In my previous posts on generative AI, I discussed fair use and AI training data, copyright over AI outputs, and a recent U.S. Copyright Office decision on registration for a work produced by generative AI. In the next posts in our series, I will look at claims (exemplified in a recent case against Stable Diffusion and Midjourney) that generative AI (GAI) tools should be held liable under copyright law for their ability to output works in the style of specific, named artists.

The issue in a nutshell: Artists have raised legal claims against particular users who prompt a GAI and generate an output that copies from their original expressions. However, style is not generally protected by copyright, and that’s a good thing; if one artist were given a monopoly over anime, grunge music, or other styles, that would frustrate copyright’s core purpose of supporting creativity. What’s more, GAI tools provide myriad legitimate uses, and creators of those tools generally don’t directly control the actions of their users or financially benefit from uses that may infringe on pre-existing works. As such, they generally should not be held liable when actions of their user cross over the line into infringement.

In this blog post, I address the first issue — whether copyright should protect artistic style. In my next post, I will look at whether GAI tools should be liable if users create works that may infringe on works by other artists.

What’s the issue?

Before looking at the legal issues involved, it’s important to start with the concerns animating artists’ claims here. One part of these concerns seems to be related to the more general worry about AI disrupting the market for human work. Several months ago, an MIT Technology Review article wrote that Greg Rutkowski’s name was used at least 93,000 times to produce images using Stable Diffusion. Greg Rutkowski is an artist from Poland who is known for producing epic fantasy scenes, having created illustrations for things like Dungeons and Dragons and Magic the Gathering. If Stable Diffusion can create Rutkowski-like works by being instructed to “produce an epic fantasy scene with a fire breathing dragon fighting a noble warrior in the style of Greg Rutkowski,” why would anyone hire Rutkowski for his art any more? This AI generated content could be produced much more quickly and at a lower cost than commissioning Rutkowski for a custom piece. And, of course, this could apply to any artist and any style.

Even if the ability to generate similar works with AI doesn’t affect artists’ income or the economic value of the original artists’ works, artists still may feel that this devalues their work and their efforts in a more fundamental way. Artists spend time and effort establishing, developing, and refining their styles. If, all of a sudden, anyone could produce works in that style simply by adding some keywords into an AI text prompt box, it may appear to devalue the human creative effort and the integrity of their works.

Does copyright protect artistic style?

Concerns about devaluing the works created by human artists are important considerations — but are there problems that copyright law can and should fix? That is, can and should artists be able to claim copyright protection over the general style and feeling of their works, as opposed to the specific design elements expressed in their specific works?

One fundamental principle of copyright law is that copyright does not protect ideas, but instead protects the specific expressions of ideas that artists create through their art. As the Supreme Court wrote in Google v. Oracle: “copyright protection cannot be extended to ‘any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery ….’ [17 U.S.C.] § 102(b). These limitations … have often led courts to say, in shorthand form, that, unlike patents, which protect novel and useful ideas, copyrights protect ‘expression’ but not the ‘ideas’ that lie behind it.”

Looking at this in the context of style, style alone is not usually considered the subject matter of copyright. Consider, for example, music genres. Copyright does not extend to something like genre. So, copyright doesn’t protect the style of music “grunge,” and in fact, many bands who work in the same genre have similar sounds. Genres are, in fact, defined by stylistic similarities. So, for instance, early 1990s grunge bands had sounds that were, in many ways, alike: sludgy, heavy electric guitars, intense vocals, elements of both punk rock and heavy metal music. At the same time, however, copyright does protect specific expressions of that style: Nirvana’s Smells Like Teen Spirit, Pearl Jam’s Even Flow, Silverchair’s Tomorrow. Similarly, copyright doesn’t protect animation style. The American-made animated television show Avatar: The Last Airbender shares a similar animation and storytelling style with many Japanese anime shows. Indeed, people often think Avatar: The Last Airbender is, itself, a Japanese show. However, it is not a copy of any other show, even if it appears similar to anime.

