nirak.net - Musings of an LIS Student

In the comments of Michael Sauers recent post about adding creative commons works to their library catalog, Dewi Morgan said:

I think this is great… but.

But like all copyright mechanisms, CC licences are only a means to an end, and that end is to restrict the rights of the consumer and purchaser. Some CC licenses are unarguably vastly better than most commercial licenses. But CC is not public domain.

Every time I see a government or a library getting “into” CC, I have to ask: as opposed to what?

If the alternative is Public Domain, then moving to CC is a giant leap backwards. If you are going to spend money promoting a rights mechanism, and preserving works released under that mechanism, and putting your weight and support behind that mechanism, then let that mechanism be the Public Domain, not some “watered-down Copyright that is still undeniably Copyright”.

I can’t speak as a government or library, but I can say why I myself post my work under creative commons and not public domain.

I have been trained as an artist. In school, I heard a LOT about not giving yourself away, about protecting your copyright, your “brand,” even about legal ramifications both of using others work and others using your work. I remember that the whole thing seemed weird. There was no way then, at least not that I knew, to release my work under a license that said “please use this, please share it” and allowed me to find other artists whose work was remixable. Artists have a tenuous relationship with copyright. Those that make art by remixing know, or at least should know, the copyright law as it applies to derivative works and fair use. Most artists, rather then spend a lot of time wrestling with legal definitions, will either use public domain source material, or try to use nothing at all (which can be stifling for many people.)

In general, if you release something into the public domain, that means anyone can do anything they want with it. There are limitations of course, but you wouldn’t have a legal leg to stand on if you released something in the public domain and then someone else put it in a gallery show without attribution. Of course, there is nothing to stop someone from putting a CC:By work in an art show either, but if they are following the terms of the license, at least you’ll have your name attached. It may not seem like a big deal - after all, you aren’t making money off your work either way, right? But in the art world, as most other circles, name recognition is *really* important. So if you give enough away under CC:By that people know your name, that’s social capital.

In an ideal world, Creative Commons wouldn’t be necessary- people would be polite and cite their sources. CC is a way of reminding people that yes, you can use this, but don’t pretend you made it, ok? Attribute back.

What creative commons license you use will depend on your purpose: I attribute almost everything CC:By because the important thing to me right now is name recognition. I’m building my brand, so to speak. Even if I was selling artwork, though, I’d probably stick with the CC:By SA license, because I don’t mind people making money off the work, as long as they help the cause by releasing their work into the commons as well. The brilliance of CC:By SA is that it is self perpetuating- you are free to use my content, but you have to let other people use your content. I personally don’t believe in, and will never use the Noncommercial version of the license, because it stifles other’s ability to make money as an artist (if they so choose) and is too incompatible with the other licenses. I don’t begrudge others decision to put that restriction on their content, however, I try not to use noncommercial licenses in case I want to sell something based on another work* later on. (* I added “based on another work” to try to clarify what I was saying re: Mark’s comment below. My full reply to his comment is in the comments)

As a creator, I don’t believe it is wrong to assert some rights over my work. I believe in intellectual property- I just think that as a society, we need to be able to build upon things or we will stagnate. The only problem I see with creative commons as it is is the time span- my work goes into the public domain following the same schedule as copyright law which would be 70 years after I die - that is, unless I go back and manually change the licenses of older content. Ideally, I could set a limit of my CC license, after which point it passes into the public domain. I think 10 years is reasonable. As it is now, I’ll just have to do a reevaluation of old work and release it into public domain where appropriate.

The reason I think 10 years is a reasonable term is that artists don’t live by resting on our laurels. We don’t make one really great painting or book and go “well, guess I can retire now!” - We create, we keep creating, and we keep changing. What I made 10 years ago doesn’t matter near as much as what I will create tomorrow. I think 10 years is a reasonable term for me to monetize what I can. That may be just me. I think terms up to 30ish years or until death (whichever comes first) are reasonable- but not this 70 years after death stuff.

karin :: Feb.22.2008 :: Art, Free as in Freedom, My Stuff, Open access/Open source, Sites and Stories :: 3 Comments »

Most of my presentation slides were made with open source software. Ubuntu, OpenOffice Impress, Gimp, and Inkscape allow me to put together a pretty nice looking set of slides. It has become more and more common lately for me to complete my tasks entirely in open source, but I’m not completely moved over yet. I wanted to use Ubuntu during the OLPC presentation, for instance, but I couldn’t get it talking with the projector, so I had to boot into the Windows side.

