Happy New Year from Pirate Party Australia! from piratepartyau on Vimeo.
I actually think this is wrong - please correct me if you think its right... the copyright extension that commenced in Australia on 1 January 2005 was not retroactive ... so works where the author died before 1 January 1955 and subject matter other than works such as film and sound recordings that were published before the authors death and before 1 January 1955 only had a +50 year term meaning as they had already entered the public domain they were uneffected by the copyright term extension. To me this means that nothing new enters the public domain this year in Australia. Copyright as usual is clear as mud but this is the best I can make of the information I have on hand at the moment - please let me know what you think in the comments. Check out the info from the Attorney General on the term extension here.
Showing posts with label Public Domain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Domain. Show all posts
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind
I have been catching up on more reading this week - James Boyle's 'The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind' has been sitting in my reading tray for about 3 years and I was delighted to have an opportunity this week to take a look at it.
The central point of the book is that 'the line between intellectual property and the public domain is important in every aspect of culture, science and technology.' [pg xvi] Boyle begins by discussing the inherent aspects of intellectual property - that it is nonrival and nonexcludable and notes that financial reward is just one of the motivations behind creation - others are fame, altruism or because of another inherent creative force. [pg 3] Without limiting intellectual property rights, it becomes a system of corporate welfare. [pg 8] He writes:
'...the goal of the system ought to be to give the monopoly only for as long as necessary to provide incentive. After that, we should let the work fall into the public domain where all of us can use it, transform it, adapt it, build on it, republish it as we wish. For most works, the owners expect to make all the money the are going to recoup from the work with five or ten years of exclusive rights' [pg 11]
He discusses changes to copyright in recent years including automatic protection and term extension and notes that these have changed the contours of copyright regulation in a bad way. [pg 15].
Boyle terms the phrase 'The Jefferson Warning' to refer to the discussion of intellectual property at the time of its inception and the reluctance of the forefathers in granting monopoly rights. In essence intellectual property was not seen as a natural right rather a mechanism to create incentives, there is no entitlement as such to monopoly rights rather they are created by the State as a means to an end, they should not be permanent but rather only last as long as is needed to provide the incentive they set out to achieve, there are inherent dangers associated with intellectual property rights as they may cause more problems than they solve and the State must be careful to only award them when they are really needed. [pg 21-22] These sentiments were echoed by Thomas Babington Macaulay in his speech to the House of Commons in 1841:
'I may safely take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad.' [pg 22]
Reiterated by Boyle later in the text, he rephrases this to say that the concerns of the forefathers were that intellectual property creates artificial scarcity, high prices and low quality. [pg 37]
Boyle goes on to define the public domain and the commons:
'The public domain is material that is not covered by intellectual property rights. Material might be in the public domain because it was never capable of being owned. Examples would be the English language or the formulae of Newtonian physics. Alternatively, something might be in the public domain because rights have expired. The works of Shakespeare or the patents over powered flight are examples.
Some definitions of the public domain are more granular. They focus not only on complete works but on the reserved spaces of freedom inside intellectual property. The public domain would include the privilege to excerpt short quotations in a review. This vision is messier, but more instructive....' [pg 38]
'The term "commons" is generally used to denote a resource over which some group has access and use rights - albeit perhaps under certain conditions. It is used in even more ways that the term "public domain". The first axis along which definitions of the term "commons" vary is the size of the group that has access rights. Some would say it is a commons only if the whole society has access. That is the view I will take here.
The other difference between public domain and commons is the extent of restrictions on use. Material in the public domain is free of property rights. You may do with it what you wish. A commons can be restrictive. For example, some open source software makes your freedom to modify the software contingent on the conditions that your contributions, too, will be freely open to others.' [pg 39]
Boyle sees the public domain as important because it is the basis of art, science and self understanding. It is the raw material from which new things are made. [pg 39] He states that the more commodified and restricted our access to information, the less the market operates efficiently and more poorly it allocates resources in society. Creativity is undermined as the cost of the inputs rise. [pg 40]
Boyle then goes on to discuss the enclosure of land commons in England before referring to the increase in intellectual property rights as the second enclosure. [pg 43 -45] Here Hardin's tragedy of the commons does not apply as works are non rivalrous and nonexcludable. [pg 48] Indeed the increase in property rights creates a different problem:
'Using a nice inversion of the idea of the tragedy of the commons, Heller and Eisenberg referred to these effects - the transaction costs caused by myriad property rights over the necessary components of some subsequent innovation - as the tragedy of the anti commons'.
Boyle then goes on to term the phrase 'The Internet Threat' to refer to the digital environment and perceptions that technological changes empowering copying must mean an increase in property rights. [pg 53] In particular he refers to Napster and the changes that were brought about by file sharing. [pg 53] The logic of perfect control is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. [pg 61] The background to the Napster and Grokster litigation is also discussed. [see pg 71 - 79]
Chapter 6 discusses mashups in detail. In an earlier post here I embedded the YouTube clip to The Legendary KO's song 'George Bush Doesnt Care About Black People'. This is a fascinating chapter which traces the origins of that mashup and discusses the copyright implications for its reuse over time - this is a great example for anyone interested in the origins of mashups and the law around them. [pg 122] In discussing changes that need to be made to the law to allow for mashups Boyle states that one solution is to extend the system of compulsory licenses for cover versions to samples, or in the alternative, to exempt samples shorter than 5 seconds from copyright liability and clarify fair use. [pg 158-159]
Chapter 7 concerns the science commons with particular examples of software patents and synthetic biology. [pg 160]
Chapter 8 focuses on the creative commons and looks at flickr, ccmixter and creative commons [pg 179-181]. Boyle states that losses of sharing are every bit as real as losses from unauthorised copying. [pg 182] Further discussion on this topic looks to the free software movement and how creation of software takes place on a large scale despite a lower level of intellectual property rights. [pg 185]
In Boyle's eyes copyright maximalism was believed and pursued even when it did not make economic sense. [pg 198] It was a creation of a world view not a calculation of profit and loss:
'Not only did many of the rules we ended up with make no sense from the point of view of some of the largest economic players in the area - think of the device manufacturers, the search engines, and so on - they frequently made no sense from the perspective of those proposing them. Attempting to twist the law to make it illegal for technology to interfere with your business model is frequently bad for the industry seeking the protection, as well as for the technology, the markets, and the wider society.' [pg 199]
It was however a sincere belief that more rights would lead to more innovation. [pg 199]
Boyle is particularly critical of the lack of empirical evidence used to support changes in the law with a look at the legal protection for databases in the USA compared to Europe as one example. [pg 205 - 220]
Finally, Boyle proposes a movement along the lines of the environmental movement to lobby for changes to intellectual property law. [pg 230]
An excellent summary of the main points of the book is given on pages 205 & 236.
