Licensing qualms.

Patented emotions by Nina Paley was translated into Hebrew and modern Greek. ♡ Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Patented emotions by Nina Paley was translated into Hebrew and modern Greek. ♡Copyheart. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Choosing a license for one’s work sometimes opens up a can of worms. It forces one to consider questions beyond just sticking a CC icon at the bottom of the page.

Questions like: Does it matter that others might make money off my work without remunerating me? Does the fear of future enclosure by commercial entities surpass the desire to share as widely as possible? Why do I care about getting credit for my work? How much control do I wish to retain ? Given the inspiration gathered from various sources all along my life, can I honestly claim originality and ownership over ‘my’ work?

An apparently straight-forward choice of license, guided by deceivingly simple questions (do you want to allow derivatives? etc), launches you on a personal journey to look into these dilemmas and really start digging into the nature of creation, your own motivations for sharing, your fears.

Not everybody ends up documenting what I call the ‘qualms of licensing’ or the story of how they came to make certain trade-offs. Christina Hendricks did it at length on her blog. I recommend reading her successive positioning on non-commercial, share-alike and attribution which led to her licensing the texts of her blog under CC BY: you get the feeling that a lot of soul-searching went into these posts.

CC is non-commercial, right? Wrong!

But while we weigh our priorities against the reality of sharing online and compare the merits of the various open licenses, other dilemmas come to haunt us.

The whole point of open licenses is to enable downstream users to understand what they can and cannot do with a given piece of work. Yet confusion is rife and we too often see all the licenses lumped together, assimilated to non-commercial. In fact, it would be interesting to carry out a poll to find out how many people down your street know about creative commons. Out of those who declare an awareness of creative commons, how many think it only has to do with non-commercial activities? How many know the meaning of all the symbols?

Confronted with this issue around her film Sita sings the blues, Nina Paley went for a more radical expression of her desire to share. She waived all her copyright over the film using a CC0 license (no rights reserved) which, to her, is a way of refusing to let the law come between her and her audience:

CC-0 is as close as I can come to a public vow of legal nonviolence. The law is an ass I just don’t want to ride.

Here, openness is very much about letting go.

Copying is an act of love

In an attempt to keep the spirit of sharing alive beyond the legalese characteristic of licenses, Nina Paley went as far as to create her own license, called copyheart. Reasoning that the answer to legal problems does not lie in legal answers, she turned the problem on its head by speaking another language, the language of love:

Although we appreciate and use Free Licenses when appropriate, these aren’t solving the problems of copyright restrictions. Instead of trying to educate everyone on the complexities of copyright law, we’d rather make our intentions clear with this simple statement:

♡ Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Could it really be that simple?

Advertisements

Are you: free / open / none of the above ?

Where I tinker with the notions of open and free: how are they different? how do they overlap?

Do we need a definition of ‘open’?

Last week in #whyopen, we reflected on the meaning of open as it relates to our lives and practise. After discussing our views on various online platforms, we asked ourselves whether we should try to define openness or leave the definition open.

On this issue, I agree with Pat Lockley who says:

Defining is hard, as we have come to realise during last week’s exercise. Yet, most of us in the discussion felt that we needed to come to a common understanding of the term ‘open’ so as to be able to rally around it. If we have no clear benchmark for what open is, how can anyone decide if something is open or otherwise?

Defining ‘open’ sounds all the more crucial that we are confronted with arguments raging back and forth between free culture and open culture.

Free is absolute

Comparing two possible definitions of free content and open content, I find ‘free’ more uncompromising a label than ‘open’. Whereas an artifact is either free or not free, it can be more or less open.

Open is a more flexible concept, that allows for a continuum of positions within the realm of openness:

Content is open to the extent that its license allows users to engage in the 4R activities [4R: reuse, revise, remix, redistribute]. Content is less open to the extent that its license places restrictions (e.g., forbidding derivatives or prohibiting commercial use) or requirements (e.g., mandating that derivatives adopt a certain license or demanding attribution to the original author) on a user’s ability to engage in the 4R activities.

This difference is clearly spelt out on the Free cultural works wiki:

We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as “Open Content” and “Open Access.” These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under “less restrictive” terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just “available on the Web”.

Is free the extreme end of open, the most radical stance? Conversely, is openness a diluted version of free culture?