Then there are the applications I can’t quite seem to ditch completely, at home and work: Acrobat, for PDF creation and tweakage; Photoshop, for batch processing and the occasional thing GIMP doesn’t do; Windows Movie Maker for occasional simple movie editing, and a few other bits and pieces. Then there’s the fact that I can’t watch ABC.com TV shows or download MP3 albums from Amazon.com without Windows or a Mac.

What frustrates me is that some of this is because I’m just used to doing things a certain way, and some is because stupid content providers unnecessarily lock me out of using Linux and/ or open source applications. Little is actually because there is a problem with the open source solution (though sometimes it is- the lack of an open source video editor that is really truly simple is a constant annoyance.)

Sometimes, when I’m knee deep in trying to find a command line solution for breaking my xorg.conf file (AGAIN) I wonder why exactly I torture myself this way. I do look longingly at all the pretty shiny Macs I see at conventions- I loved my iMac and almost never had problems with it (until the monitor died that is. Now it makes a decent cat bed.) It’s easy for me to think my life would be so much easier if I just had a Mac, but the truth is, it wouldn’t. I would not want to give up the Linux only programs I have come to know and love, so I would then be using three operating systems instead of two. (Yeah, I know about parallels. I wouldn’t mind trying it if I can afford a Mac someday.)

The truth is, frustrating as it is for me, I like pushing my computers and seeing what they can do. I like fiddling with settings and plugins, and there’s no better system to do that on than Linux. I also like fiddling with the constellation of ever changing devices in my house and finding new ways I cam make them talk to and work with each other.

I also really like knowing that I created something entirely with open source tools, because it demonstrates what I already know: Open source can be used for most everyday tasks. I’ve seen presentations on open source where the slides were designed in keynote. Truth is, open source applications won’t get better unless people actually use them, and give feedback, and file bug reports at least occasionally. No one wants to work on software that no one will use- so if I want open source software to get better, I have to use open source.

The good news is, the software is getting better. I can’t count the number of times I’ve spent hours trying to fix a broken display or trying to solve an audio problem to find the solution weeks or months later, either wrapped up in a nice little GUI program or at the least detailed instructions even a command line newb like me can follow. Ubuntu’s 6 month release cycles mean that every 6 months, they add features that make something that was hard for me easy.

A lot of people avoid open source because they see it as unnecessarily hard- and I can’t say that I haven’t had experiences that prove that point. BUT, I have also found some open source programs that are delightful to use (Inkscape comes to mind, as does AbiWord, and out of the box Ubuntu.) If you believe in the open source movement at all, if you think it has potential, if the idea of community supported and built software is appealing, you have to use the software - at least occasionally.

One of the easy ways to start is to try portableapps.com - all open source programs, all packaged so you can run them even if you don’t have permissions to install software. These don’t have to be installed on a USB drive- you can install them right to your desktop, C drive, or anywhere else you want. You can also request a free Ubuntu Live CD- it’ll take a while to get to you, but it’s a low effort way to try out Linux without changing anything on your current system. For those more adventurous, you might try installing Edubuntu on an older machine for a child. Libraries can start small by setting up just one public terminal with some flavor of Linux and open source applications- perhaps gOS would be a friendly start.

I suppose this is a call to action of sorts. Give open source a chance- you may find something you like.

karin :: Feb.15.2008 :: Free as in Freedom, Library, Linux, Open access/Open source, Uncategorized :: 3 Comments »

I gave my presentation on the XO laptop today at the Nebraska Library Commission. Slides are up on karin.dalziel.org, and my notes will be up tomorrow. It’s really fun presenting about something I care a lot about- I hope I have more opportunities soon. I don’t have any other presentations coming up right now, but I am working on a couple of proposals.