This is a brilliant book and very easy to read I really do recommend taking the time to look at it.
Further Reading
James Boyle, 'The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind' (2008) available for free at: < http://www.thepublicdomain.org/download/> at 13 September 2011
The central point of the book is that 'the line between intellectual property and the public domain is important in every aspect of culture, science and technology.' [pg xvi] Boyle begins by discussing the inherent aspects of intellectual property - that it is nonrival and nonexcludable and notes that financial reward is just one of the motivations behind creation - others are fame, altruism or because of another inherent creative force. [pg 3] Without limiting intellectual property rights, it becomes a system of corporate welfare. [pg 8] He writes:
'...the goal of the system ought to be to give the monopoly only for as long as necessary to provide incentive. After that, we should let the work fall into the public domain where all of us can use it, transform it, adapt it, build on it, republish it as we wish. For most works, the owners expect to make all the money the are going to recoup from the work with five or ten years of exclusive rights' [pg 11]
He discusses changes to copyright in recent years including automatic protection and term extension and notes that these have changed the contours of copyright regulation in a bad way. [pg 15].
Boyle terms the phrase 'The Jefferson Warning' to refer to the discussion of intellectual property at the time of its inception and the reluctance of the forefathers in granting monopoly rights. In essence intellectual property was not seen as a natural right rather a mechanism to create incentives, there is no entitlement as such to monopoly rights rather they are created by the State as a means to an end, they should not be permanent but rather only last as long as is needed to provide the incentive they set out to achieve, there are inherent dangers associated with intellectual property rights as they may cause more problems than they solve and the State must be careful to only award them when they are really needed. [pg 21-22] These sentiments were echoed by Thomas Babington Macaulay in his speech to the House of Commons in 1841:
'I may safely take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad.' [pg 22]
Reiterated by Boyle later in the text, he rephrases this to say that the concerns of the forefathers were that intellectual property creates artificial scarcity, high prices and low quality. [pg 37]
Boyle goes on to define the public domain and the commons:
'The public domain is material that is not covered by intellectual property rights. Material might be in the public domain because it was never capable of being owned. Examples would be the English language or the formulae of Newtonian physics. Alternatively, something might be in the public domain because rights have expired. The works of Shakespeare or the patents over powered flight are examples.
Some definitions of the public domain are more granular. They focus not only on complete works but on the reserved spaces of freedom inside intellectual property. The public domain would include the privilege to excerpt short quotations in a review. This vision is messier, but more instructive....' [pg 38]
'The term "commons" is generally used to denote a resource over which some group has access and use rights - albeit perhaps under certain conditions. It is used in even more ways that the term "public domain". The first axis along which definitions of the term "commons" vary is the size of the group that has access rights. Some would say it is a commons only if the whole society has access. That is the view I will take here.
The other difference between public domain and commons is the extent of restrictions on use. Material in the public domain is free of property rights. You may do with it what you wish. A commons can be restrictive. For example, some open source software makes your freedom to modify the software contingent on the conditions that your contributions, too, will be freely open to others.' [pg 39]
Boyle sees the public domain as important because it is the basis of art, science and self understanding. It is the raw material from which new things are made. [pg 39] He states that the more commodified and restricted our access to information, the less the market operates efficiently and more poorly it allocates resources in society. Creativity is undermined as the cost of the inputs rise. [pg 40]
Boyle then goes on to discuss the enclosure of land commons in England before referring to the increase in intellectual property rights as the second enclosure. [pg 43 -45] Here Hardin's tragedy of the commons does not apply as works are non rivalrous and nonexcludable. [pg 48] Indeed the increase in property rights creates a different problem:
'Using a nice inversion of the idea of the tragedy of the commons, Heller and Eisenberg referred to these effects - the transaction costs caused by myriad property rights over the necessary components of some subsequent innovation - as the tragedy of the anti commons'.
Boyle then goes on to term the phrase 'The Internet Threat' to refer to the digital environment and perceptions that technological changes empowering copying must mean an increase in property rights. [pg 53] In particular he refers to Napster and the changes that were brought about by file sharing. [pg 53] The logic of perfect control is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. [pg 61] The background to the Napster and Grokster litigation is also discussed. [see pg 71 - 79]
Chapter 6 discusses mashups in detail. In an earlier post here I embedded the YouTube clip to The Legendary KO's song 'George Bush Doesnt Care About Black People'. This is a fascinating chapter which traces the origins of that mashup and discusses the copyright implications for its reuse over time - this is a great example for anyone interested in the origins of mashups and the law around them. [pg 122] In discussing changes that need to be made to the law to allow for mashups Boyle states that one solution is to extend the system of compulsory licenses for cover versions to samples, or in the alternative, to exempt samples shorter than 5 seconds from copyright liability and clarify fair use. [pg 158-159]
Chapter 7 concerns the science commons with particular examples of software patents and synthetic biology. [pg 160]
Chapter 8 focuses on the creative commons and looks at flickr, ccmixter and creative commons [pg 179-181]. Boyle states that losses of sharing are every bit as real as losses from unauthorised copying. [pg 182] Further discussion on this topic looks to the free software movement and how creation of software takes place on a large scale despite a lower level of intellectual property rights. [pg 185]
In Boyle's eyes copyright maximalism was believed and pursued even when it did not make economic sense. [pg 198] It was a creation of a world view not a calculation of profit and loss:
'Not only did many of the rules we ended up with make no sense from the point of view of some of the largest economic players in the area - think of the device manufacturers, the search engines, and so on - they frequently made no sense from the perspective of those proposing them. Attempting to twist the law to make it illegal for technology to interfere with your business model is frequently bad for the industry seeking the protection, as well as for the technology, the markets, and the wider society.' [pg 199]
It was however a sincere belief that more rights would lead to more innovation. [pg 199]
Boyle is particularly critical of the lack of empirical evidence used to support changes in the law with a look at the legal protection for databases in the USA compared to Europe as one example. [pg 205 - 220]
Finally, Boyle proposes a movement along the lines of the environmental movement to lobby for changes to intellectual property law. [pg 230]
An excellent summary of the main points of the book is given on pages 205 & 236.