Copyright doesn’t protect things like style and genre, because doing so would limit the ways that others can create other works, thereby chilling their ability to express themselves through their works. If the law allows artists to extend the scope of their copyright monopolies beyond their works to include elements outside their specific expression, it would compromise the ability of future artists to be inspired by and build from the art that they experience and love. A band like Silverchair, which sounds (at times) a bit like a mix of Nirvana and Pearl Jam, might have run into copyright problems if those bands had a copyright over their grunge sounds. Or a show like Avatar might never have been able to exist if the anime style itself was the subject of copyright.

At the same time, however, the line between style and expression can be fuzzy. Artists often work to develop idiosyncratic styles that differentiate their works from other artists. I think of the example of artists who illustrate superhero comic books. These artists often tell stories with the same characters, but present those characters in their own styles, such that you can easily tell one artist’s work from another. Scotti Young’s version of Spiderman is very different from Todd McFarlane’s or Jack Kirby’s. Each shares some similarities with the others — the character itself and the red and blue super suit — but are also very different. Indeed, they are so different, and have such strong styles, that you can recognize other works by the same artists, even without being told it’s them. Jack Kirby is one of the most influential comic artists of all time; if other artists create works that evoke his work, does that mean they are copying him? Moreover, while a character like Spiderman may be protected by copyright, it is not clear how the style in which he is portrayed is part of that. Where does the style end and the expression begin?

Additionally, some case law recognizes a degree of copyright protection over style. Professor Ed Lee, director of the program on intellectual property law at Chicago-Kent College of law, points to two cases on style and copyright: Malden Mills, Incorporated. v. Regency Mills and Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries. In Malden Mills, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that two works were “substantially similar” because they shared a “style of representation” among other similarities. In Steinberg, the Southern District of New York wrote that “style is one ingredient of ‘expression.’”

In a similar vein, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Williams v. Gaye upheld a jury verdict, finding that Robin Thicke and Pharell Williams copied Marvin Gaye’s Got to Give it Up with their song Blurred Lines. Notably, Thicke mentioned in several interviews that he was directly inspired by Marvin Gaye’s song. In fact, the dissenting judge in the case wrote that: “The majority allows the Gayes to accomplish what no one has before: copyright a musical style. ‘Blurred Lines’ and ‘Got to Give It Up’ are not objectively similar. They differ in melody, harmony, and rhythm. Yet by refusing to compare the two works, the majority establishes a dangerous precedent that strikes a devastating blow to future musicians and composers everywhere.” Notably, the majority in that case denied these claims made by the dissent, calling them “hyperbole” and writing specifically that the decision “does not grant license to copyright a musical style.”

I believe that the best way to think about style’s position in copyright law is that design elements like style, design, and look are all parts of artistic expression, but cannot alone belong to a single artist. When two works are stylistically similar, that is part of the bigger question of whether the later work is “substantially similar” to the former — but it is only part. Under copyright law, a secondary work does not need to be a verbatim or identical copy to constitute copyright infringement. Instead, the secondary work only needs to be “substantially similar” to infringe on the first. While substantial similarity is “an elusive concept, not subject to precise definition”, we know that two works have to be both extrinsically similar (based on their objective features) and intrinsically similar (based on what an ordinary person would subjectively think) for one to infringe on the other. Stylistic similarity can be part of these questions — are there objectively similar elements of the two works, more than standard elements that belong to a particular genre, and would an ordinary person think they are similar? — but it cannot be determinative of “substantial similarity” by itself.

Style and artistic expression are certainly linked, but they are not the same thing. In some instances, mimicking an artist’s style may constitute copyright infringement, but when this is true will necessarily require a case-by-case analysis. Simply working in a style that is similar to another artist does not automatically mean the work is a copy. Moreover, there may be legitimate reasons to produce works in another artist’s style. The law should allow artists to be inspired by each other, even if that means having similar styles. Doing otherwise would chill expression, ultimately harming human creativity and the purposes of copyright law itself.

“Open Culture creates a level playing field by making knowledge accessible to everyone regardless of geography.”  In this episode we get more insight into the role technology can play for Open Culture and how society benefits from the curation of open access collections. Our media often keeps information siloed but Open Access and Open Culture can bridge cultures and perspectives.

