The following is cross-posted from the blog of the European Public Sector Information Platform (ePSIplatform). ePSIplatform is a comprehensive portal showcasing research and projects working to stimulate and promote public sector information (PSI) re-use and open data initiatives in Europe. Creative Commons is pleased to contribute a series of blog posts discussing the role of CC tools for use in public sector information.
Creative Commons’ (CC) suite of licenses and public domain tools have set a global standard for legally facilitating maximum re-use of information, where re-use (access, collaboration, dissemination, follow-on innovations, business and community ecosystems, etc.) of information is desired — as has particularly been the case with public sector information (PSI).
This ought to be of little surprise, as open licensing is completely aligned with the interests of governments in encouraging re-use of PSI, as expressed in EU Directive 2003/98/EC and similarly around the world. More broadly, there is great interest in open licenses for publicly funded information, including various kinds of cultural, educational, and research information. Across these broad categories stakeholders have realized again and again that if rights statements are confusing or not present, re-use of information will be suboptimal. Implementing CC is the solution.
In this short blog series, we will not describe the basics of the CC license suite and public domain tools, nor their burgeoning adoption by governments throughout Europe and around the world–follow the links for a review.
Instead, for the expert ePSIplatform readership (many thanks to ePSIplatform for the opportunity) we will highlight some useful “things you may not know” and point out some “things you might think you know, but are incorrect” about legal and technical aspects of CC tools — ones particularly pertinent to PSI adoption that have surfaced repeatedly in discussions CC and institutions in our global affiliate network have had with governments and publicly funded institutions, including in the course of providing implementation assistance for governments seeking to share. Following are some of the things we’ll discuss briefly in upcoming posts:
While all CC licenses require attribution, it is built in a sophisticated and flexible manner: non-endorsement, right to request removal of attribution, attribution to a publisher or funder, appropriate to medium, attribution links, and technical support for making attribution easier and more useful.
How the CC0 public domain dedication works robustly across jurisdictions, including its minimal license fallback that effectively works like our attribution-only license, and how the same technology that makes attribution under our licenses easier and more useful also makes non-legally-mandated citation of public domain materials also easier and more useful.
Jurisdiction and CC licenses: how that works legally (all CC tools are designed to apply worldwide). Also the leadership role of CC affiliate network jurisdiction projects in PSI.
How CC0 and CC licenses are being used for data (both are used extensively for PSI); also how they treat sui generis rights (separately, CC will be issuing an in-depth contemporary statement on this topic in the near future), what this means for PSI, and related improvements we’re exploring for an eventual version 4.0 of the CC license suite.
We are also developing a topic report on PSI and CC tools, to be published at the conclusion of this series. The report will include references to much of the excellent material published on PSI and CC over the last several years.
Feel free to leave a comment on this post if you have burning questions about the items above, or requests for other points to be covered in this series or the topic report. As always, if you have questions about CC licenses and public domain tools, we hope you’ll come to the source for the official story.No Comments »
We’re making these changes because we’ve received feedback — from our community of users, friends, supporters, and more — that the current set of web properties we have here at Creative Commons isn’t working as well as it could. Our websites have always emphasized using Creative Commons tools, or finding Creative Commons-licensed works. But we haven’t always made it easy to understand exactly how we are making possible the full potential of the internet via open licensing.
Today’s changes mark the first step towards fixing that problem.
Another change is that we are making it easy to see that we work across culture, education, and science, instead of putting those as links in a sidebar or even onto different domains, as we have done in the past with education and science. On each of those pages, we put in a “carousel” of users and implementations that draw on our growing repository of CC case studies. All of our work is global across all three domains, so we’ve also updated and prominently feature our international affiliates network page.
Regarding science, we’re redirecting the old Science Commons front page to http://creativecommons.org/science. This is part of our comprehensive integration of science into the core of Creative Commons — on a par with culture and education. We’re still figuring out exactly how to migrate all of the content inside the sciencecommons.org domain, so for now we’re leaving that content up and linking to it from the new page.