This is a brilliant book and very easy to read I really do recommend taking the time to look at it.
Further Reading
James Boyle, 'The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind' (2008) available for free at: < http://www.thepublicdomain.org/download/> at 13 September 2011
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Four Great Women and a Manicure
I was watching The Simpsons tonight and caught this great reference to the Disney Corporation and copyright law - I cant actually see the link below in this region but those on the other side of the world may be more fortunate:
Season 20 / Episode 20: - Four Great Women and a Manicure
Lisa Simpson: I know another story about a great woman. It's called Snow White and the Seven
Lawyer: [interrupts Lisa] Excuse me, but the story you are about to tell is a copyright property of the Walt Disney Company.
Lisa Simpson: What? Snow White is a fairy tale that has been around for hundreds of years. Nobody owns the rights to it.
Lawyer: Does your story have any dwarves in it?
Lisa Simpson: Yes, but they are my own original creation. Their names are Crabby, Drunky, Hungry, Greedy, Lenny, Kerney, and Doc-tor Hibbert.
The Disney lawyer has very long evil finger nails! The scenes that follow are just as funny with an adaptation of the Snow White song available on hulu here. I purchased the episode from iTunes.
More Information
ShareTV.org, Lisa Simpson - The Simpsons Character Guide <http://sharetv.org/shows/the_simpsons/cast/lisa_simpson/quotes> at 6 July 2010
Wikipedia, Four Great Women and a Manicure (last updated 19 June 2010) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Great_Women_and_a_Manicure> at 6 July 2010
Season 20 / Episode 20: - Four Great Women and a Manicure
Lisa Simpson: I know another story about a great woman. It's called Snow White and the Seven
Lawyer: [interrupts Lisa] Excuse me, but the story you are about to tell is a copyright property of the Walt Disney Company.
Lisa Simpson: What? Snow White is a fairy tale that has been around for hundreds of years. Nobody owns the rights to it.
Lawyer: Does your story have any dwarves in it?
Lisa Simpson: Yes, but they are my own original creation. Their names are Crabby, Drunky, Hungry, Greedy, Lenny, Kerney, and Doc-tor Hibbert.
The Disney lawyer has very long evil finger nails! The scenes that follow are just as funny with an adaptation of the Snow White song available on hulu here. I purchased the episode from iTunes.
More Information
ShareTV.org, Lisa Simpson - The Simpsons Character Guide <http://sharetv.org/shows/the_simpsons/cast/lisa_simpson/quotes> at 6 July 2010
Wikipedia, Four Great Women and a Manicure (last updated 19 June 2010) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Great_Women_and_a_Manicure> at 6 July 2010
Saturday, August 15, 2009
RIP: A Remix Manifesto
I have been a little slow to write about the film RIP: A Remix Manifesto - it has been available to stream for a short time now but I wanted to get a copy of the film that I could keep before deciding whether or not it might be included in my research.
After some delay in gaining access to the film - Australian's cannot download from iTunes USA nor is it available outside the USA from the official website - I finally got a copy off eBay. (It was advertised as a Region 1 DVD but it turns out it has no region coding at all. I have an old DVD player which I was guessing/gambling would have played the Region 1 DVD anyway).
This is a great film which discusses remix culture and the incredible imposition of copyright law. It primarily focuses on the music remix artist Girl Talk however also discusses mashups of other forms of culture as well as the more open attitude to culture taken in countries such as Brazil. With a number of similarities to the movie GoodCopyBadCopy, this film differs largley in the way that is is made - it itself in parts is a mashup of culture, some old and some new.
Indeed, there are a number of curious aspects to the way the film has been put together. At first I wondered whether these would amount to embarrassing errors - for example, it is specifically stated that this film is about a war over ideas however it is an elementary error to say that copyright law regulates ideas. Copyright law in fact regulates expression and is expressly differentiated from laws that regulate ideas. Other intellectual property law such as patents regulate ideas.
In addition to this, the movie characterises Napster1 as being a decentralised file sharing network when of course it is well known that Napster1 was in fact a centralised file sharing network - it required a centralised server in order to index and pass files from one user to another.
Why would this film state two obvious errors? (perhaps there are more that musicians or remix artists would find that are not obvious to me).
It is my view that this is done deliberately to act as an illustration. By including errors in the film, this film serves as the perfect example as to why we should be entitled to remix. Culture of the past is often imperfect, can be added to, altered or changed in a way that makes it more relevant, useful and (in this case for those of us with a background in law) more enjoyable. It is my belief that the errors in this film are intended to invite discussion as well as corrections. If so, I consider this to be a brave tactical decision and one which enables further promotion of the film, increased relevance in the future, as well as aiding in the wider dissemination of the central messages of the film through ensuring people discuss it. [I also wondered whether it might be to bait IP lawyers to remix it in case the creator is sued and he needs some back up.... :-) ]
Just as music mashed up by GirlTalk in part gains its popularity through the ability of people to relate to the samples of songs they already know, any adaptation of this film would refer to the original at the same time as serving as a new creation. In fact in parts of the film, remixes of this very film are used. Completely displacing the notion that the purchased copy is a finished product, the creator has allowed all of the footage of the film to be uploaded to the internet and openly invites others to remix it.
Indeed the very fact that I was unable to purchase this film except via eBay and only then if it would work in my DVD player serves as a further example of the impossibility of the staggered releases of record labels and other media organisations, as well as the impediments of DRM. Of course I would try to purchase the film from eBay (as I am sure many other people have). The creator appears to be very cleverly demonstrating the futility of trying to close culture when the internet is always on and will always allow people to connect and share regardless of the attempts to prevent this. At present it is not even possible to purchase the film for private use in Australia - I could only view the copy I have because of what American's call the First Sale Doctrine. Had this copy been Region 1 encoded and had I not had an old DVD player my rights would have been lost altogether.
OR MAYBE there are no errors in the film at all and this is a lesson in not buying from the authorised supplier? How do I know I have the 'official' copy? perhaps it is a mashed up pirate version... I doubt it, I checked the sellers reputation and store but it is an interesting aspect to the experience of trying to get a copy of this film and the nature of its subject.
I am in the process of trying to organise a non commercial use license to show this film at the Southern Cross University Mixed Up Reels Flim Club night on 8th September 2009 (I am told the licesend copy of the film will arrive next Monday so ...fingers crossed... )
If you're not nearby - stream it, go along to see it at one of the other screenings, or buy it. You will be impressed by the creativity of the footage, the clarity of the message as well as be inspired to become a creator. Great flick!