Open Culture VOICES is a series of short videos that highlight the benefits and barriers of open culture as well as inspiration and advice on the subject of opening up cultural heritage. Christian Dawson is the Executive Director of the MHz Foundation which provides technology tools for GLAM institutions and organizations to improve their open access programs. Christian has worked with numerous organizations which now share their collections openly thanks to the work of the MHz Foundation and Curationist.

Christian responds to the following questions:

1. What are the main benefits of open GLAM?
2. What are the barriers?
3. Could you share something someone else told you that opened up your eyes and mind about open GLAM?
4. Do you have a personal message to those hesitating to open up collections?

Closed captions are available for this video, you can turn them on by clicking the CC icon at the bottom of the video. A red line will appear under the icon when closed captions have been enabled. Closed captions may be affected by Internet connectivity — if you experience a lag, we recommend watching the videos directly on YouTube.

Want to hear more insights from Open Culture experts from around the world? Watch more episodes of Open Culture VOICES here >>

My name is Catherine Stihler, and I’m the CEO of Creative Commons.

As a nonprofit dedicated to supporting the sharing and reuse of creativity and knowledge, we strongly support the Internet Archive in its defense of Controlled Digital Lending. Free, equitable, and open access to all knowledge stimulates creativity, is essential for research and learning, and constitutes a bedrock principle of free and democratic societies.

The Internet Archive is leading the fight for establishing permanent access to historical collections that exist in digital format. With Controlled Digital Lending, libraries like the Internet Archive can lend one copy of digitized material from their collection to one borrower for a limited time, just like they would a physical book.

Today, galleries, libraries, archives, museums and others are using new technologies and legal tools like Creative Commons licenses to make their collections more accessible. At the same time, we hear time and again that copyright remains a major barrier for these institutions in fulfilling their public interest missions — cutting off access to knowledge and limiting their ability to preserve our collective heritage. At Creative Commons, we believe copyright should encourage Controlled Digital Lending and ensure that legal mechanisms are in place to support this practice that benefits everyone.

This isn’t a position that we just came to on our own; instead, it came from working hand in hand with cultural and knowledge institutions across the world. Like Communia’s policy recommendations state: “libraries should be enabled to fulfill their mission in the digital environment.” As libraries modernize their services, we need to protect the legal frameworks that support their digital lending practices.

Permitting and protecting Controlled Digital Lending is a key way to help ensure copyright is fit for the modern age. Guided by our strong belief in better sharing, CC will continue to support the Internet Archive’s crucial efforts to ensure the public can access knowledge and culture on a global level.

[Note: 12 April 2023: We have updated this post to remove findings that are not supported by available evidence.]

Brigitte Vézina, the Director of Policy and Open Culture, has facilitated the CC Copyright Platform for the past three years since the Platform’s relaunch in 2020. This year, the CC legal team—Kat Walsh and Yuanxiao Xu—is taking over the facilitator role for the Copyright Platform. 

The Creative Commons Copyright Platform is a collaborative space for people who are interested in copyright policy issues. We work in a transparent, professional, ethical and public manner to undertake projects and activities aimed at fulfilling agreed-upon, collaboratively developed goals and principles. 

In 2023, we have a fund of $20,000 to support copyright advocates and practitioners to identify, plan and coordinate copyright law and policy-related activities. We are especially excited about receiving community proposals for funded-activities this year, because it is the first year since 2020 that we are able to support in-person activities. To submit a proposal, please request to join the CC Policy Mailing List, and fill out the proposal form by March 20.

In addition to the funded activities, the Copyright Platform hosts monthly meetings where guest speakers are invited to lead discussions on topics of interest, and Platform members share copyright-related news/announcements from across the globe.

Do you also want to get involved? Don’t hesitate!

• • Sign up to the CC Policy mailing list
  • Join the #cc-copyrightreform Slack channel
  • Participate in CC Copyright Platform calls—they are announced in the Slack channel and on the mailing list

“Open Culture gives joy!” What a great message from Siobhan. In this episode we learn about Open Culture in public institutions in New Zealand, how public works are reused in a variety of ways, and what governments can do to promote open policies and copyright laws around the world.

