at “Gosh, he’s retiring. Thank God. Who’s going to come in?” We were just hoping there would be somebody who was from this century, number one, and number two, somebody who was friendly, progressive, and forward-thinking. A lot of people don’t really know that the copyright office sits within the Library of Congress. The Librarian of Congress is nominally in charge of the copyright office.

She’s said copyright reform needs to happen – she’s definitely a sharing advocate, and a true public librarian who understands that culture is advanced when people are allowed to be creative with things. Hayden believes that libraries can be an institution that can help people do that—safely is maybe not the right word, but fairly.

Librarians don’t want copyright to go out the window. They just want it to be fair, they want it to be something that people can understand, and they want it to be something that people can use.

We hope that Dr. Hayden is really going to be the first Librarian of Congress who maybe gets that and can create an institution that can work with that.

Do you think that library values can be particularly important when it comes to the challenges facing the copyright office in the Library of Congress?

I think so. Libraries work for everyone, they don’t necessarily just work for their customers, they don’t necessarily just work for the people with money, and they don’t necessarily just work for the people in charge. There’s a democratizing factor with what they do. You realize that certain things about the way copyright works, the way copyright protection extends way, way back into history, some things seems to never enter the public domain, especially lately. Authors write that things can get locked up forever, things could be in an orphan work state where you have no idea who owns it and it’s just presumed that it’s not available to be used, unless you can prove it’s available to be used. I feel like libraries can have a mitigating factor on that because they can accept some of the risk. They can say, “We feel it’s probably okay to share this.”
 
The MPAA and RIAA work for the rights holders—who maybe be different than the actual creators—but in general the behavior of industry organizations is understandable. It’s not necessarily in their best interest to be crystal clear about what the law does and doesn’t allow. It’s a lot more in their interest to be slightly scary and to make you afraid so that if you’re making a video in your kid’s house, and your kids appear in a video, and you know the music in the background is an artist that’s notoriously litigious, maybe you’re not going to do that. As far as the RIAA is concerned, that’s fine with them. Don’t play Metallica in the background. Don’t paint Mickey Mouse on the wall of your daycare. All the rights holders want you to worry and second guess your use of their content, and what the library would like you to do is share legally as much as you can. They can help people and I think their values of working for everybody push forward that goal.

How do you feel about the concept of the commons and knowledge of licensing, like Creative Commons? Do you feel that CC can help in these kinds of situations?

I feel like it’s a great tool for cultural heritage organizations. Not just libraries, but museums and archives too, because then they also use it for sharing their own resources—to a certain extent. I use Creative Commons to license the content that I put online. I like it because it essentially says, “Look, I’m making this freely available, but I don’t want other people making money for it.” I can dial in how I want people to be able to use my work. Maybe someone else just want to give away all the rights and they can dial that in too. I think the only thing really standing in the way of Creative Commons is that some people aren’t clear what the enforcement mechanisms are.

I think we’ve seen people who share their content as freely as possible, but then other people sell it and they say, “What? That’s not in the spirit of it.” We’re not talking about the spirit. We’re talking about an actual license, which means you have to read the fine print and everything else. I think we’re seeing a ton of libraries using tools like Flickr, for instance, online photo archiving, and it’s awesome for them to be able to assign Creative Commons licensing to it to expand their options beyond either only public domain or only all rights reserved.

CC gives them options that are more true to their values, and I think that act facilitates sharing and reusing, repurposing, remixing, and all that wonderful stuff that helps culture move along. It’s joyful, honestly.

I really am happy that CC exists, but I’m always surprised how many people I talk to who either don’t quite understand it or they don’t see that it’s actually a tool of facilitation, not a tool of restriction.

It sounds like a lot of the different examples we’ve been talking about have to do with fear and confusion. This culture of fear around people using and sharing material and using and sharing licenses. I’m wondering if you could talk a little bit about how that has influenced your work, both as a librarian and also as a MetaFilter moderator, and the other work that you’ve done over your career as an advocate for free and open information.

I spend a lot of time trying to talk people through some worst case scenarios, because I think one of the problems is chilling effects of unclear rules. People aren’t sure what the rules are, and so they over-censor themselves or over-restrict, or they try to shame other people into doing that. For 10 years, I ran MetaFilter, which is a big online community. There are lot of people interacting and talking to one another. You would occasionally get someone who would write, “There’s this scientific paper that I think is super interesting,” and they would link to an abstract or a news article about the paper. Then in the comments, someone would tell them, “Here is a PDF, or contact me to get a PDF of that paper.” Maybe the PDF is available, but it’s only in a commercial journal, you have to pay 50 bucks to get it. They’d share it out. Then other people would say, “That’s so illegal,” and freak out.