After some delay in gaining access to the film - Australian's cannot download from iTunes USA nor is it available outside the USA from the official website - I finally got a copy off eBay. (It was advertised as a Region 1 DVD but it turns out it has no region coding at all. I have an old DVD player which I was guessing/gambling would have played the Region 1 DVD anyway).
This is a great film which discusses remix culture and the incredible imposition of copyright law. It primarily focuses on the music remix artist Girl Talk however also discusses mashups of other forms of culture as well as the more open attitude to culture taken in countries such as Brazil. With a number of similarities to the movie GoodCopyBadCopy, this film differs largley in the way that is is made - it itself in parts is a mashup of culture, some old and some new.
Indeed, there are a number of curious aspects to the way the film has been put together. At first I wondered whether these would amount to embarrassing errors - for example, it is specifically stated that this film is about a war over ideas however it is an elementary error to say that copyright law regulates ideas. Copyright law in fact regulates expression and is expressly differentiated from laws that regulate ideas. Other intellectual property law such as patents regulate ideas.
In addition to this, the movie characterises Napster1 as being a decentralised file sharing network when of course it is well known that Napster1 was in fact a centralised file sharing network - it required a centralised server in order to index and pass files from one user to another.
Why would this film state two obvious errors? (perhaps there are more that musicians or remix artists would find that are not obvious to me).
It is my view that this is done deliberately to act as an illustration. By including errors in the film, this film serves as the perfect example as to why we should be entitled to remix. Culture of the past is often imperfect, can be added to, altered or changed in a way that makes it more relevant, useful and (in this case for those of us with a background in law) more enjoyable. It is my belief that the errors in this film are intended to invite discussion as well as corrections. If so, I consider this to be a brave tactical decision and one which enables further promotion of the film, increased relevance in the future, as well as aiding in the wider dissemination of the central messages of the film through ensuring people discuss it. [I also wondered whether it might be to bait IP lawyers to remix it in case the creator is sued and he needs some back up.... :-) ]
Just as music mashed up by GirlTalk in part gains its popularity through the ability of people to relate to the samples of songs they already know, any adaptation of this film would refer to the original at the same time as serving as a new creation. In fact in parts of the film, remixes of this very film are used. Completely displacing the notion that the purchased copy is a finished product, the creator has allowed all of the footage of the film to be uploaded to the internet and openly invites others to remix it.
Indeed the very fact that I was unable to purchase this film except via eBay and only then if it would work in my DVD player serves as a further example of the impossibility of the staggered releases of record labels and other media organisations, as well as the impediments of DRM. Of course I would try to purchase the film from eBay (as I am sure many other people have). The creator appears to be very cleverly demonstrating the futility of trying to close culture when the internet is always on and will always allow people to connect and share regardless of the attempts to prevent this. At present it is not even possible to purchase the film for private use in Australia - I could only view the copy I have because of what American's call the First Sale Doctrine. Had this copy been Region 1 encoded and had I not had an old DVD player my rights would have been lost altogether.
OR MAYBE there are no errors in the film at all and this is a lesson in not buying from the authorised supplier? How do I know I have the 'official' copy? perhaps it is a mashed up pirate version... I doubt it, I checked the sellers reputation and store but it is an interesting aspect to the experience of trying to get a copy of this film and the nature of its subject.
I am in the process of trying to organise a non commercial use license to show this film at the Southern Cross University Mixed Up Reels Flim Club night on 8th September 2009 (I am told the licesend copy of the film will arrive next Monday so ...fingers crossed... )
If you're not nearby - stream it, go along to see it at one of the other screenings, or buy it. You will be impressed by the creativity of the footage, the clarity of the message as well as be inspired to become a creator. Great flick!
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Lessons from the Google Book Search settlement
I have been very interested to read the commentary around the Google Book Search agreement – particularly the arrangements to be put in place to track and monitor the use of works.
The ‘Books Rights Registry’ will enable authors to determine whether or not their books can be scanned with portions made available for searching. It is in essence an agreement to a collective license with protections in place for the preservation of the public domain.
Lessig Notes:
The agreement calls for the creation of a registry to be operated by a nonprofit corporation. That corporation will be governed by a board comprised of publishers and "authors" (meaning authors participating in the law suit).
And according to Silicon Valley:
Google will pay about $34.5 million to establish the registry... About 63 percent of the revenue Google earns from its book-search program will go to the registry to be divvied up among rights-holding authors and publishers. It will also pay the authors' and publishers' attorney fees.
The creation of a non profit registry for rights management with respect to literary publications is a big step forward for the long term management of books within the digital environment. For many years Lawrence Lessig and many others have been arguing that the law relating to copyright creates an inefficient property system largely due to the fact that there is no central registry of copyright holders.
In his most recent text, Remix, Lessig reflects on the social norms historically associated with the use of text – quoting with citation. He suggests that in the coming years all culture will be ‘bookified’ – that is that social norms which have already begun to emerge will enhance the expectation of all individuals to reuse and quote from culture.
One can well imagine the benefits that would flow from having a central repository of all copyright holders for all forms of expression. Enabling a system of rights registration would facilitate the process of gaining clearances, reduce litigation and enhance the ability of artists and follow on creators to more easily negotiate the uses and availability of works.
In my recent presentation relating to political music I reflected on the need for a central repository or archive and the need for integration to improve the exposure, consumption and use of oppositional audible culture. I also argued for the establishment of a non profit association to carry out these goals. The Google Book Search agreement could prove to be an excellent model worthy of examining as an analogy.
Further Reading
Lessig Blog, On the Google Book Search Agreement (29 October 2008) <http://lessig.org/blog/2008/10/on_the_google_book_search_agre.html> at 2 November 2008
Lessig, Remix (2008)
<http://remix.lessig.org/> at 2 November 2008
Silicon Valley, Authors, publishers settle copyright suit against Google (29 October 2008) <http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_10843684?nclick_check=1> at 2 November 2008
The Register, Google settles Book Search suit for $125m (28 October 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/28/google_settles_book_suit/> at 2 November 2008
The ‘Books Rights Registry’ will enable authors to determine whether or not their books can be scanned with portions made available for searching. It is in essence an agreement to a collective license with protections in place for the preservation of the public domain.
Lessig Notes:
The agreement calls for the creation of a registry to be operated by a nonprofit corporation. That corporation will be governed by a board comprised of publishers and "authors" (meaning authors participating in the law suit).