Open Culture VOICES is a series of short videos that highlight the benefits and barriers of open culture as well as inspiration and advice on the subject of opening up cultural heritage. Siobhan is a volunteer for various Wikimedia projects including Wikicommons, Wikidata, and Wikipedia.

Siobhan responds to the following questions:

1. What are the main benefits of open GLAM?
2. What are the barriers?
3. Could you share something someone else told you that opened up your eyes and mind about open GLAM?
4. Do you have a personal message to those hesitating to open up collections?

Closed captions are available for this video, you can turn them on by clicking the CC icon at the bottom of the video. A red line will appear under the icon when closed captions have been enabled. Closed captions may be affected by Internet connectivity — if you experience a lag, we recommend watching the videos directly on YouTube.

Want to hear more insights from Open Culture experts from around the world? Watch more episodes of Open Culture VOICES here >>

Open Education Week offers a global festival of open education efforts. As we take stock of the offerings, it’s heartening to look at how individual efforts can feed into larger system’s change. In our Open Education Week 2023 blog post, we highlight community members’ approaches and tools, opening access to education and knowledge. Below, we share how a recent CC Certificate Bootcamp strengthens open education in California Community Colleges. 

This January, Creative Commons led a CC Certificate Bootcamp, or condensed training for 12 faculty and staff from 11 California Community Colleges implementing Zero Textbook Cost (ZTC) degree programs. Building on a successful pilot ZTC Pathways program, the California Legislator invested $115 million to expand Zero Textbook Cost degrees and OER within the California community college system. The California ZTC programs reduce the overall cost of education and reduce the time to degree completion for California community college students. With the average costs of course textbooks estimated at $100/student/course, ZTC programs have the potential to save students nearly a billion dollars in the coming years, offering a more than 800% return on investment, according to SPARC. 

The CC Certificate Bootcamp provided needed training and tools for ZTC program staff to legally and effectively implement the open licensing requirements of the $115 investment. 

But, beyond open licensing lessons, the CC training strengthened a network of open advocates. The week offered engagement with copyright lawyers, and open advocates, space for collaborative brainstorming, play, and iterative problem solving. From participant-focused brainstorms emerged three clear interventions to address needs in the ZTC program development and expansion. Participant work kickstarted (1) a guide to support faculty in using and integrating LibreTexts OER in Canvas; (2) a ZTC Conversion Faculty Resource guide, sharing resources for both OER liaisons and interested faculty supporting the process of ZTC course development; and (3) the outline of wholistic considerations and needs for roadmapping ZTC programs efficiently and effectively, as the Michelson 20MM Foundation highlighted.  In less than two months since the bootcamp, faculty and staff have continued to collaborate and champion for OER in their institutions, by:

• Presenting simple guides and presentations for faculty and administrators to absorb to mitigate overwhelm with the program;
• Presenting Creative Commons License tutorials, as well as additional needs for adjacent networks, at professional development days, to the Academic Senate and Deans of various departments;
• Planning OER conferences;
• Launching a survey for the ZTC program;
• Setting up mapping to the degrees in smartsheets, which can pull survey data to courses and identify what courses have been converted to ZTCs;
• Sharing a guide about what the ZTC funding (with legislation definitions, how is the funding working and more) 

CC Bootcamp collaborations moved beyond the initial goals of supporting cost savings for students–faculty and staff worked toward interventions addressing barriers to teaching and learning in their systems. As Cailyn Nagle notes, OER are worth more than their cost savings. “They have the power to free, to be liberatory. When educators are able to craft the ideal materials their students can use without barriers, and librarians are able to curate that knowledge for everyone’s benefit, we come closer to the promise of Open.” We applaud California Community Colleges increased collaborative work–strengthening a foundation for that freedom. 

As we revel in the offerings of Open Education Week and our collaborations, I hope we can draw from the energy of California Community Colleges’ faculty and staff, striving toward increasingly liberatory structures in the future. 