Last, we put a “fat footer” into place at the bottom, so that visitors and experienced CC users could rapidly access key parts of the site without having to dig around and click around in a site map.
This is just the beginning of the process. We’re working on a much more complete site redesign as part of our strategic plan for 2011, but we wanted to get these fixes implemented immediately. For those of you following CC’s progress over the long term, note that our previous significant website refresh came nearly two years ago. We will be tracking the impact of the changes through our website analytics, and we welcome feedback on how you use the site, what you’d like to see, and how you think we can make our website more effective throughout the course of the year.3 Comments »
The following is cross-posted from the CC Labs blog. Creative Commons technical team blogs at CC Labs about metadata, emerging standards, demos, prototypes, and Creative Commons’ technical infrastructure.
You may have noticed that the copy-and-paste HTML you get from the CC license chooser includes some strange attributes you’re probably not familiar with. That is RDFa metadata, and it allows for the CC license deeds, search engines, Open Attribute, and other tools to discover metadata about your work and generate attribution HTML. Many platforms have implemented CC REL metadata in their CC license marks, such as Connexions and Flickr, and it’s our recommended way to mark works with a CC license.
In an effort to make CC license metadata (or CC REL metadata) much easier to implement, we’ve created CC REL by Example. It includes many example HTML pages, as well as explanations and links to more information.
We’re hoping this guide will serve as a useful set of examples for developers and publishers who want to publish metadata for CC licensed works. Even if you just use CC licenses for your own content, now is a great time to take a first step into structured data and include information about how you’d like to be attributed.No Comments »
Nature Publishing Group has long been a leader in scientific and medical publishing. The company’s flagship publication, Nature, has been publishing across a broad range of scientific disciplines since 1869 and is the world’s most cited interdisciplinary journal. In the past several years, Timo Hannay as head of web publishing and Annette Thomas as CEO of MacMillian (NPG’s parent company) successfully brought NPG into the digital age with a wide variety of new scientific journals and projects that leverage the power of the Internet.
As part of this program, NPG has made very clear its support of open access publishing. Last month, the company announced that an additional 15 of its journals now offer open access options. And this week, the company announced a brand new online open access journal called Scientific Reports. With this launch, a full 80% of NPG academic and society journals and 50% of all journals the company publishes offer open access options to authors.
Another way in which NPG shows its support of open systems is by supporting the work we do at Creative Commons – both philosophically and financially. We find ourselves on the same side of the table as NPG during many discussions on how to increase openness and innovation in scientific communication and digital access. Key members of NPG have repeatedly expressed their deep appreciation for the fact that CC licenses are the foundation on which the Open Access movement rests. In a recent meeting between CC and NPG, Jason Wilde, Publishing Director of NPG, told us that they would like to show that appreciation in a concrete manner – a donation to Creative Commons for every each publication in Scientific Reports. We are thrilled to have this financial support that will help us continue to provide the legal and technical infrastructure of open systems.
Nature Publishing Group is a visionary group of people with a clear view into the potential of the digital era to enhance scientific communication. They believe in open access and, as the world’s premiere publishing group, they have the authority to lead the rest of the world towards increased OA. We are excited about the launch of Scientific Reports and the way in which it strengthens the long-standing bond between our two organizations.No Comments »
A warm thank you to all of our supporters! Our 2010 campaign raised $522,151.25 from 1,139 individual supporters and 22 companies. A huge thanks to our Board of Directors and all of our corporate sponsors, including 3taps, Tucows, Digital Garage, Ebay, Microsoft, LuLu, wikiHow, Hindawi, Squidoo, The Miraverse, and Aramex. More campaign numbers will be available soon on our blog.
Creative Commons enters 2011 with renewed energy, thanks to the holiday season and a new incoming CEO! As many of you know, we welcomed Cathy Casserly as incoming CEO of Creative Commons. As the Senior Partner at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and former Director of OER at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Cathy brings with her extensive experience with foundations and open educational resources (OER). But Cathy has also been involved with CC from the beginning. Lawrence Lessig writes,No Comments »
Thanks to all our supporters who helped us raise over $500,000 for our annual fundraising campaign! Stay tuned for a precise total and analysis — we’re still counting mailed checks! If you didn’t get a chance to donate to the 2010 campaign, start 2011 off right by showing the world how much you appreciate CC.
