Michael Carroll

Aug 312016
 

Diane Peters and Michael Carroll

Creative Commons has requested permission to file an amicus brief in litigation between Great Minds and FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc.  At the center of the litigation is the proper interpretation of the CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 license, known as BY-NC-SA. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York before Judge Hurley. While we rarely file amicus briefs, we feel strongly that the correct interpretation of the legal code here is essential to the utility of the NC licenses for both licensors and licensees, including those using any of the more than 370 million works that are licensed under one of CC’s NC licenses.

In this case, Great Minds claims that FedEx Office violated the terms of the BY-NC-SA license Great Minds applied to educational materials when FedEx Office copied material at the direction of school districts for non commercial use in classrooms. While it is undisputed that the use of these materials by public school districts is non commercial (as defined in the CC license), the claim against FedEx Office is that it cannot make copies for the school districts—even if it does so at the direction of the school districts and solely in service of that permitted NC use. CC disagrees with this interpretation and has requested permission to explain to the court why the license clearly allows this activity under these circumstances.

Entities using CC-licensed works must be free to act as entities do—including through employees and the contractors they engage in their service. To preclude an entity from using contractors to carry out otherwise-authorized work is not supported by the law, and is not prohibited by the terms and conditions of the NC license. A contrary understanding would mean that in many cases, a bona fide noncommercial licensee could not engage any service that charged a standard fee in the course of the non commercial user’s exercise of its legitimate rights under the license. Instead, only those with the means and resources to own all points in the reproduction and distribution chain could use NC-licensed material.  If that were so, the value of the license would be significantly diminished.

As a result, we believe this litigation is important to the usability of the NC licenses, which feature prominently in the OER ecosystem at present. Moreover, we pledged to our community during the 4.0 versioning process we would do more to clarify how the NC limitation works in the practical world. We will continue to work closely in collaboration with CC United States as this litigation unfolds. Watch here for updates as this case progresses.

Apr 152016
 

[Cross posted from Carrollogos]

Are Creative Commons licenses enforceable in court?  Yes.

In an important decision titled Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC, 128 F. Supp.3d 46 (D.D.C. 2015), Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has issued a decision that:

  1. confirms the enforceability of Creative Commons licenses under U.S. copyright law;
  2. interprets the attribution requirement in the licenses to have the flexibility that is consistent with the licenses’ language and intent;
  3. holds that incorporating a photo into the cover of a road atlas creates a collective work rather than derivative work under U.S. copyright law; and
  4. holds that the “ShareAlike” condition in the 2.0 version of CC licenses is only triggered when a user distributes a derivative work as that concept is understood under U.S. law.

The court also rejected some misdirected arguments about copyright management information under Section 1202 of the Copyright Act.

Origins of the dispute

In April 2008, Art Drauglis took this photo of Swain’s Lock along the Cheasapeake & Ohio canal in Montgomery County, Maryland. He posted it to his shared photostream on Flickr under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

“Swain’s Lock, Montgomery Co., MD.” Photograph by Art Dragulis.

Swain’s Lock, Montgomery Co., MD.” Photograph by Art Drauglis. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

Kappa Map Group publishes road atlases under the brand “ADC”. Beginning in 2012, Kappa relied on the Creative Commons license to publish an atlas that incorporates Drauglis’ photo on its cover.

thecover

Subsequently, Drauglis registered his claim to copyright in the photo in 2014 (which is required to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement) and sued Kappa. Although he acknowledged that he had granted Kappa and the rest of the public the right to use his photo commercially, Drauglis asserted that Kappa was operating outside the license and therefore was an infringer because (1) Kappa had failed to give him credit appropriately, (2) failed to properly identify the CC license under which his photograph was offered, and (3) that Kappa had created a derivative work that required the entire atlas to be licensed under the same CC license.

Attribution

Drauglis acknowledged that Kappa had given him credit in the atlas.  The back cover identifies the title of the photograph, the authors of the shared photostream, and the name of the CC license under which the photo is offered to the public.