CC thanks the Michelson 20MM Foundation for generously funding the bootcamp. 

Special thanks also go to the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges for their liaison work, expertise and support, to Skyline College for hosting the event, and to Fresno Pacific University for providing professional development credits to faculty.

 

At Creative Commons, we offer an array of learning and training opportunities to support our global community in developing open licensing expertise and a deeper understanding of recommended practices for better sharing. Visit the CC Trainings page to learn about our workshops, consulting options, lectures, and our CC Certificate courses.

Over the last year, innovation and use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has proliferated, providing new ways for people to create content from art to zines, and everything in between. At CC, we’ve been watching these experiments in creativity while considering what it all means for what we call better sharing: sharing that is contextual, inclusive, just, equitable, reciprocal, and sustainable. What will generative AI mean for CC’s mission to overcome legal obstacles in sharing knowledge and creativity to address the world’s most pressing challenges?

Supporting community-driven solutions has always been at the heart of CC’s approach to sharing and creativity. In February, we held open meetings with our community to start to explore what CC might do new or differently in a world filling with AI-generated creations. Over 65 people registered to participate in the conversation from all over the world, including artists, educators, lawyers, librarians, policymakers, scholars, scientists, students, technologists, and more.

To get the conversation started, we asked participants to consider some framing questions:

• How can CC and its community help to ensure AI participates in better sharing for all and contributes to a public interest commons?
• How can CC best enable creators to shape how their works contribute to training AI?
• How can CC clarify the copyright status of works generated using AI?

The conversations were wide ranging, touching on some of the specifics of how generative AI actually works, how current copyright laws intersect with AI inputs and outputs, and ideas around where CC and our community might focus, including expanding CC’s educational offerings and policy advocacy on AI topics, mechanisms for rightsholders to opt in and/or out of AI training datasets, and mechanisms to better record and cite the provenance of works generated both by humans and AI. You can read and comment on the raw notes from all three community meetings.

Going forward, CC will house community conversation about generative AI within our Copyright Platform, where you can learn more about how anyone can join and contribute to work at the intersection of generative AI, better sharing, and CC’s mission.

We thank everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far, not only in these meetings, but in the AI webinars we held during Nov 2022, and all the other ways we’ve been in touch. We encourage you to keep helping us think through the complex questions that AI technologies and practices raise for all of us who are working to support a commons in the public interest.

Stay in touch with CC: subscribe to our mailing list, follow us on social media (Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Mastodon & Twitter), or join CC on Slack.

Angie shares that “…if memory does not pass from one person to another then it is forgotten.” In this episode we learn about the unique barriers faced by institutions and organizations in an Argentinian and South American context as well as the unique ways Wikimedia Argentina supports efforts to open up collections of cultural heritage and memory.

Open Culture VOICES is a series of short videos that highlight the benefits and barriers of open culture as well as inspiration and advice on the subject of opening up cultural heritage. Angie Cervellera is the Program Manager of Open Culture and Knowledge at Wikimedia Argentina and works with local organizations and institutions to open up collections.

Angie responds to the following questions:

1. What are the main benefits of open GLAM?
2. What are the barriers?
3. Could you share something someone else told you that opened up your eyes and mind about open GLAM?
4. Do you have a personal message to those hesitating to open up collections?

Closed captions are available for this video, you can turn them on by clicking the CC icon at the bottom of the video. A red line will appear under the icon when closed captions have been enabled. Closed captions may be affected by Internet connectivity — if you experience a lag, we recommend watching the videos directly on YouTube.

Want to hear more insights from Open Culture experts from around the world? Watch more episodes of Open Culture VOICES here >>

We are thrilled to announce that the Creative Commons 4.0 License Suite and deeds have been officially translated into two new languages: Danish and Frisian, bringing the total number of official translations of the legal codes to 30! This achievement wouldn’t have been possible without the dedication and hard work of our community volunteers. We want to express our gratitude to all the volunteers who have helped us with translation. If you would like to get involved in future translation efforts, contact legal@creativecommons.org.