Differing ideologies

In an interview with Forbes, free software advocate Richard Stallman posed an ideological grounding for free culture which is opposed to the more pragmatic approach he attributes to the proponents of open source:

Where we differ from the proponents of open source is in what those goals are. The open source viewpoint cites only practical-convenience goals, such as making software powerful and reliable. Our primary goals are freedom and community. We appreciate convenience too, of course, but we do not put that above freedom.

So, essentially, open source people are sell-outs who abandoned the fight for freedom in favour of … convenience!

I’m not sure that everybody championing openness fits the portrait of practically-minded people with not an idealist’s bone in them. Both open source and free software advocates strive against proprietary software: they just don’t agree on the means to do that or indeed on the priorities of the movement.

This is as far as I’ve gone in my reflection on open vs. free. Admittedly a bit scant, but I hope I’ll be able to deepen my reflection as the days go by and the discussion progresses.

Artists embracing openness

What does it mean for an artist to be open? What are the benefits of open practice ? Why do some artists think it’s important? I look at 3 examples of artists who have embraced openness – albeit on their own terms.

Open by Kim Manley Ort licensed CC BY-NC-ND.

Open by Kim Manley Ort under CC BY-NC-ND license.

The painter

Painter Gwenn Seemel argues that an art piece is a technique, an idea and a person all wrapped into a unique piece of work. Someone may copy the technique and the idea but they can never replace the person who created the original work. In other words, let the copiers copy because they can never pretend to be you. Rather, they’ve already created something new !

In a blog post, she talks about her evolving ideas on copyright and how she came to align her practice with her convictions. After years of keeping “a copyright symbol at the bottom of each page of [her] website”, Gwenn Seemel took a stance in favour of free culture in 2009 by releasing her work directly in the public domain for all to copy, display and remix. Now, instead of the usual ‘c in a buble’, it is a smiley face that stands before her name.

She explains what motivated her to abandon her copyright :

I did this because I don’t believe that it’s possible to moderate the use of my images and, more to the point, I don’t believe that I have the right to do so. What I do believe in is making work that’s so original that no matter where people see it, they’ll know it’s mine.

It took her several years to move from sharing how she works and engaging personally with people who are interested in her art to completely letting go of copyright and changing her approach to making a living as an artist:

The writer

Also in 2009, author Leo Babauta made up his mind to ‘uncopyright‘ his blog Zen habits as well as his ebook ‘Zen to done‘. Before then, he used to grant limited rights for non-commercial reuse of his work, upon request.

He examined the benefits of increased exposure in an article for Write to Done:

Last year I Uncopyrighted my blog, Zen Habits, and my ebook, Zen To Done, and it was one of the best things I’ve ever done. People have used my articles in blogs, newsletters, magazines, ebooks, books and more. And yes, they’ve made profits off me without me getting any of that money … but at the same time, I’ve benefitted: my ideas have spread, my name and brand have spread, and my readership has grown and grown. Since I Uncopyrighted the blog, it has grown from about 30K subscribers to 113K.

Like Gwenn Seemel, Leo Babauta does not consider the loss of potential royalties to be a major problem, since a writer can find alternative ways of making money (hopefully without taking up odd jobs, that is…). He suggests giving talks and conferences, selling ads or branded goods and, most obvious of all, selling books even without a copyright attached to them.

The underlying idea informing Babauta’s shift to ‘uncopyright’ was that no writing is entirely original because all creators draw from a variety of sources of inspiration. If we all copy to some extent, then why claim ownership over the particular arrangement we created ? Let others in turn be inspired by us for art to flourish.

He argues that releasing copyright is not only good for the community who benefits from engaging with an artist’s work but it’s also good for the writer’s reach, exposure and reputation. According to Leo Babauta, inducing artificial scarcity through copyright is not the solution to be successful as a writer:

By protecting your copyright, you are putting up barriers for the spread of your ideas. In this digital age, that is a mistake, plain and simple.

The DJ

My husband is a DJ and I’ve seen him grow from a passionate amateur to a full-fledged professional. His sense of ownership over his work has greatly changed in the process.

When he started out, he would distribute mixtapes on CD to grow his network and make a bit of money on the side. This gave him some exposure and motivated him to constantly improve his output.