And according to Silicon Valley:
Google will pay about $34.5 million to establish the registry... About 63 percent of the revenue Google earns from its book-search program will go to the registry to be divvied up among rights-holding authors and publishers. It will also pay the authors' and publishers' attorney fees.
The creation of a non profit registry for rights management with respect to literary publications is a big step forward for the long term management of books within the digital environment. For many years Lawrence Lessig and many others have been arguing that the law relating to copyright creates an inefficient property system largely due to the fact that there is no central registry of copyright holders.
In his most recent text, Remix, Lessig reflects on the social norms historically associated with the use of text – quoting with citation. He suggests that in the coming years all culture will be ‘bookified’ – that is that social norms which have already begun to emerge will enhance the expectation of all individuals to reuse and quote from culture.
One can well imagine the benefits that would flow from having a central repository of all copyright holders for all forms of expression. Enabling a system of rights registration would facilitate the process of gaining clearances, reduce litigation and enhance the ability of artists and follow on creators to more easily negotiate the uses and availability of works.
In my recent presentation relating to political music I reflected on the need for a central repository or archive and the need for integration to improve the exposure, consumption and use of oppositional audible culture. I also argued for the establishment of a non profit association to carry out these goals. The Google Book Search agreement could prove to be an excellent model worthy of examining as an analogy.
Further Reading
Lessig Blog, On the Google Book Search Agreement (29 October 2008) <http://lessig.org/blog/2008/10/on_the_google_book_search_agre.html> at 2 November 2008
Lessig, Remix (2008)
<http://remix.lessig.org/> at 2 November 2008
Silicon Valley, Authors, publishers settle copyright suit against Google (29 October 2008) <http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_10843684?nclick_check=1> at 2 November 2008
The Register, Google settles Book Search suit for $125m (28 October 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/28/google_settles_book_suit/> at 2 November 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Developing the Australasian Creative Commons: Conference Notes
This week I attended the Developing the Australasian Creative Commons conference held at the Queensland State Library in Brisbane. Whilst there were a number of excellent speakers canvassing a wide range of topics including the use of CC licenses in education, libraries, government and private industry; today I am reporting back on two sessions that I found to be very interesting. The first is a presentation given by Sebastian Chan from the Powerhouse Museum and the second is the roundtable discussion relating to the developments in the music industry.
Powerhouse Museum
Readers of my blog will recall a post from earlier this year relating to the Powerhouse Museums decision to open up access to the Tyrrell photographic collection by adding it to the Flickr Commons.
Sebastian Chan gave an excellent presentation in which he discussed the Museum’s experiences through the course of this venture. He noted in particular that the collection, prior to its release on Flickr had received around 31,000 views in a 12 month period. In the first month it was made available on Flickr this number of views had been reached with over 40,000 views in four weeks. Now that the collection has been available for eleven weeks the total number of views has reached 86,000. This is a fantastic result for a public domain collection and certainly an excellent illustration of how technology can deliver access to works that by rights should be made freely and openly available to the public.
Another interesting point from Sebastian’s talk related to the need for museums to adapt to the digital age, particularly given that much of their income in the past has depended on people paying to access works, many of which are already within the public domain. He considered there to be some way to go in redeveloping business models and a need to lobby governments further to ensure that income streams are replaced rather than lost.
He also noted how the use of creative commons licenses and technology platforms such as the Flickr Commons can create complications for organisations that must report usage and access statistics. He noted that since the collection had been uploaded to the site that some of the material had been copied to Wikimedia Commons. Whilst legally this is not problematic it does pose problems for the museum as they need to report how many times the material has been viewed.
In all, it was an enjoyable and inspiring presentation. Those who have not yet viewed the Tyrrell collection can access it here and here.
An Orchestra of Millions
The second session I wish to mention today is the presentations made relating to developments in the music industry.
Professor Julian Knowles from the Queensland University of Technology made mention of the difficulties recording artists have recouping money from record contracts and discussed the need to change their business structure to focus on live performances.
He discussed the recent example (May 2008) of The Whitlams who gave away 700,000 CDs as part of a newspaper promotion and how many bands were now incorporating ‘free’ into their business model in order to attract listeners and recoup funds from other sources.
He suggested that the fragmentation of the market has led to the development of many more sole trader or small business structures rather than the tendency to develop big name artists. He suggested that a base audience for the average artist or group was now around 20,000 with the aim of getting around $10.00 from each to sustain the creation of works on a professional basis.
He also discussed the difficult situation created by copyright law and considered remixing and sampling unviable due to license costs and the time it takes to get permission to use exisitng creations.
Professor Knowles also made reference to the commonality of file sharing and questioned whether there are opportunities for it to be monetised and the need to embrace the principle that the more something it is used the more it is worth.
Andrew Garton from Secession Records also spoke in relation to sampling and remixing. He explained his involvement in ‘generative compositions’ and spoke of personal experience in composing music with dozens to hundreds of samples. In particular he spoke of an incident where he had attended a live performance of a UK sound artists who had scanned (illegally) the airwaves surrounding the venue. Garton obtained a copy of the performance from a friend, separated and uploaded the ‘sound fonts’ (small sections of the performance) only to later be threatened by the artist for breach of copyright despite the performance itself having been illegally produced.
More recently he has worked in the screen cultural sector. As part of Arts Law Week one year he held a competition in which teams had to create a short film of up to two minutes. One team had to produce the film lawfully and the other had to produce it illegally. The lawyer acting as the judge of the competition found that those who had produced the illegal film would most likely have been covered by the parody and satire provisions in the Copyright Act and were thus likely to have produced a lawful work, where as those that had been required to produce the work lawfully appeared to have breached copyright law multiple times. This illustrates both the irony and difficulties for creators in ensuring the legality of their creations.
Yunyu is a musician, originally from Singapore, who won an unearthed competition four years ago. Now, in Sydney, she commented on the lack of respect for copyright law in many Asian countries and suggested that in Singapore copyright law is taken as ‘the right to make copies’. She commented on her experience and the reasons why she uses CC Licenses to allow others to share her music and how she makes money from other sources such as merchandising. She also raised the issue, similar to that raised by Billy Bragg recently, about how new technology platforms such as MySpace were gaining wealth, particularly through advertising, without the funds being equitably distributed to the artists who contribute their content to the sites.