The addition of these translations is a significant milestone, as it enables even more people to access and use Creative Commons licenses in their native tongue. The Danish translation of CC 4.0 licenses and deeds was first started in 2019 by a team of official translators from the European Commission, coordinated by Pedro Malaquias. In 2022, the Danish Agency for Digital Government requested the translation to be completed, with the aim of recommending the use of CC licenses to public authorities and administrations. Peter Leth led the effort to complete the Danish translation.

Here is the CC BY 4.0 deed.

In addition, the Western Frisian language is now available for CC 4.0 licenses and deeds. Spoken by about 350,000 people in Fryslân, a province in the north of the Netherlands, the Western Frisian language is closer to English than Dutch or German, making it a unique language on the European mainland. This translation was made possible thanks to the initiative of Friduwih Riemersma, a poetry translator, with help from CC Netherlands volunteer and copyright lawyer Maarten Zeinstra. This translation allows for greater inclusivity and accessibility for the Frisian-speaking community.

Here is the CC BY 4.0 deed.

Finally, the CC0 public domain release and deed are now available in German. The lack of an official German translation of CC0 was a significant barrier to the adoption of Creative Commons legal tools in Germany, and the translation will now enable the German-speaking community to use CC0 as a standard legal tool for their work. The German translation was made possible thanks to the hard work of Till Jaeger, Ruth Oppenheimer, Paul Klimpel, Stefan Kaufmann, Maximilian Gausepohl, and John Weitzmann.

Here is the CC0 deed.

We hope these translations will allow more people to understand and use the Creative Commons licenses and other legal tools, leading to a more open and accessible world. Congratulations to all the teams involved in these efforts, and a big thank you to all the supporters and contributors who made these translations possible.

Contributing to the translation of CC licenses is an excellent way to show your support for our work and help make the world a more open and accessible place. To get involved with our future translation projects, please reach out to legal@creativecommons.org.

As we gear up for Open Education Week 2023 (6 – 10 March), Creative Commons wants to recognize the contributions of our open education and related open communities. In the past several months, our community members have shared their knowledge and inquiry through lightning talks, panel discussions, presentations, and working groups. The list below offers a glimpse into some of the areas of knowledge shared, and is not exhaustive. While most events focus directly on open education topics, we recognize the rich areas of overlap with our open culture and copyright communities, and have shared a glimpse into some related efforts as well.