As a moderator on the site, we have to be a mitigating influence and tell people, “Look, it’s up to the rights holder to determine if there’s a problem. Sharing a PDF among 30 people is maybe technically a copyright infringement, but it’s probably not going put you in jail.” I think the MPAA and the RIAA really like to blur that line. I don’t think it’s nice to pirate all music because it’s no good for struggling artists, but I don’t think sharing a Metallica song is really the same thing as stealing the records from somebody’s house. I think the entertainment industry tries to obscure that boundary because their revenue stream depends on it.

In terms of sharing information in online communities, the risk is so low and the value of people having better information about medicine, for example, is so valuable that it’s worth approaching the outlines of that envelope and trying to figure out how you can maximize sharing. I think for some libraries, they worry a lot about risk assessment because they’re government institutions. Not so much “We’re the government,” but if the library gets sued by the MPAA, that’s a town getting sued by the MPAA, and it’s expensive. I like it when non-profit institutions are willing to go to bat for better interpretations of copyright laws. We saw the Hathi Trust lawsuit and the Google Books lawsuit. The Internet Archive is always willing to stand up for sharing as much as possible. These public interest institutions can really help model appropriate risk assessment.

For example, the Internet Archive shares thousands of video games from the 1990s that nobody was playing anymore and the original companies have probably abandoned, but if someone comes along and says, “Hey, that belongs to me and I own the rights, will you take it down?” they will. In the meantime, the Archive provides access to games that people can play and share and talk about, and it surfaces culture in a way that if they were concerned only about chilling effects and “maybe this isn’t technically legal,” they never would. I’m happy that those organizations are out there, and I’m always advocating for libraries to join in the sharing as much as is possible. And I think for libraries this type of sharing is usually practical because they can shoulder a little bit more risk than one individual patron might be able to.

You work and live in Vermont, and in your library, the internet and having access to cultural works online can open up the world to a lot of people. I’m wondering while the culture of commoning can open up new frontiers for students and educators, how are you and your organization branching that digital divide? Are you or how are you using tools such as Creative Commons to help cultural heritage organizations bridge that gap?

One of the things I try to do all the time when I’m educating users about Creative Commons and the other things is just showing people where these deep archives of content are already available to them. One of the aspects of the digital divide is that people only have ideas about content, archives, and information that they read about in the paper. If you ask somebody what they know about Wikipedia when all they have is access to a newspaper and don’t use the internet that much, they’ll ask me “That’s that place where everybody yells at each other and people vandalize it all the time,” and they have all these weird ideas. I was like, “Okay, that happens, but did you know that every picture you see on Wikipedia you can have for free?” A lot of them don’t know that.

Part of how Wikipedia works is the content that’s available is freely licensed so that people can have it and use it. Somebody wants to make a YouTube video or maybe they got in trouble because they put up a YouTube video of something and it had a copyrighted song on in the background, and I let them know, “You know the Creative Commons has a search engine where you can search for music that you can use as a background to your video and it’s all licensed for you to use, reuse, mix, and share.” A lot of times they don’t. A lot of times what I’m talking to people about is ways to help transplant things maybe they want, but they can’t have, with things that they can have that are equivalent.

Our public library is digitally divided enough that it’s actually fairly difficult to even have a program about Wikipedia and have people show up, because people say, “I don’t understand why that would work.” If you hang out in a library with a scanner and help people take their photographs and put them online, or even show them other people’s photographs and then put them on the internet, you have to find what makes this stuff a genuine option for people. You have to figure out what the hook is that’s going to bring them in and be like, “That’s also a problem for me and I’d like to solve it.” In this region, a lot of it is family history books that are freely searchable via the internet archives. Or music that you can find through the Creative Commons searches that you can use on YouTube videos. Or historical photos on Wikipedia that you might use to illustrate a book report.

What kinds of random things do people want to go look up? YouTube videos about tractor engines running. Never would’ve known that’s a thing, but apparently there’s a ton of them, and a lot of them are available, shareable, embeddable, because even Youtube licensing strictly, videos can often can at least be shared around. I encourage people when they’re using the internet to think about the benefits of having that be shareable for everyone, and try to educate them appropriately about the downsides to it as well. I think a lot of people are under the misapprehension that if you share a picture on the internet then everybody just steals it, or takes it and draws a mustache on your baby’s face, or worse. Realistically, there’s so much information out there, most of the time people aren’t going to focus on harassing individual users, but if you do find the right user who can use that tractor engine video, of all the things, that’s really made a connection, and that’s, again, helped cultural progress, which is really I think what we’re all about in a library.

