If you’re not familiar with ccMixter, you should be. It’s an amazing community for downloading and sharing CC-licensed, remixable music and samples.

ccMixter has released two albums of holiday music this year; you can buy them or receive them for free for becoming a ccMixter supporter.

From the press release:

Season of Gratitude was first conceived last November, when the ccMixter all-volunteer admin team organized its annual Holiday Remix Event called Gift of Song. The community created original holiday-themed samples, a capellas, songs, and remixes. True to all ccMixter uploads, each original sound was released with Creative Commons licenses which inspire collective creativity and allow everyone to enjoy the resulting songs for free. The Season of Gratitude double album is a curation of the remixes that transpired from the event, re-mastered by ccMixter artist Copperhead, for optimum sound quality.

“I love participating in the annual holiday remix event on ccMixter,” shares Kara Square, contributing Season of Gratitude artist. “The atmosphere on the site is extra warm and open-minded. As we contribute, we learn about each other’s beliefs and celebrate our diversity through the music we invent.”

Other holiday goodies:

• Give open: CC’s holiday shopping list
• Free! Music! Sampler now shipping

CC in the box of letters / Kristina Alexanderson / CC BY-SA

For how popular they are worldwide, it’s striking how rarely CC licenses’ validity has been questioned in court. We consider that a testament to the care with which we craft the licenses: we try to find every possible area of contention or ambiguity before we launch the licenses. To our knowledge, no court in any country has ever found a CC license invalid.

An out-of-court settlement yesterday affirmed what most people reading this blog already knew: you are free to use Creative Commons–licensed content under the terms of the license without fear of infringing the licensor’s copyright, even if the licensor changes her mind later.

The complicated case involved CrunchBase, a CC BY database of names and companies in the tech space, operated by TechCrunch. A startup company called Pro Populi built an app using CrunchBase data with attribution. CrunchBase questioned the legality of Pro Populi using its data in that way, pointing to a clause in its own terms-of-service agreement reserving the right to “continually review and evaluate all uses of the API, including those that appear more competitive than complementary in nature.”

When the story hit last month, Wired’s David Kravets interviewed CC’s Diane Peters. She reiterated the non-revocable nature of the licenses, saying, “As a matter of copyright, once you have it, you have it, and can do what you want with it.”

The case has now been dropped, but more importantly, CrunchBase has now revised its own terms-of-service agreement to remove any contradiction with the CC license, thanks in no small part to our friends at the Electronic Freedom Foundation:

“Offering content under the most permissive CC license while claiming the right to shut down uses they didn’t like was a bit misleading,” said EFF Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz. “CrunchBase’s new terms of service are clearer and more in line with the best practices of the open content community. The new terms should allow developers to re-use and build on the CrunchBase dataset with greater confidence.”

[…]

“We are grateful to the Electronic Frontier Foundation for playing an instrumental role in updating the CrunchBase Terms of Service,” said CrunchBase President Matt Kaufman. “At their suggestion, we adopted Creative Commons 4.0 and open content best practices. These updates provide more clarity to our community and provide a stronger foundation from which to build and extend the CrunchBase dataset.”

This post originally appears on the Communia Association blog. Creative Commons is a founding member and active participant in Communia.

Last week Thursday the European Commission launched its much anticipated public consultation on the review of the EU copyright rules. This consultation is the first visible sign of the second track of the Commission’s attempt to modernise the EU rules (the first track consisted of the rather unsuccessful Licenses for Europe stakeholder dialogue). In the words of the Commission the focus of the consultation is on:

… ensuring that the EU copyright regulatory framework stays fit for purpose in the digital environment to support creation and innovation, tap the full potential of the Single Market, foster growth and investment in our economy and promote cultural diversity.

With regards to the contents of the consultation, a first reading reveals a mixed bag of questions, with a surprising amount of them actually touching on issues that are closely related to our own policy recommendations. The consultation comes in the form of a 37 page document with a grand total of 80 questions that cover everything from the functioning of the single market for copyrighted works, linking and browsing, copyright term duration, registration of copyrighted works and exceptions and limitations for cultural heritage institutions, education, research, persons with disabilities and “user generated content”. In addition, there are questions about private copying and levies, the fair remuneration of authors and performers, respect for rights, and even the possibility of a single EU copyright title. Finally there is an open question for everything else that stakeholders might want to tell the Commission.

The deadline for providing answers to all of these questions is the 5th of February, which if one takes into account the upcoming holiday period is rather short.Below we highlight a number of questions from the consultation. In addition to this we will prepare a more thorough analysis and make our own response to the consultation public at a later date.