Community-Led Efforts

• CC Open Education Lightning Talks: Seven-minute presentations that offer glimpses into our open education community’s expertise. Over the last year, community members have presented on topics ranging from OER and the “work for hire” doctrine, building OER into capstone courses, funding opportunities within open education, open educational resources (OER) as tools for social justice, work/life balance, climate change and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well as the LibreTexts and Curationist platforms. Learn about open licensing and OER, copyright, the public domain, and more in these pithy tutorials!
  • August 2022 CC Open Education Lightning Talks: Included discussions on building OER into capstone courses, funding opportunities within open education, and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
    • “Open Syllabus: UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science” by Jennifer Miller, civic technologist and open knowledge advocate.
    • “More OER for Free!” by Jonathan Poritz, former mathematics faculty member and OER Coordinator at a public university in Colorado, USA, and ongoing facilitator for the CC Certificate course.
    • “Open Climate Campaign” by Dr. Cable Green, Director of Open Knowledge at Creative Commons, and Dr. Monica Granados, Assistant Director for Creative Commons Open Climate program.
    • “Building OER into Capstone Courses” by Dr. Carolyn Stevenson, faculty member and faculty advisor for Purdue University Global, School of General Education, Department of Professional Studies.
    • “Improve It Challenge” by Jamison Miller, Open Education advocate and PhD candidate at William and Mary School of Education.
  • February 2023 CC Open Education Lightning Talks: Topics included reimagining open education as social justice, using machine translation algorithms for non-English language OER textbooks, and integrating values and ethics in OER for climate change and the SDGs. 
    • “Reimagining Open Education as Social Justice” by Ravon Ruffin, Educational Programs Manager at MHz Foundation, and Amanda Figueroa, Community Director at MHz Foundation.
    • “LibreTexts 101: Building the Textbook of the Future” by Delmar Larsen, Professor of Chemistry at the University of California, Davis, and Founder and Director of the LibreTexts project.
    • “Using Machine Translation Algorithms to Effectively generate Non-English language OER Textbooks” by Delmar Larsen, Professor of Chemistry at the University of California, Davis, and Founder and Director of the LibreTexts project.
    • “Integration of Values and Ethics in OER for Climate Change and the SDGs” by Dr. Suma Parahakaran, head of the Faculty of Education at Manipal Globalnxt.
    • “OER as a Social Justice tool, the case of digital accessibility” by Nicolas Simon, Associate Professor of Sociology in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, Criminology, and Social Work at Eastern Connecticut State University.
    • “Get the Balance Right: Using Mindfulness OER for Intentional Work and Life Practices” by Dr. Carolyn Stevenson, faculty member and faculty advisor for Purdue University Global, School of General Education, Department of Professional Studies.
• Anticolonial Knowledge: Discussion with Stacy Allison-Cassin: a Q&A discussion led by moderator Jen Hughes, CC Certificate Facilitator and Archives, New Media and Educational Initiatives Librarian at Salt Lake Community College, and featured Stacy Allison-Cassin, PhD, Assistant Professor at the School of Information Management at Dalhousie University. The discussion focused on the challenges and considerations for anti-colonial knowledge efforts within knowledge institutions. Watch the recording.
• February 2023 SDSN US Summit on Transformative Education, Panel Discussion: Sustainability Education: Nonformal and Informal Education (Dr. Green’s slides): The Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) spans six continents and draws upon the knowledge and educational capacity of over 1,600-member institutions. The panel speakers included CC’s Dr. Cable Green, Amlata Persaud of Childhood Education International, Karen Robinson of Human Rights Org, Toland Kister of Hudron Riverpark.org, and Tim Mahoney (moderator). Watch the recording.

Additional community efforts from the fields of open culture, open climate and copyright 

• CC’s copyright platform 2022 working groups share their highlights: Led by André Houang and Emine Yildirim, the two working groups presented their position papers on international user rights and data sharing policies. View their highlights.
• CC’s open culture platform 2022 five working groups share their highlights: In 2022, CC’s open culture platform had five working groups, each focused on different areas of interest. These included the Digital Community Heritage Working Group led by Bettina Fabos and Mariana Ziku; the Traditional Knowledge and Copyright Intersections Working Group led by Connor Benedict and Alhassan Mohammed Awal; the Open GLAM for Smaller Organizations Working Group led by Connor Benedict and Abdul Dube; the CC Licenses for Cultural Heritage Institutions Working Group led by Deborah De Angelis and Tomoaki Watanabe; and the Practical Resources for the Open Culture Sector Working Group led by Revekka Kefalea and Jesse Carson. View their highlights.
• Open Culture VOICES Archives: A series of short interviews with open GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums) experts from around the world. CC asks each guest four questions about the benefits, barriers, inspiration, and advice to share about open culture. Watch the latest episode from season 2.
• February 2023 Scanning 3D: Cultural Heritage Preservation, Access and Revitalization: In February 2023, we hosted a global Q&A and panel discussion on 3D scanning for cultural heritage preservation, access, and revitalization. The discussion focused on the legal, policy, cultural, and ethical considerations surrounding this topic.
  The speakers included Michael Weinberg, Executive Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy at the NYU School of Law; Cosmo Wenman, an open access advocate and 3D design and fabrication consultant; Teresa Nobre, Legal Director of COMMUNIA; Thomas Flynn, Cultural Heritage Lead at Sketchfab; Jonas Heide Smith, Head of Digital at SMK – National Gallery of Denmark in Copenhagen (Statens Museum for Kunst); and Jennryn Wetzler, Director of Learning and Training at Creative Commons, who served as the moderator. Watch the recording.

CC is grateful to community members in these conversations and others. Their thoughtful presentations enrich Open Education Week, and our broader open knowledge and open culture work.

 

To find out what else Creative Commons is doing to celebrate Open Education, visit the Open Education Week website.