<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Creative Commons &#187; uk office of public sector information</title>
	<atom:link href="http://creativecommons.org/tag/uk-office-of-public-sector-information/feed/rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://creativecommons.org</link>
	<description>Share, reuse, and remix — legally.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 18:34:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Public (UK) perception of copyright, public sector information, and&#160;CC</title>
		<link>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/15074</link>
		<comments>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/15074#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:02:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mike Linksvayer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CC Op-Ed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weblog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CC BY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commons research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crown copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public domain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uk office of public sector information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK: England and Wales]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://creativecommons.org/?p=15074</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The UK Office of Public Sector Information has published a report on public understanding of copyright, in particular Crown Copyright, the default status of UK government works &#8230; and Creative Commons. It contains interesting findings, though I really wish it had included two additional questions. Among the general (UK) public, 71% agree that government should [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The UK Office of Public Sector Information has published a <a href="http://perspectives.opsi.gov.uk/2009/05/crown-copyright-user-testing.html">report on public understanding of copyright</a>, in particular <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Copyright#United_Kingdom">Crown Copyright</a>, the default status of UK government works &#8230; and Creative Commons. It contains interesting findings, though I really wish it had included two additional questions.</p>
<p>Among the general (UK) public, 71% agree that government should encourage re-use of content it provides, and only 4% disagree.</p>
<p>The survey asked whether people felt encouraged or discouraged from using content when seeing &#8220;copyright&#8221; alone or alternatives on a web page:</p>
<table border="1">
<tr>
<th></th>
<th>Encouraged</th>
<th>Discouraged</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Copyright</td>
<td>15%</td>
<td>70%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Crown Copyright</td>
<td>22%</td>
<td>52%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Click-Use Licence</td>
<td>22%</td>
<td>35%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Read Terms &#038; Conditions</td>
<td>61%</td>
<td>29%</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><br clear="all"/><br />
Clearly, copyright discourages use. Of the alternative notices tested in this way, only &#8220;Read Terms &#038; Conditions&#8221; noticeably encourages use. As the presentation notes, this option is likely to be recognized as non-transactional.</p>
<p>Adding a transaction, potentially monetary, as overhead to copy &#038; paste discourages re-use. You&#8217;ll occasionally hear us and advocates of open licensing generally talk about reducing &#8220;transaction costs&#8221; &#8212; see, that&#8217;s not just blather! One way of looking at public licenses such as CC licenses is that they make re-use non-transactional &#8212; they pre-clear at least certain re-uses.</p>
<div style="float:left;padding:10px"><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/88x31.png"/></a></div>
<p>Unfortunately, the survey did not evaluate a CC license notice in the same manner &#8212; whether it encourages or discourages use. 87% of the general public did not recognize the license icon associated with the CC Attribution license. It&#8217;s hard to say whether this is good or bad &#8212; a small proportion recognizes the image &#8212; on the other hand we&#8217;re talking about the general public and one specific image.</p>
<p>Hopefully this or a similar survey will be repeated in the UK and elsewhere to see how recognition increases, or does not. Furthermore, future surveys should test not mere image recognition. Typically a license icon is paired with a statement such as &#8220;This work is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License</a>.&#8221; And of course the icon and text are linked to a &#8220;human readable&#8221; deed explaining the terms, as well as a &#8220;machine readable&#8221; annotation so that seeing a license notice on a web page isn&#8217;t the only vector for discovering the content as re-usable without a transaction.</p>
<p>Even more unfortunately, they survey did not evaluate whether &#8220;public domain&#8221; encourages or discourages use.</p>
<p>Overall, it is fantastic that this survey was done and published. Clearly the public wants to be encouraged to make use of its own information and a non-transactional alternative to default copyright is necessary to make that encouragement. </p>
<p>While we&#8217;ve come a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13588">very</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/14392">long</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/14668">way</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/14695">toward</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/15046">enabling</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/videos/a-shared-culture">effective sharing and re-framing copyright for the digital age</a>, one must strongly agree with <a href="http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/06/creative-commons-we-have-problem.html">Glyn Moody&#8217;s assessment</a>:<br />
<blockquote>It looks like much more work needs to be done to get the message out about Creative Commons and its licences.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>You</b> can help &#8212; <a href="http://creativecommons.org/license/">release works under one of the CC licenses</a> (or into the <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain">public domain</a>), use and recommend licensed works, and if you&#8217;re able, please <a href="https://support.creativecommons.org/donate">support the effort financially</a>.</p>
<p><small>Via <a href="http://openeducationnews.org/2009/06/09/creative-commons-recognition/">Open Education News</a>.</small></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/15074/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