As it happens, he got copied. Back then, it really upset him that someone had misappropriated a mix he had taken hours to put together by simply sticking their name on the cover and writing over the DJ drops. He basically felt robbed of his work.

What he came to realise though, was that these copies did not actually take away anything from him. He did not lose any clients, his skills were intact, and his reputation kept growing despite or maybe thanks to imitation. In fact, some of his fans were already copying the CDs for friends  but they would also notify him if another DJ tried to pass his mixes as theirs!

If anything, this episode challenged him to continue creating better and better mixes. His raw materials for mixing were other people’s musical creations after all…

Eventually, he turned to live shows as a main source of income and continued distributing mixtapes, for free this time. Opening his work to a larger audience online enabled him to receive more feedback and increase his following. Perhaps even more crucial to his professional development has been a network of DJs around the world who critique each other’s creations and share anything from technical tips to equipment reviews. This kind of respectful peer-to-peer support is invaluable.

Partial conclusion

Free culture has to do with opening up a space for interaction between the artist and their audience. New economic models in the art business thus emphasise the value of community-building, understood as bringing together people who are interested in a dialogue around an artist’s work and who might be willing to support further creation.

***

Is open practice a very marginal point of view in the art world? I got to hear about Gwenn Seemel through a post shared on Calimaq’s Facebook page. It might be that my perspective is skewed by the networks I am involved in.

Why do you participate in open culture?

I recorded some personal comments on the survey answers to the question: ‘Why do you participate in open culture? Why do you think it’s important?’.

Music: Death March to Sun Fun City by Ruin Roads licensed under CC BY-NC 3.0

It was my first time trying my hand at audio mixing so feedback on both the content and the recording are definitely welcome…

[10th August edit]

Here’s the result of a brainstorming session on the same topic:

Open, closed…and everything in between!

Reading through the survey answers to the question “What does open mean to you?”, the perspective offered by an anonymous librarian had me thinking about ‘open’ and ‘closed’ as the extreme ends of a spectrum. Are there degrees of openness?

Open and closed can be thought of as binary positions, but I think it’s more accurate to see it as a continuum. There are degrees of openness. A college might be called open if it accepts everyone who applies, but tuition and the applications process are still hurdles that close it off to some. Some courses call themselves open but are only open to registrants, and closed to anyone else. When it comes to open education or open learning, I think an open-mindedness on the part of course facilitators is important, so that they’re open to learners establishing their own goals and having a hand in defining their own learning paths and assessments – open outcomes/open assessment.

Anonymous librarian’s answer to a preliminary survey for P2P University course on the item: What does ‘open’ mean to you?. Audio recording by Marie-Laure Le Guen under CC BY 3.0.

In higher education, MOOCs are often regarded as the quintessential example of openness. Indeed, on the surface, participation in a massive open online course requires little more than a reliable Internet connection, an awareness that the course is offered and a bit of time on one’s hands. In practise though, being open isn’t just about uploading a couple of video lectures and letting students grapple with the material on their own.

All MOOCs self-identify as open but they clearly do not apply the same yardstick. To measure how much openness goes into a particular MOOC, we would need a multidimensional framework that would help us determine the type and the degree of openness realised in a given course.

I see several dimensions to consider, which I would formulate along these lines:

1. Open enrollment

This is currently the minimum requirement for any MOOC: anyone with an Internet connection should be able to join, regardless of their location, educational background, professional credentials, financial status, etc.

Open enrollment usually means that there are no restrictions as to the number of students joining, which explains the massive scale of some recent courses. An Artificial Intelligence class offered by Stanford in 2012 saw over 58,000 people [pdf] sign up !

Some courses such as Why Open? have however enforced a limit on the number of participants in an effort to manage the pace of the discussion forums. The irony wasn’t lost on Terry Elliott:

This looks like a worthwhile August project and I would love to be a part of it, but I am struck by the delicious irony that a course called “Why Open?” is already closed 😉

Is it enough to allow anybody to sign up at no cost to claim complete openness in terms of enrollment? Well, not exactly. Setting aside the obvious issue of Internet access and cost, the following barriers to enrollment may still exist:

  • Language: the vast majority of MOOCs are offered in English, by English-speaking facilitators or instructors and thus end up being dominated by native English speakers or at least proficient English speakers. Instruction, discussions and assessments generally take place in English which puts some potential students at a great disadvantage. I would therefore rate a multilingual course as more open than a monolingual one. The practical implications aren’t simple but it is a fact worth noting.
  • Self-censorship: Even though the platform is meant to be open to all, potential learners may feel intimidated by the academic qualifications of other participants or the technical terms used in the introduction page and decide that they are not welcome because they do not fit into the culture of the virtual university.