Rights and the functioning of the Single Market

The first set of questions deals with ‘Rights and the functioning of the Single Market’. According to the Commission…

…the main issue at stake here is, therefore, whether further measures (legislative or non-legislative, including market-led solutions) need to be taken at EU level in the medium term to increase the cross-border availability of content services in the Single Market, while ensuring an adequate level of protection for right holders.

The questions related to this section ask for examples of problems in this area and then invite stakeholders to provide their views on how these problems should be addressed (usually split between ‘legislative solutions’ and ‘other solutions’). This structure repeats itself throughout the consultation.

Specifically, the commission is interested in perspectives on the issue of territoriality of rights clearance (i.e., should the current situation where service providers need to obtain permission for all member states where they want to offer their service be changed, for example by introducing a country of origin rule where rights only need to be cleared for the member state where the service providers is based?).

In addition, this section also contains two questions on linking and browsing that show a worrisome lack of understanding how the internet works:

Should the provision of a hyperlink leading to a work or other subject matter protected under copyright, either in general or under specific circumstances, be subject to the authorisation of the rightholder?

Should the viewing of a web-page where this implies the temporary reproduction of a work or other subject matter protected under copyright on the screen and in the cache memory of the user’s computer, either in general or under specific circumstances, be subject to the authorisation of the rightholder?

While it should be obvious to anyone who has ever used the internet that requiring authorisation of the right-holders for any of these acts would fundamentally break the internet, it is important to realize that both questions are currently being debated in European courts. In this context it is important that these questions are answered with a resounding no, so that it leaves European policy makers no other option than to propose legislation that would clarify that both browsing and linking do not require permission from rightsholders (or anyone else).

The remainder of this section contains questions that explore the length of copyright protection (Are the current terms of copyright protection still appropriate in the digital environment?) and the registration of works (Would the creation of a registration system at EU level help in the identification and licensing of works and other subject matter?). Communia has longstanding policy recommendations on both of these issues, and we would hope that in answering the consultation others will look at these recommendations.

Recommendation #1: The term of copyright protection should be reduced. The excessive length of copyright protection combined with an absence of formalities is highly detrimental to the accessibility of our shared knowledge and culture. The term of copyright protection should be reduced.

Recommendation #8: In order to prevent unnecessary and unwanted protection of works of authorship, full copyright protection should only be granted to works that have been registered by their authors. Non registered works should only get moral rights protection.

Limitations and exceptions in the Single Market

The second part of the consultation focuses on ‘Limitations and exceptions in the Single Market’. Communia believes that adjusting the exceptions and limitations to copyright that are enshrined in the 2001 Copyright Directive to the requirements of the digital environment must be at the heart of any change of the European copyright rules. Again, we have a related policy recommendation that provides a good basis for addressing issues related to exceptions and limitations:

Recommendation #3: Harmonize Exceptions and Limitations of the Copyright Directive among the Member States and open up the exhaustive list so that the user prerogatives can be adapted to the ongoing technological transformations.

It is good to see that the consultation contains questions related to all aspects of this recommendation (harmonisation, need for new exceptions and limitations, and need for more flexibility).

The rest of the section on limitations and exceptions touches on specific types of uses/users benefiting from exceptions and limitations. In the first four cases (access to content in libraries and archives, teaching, research, and users with disabilities) the Commission wants to know if the relevant exceptions and limitations continue to achieve the objectives envisaged or whether they need to be updated to cover use in digital networks. The consultation also identifies 2 types of use (Text and data mining and so-called ‘User-generated content’) that might benefit from new exceptions.

Again some of the Communia policy recommendations are relevant here and can provide guidance when answering the questions related to education and memory institutions:

Recommendation #10: Memory Institutions must be enabled to fulfill their traditional function in the online environment. In order to be able to provide access to knowledge and culture they must benefit from compulsory and harmonized exceptions and limitations that allow them to make their collections available online for non commercial purposes.

Recommendation #12: Access to copyright protected works for education and research purposes must be facilitated by strengthening existing exceptions and limitations and broadening them to cover uses outside of formal educational institutions. All publicly funded research output and educational resources must be made available as open access materials.

Other Questions

Among the remaining questions, those in the sections on ‘A single EU Copyright Title’ and ‘Respect for Rights’ are the most noteworthy.

It is refreshing to see the Commission devote a section on the idea of a single European copyright title. The idea of having a unified EU Copyright Title that would totally harmonise the area of copyright law in the EU and replace national laws has been part of academic discussion about copyright in Europe for quite some time (see here for a recent proposal).