Because of our supporters, we will be able to continue developing the necessary tools to support and facilitate participatory culture and innovation around the world. 2011 is going to be a big year for CC – stay in touch and keep sharing!No Comments »
Help us ring in the new year by making sure we reach our $550,000 fundraising goal by midnight tonight. If you love CC then show us you care by donating today!1 Comment »
“I’m in a race; a race to outrun a rare and deadly form of bone cancer called chordoma, with an average survival of 7 years. To find a cure, there is a lot that needs to happen sequentially, so to win the race, I need science to move quickly. Fortunately, uncanny new technologies in genomics, computing, synthetic biology, etc. have put cures for virtually any disease within the realm of possibility. Unfortunately, the way we practice science is not designed to move on the timescale of an individual’s disease.
Despite all of the technological advances that have been made in recent years, it still takes on average 1-3 years for results to be transmitted from one lab to the next; it still takes months or years for materials and data to be transferred between institutions; and untold masses of observations and creations never get shared at all. It’s no wonder, then, why it takes decades for discoveries to be translated into new treatments, and why the hurdles are often just too large to overcome for small-market diseases like chordoma.
For anyone affected, or whose loved one is affected, by a life threatening disease, this is simply intolerable. Think about it: in the very recent past, humankind has developed the tools and know-how to cure disease, yet we are stifled from maximizing the potential benefit of these new tools by social and legal systems that evolved in a bygone era. This has to change.
But let’s be realistic. Despite the fact that our scientific enterprise is not optimized for speed, it does have many virtues. And traditions such as academic tenure, peer review, intellectual property, and shareholder return are not going away any time soon – nor should they, necessarily. If we can sequence a genome in the course of a week, surely we can find sensible solutions to enable the data to be shared.
Creative Commons is leading the charge to find these solutions. By helping researchers make data open and available, by streamlining the material transfer process, and by uncovering and integrating data from various stakeholders, Creative Commons is grease to the wheels of science. It is a source of hope to me in the race to outrun my disease. It is a means to maximize our collective investment in research. That’s why I support Creative Commons, and why if there’s a disease you’d like to see cured, I urge you to give whole-heartedly to Creative Commons as well.”
Josh Sommer is the executive director of the Chordoma Foundation, which he co-founded with his mother, Dr. Simone Sommer, after he was diagnosed with a clival chordoma in 2006. He believes that patients should play an active role in bringing about treatments for their own conditions, and that patients represent a largely untapped source of funding, energy, and know-how in the treatment development process. Follow Josh on Twitter.No Comments »
One of the most important values at Creative Commons is the usability of our tools. We strive to make all of our tools human-readable, often bridging dissonant vocabularies and frameworks to ensure our tools are compatible and understandable the world over. The challenge of localization is balancing legally sound terminology with culturally palatable translations. Sometimes the terms in which lawyers and courts communicate are unfamiliar or alienating to users outside of the legal profession. Moreover, even within the legal field, there can be a range of opinions about which terms are most appropriate.
Creative Commons oversees translation on two levels: our legal code and our license deeds. The former, the legal code or “lawyer-readable” layer, is adapted to the laws and official languages of jurisdictions around the world. The latter, the deeds or “human-readable” layer, are designed for everyone to understand. Unlike the legal code, the deeds are not legally-binding but rather a helpful, plain-language summary.
Historically, if two or more jurisdictions shared the same language, such as Spanish, each jurisdiction team would conduct a translation of the legal code and of the deeds. Sometimes the result is messy: for Spanish alone, we had over 10 translations of the license deeds, some differing only slightly and others more so.