It appears that even on an issue seemingly as straightforward as open enrollment, degrees of openness emerge.

2. Open participation

Which aspects of the course can participants model according to their individual or group needs? The answer to this question will determine the course’s level of openness-as-participation.

This would involve checking whether students are able to define their own learning goals and paths, whether they are expected to create their own learning materials or just use those provided by an external authority, whether they can ‘come and go’ as they wish or are bound by certain rules. It is mostly about who has control over what happens in the course.

Caveats:

  • It is often taken for granted that the tools used in MOOCs are mastered by all the learners. It isn’t always the case and, in the absence of appropriate scaffolding, the lack of technological literacy is going to be a barrier to participation.
  • Low connection speed and firewalls are major hurdles in many parts of the world, and this digital divide is most acutely felt in the case of learners trying to follow video-based lectures. I’ve experienced this myself time and time again!

According to this framework, a course is all the more open that is gives leeway for participants to forge their own paths and provides an appropriate technical infrastructure taking into account everyone’s needs – including for instance alternatives to video lectures and tutorials to help bridge the technological literacy gap, etc.

3. Open resources

What are participants allowed to do with the course materials? Is the software infrastructure open source?

For a MOOC to qualify as fully open in this regard, it would have to release its course material under an open license and use open source software. Here, the restrictions imposed by the chosen license will define the degree of openness, using only copyrighted material being farthest on the closed end of the spectrum while using exclusively works from the public domain would conversely place a course in the most open position (to take extreme examples…).

This is a side of openness often ignored by the bigger xMOOC players.

4. Open assessment

Since the motivations for joining an MOOC typically vary from improving job prospects to simple curiosity for the subject matter, it would not make sense to look at assessment through a single lens. In an open course, learners are free to set their own achievement goals, so the conditions of assessment should be flexible enough to accommodate the diversity of student expectations.

What would open assessment look like then? Pretty much anything that makes sense to the learner will work. Pragmatically, it comes down to a choice between grading (robot grading, peer assessment…), port-folio based assessment or no formal assessment at all. Some students are pushing for access to formal university accreditation.

As usual, it would be fantastic to hear from you on this. Any feedback? Ideas on how to visualise these 4 dimensions ?


References

Daniel, J. (2012). Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility (pdf). Accessed 2013-08-05.

Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., De Boer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D. & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying Learning in the Worldwide Classroom: Research into edX’s First MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8(3), 13-25. Accessed 2013-08-05.

#whyopen: What is ‘openness’ anyway?

Open data, open source, open educational resources, open knowledge, open university, Massive Open Online Courses (the famous MOOCs)…Openness has become pervasive in online jargon and even in many an offline conversation. But do we really know what ‘open’ means in the first place? What do all the initiatives claiming the ‘open’ label have in common – if anything ?

Perhaps the most striking feature of the world of openness is that there isn’t a single understanding of what being open entails. As part of this ongoing conversation, I am attempting to put into perspective my own views of openness to make sense of the concept.

Open can mean transparent.

This is precisely what the open data movement thrives towards: achieving greater transparency to enforce checks and balances. Although it seems like a good idea on the surface, transparency is not without its pitfalls. How open do we want governments to be? Some institutions may open up access to their databases but provide only marginally useful raw data which effectively precludes meaningful interpretation and may even have unintended harmful consequences. Releasing data for public scrutiny also implies that people possess the necessary skills to interpret it. According to Danah Boyd, “access alone will not empower people”.

Open can mean participatory.

In the wake of protests over the banking crisis, Iceland’s new Constitution was drafted by a council made up of 25 ordinary citizens who engaged with the general public through a process of online consultation. Iceland’s netizens were able to comment and debate on the proposed draft and interact with the members of the Constitutional council. Dubbing it a ‘crowdsourced’ constitution (like the New York Times and Wired did) would be jumping the gun, though it certainly was an instance of short-lived open governance.