On the other hand, ‘Respect for Rights’ is a thinly veiled euphemism for enforcement of rights. Contrary to what the consultation suggests, respect is not created by enforcement but by establishing rules that are perceived as fair and balanced by as many stakeholders as possible. With this in mind the most effective way to improve ‘respect for rights’ would be to take user concerns seriously when addressing the other issues identified throughout the entire consultation.

Instead, the Commission has added a question that is explicitly aimed at inviting answers promoting stronger liability of intermediaries for copyright infringement by third parties:

In particular, is the current legal framework clear enough to allow for sufficient involvement of intermediaries (such as Internet service providers, advertising brokers, payment service providers, domain name registrars, etc.) in inhibiting online copyright infringements with a commercial purpose? If not, what measures would be useful to foster the cooperation of intermediaries?

This is the exact same proposal that was rejected by a broad coalition that brought down the SOPA/PIPA legislative proposals in the US earlier this year. It was also one of the most contentious issues in ACTA, which ultimately was rejected by the European Union. It is sad to see the Commission promoting this approach in the context of this otherwise reasonable consultation.

Next steps

It is somewhat unclear what will happen to the outcomes of the public consultation. Given that next year is an election year it is rather unrealistic that they will feed directly into a legislative proposal for a new or updated EU copyright directive. At best, we hope that the current Commission will provide the next one with a clear and precise roadmap for copyright reform – which we hope will be in line with our recommendations.

But regardless of the likelihood of immediate outcomes, it is important that stakeholders who are in favor of meaningful copyright reform make themselves heard by providing their perspectives. Communia will work with a broad coalition of other organisations on ensuring broad feedback from across all affected sectors. As part of this we expect to publish a more detailed answering guide at the beginning of next year.

The following is a guest post by Jessica Smith, National Copyright Officer for the National Copyright Unit of Australia. She ran the Copyright 4 Educators (AUS) course with Delia Browne as part of the School of Open’s second round of facilitated courses in 2013.

The School of Open is a community of volunteers focused on providing free education opportunities on the meaning, application, and impact of “openness” in the digital age and its benefit to creative endeavors, education, research, and more. Volunteers develop and run online courses, offline workshops, and real world training programs on topics such as Creative Commons licenses, open educational resources, and sharing creative works.

The National Copyright Unit (NCU) of Australia ran its second cycle of the School of Open’s Copyright 4 Educators (AUS) course in August. The course ran for seven weeks, with a two-week introduction period and five weeks of substantive group work. We took on 60 learners, with enrollments filling up in less than two days, plus a wait list of around 15 people. At the end of the course, we only had 3 drop-outs, a 95% retention rate!

On top of those stellar results, we also had very happy learners as well as great results in terms of the uptake and understanding of the information. We have an ongoing wait list for the course as well as teachers and librarians continuously enquiring about the course. We’re also in the process of obtaining accreditation for the course through larger teacher organizations so that it can be used to fulfill specific professional learning requirements of Australian educators.

We believe our course has succeeded for three reasons:

1. We made it easy for the students to participate.
2. The course was associated with the NCU, an official government division.
3. We assigned small groups based on commonalities, such as profession and field.

1. Make it easy for the students to participate

Making it easy for students is of utmost importance in an online environment, especially if the course is targeted to people who may not be familiar with online learning. We know this may sound obvious, but it’s so important that it’s definitely worth mentioning and expounding on. If you don’t nail this, you’re not going to retain your students.

So how do you make it easy for the students? Have everything (eg, communication tools and assignment submission entrypoints) set up for them and support them to the nth degree. What this means: you have to put the time in before the course starts and you, as the course facilitator/organizer, must be very comfortable with the course layout and tools in order to be able to give ample support as well as troubleshoot when issues arise.

Tutorials for Tools

For our course, we had heaps of information on our P2PU course site (outlining essentially everything they’d need to get through the course), but we also created tutorials and sent out additional information through email on all the essential parts of the course (ie. using the discussion tool Disqus, submitting group assignments, leaving peer review, etc). We really wanted the students to feel supported and to answer questions and issues BEFORE they arose. It’s too easy to drop out of an online course, so we wanted to preemptively take care of as many issues as possible. We had one student state they were “very nervous and uncomfortable” to take an online course who later reported how great the course was set up and how easy it was in terms of knowing what to do and how to do it. It’s key students feel like this from the start of the course, or they won’t stick with it.