Paul Draper is a Professor at Griffith University and the Qld Conservatorium who made a very interesting observation about the difference between music and sound recordings suggesting that the distinction has been lost and needs to be re-established to assist the public in revaluing compositions as creations. He spoke particularly about the Fete de la musique held in Brisbane recently and how many musicians participated but none were paid and yet all the technical equipment such as lighting and sound systems had to be paid for.
Scott Morris from APRA also spoke about technology platforms such as MySpace and YouTube as new entrants to the music value chain. He noted the move toward the advertising support model for many of these services and commented that this was an old business model simply applied to new environments. For APRA he suggested that the digital music environment has produced some excitement as the amount of tracks has increased exponentially with them now having to catalogue a much broader range of compositions. He suggested that the wording of the creative commons licenses still posses some problems and is not yet compatible with some of the objectives of the collection society.
Each speaker brought a different perspective to the conference and made valid points on the changes currently taking place in the music industry. It was an interesting session and produced a lively debate between the panellists.
Jamendo
In my post earlier in the week I mentioned that one of the speakers at this conference was to be Sylvain Zimmer Chief Technology Officer from Jamendo. He did not attend in the end, however I am soon to be sent out a copy of the conference proceedings in which there is up to date material relation to Jamendo. I hope to be able to make a post on this shortly.
Further Reading
Powerhouse Museum, Tyrrell Collection <http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/tyrrell/> at 25 June 2008
Flickr Commons <http://www.flickr.com/commons> at 25 June 2008
The Whitlams, Lets Give Away 700,000 Albums (28 May 2008) <http://www.thewhitlams.com/NEWS/default.asp> at 25 June 2008
TechDirt, It's Not Exploitation If You Chose To Take Part (24 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080322/142342625.shtml> at 3 April 2008
Fete de la musique <http://fetedelamusique.culture.fr/87_English.html> at 25 June 2008
Powerhouse Museum
Readers of my blog will recall a post from earlier this year relating to the Powerhouse Museums decision to open up access to the Tyrrell photographic collection by adding it to the Flickr Commons.
Sebastian Chan gave an excellent presentation in which he discussed the Museum’s experiences through the course of this venture. He noted in particular that the collection, prior to its release on Flickr had received around 31,000 views in a 12 month period. In the first month it was made available on Flickr this number of views had been reached with over 40,000 views in four weeks. Now that the collection has been available for eleven weeks the total number of views has reached 86,000. This is a fantastic result for a public domain collection and certainly an excellent illustration of how technology can deliver access to works that by rights should be made freely and openly available to the public.
Another interesting point from Sebastian’s talk related to the need for museums to adapt to the digital age, particularly given that much of their income in the past has depended on people paying to access works, many of which are already within the public domain. He considered there to be some way to go in redeveloping business models and a need to lobby governments further to ensure that income streams are replaced rather than lost.
He also noted how the use of creative commons licenses and technology platforms such as the Flickr Commons can create complications for organisations that must report usage and access statistics. He noted that since the collection had been uploaded to the site that some of the material had been copied to Wikimedia Commons. Whilst legally this is not problematic it does pose problems for the museum as they need to report how many times the material has been viewed.
In all, it was an enjoyable and inspiring presentation. Those who have not yet viewed the Tyrrell collection can access it here and here.
An Orchestra of Millions
The second session I wish to mention today is the presentations made relating to developments in the music industry.
Professor Julian Knowles from the Queensland University of Technology made mention of the difficulties recording artists have recouping money from record contracts and discussed the need to change their business structure to focus on live performances.
He discussed the recent example (May 2008) of The Whitlams who gave away 700,000 CDs as part of a newspaper promotion and how many bands were now incorporating ‘free’ into their business model in order to attract listeners and recoup funds from other sources.
He suggested that the fragmentation of the market has led to the development of many more sole trader or small business structures rather than the tendency to develop big name artists. He suggested that a base audience for the average artist or group was now around 20,000 with the aim of getting around $10.00 from each to sustain the creation of works on a professional basis.
He also discussed the difficult situation created by copyright law and considered remixing and sampling unviable due to license costs and the time it takes to get permission to use exisitng creations.
Professor Knowles also made reference to the commonality of file sharing and questioned whether there are opportunities for it to be monetised and the need to embrace the principle that the more something it is used the more it is worth.
Andrew Garton from Secession Records also spoke in relation to sampling and remixing. He explained his involvement in ‘generative compositions’ and spoke of personal experience in composing music with dozens to hundreds of samples. In particular he spoke of an incident where he had attended a live performance of a UK sound artists who had scanned (illegally) the airwaves surrounding the venue. Garton obtained a copy of the performance from a friend, separated and uploaded the ‘sound fonts’ (small sections of the performance) only to later be threatened by the artist for breach of copyright despite the performance itself having been illegally produced.
More recently he has worked in the screen cultural sector. As part of Arts Law Week one year he held a competition in which teams had to create a short film of up to two minutes. One team had to produce the film lawfully and the other had to produce it illegally. The lawyer acting as the judge of the competition found that those who had produced the illegal film would most likely have been covered by the parody and satire provisions in the Copyright Act and were thus likely to have produced a lawful work, where as those that had been required to produce the work lawfully appeared to have breached copyright law multiple times. This illustrates both the irony and difficulties for creators in ensuring the legality of their creations.
Yunyu is a musician, originally from Singapore, who won an unearthed competition four years ago. Now, in Sydney, she commented on the lack of respect for copyright law in many Asian countries and suggested that in Singapore copyright law is taken as ‘the right to make copies’. She commented on her experience and the reasons why she uses CC Licenses to allow others to share her music and how she makes money from other sources such as merchandising. She also raised the issue, similar to that raised by Billy Bragg recently, about how new technology platforms such as MySpace were gaining wealth, particularly through advertising, without the funds being equitably distributed to the artists who contribute their content to the sites.
Paul Draper is a Professor at Griffith University and the Qld Conservatorium who made a very interesting observation about the difference between music and sound recordings suggesting that the distinction has been lost and needs to be re-established to assist the public in revaluing compositions as creations. He spoke particularly about the Fete de la musique held in Brisbane recently and how many musicians participated but none were paid and yet all the technical equipment such as lighting and sound systems had to be paid for.
Scott Morris from APRA also spoke about technology platforms such as MySpace and YouTube as new entrants to the music value chain. He noted the move toward the advertising support model for many of these services and commented that this was an old business model simply applied to new environments. For APRA he suggested that the digital music environment has produced some excitement as the amount of tracks has increased exponentially with them now having to catalogue a much broader range of compositions. He suggested that the wording of the creative commons licenses still posses some problems and is not yet compatible with some of the objectives of the collection society.