Open can mean ongoing

A software is said to be open source if its source code is freely available for all to study, improve and distribute. Users can thus propose modifications, provide feedback and even participate in developing the software: this is truly a community-based process where the product is refined by incremental steps. One important aspect of open source software is that it can never be completed. Instead, the code is always potentially susceptible to give rise to new versions, thus making it a permanent work-in-progress.

I see openness as a cyclical process of granting access to information, sharing or spreading it, and modifying it. The the new content thus produced forms the basis of a new cycle of access, sharing and modification. This definition includes all three features mentioned above on various levels: repetition of the ‘cycle of openness’ ensures that the process is ongoing; access makes for transparency; sharing and modification are two modes of participation.

Access

The first condition of openness is access, which means that anybody, whoever and wherever they may be, should be able to read, view or listen to the content, as the case may be.

Although it constitutes the first brick towards openness, access is not as simple a matter as it might seem. The following barriers may prevent access to content:

  • Lack of Internet connectivity or slow connectivity. Constraints for internet usage, e.g. if it is only available at an cybercafe.
  • Cost of access
  • Technical difficulties (format compatibility, technological literacy, …)
  • Language barrier: if the content is not in a language one understands, access is denied de facto (example here)
  • Disabilities
  • …?

It may be useful to keep these challenges in mind when considering the issue of access to content.

Sharing

Sharing content is another key element enabled by the Internet. Once it is made accessible, the content will reach various users through a web of networks. Sharing one’s work is actually at the heart of the open content movement, with people willing to communicate their knowledge and skills, exchange ideas, build bridges across disciplines and countries.

Re-purposing

In the spirit of openness, everybody is in turn both a consumer and a producer. As such, one is empowered to reuse content to fit one’s purpose : it is common practice to draw from creative commons licensed photos on Flickr to illustrate blog posts and articles for instance.

Some conditions might be imposed on the downstream users, such as linking back to the original producer (attribution). This appropriation of content may take the form of remix, mashup, reuse, etc. Copyright is of course a major restriction on the whole process of openness.

The free flow of content ensures the cross-fertilisation of ideas which is the very basis of innovation. To me, encouraging openness is the best way to harness the power of networks so as to advance and spread knowledge.

Answers other people gave...

Answers other people gave…

What is your own understanding of openness? I welcome your comments and suggestions.


* FLOSS: acronym for Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS)

This post is a response to this prompt for week 1 of the course “Why Open?” on P2PU:

What do you think “openness” is? Focusing on your own field or context (if you wish), describe what it means to do work openly, or to make one’s activity or artifacts open. Alternatively, you could talk about what you think “openness” means generally, what sort of definition might fit all open activities or works.

Photo credits: AttributionShare Alike John Britton

“Why Open?” course registration in progress

From August 5th, participants in the “Why Open” course by P2PU are going to explore questions around the meaning and practice of openness. Facilitated by Christina HendricksSimeon Oriko, Jeanette Lee, and Jane Park, this course will include discussions on various platforms and culminate in a final project : a story of openness.

I am happy to be on board for this 4-week intellectual adventure !

Who’s talking?

Online, I am frequently referred to as hardcorekancil (@hardcorekancil), a compound name for hardcore + kancil. This happens to be an oxymoron; if you’ve ever seen a kancil, you know what I’m talking about.

Yeah, I'm hardcore! Photo by B.C. Tørrissen under CC-BY-SA 3.0

Yeah, I’m hardcore! Photo by B.C. Tørrissen under CC-BY-SA 3.0

I have a bit of formal education (B.Sc. Physics, PGDE) but my insatiable curiosity has led me down numerous unexpected paths, usually along the lines of languages + linguistics, education, spirituality, social movements. A far cry from my initial mathematics-oriented university days!

The concept of openness came to my attention through the debates over creative commons vs. copyright which in turn had me discover open educational resources, open knowledge, open science. Now, I can’t stop reading about it! ‘Open’ has entered my realm.

Traces of my writing can be found here (in French) and infrequently here (in English). I also translate for Global Voices Online.

Survey: What does open mean to you?

Even if you’re not intending to take the course, it would be wonderful if you could fill out a short survey about what ‘open’ means to you. The results will be discussed by participants and thus serve to enrich the course material. Make sure you give your 2 cents before Monday 5th August!