Tools we used

We used Google docs for our course. We had every group’s Google doc set up for every single week, and we linked to the docs from both the course on P2PU as well as in emails that we sent out every week. The weekly emails make it very clear what was expected of our learners as well as where to go to complete their tasks. See an example below:

Following up

We also sent out individual group chase-ups the Monday following a Sunday due date as well as a chase-up Wednesday following the peer review due date. See below for an example of this:

Its also very important to understand that the first two to three weeks are a bit rough for learners – they’re confused and they have lots of questions and issues. We received anywhere from 15 to 30 emails a week and at least five calls, asking general questions about the course, the platform, google docs, etc. We nearly always responded to these on the same day and offered as much support as needed. A quick response to a simple question can be the deciding factor between a learner getting frustrated and dropping out or being satisfied and feeling supported and staying in the course.

Onboarding

This initial confusion is also why we went with a two-week introduction period, and we think this really helps with the retention rate. It gave the learners a chance to ask questions, sort out their issues and concerns and get comfortable with the course, the platform, the collaboration tools, and their groups.

2. Associate a course with a known, respected entity

Our course was associated with the NCU of Australia, which is very well known and respected. We deal with teachers on a daily basis, and most of our NCU affiliated teachers/librarians were the first to sign up for the course and have been our biggest supporters and promoters.

In addition to past participants spreading the word, we promoted the course through our school connections in Australia – through teachers whom we’ve given advice, the Copyright Advisory Group (each State/Territory in Australia as well as each sector has a representative), teacher organizations, and our website (http://www.smartcopying.edu.au/) which is the official guide to copyright issues for Australian Schools and Technical and Further Education (TAFE) institutions. Once we did our initial promotional blitz, the promotion largely took off on its own, making its way onto numerous listservs and teacher associations that we didn’t previously know existed.

So the association helped with the initial promotion of the course, but we also believe the reputation of the NCU encouraged teachers to sign up for the course: it made teachers feel more comfortable asking questions/contacting us, it decreased the numbers of dropouts, and we also found that many employers, such as school deans, required their teaching staff to take the course.

Incorporating the course into NCU’s daily workload also allowed us to quickly and effectively respond to questions/issues with the course.

3. Arrange groups to encourage conversation and cohesiveness

Questionnaire

In the first week of the course, we only asked our learners to fill out a questionnaire and have a look around the course. With the information from the questionnaire, we created 15 groups of four. We also took group requests, which frequently came from teachers at the same school. If groups were not requested, we arranged groups based on school location, level and sector to encourage conversation and commonality between group members. In the second week of the course, we only asked our students to meet their group and to decide on how their group would collaborate. Group members got to know each other and supported each other over the course of the seven weeks, and we think this group cohesiveness really encouraged group members to stay committed to the group and the course (as well as have more fun!).

Peer support

As an example, we had one student who was going to drop out because she needed to have surgery in the third week of the course, and she would be unable to type for a week or two. She consulted us, and we told her to first discuss the problem with her group to see if they could work something out. She did this, and they became somewhat of a support group for her and they worked out that she would lead discussion in the weeks leading up to her surgery (which they mainly did via email) and then the weeks she couldn’t type she participated via a weekly Skype session with her group.
We’ve also been told by a number of groups that they all plan to keep in touch with each other to discuss any copyright questions and what’s going on in their classrooms/schools.

Conclusion

Overall, we believe the course was very successful. Not only because of the retention rate but also because people enjoyed it! They’re telling others about the course, they learnt the information, and if they ever have any questions or issues they now know where to find the information.

We’re pleased to announce a new suite of Creative Commons licenses specifically designed for intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). IGOs produce a wide array of valuable information and content, ranging from scholarly and scientific papers to environmental data. Just like other creators who seek wide dissemination of their works to achieve maximal impact, IGOs benefit from using CC’s well understood and widely adopted licenses.

Since the 2011 CC Global Summit in Warsaw, and in tandem with our 4.0 license development process, we’ve been working closely with IGOs to understand and find acceptable ways to address their unique needs in our licenses. The process mirrored the porting process used for the 3.0 licenses, which addresses specific needs of jurisdictions. Additionally, we have been working closely on adoption opportunities so that the valuable content IGOs produce can be reused around the globe under our standard licenses. For example, the World Bank leverages CC’s licenses as part of its impressive open access policy, and Commonwealth of Learning has adopted an OER policy under which it will release its own materials using CC licenses.

CC and IGO working group participants announced the results of this effort today. From the press release:

“The more that everyone can access and use the important work of IGOs, the more impactful they are,” Creative Commons co-founder Lawrence Lessig said. “By publishing their information and data under Creative Commons licenses, these organizations are giving anyone on the planet the right to read and share those materials.”

You can learn more about the IGO licenses on our wiki, where you can also find specific considerations that licensees should be aware of when using a work under these new licenses.

Congratulations to everyone! We look forward to seeing more and more IGOs joining the commons.