Each speaker brought a different perspective to the conference and made valid points on the changes currently taking place in the music industry. It was an interesting session and produced a lively debate between the panellists.
Jamendo
In my post earlier in the week I mentioned that one of the speakers at this conference was to be Sylvain Zimmer Chief Technology Officer from Jamendo. He did not attend in the end, however I am soon to be sent out a copy of the conference proceedings in which there is up to date material relation to Jamendo. I hope to be able to make a post on this shortly.
Further Reading
Powerhouse Museum, Tyrrell Collection <http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/tyrrell/> at 25 June 2008
Flickr Commons <http://www.flickr.com/commons> at 25 June 2008
The Whitlams, Lets Give Away 700,000 Albums (28 May 2008) <http://www.thewhitlams.com/NEWS/default.asp> at 25 June 2008
TechDirt, It's Not Exploitation If You Chose To Take Part (24 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080322/142342625.shtml> at 3 April 2008
Fete de la musique <http://fetedelamusique.culture.fr/87_English.html> at 25 June 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Museums, The Public Domain and Profits
Most interestingly he notes:
[T]he McCord Museum of Canadian History in Montreal has poured significant resources into digitization, amassing more than 135,000 digital images that are freely accessible online. Similarly, the Canadian Museum of Civilization (which includes that museum and the Canadian War Museum) attracted a record 1.8 million visitors in 2006, but more impressively hit 66 million page views for its web-based content.
He goes on to discuss how museums are seeking to engage citizens in the digital environment through the use of things such as virtual museums, social networking and blogs. However it seems that not all uses of public domain works by museums are being offered on a non-profit basis. Geist refers to The National Gallery of Canada which is reported to have charged for the reproduction of some 250 public domain works in 2006:
The Access to Information Act records covered requests to the NGC for copies of public domain artworks between February 2006 and January 2007. The NGC received approximately 250 such requests, for which it imposed contractual restrictions on use of the images and levied an average fee of $379. While requesters were not advised of the cost breakdown, internal documents reveal that some of the price went to an administrative fee (typically $20) and a photographic fee.
Disturbingly, not only did the Gallery attach license conditions limiting the use of the reproductions but the costs levied included a permission charge higher than for works subject to copyright. This was justified on the grounds that as the works were not subject to copyright and no royalties would have to be paid, an increase in the cost levied by the gallery would be reasonable.
This comes in the same week as a story about the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. Here the public were prevented from taking photographs of a Nicholas Poussin exhibition, who died in 1655. Usually the museum allows photographs provided no flash is used. When questioned about the restrictions in place for this exhibition, representatives of the museum suggested initially that this was due to copyright. Of course this is incorrect because the works are clearly within the public domain. Excess Copyright reports that the works were loaned to the museum and the restriction may have been a contractual condition imposed on their display.
These examples illustrate the use of contract law in a way which impedes access to public domain works. In establishing the copyright bargain, the United States Constitution specifically states that the copyright term shall be for a limited time. In doing so the law reflects the desire to limit the monopoly power conferred to copyright holders and to provide for full access to works on the expiration of the copyright term. Without a robust and diverse public domain, future creativity, free speech and democracy are undermined.
It is increasingly apparent that steps need to be taken to ensure that private interests cannot deprive the public of their rightful access to these works. Simply put there needs to be greater awareness of how these works are being dealt with, the ability to challenge any limitations which are imposed on the public's right to access the works, and greater education as to the vital importance to society of the public domain.
In short, it defies logic that private owners should continue to own and control works that are within the public domain.
Articles
Ottawa Citizen, National Gallery looking for profits in all the wrong places (15 April 2008) <http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/bustech/story.html?id=eea40d92-2682-458f-81ab-4926a2ae1283> at 17 April 2008
The McCord Museum of Canadian History in Montreal <http://www.mccord-museum.qc.ca/en/> at 17 April 2008
The Canadian Museum of Civilization <http://www.civilization.ca/visit/indexe.aspx> at 17 April 2008
The National Gallery of Canada <http://www.gallery.ca/> at 17 April 2008
TechDirt, Since When Has Copyright Become Life Plus 343 Years? (14 April 2008)<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/013157727.shtml> at 17 April 2008
Excess Copyright, Life + 343 years (1 April 2008) <http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2008/04/life-343-years.html> at 17 April 2008
The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City <http://www.metmuseum.org/> at 17 April
Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture (2004) <http://www.amazon.com/Free-Culture-Technology-Control-Creativity/dp/1594200068/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208401055&sr=8-3> at 17 April 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Copyright Law and New Media
Updated. I was reading today about the New Media Artists and the Law panel due to be held in San Jose, CA this Friday (more here) and I was interested to discover that the discussion will centre around “the ways copyright laws are implicated in new media art and the challenges artists face in this evolving area of the law.”
Further Reading
Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture (2004) <http://www.amazon.com/Free-Culture-Technology-Control-Creativity/dp/1594200068/ref=pd_bbs_sr_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208243594&sr=8-7> at 15 April 2008
The term ‘new media art’ refers to:
[A]n art genre that encompasses artworks created with new media technologies, including computer graphics, computer animation, the Internet, interactive technologies, robotics, and biotechnologies. The term differentiates itself by its resulting cultural objects, which can be seen in opposition to those deriving from old media arts (i.e. traditional painting, sculpture, etc.) This concern with medium is a key feature of much contemporary art and indeed many art schools now offer a major in "New Genres" or "New Media." New Media concerns are often derived from the telecommunications, mass media and digital modes of delivery the artworks involve, with practices ranging from conceptual to virtual art, performance to installation. [Wikipedia, New Media Art (5 April 2008) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_media_art> at 15 April 2008]
The implications of copyright law in new media art
There is no doubt that copyright law in its present state produces significant ramifications for the production and reception of new media art. In recent years there have been significant changes to the length of copyright protection and the scope of works to which it applies. These implications occur both with respect to the art itself and the technologies that are used to create it. The United States and Australia serve as illustrative examples of a trend that is increasingly occurring around the world.
The length of copyright protection has been significantly increased in recent years. The most recent of these in the United States was the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which extended the period of protection for both existing and future works from 50 years plus the life of the author to 70 years plus the life of the author. Similarly, the same extension was made in Australia, although in this instance not made retrospective, through negotiations with the United States for the 2004 US-AU Free Trade Agreement .