I tried to use Ubuntu to present, but had trouble connecting to the projector- which means I had to cut an entire section of the presentation - the part where I am actually demoing Sugar. I need to get better at being prepared for these snafus and acting on them quickly. Also, I need to get a firmer handle on how to use Ubuntu to project.

My thanks goes out to everyone that attended! I am told a video of the presentation will be up sometime.

karin :: Feb.01.2008 :: Free as in Freedom, Library, Linux, Open access/Open source :: 4 Comments »

When it comes to computers, I was lucky to have a mother who was technically oriented and excited about technology. We got our first computer when I was very young- of course, it was command line only, and to do anything interesting with it, you had to learn to program. My mom took up the challenge, and programmed the computer to quiz me on my spelling, among other things. When the mac came around, my mom just had to have one of those as well. It had an interesting program called HyperCard, which my mom was quite fond of as well.  I learned from my mom that a computer isn’t just something you buy that does things for you- you can manipulate it, program it, use it to do new things.

I wonder if kids today, those that grew up with Windows and Mac OS’s - ones that don’t really facilitate exploration and tinkering - aren’t at a disadvantage when it comes to computers. They can run circles around us when it comes to IM and SMS and social networking, but sometimes simple things can throw them (like how to get a virus off a computer or, better yet, avoid getting one in the first place.) This is part of the reason I LOVE the OLPC- the entire thing is tinkerable. You can change the programs, you can view the code and make alterations. And I have no doubt that some kids will do amazing things with the machines. It’s quite likely that the next programming genius will come from the ranks of OLPC owners.

Photo by  isforinsects

karin :: Jan.29.2008 :: Open access/Open source :: No Comments »

Week before last on Uncontrolled Vocabulary, we (I use the term “we” loosely, since I lost microphone during the broadcast and could only chat) discussed Lawrence Lessig’s post about the Creative Commons licensing of his book “The Future of Ideas.” The question was, should librarians be making an effort to include creative commons licensed work in their catalog? I believe it was Julian who mentioned the possibility of copy cataloging, and this was a point I would have liked to hear more about. It seems like a huge wasted effort to have to re-catalog every CC licensed book out there.

Three examples:

Last semester I caught a nice glimpse of how published records can speed up the process of making the library catalog more friendly. Jim Shaw, government documents librarian at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, demonstrated how he carefully reviews government documents for inclusion in the catalog. I, knowing little about cataloging, asked how long it takes to get the documents in the catalog, and he said the records are already available, so it is just a matter of downloading and tweaking.

When I took reference resources and services, the final project was to recommend new books for our library’s collection. I chose, as my topic, open source. This topic lends itself to creative commons licensed books, and, in fact, nearly everything I thought was worthwhile was also creative commons licensed. In some cases I recommended buying the book, and in some cases not- but it certainly seems like a good idea to include a link to the electronic version if it exists whenever you buy the book.

Today, at a staff meeting, we talked about getting our digital projects into the catalog, and therefore into worldcat. The problem with this is if people want to find the project through he public interface, how it lists is dependent on where you live (at least on Worldcat.org). For instance, if you are looking at the Willa Cather book “One of Ours” through worldcat.org, you won’t see the freely accessible online version at UNL unless you happen to be near UNL or a library that happened to catalog this digital edition of the book. Similarly, if you look for the Walt Whitman Archive in worldcat.org, the URL is not listed anywhere- you have to click through to a library record to get the URL. Is that useful? Could worldcat help call attention to these free resources by featuring them regardless of location?

What to do?

So, what if there were a source for creative commons books and online resources like there is for government documents? What might it look like? How would it work? It seems like there might already be a tool out there for this- Library Thing perhaps? Maybe there’s something already out there I don’t know about?

One of the things that constantly bugs me about creative commons work is how hard it is to find it. Few sites have gone as far as Flickr to make finding creative commons work easy to find and use. One thing we can all do is suggest to our favorite sites that they provide a way to license their work and create a way to search on that license.

karin :: Jan.28.2008 :: Library, Open access/Open source :: 1 Comment »