I think maybe some of this is the about first taste of recognition. I was having a conversation with someone at the bank and they saw who I worked for, and they said, “You know that my photo is the photo for challah on Wikipedia? It’s the best. I just love it.”

My mom is a huge sharer of photos using Flickr. She does some of them public domain and some of them not. She has a ton of those stories and she is a 70-ish-year-old lady living in rural Massachusetts, and she’s connected with a ton of people like that. She takes pictures of cats at the cat shelter to help cats get adopted. It’s enriched her life just doing her own things that she would basically be doing normally, but she sticks a sharing license on them and I think part of that also, she sticks a sharing license on them, and Flickr has mechanisms where you can search for stuff that’s shareable. It’s not just the power of Creative Commons, which I’m already jazzed about, but the fact that that’s built in now to search engines.

Have you seen a significant change in your own community in the last few years with smartphones really becoming a much more viable option for a larger group of people?

A little bit. I think smartphones are a lot more about instant connectivity, Instagram and Snapchat, and to look stuff up on the internet. We haven’t seen, at least in my community, too many people using smartphones to be creators of content. I taught an HTML class last fall at the local community college, and we spent a day talking about alternative licensing, we talked about Creative Commons licensing. I got to test and quiz kids on what does BY-NC mean and stuff. They didn’t quite see it as totally relevant to themselves because they didn’t see themselves as content creators. The couple kids who were musicians or web designers, they believed that this served them. Out of about 30 kids, I probably had four or five who really viewed themselves as creators. The makerspace communities that have taken root in bigger cities is only slowly getting here. These may be kids who build their own tractors, build their own cars. Literally building physically out of things, but the digital maker way hasn’t quite hit here yet.

Do you think that there’s anything that apps or that the people who are making apps, particularly people who are making apps for the cultural heritage sphere for libraries could do to make to help people feel more like makers on the web?

I think about Wikipedia, right, and Wikipedia really, really wants people to upload and share images. All sorts of content, but images especially because it’s easy.

I think the missing sharing point is unless you’re a cultural heritage institution who can bulk upload a bunch of stuff because you’ve been in touch with the Wikipedia organization and you know how to do it, it’s not going work very well. The average person doesn’t know they can get free storage for their content on Wikipedia. I feel like we still could have sharing tools that work better than the ones we have now that facilitated accurate licensing, but for people affected by the digital divide, the fact that they don’t have access to computers or the web means they don’t have access to a lot of other tools.
 
Can you talk a little bit about how you teach the ethos of sharing within your community, particularly with social networks, like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, when a lot of folks are coming online and that’s the first world that they’re encountering?

A lot of what I do is teach people how to use things. I teach people what some of the normative expectations of the space are, which can be challenging because there’s a lot of ways to be “normal” on Facebook. You can use it in a million different ways and nothing’s totally correct, but there are normative ways to use it. If you take a picture of someone else’s kids, for example, maybe you don’t make that picture public or maybe you don’t use that kid’s name. Maybe you do, depending on your community. That’s the thing that people need to put some thought into.

If I’m looking at Twitter, there are accounts like the History in Pics account, and it posts all these really interesting historical photos, but sometimes with semi-questionable captions. There’s whole other accounts dedicated to telling them, “Hey, I don’t actually think that caption is what that picture is really about. I actually did five minutes of research and realized that that thing that you pulled from that other random site wasn’t the thing you said it was.” I show people what the back and forth is that if there’s questions about where something came from, there are actually ways to figure it out. It’s not like, “It’s the internet. Nobody can figure anything out.” I teach them about research. I teach them about Google’s reverse image search. I teach them about how you can ask any librarian anywhere on the internet if you have a question. I think people think they can only talk to their own librarian.

I don’t think people know that the library system is there for them, and if I have a question about Colorado College, I can go ask the librarian at Colorado College and they will help me. They don’t do a ton of in depth research for me, but they can definitely help me. I try to teach people how there are humans you can talk to who can help you figure out some of this stuff, even though Facebook themselves doesn’t really have tech support, but you may have a buddy who understands it. The most powerful thing I teach people is that if you have a problem with a thing that you’re using, you’re not the first one.