Creative Commons invited its affiliates in Spanish-speaking jurisdictions to review the Spanish translations of the license names (Attribution, ShareAlike, NonCommercial, and NoDerivatives). In a conversation led by CC Chile’s Claudio Ruiz, the Latin American affiliates discussed the best linguistic solution, one that balanced usability with legal accuracy. After several months of discussion, a majority of the Latin American teams reached an agreement to harmonize their existing deeds into one under the following scheme. This is particularly notable since unlike the Arab harmonization effort discussed below, these jurisdictions had already published deeds for their particular jurisdictions.
- Attribution: Atribución
- ShareAlike: CompartirIgual
- Non-Commercial: NoComercial
- NoDerivatives: SinDerivadas
You’ll see the harmonized translations available now on our license deeds. Please note again that the deeds are not legally operative; instead, they play a critical role in helping ensure our licenses are understandable and accessible to users.
Similarly, Creative Commons encouraged its Arab world communities and affiliates to coordinate their translation efforts. They appreciated the importance of harmonizing the key license terms early on so that all Arabic-speaking users would have a consistent experience with CC.
During the recent CC Arab World meeting this October in Doha, Qatar, a lively discussion among attendees underscored the importance of harmonizing translation within the region. The challenge again was to balance legal compliance with user-friendly terminology. At the end of the meeting, CC affiliates and community representatives from six jurisdictions in the region reached a consensus on terms that CC will use for all future license-related work in Arabic. All the participants provided input in a session moderated by Bassel Khartabil and Mahmoud Abu Wardeh at CC’s request, with the following results:
- Attribution: نسب المصنف
- ShareAlike: الترخيص بالمثل
- NonCommercial: غير تجاري
- NoDerivatives: منع الإشتقاق
- Creative Commons: المشاع الإبداعي followed by mention of the original English name in parenthesis (Creative Commons)
These terms will be deployed in the upcoming Egyptian licenses, as well as across all Arabic deeds and informational materials. These efforts underscore the cooperative nature of the affiliates and community members who strive to make CC simple and approachable for users across the globe. We also hope to roll out similar harmonized terms in other languages over the coming months.
If you’d like to contribute to Creative Commons’ translation efforts, you can join our translation teams at Transifex.3 Comments »
Dan Gillmor talks about the challenges and rewards of publishing “Mediactive” under Creative Commons
Dan Gillmor is a journalist and established author, having previously published We the Media back in 2004 under a CC BY-NC-SA license. His subject is the changing landscape of media, and the focus of his first book was on distributed, grassroots journalism and its effect on the Big Media monopoly of news. Six years later, We the Media is still in print, and Dan talks about how this encouraged him to stick to his principles when publishing his second book, Mediactive, under Creative Commons as well. Dan turned down a publishing deal with a major New York publisher because they would not allow the CC license. In a reflection well worth reading, he writes,
“Almost a decade after Creative Commons was founded, and despite ample evidence that licensing copyrighted works this way doesn’t harm sales, book publishers remain mostly clueless about this option, or hostile to it. As David explained to editors, the main reason I’m still getting royalty checks for We the Media is that the book has been available as a free download since the day it went into bookstores. This is how word about it spread. Had we not published it that way, given the indifference (at best) shown by American newspapers and magazines, the book would have sunk without a trace.”
Also Mediactive “isn’t just a book; at least, not in the way most publishers understand books, even as they dabble online. And if a principle means anything to you, you stick by it when doing so is inconvenient, not just when it’s easy.”
Sticking by his principles seems to have paid off, as just three days after publishing Mediactive under CC BY-NC-SA online, 1,500 visitors to his site downloaded the book, and more viewed pieces of it online. At this point, Dan notes that “Far few have purchased the book, of course, but it’s selling — and I’ve barely begun the real marketing process, which will take place in the new year.”
Without Creative Commons and the internet, Mediactive would still be on the publishing floor somewhere:
No Comments »
“Incidentally, had I signed with a traditional publisher, the book would not have reached the marketplace for a year or more from the date when I signed. With a company like Lulu, you wrap up the project and you’re off to the races. In a fast-moving area like media, that’s a huge benefit to foregoing the standard route.”