Drauglis complained that Kappa had not given him credit in the front inside page of the atlas where the copyright notice is published, that the credit he received is not as prominent as that given in the copyright notice, and that the attribution fails to provide the URL for the CC license.

index

The court rejected the comparative prominence claim as follows:

But the Court finds that the copyright notice on the first page is not the relevant authorship credit to which the attribution on the back cover should be compared. Instead, the notation at the bottom of each individual map – “© Kappa Map Group, LLC” – is the comparable authorship credit, because the single Photograph is more similar to an individual map than it is to the Atlas as a whole.

. . . .

Therefore, because defendant provided plaintiff with authorship credit in a manner comparable to and as prominent as the attributions on each of the individual maps when it attributed the Photograph to plaintiff on the back cover, the Court finds that defendant did not violate section 4(c).

Drauglis, 128 F. Supp. 3d at 59.

Identifying the CC License

With respect to the claim that Kappa was required to provide a link to the CC license with the attribution, the court carefully interpreted the plain language of the license, which reads that the user “must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy . . . of the Work”.

The court analyzed and rejected this claim because the license does not require a link to the license text if the name of the license is used:

While there is no legal authority on this point, Internet authorities have defined a Uniform Resource Identifier (“URI”) as “an identifier consisting of a sequence of characters . . . . [which] enables uniform identification of resources via a separately defined extensible set of naming schemes.” T. Berners-Lee,7 et al., Uniform Resource Identifier: Generic Syntax 5 (Jan. 2005), Network Working Grp., https://tools.ietf.org/html/std66 (last visited Aug. 18, 2015). There is more than one form of URI – it can be “a locator, a name, or both.” Id. at 7.

. . . .

Thus, when plaintiff argues that defendant should have provided “a link to the full license” in the Atlas, he conflates the term Uniform Resource Identifier, which is used in section 4(a), with the narrower term Uniform Resource Locator, which appears nowhere in the License. A Uniform Resource Locator – “URL” or “link” – is one form of a Uniform Resource Identifier, but it is not the only one. For that reason, plaintiff’s contention that defendant was required to include in the Atlas a “link” to the License – its Uniform Resource Locator – is simply incorrect. Section 4(a) states only that a licensee “must include . . . the Uniform Resource Identifier” for the License when distributing a work offered under the License. See License § 4(a) (emphasis added).

To satisfy section 4(a), then, defendant could have printed the Atlas with either the License’s URL or its URN, as both are subclasses of the URI required by the License. And while defendant did not print the Atlas with a link to the License’s web address (its URL), it did provide the License’s URN when included the notation “Creative Commoms [sic], CC-BY-SA 2.0” on the back cover of the Atlas. Atlas at 116. Creative Commons has unique names for each of its six licenses, and the particular type of license at issue in this case is specifically designated and easily located online by the phrase “CC BY-SA 2.0.” See About the Licenses, Creative Commons, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ (last visited Aug. 18, 2015) (abbreviating the “Attribution-ShareAlike” license as “CC BY-SA”); Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic, Creative Commons, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ (last visited Aug. 18, 2015) (referring to the License as the “Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)” license). That “CC BY-SA 2.0” is the proper URN for the License is further confirmed by a routine Internet search.

Therefore, the Court finds that defendant’s reference to the name of the License on the back cover of the Atlas was sufficient to satisfy the section 4(a) notice requirement, and defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this issue.

Id. at 56-58.

ShareAlike

The court recognized that under the terms of the 2.0 license – which mirrors the language of the U.S. Copyright Act – use of the licensed work as part of a new work that is original enough to get its own copyright will result either in a “collective work” or in a “derivative work.”  The distinction matters because under the license, the ShareAlike requirement applies only to derivative works.

Under both the 2.0 license and the U.S. Copyright Act, a derivative work arises only when it is based upon the original and is embodied in a form in which it has been “recast, transformed, or adapted.”