It’s hard because the meta message is that you’re not special, but a lot of times if you Google an error message you’re seeing on your computer, you can find people discussing the exact problem that you also have. The thing I hear again and again from people is why doesn’t ‘X’ have a manual. The thing I have to keep telling people is the collective group of people on the internet are your manual. It’s not awesome because a lot of times people feel like that doesn’t work for them, they don’t understand it, they feel out of their element. It feels weird, but realistically, when you try it, it does work. Part of what I try to do is model good behavior with my own social media behavior.

Also I try to model not being frustrated. When people say, “Their pictures are stupid. They upload too many pictures. I don’t care about that person’s baby. Too much Trump.” I’m like, “Okay. Let me show you how to limit pictures of that person’s baby or ban the word ‘Trump’ from your front page of your Facebook.” There’s a lot of tools that we can use to empower us, but I think a lot of people presume the default role of technology is to be disempowered, which is not how I see it, but I can see how they see it that way. I try to get them turn that around and show them that there are tools that can help them. I’m part of the help manual for this system basically.

Just walk the talk. If you’re interested enough in Creative Commons to be reading this, share your stuff, put your content online, help other people do it, and spread the word. I think that’s the most important thing that super fans can be doing at this point.

Want more content about libraries, free information, and the commons? Sign up for our email list.

 

The post In conversation with Jessamyn West, famous librarian appeared first on Creative Commons.

Unsplash, a photo sharing startup, has launched their own branded license and updated their terms to add new restrictions and remove CC0 from their platform. As a result of the changes, Unsplash images are no longer in the public domain. The permissions offered can be revoked at any time, and Unsplash now has the right to pursue infringement on behalf of their users. Also, in some cases, attribution is now required. The terms of the new Unsplash-branded copyright license may create issues for users who hope to re-use the images, and for those who shared using the service and wanted their works available under unrestricted terms.

Background

We feel it’s important to inform the CC community, as many have been supporters of Unsplash and we have been receiving questions from users in the open content and free software movements. We reached out to Unsplash and then also, with their consent, spoke to their legal counsel to understand the new license and terms.

Our intention is to ensure that CC community members understand what has happened to a service they have been using that incorporated CC tools, and to protect the content that was dedicated to the public domain. We don’t want to oppose a startup’s business and marketing decisions, nor deny them the IP they might now want to claim to protect their business model.

We understand from Unsplash that they felt that copycat services were detracting from their offering and upsetting their users. We are sympathetic to that challenge — the predominant players in photo sharing like Flickr, 500px, and Wikimedia Commons all use CC0 in their platforms, and have faced those issues with their users. But it’s also clear that Unsplash wanted to extend their brand to have their name incorporated into the license. That’s a perfectly valid business and marketing decision.

We’ve outlined some issues for consideration in more detail below for the benefit of contributors to Unsplash, and those who wish to re-use their images:

Revokability

The new Unsplash-branded license is revocable. This means that Unsplash or the author could, at any time, change their mind about how people can use the images they have previously downloaded. This is a significant change from CC0.

Irrevocability is a fundamental feature of CC tools, designed to ensure that anyone who uses the image can do so with the confidence that the author can’t withdraw the permissions they’ve previously granted. We believe that is essential to building a commons that people can rely on, and use permissively.

Attribution

CC0 does not require attribution, though we encourage users to do so because it gives gratitude to the creator, and can support further re-use by linking to the original work and its license. The new Unsplash-branded license doesn’t require attribution, but the Unsplash API guidelines do require attribution. So depending on how a user, a developer, or their app retrieves the image from the Unsplash service, they are subject to different terms.

Copyright and sub-licensing

The new Unsplash terms of service require users who share to grant a copyright license to Unsplash, which permits them to sub-license their work. Unsplash also requires users to grant them the authority to enforce copyright on their behalf. Beyond the compilation of photos in a competing service, it is not clear if there are other scenarios under which Unsplash would enforce copyright against reusers.

CC0 Collection and Archive

Following the switch to the new Unsplash-branded license, there is no marking of works that were previously shared in the public domain using CC0. The Unsplash API restricts/obscures the full CC0 collection, which we believe to be about 200,000 images, but it isn’t possible to access the complete archive. In order to ensure that the commons is maintained, we hope that Unsplash will either a) properly mark all the works shared using CC0 and/or b) make available a full archive of the CC0 works so they can be shared on a platform that supports open licensing and public domain tools. Previous platforms that have gone under or abandoned open license tools have shared their CC archives for this purpose. We hope Unsplash will follow the same path.

The post Community update: Unsplash branded license and ToS changes appeared first on Creative Commons.