The length of copyright protection holds many negative implications for new media art. In particular the impact and constriction of the public domain inhibits the ability for creators to draw on existing works and to reuse these in new ways.
The scope of copyright protection has also increased dramatically in recent times. In the United States the 1996 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in particular, enacted laws which seek to support the use and development of digital rights management technologies. In Australia similar provisions were also introduced through a series of copyright amendment bills, the most recent of which was the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth).
Digital rights management technologies are the software and hardware products which code locks around digital expression in order to limit the uses and portability of protected works. The implications for new media art include eroding the ability for creators and the public to exercise fair use/fair dealing rights. These rights, whilst enacted to enable such things as non commercial transformations, personal, and educational uses, are subverted by the use of digital rights management.
The scope of copyright law has also been amended to extend to the vast majority of non commercial uses. Non commercial uses particularly relevant to new media art include sampling and remixing of works. The associated implications are an inability to explore and create derivative works.
The impact on the development of technology is also apparent. Copyright law has been used to impede the existence and adoption of new distribution networks. By inhibiting the dissemination of new media art, the illustrative, educative and communicative potential of the genre is limited. This in turn impacts on social progress and democracy.
The challenges artists face
Artists face numerous difficult challenges stemming from the present state of copyright law. These include a failure to realise the technical environment which will enable all citizens to actively participate and contribute, communicate with others and to develop business models which enable independent artists to support themselves.
Digital technologies offer a unique opportunity for the average citizen to become creators. Copyright law, in seeking to protect existing interest, inhibits the development of technology which would enable this to be fully realised. Furthermore, copyright law complicates the creative process for those seeking to reuse existing works by establishing an environment which requires lengthy and expensive negotiations for licenses with no guarantee that permission will be forthcoming. This is also the case for the creators of new media works who themselves are subject to the automatic protection of copyright and must take additional steps to allow their own art to be reused.
The flow on effect of the expansion of copyright law and the term of protection similarly inhibits the ability for new media artists to communicate with members of the public. This in turn restricts the activities and education of civil society which therefore impedes their ability to participate in democracy.
In seeking to support pre-existing forms of expression copyright law also restricts the ability for new media art forms to develop business models which would enable them to support themselves. If creators of new art forms are unable to support themselves from their craft this acts as an impediment to attracting those capable of the highest quality of expression.
Conclusion
The implications of copyright law with respect to the production and reception of new media art are apparent. As a consequence of this artists seeking to explore this genre face numerous impediments.
Further Reading
Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture (2004) <http://www.amazon.com/Free-Culture-Technology-Control-Creativity/dp/1594200068/ref=pd_bbs_sr_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208243594&sr=8-7> at 15 April 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Public Domain
And so it seems that copyright is everywhere...
I woke this morning to the hosts of the TripleJ breakfast program (radio) discussing the impending launch of a new competition. The only problem was they had just discovered the song they wanted to use was still protected by copyright. It seems they were going to use a song that had been written 50 years ago until they were advised by listeners that the copyright term is in fact fifty years from the death of the artist, so they were trying to find out which artists had died in 1958 (see guestbook entries for 10/4/2008).
Never let it be said that the impact of copyright is invisible – it's not – those that don’t readily experience it simply don’t know that it is there. Those that are aware of it see the conflict it creates, everyday single day.
They were lucky in this instance that they only had to go back fifty years – fortunately in Australia the copyright term extension, negotiated as part of the USA Free Trade Agreement, was not made retrospective. Future generations are going to have to go back a lot further than this, as today’s works are now covered for 70 years plus the life of the author.
I was interested to read on Planet Creative Commons (more on Planets here) that James Boyle is due to release a new book later in the year examining this very topic:
The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind ... will be published by Yale University Press in Fall of 2008 under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial license... The book is about the fate of the public domain – the realm of material that is available for everyone to use without permission or fee. The book argues that we have been neglecting the vital role of the public domain in innovation, culture, science and politics and increasingly “enclosing it” by expanding the length, breadth and scope of intellectual property rights – copyright, patent and trademark – to cover material that used to be in the public domain... (Read more about the book here as well as the competition for designing the front cover.)
But while the law attempts to further restrict access to the public domain, digital technologies are making it easier to access what works are free from copyright protection. Another very interesting post to Planet Creative Commons explains how the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney has become the first museum in the world to release publicly-held historical photographs. Two hundred photographs from its Tyrrell Collection are already available with more to be added shortly. These can be accessed on Flickr: The Commons which itself was only launched at the beginning of this year and is designed to provide access to photographs in public archives for which copyright protection has expired. The post to the museum's blog regarding the release explains:
Our Tyrrell Collection consists of 7903 plates from the two principal photographic studios in Sydney in the late 1800s to early 1900s. These were the Charles Kerry and the Henry King studios... These images are mainly of the Sydney area with a few from regional spots... One of the exciting things we have done with this collection is place as many of them on a map according to their longitude and latitude coordinates as we can, this is called geo-mapping. The image above is ‘Bondi Bay, Sydney’, Henry King, Sydney, Australia, c. 1880-1900. This reproduction was scanned from a glass plate negative. We are going to post Tyrrell images on this blog for the next week to celebrate and will continue to highlight them in the future.
I think this picture captures an essence of the public domain - people, together, exploring and enjoying the environment. Just as we would never stand for private control of Bondi, we should work together to prevent the private control of our culture.
Articles
Triple J Breakfast <http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/breakfast/> at 10 April 2008
Planet Creative Commons <http://planet.creativecommons.org/> at 10 April 2008
Wikipedia, Aggregator (7 April 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_%28blog%29#Web_based> at 10 April 2008
Planet Creative Commons, Design cover for James Boyle’s new book — Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind (7 April 2008) <http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8189> at 10 April 2008
Amazon, The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind by James Boyle <http://www.amazon.com/Public-Domain-Enclosing-Commons-Mind/dp/0300137400/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207787771&sr=8-1> at 10 April 2008
Planet Creative Commons, Design a book cover, protect the public domain (7 April 2008)
<http://sciencecommons.org/weblog/archives/2008/04/07/design-a-book-cover-protect-the-public-domain/> at 10 April 2008
Planet Creative Commons, Powerhouse Museum Joins Flickr: The Commons (8 April 2008) <http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8190> at 10 April 2008
Power House Museum, Powerhouse joins The Commons on Flickr! (8 April 2008) <http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/imageservices/?p=164> at 10 April 2008
Flickr, The Commons (2008) <http://www.flickr.com/commons> at 10 April 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