Applied to the atlas, the court held:

But the Atlas is a map book and not an adaptation of plaintiff’s photograph. Because this 112-page book of maps is not in any way “based upon” the Photograph, and because defendant did not “recast, transform[], or adapt[]” the Photograph when it used it as the cover art for the Atlas, see License § 1(b), the Court finds that neither the Atlas nor its cover constitutes a derivative work subject to the ShareAlike requirement. Rather, the Atlas is more akin to a collective work, because the Photograph was placed “in its entirety in unmodified form” alongside “other contributions, constituting separate and independent works” – that is, the maps. See id. § 1(a).

Id. at 55.

This is always how we at Creative Commons have understood the difference between collective works and derivative works. Unfortunately, Drauglis’s attorney submitted to the court a sworn statement from a former Creative Commons employee that took the position that Kappa’s use of the photograph turned the entire atlas into a derivative work, or, in the alternative, that the cover of the atlas was a derivative work.

This person admitted that she was not speaking on behalf of Creative Commons, but there is no doubt that this is the implication based on her statement of expertise. The judge correctly ignored this legal opinion because she found no ambiguity in the language of the license and therefore she did not need outside evidence to aid her interpretation of the license. The judge also found that plaintiff had failed to raise the claim about the atlas cover as a derivative work, but even if the issue had been properly raised, she would have rejected it for the same reasons.

Mar 122015
 

mc at carnegieIn all my time with Creative Commons, I’ve come to see that support comes from people across a wide spectrum of creators. For some, the Creative Commons licenses and their related icons provide the vocabulary and the solidarity around the sharing that they would engage in over the Internet even if the licenses did not exist. For others, the licenses are needed to free users from copyright constraints that would otherwise inhibit or prohibit uses that the creator wants to promote.

Today, I had the privilege of speaking on a panel at the Comparative and International Education Society’s Annual Conference with representatives of two open education projects that depend on Creative Commons licenses to do their work. One is the OER publisher Siyavula, based in Cape Town, South Africa. Among other things, they publish textbooks for use in primary and secondary school in math and science. After high school students in the country protested about the conditions of their education – singling out textbook prices as a barrier to their learning – the South African government relied on the Creative Commons license used by Siyavula to print and distribute 10 million Siyavula textbooks to school children, some of whom had never had their own textbook before.

The other are the related teacher education projects, TESSA, and TESS-India, which use the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license on teacher training materials. Created first in English, the projects and their teachers rely on the reuse rights granted by the Creative Commons license to translate and localize these training materials to make them authentic for teachers in the linguistically and culturally diverse settings of sub-Saharan Africa and India. (Both projects are linked to and supported by the Open University in the UK, http://www.open.ac.uk/, which uses Creative Commons-licensed materials as well.) If one wakes up hoping to feel that one’s work in the world is useful, then an experience like this makes it a good day.

CC Affiliates Mixtape Released

 Posted by on February 3, 2015
Feb 032015
 


Download album: Internet Archive / Free Music Archive / SoundCloud
Download album notes (PDF)
Download album art: Front / Back

Musicians who use CC licenses do so to allow others to share and promote their work. All of us who work for Creative Commons in any capacity do so in part because we value and enjoy creativity. Many of us are creators, and all of us are music lovers. So, it should come as no surprise that when Teresa Nobre, Creative Commons Portugal, put out the call to the Creative Commons Affiliate community to nominate CC-licensed tracks for a CC Affiliate mixtape, many of us stepped up.

Here’s Teresa’s blog post about the tape. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/44712

And Creative Commons USA sends a shout out to Tamara Laurel, whose track “Sweet“, made the cut!

 

Feb 032015
 

Creative Commons USA applauds a new joint grant program, Humanities Open Book, by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation that seeks to give a second life to outstanding out-of-print books in the humanities by turning them into freely accessible e-books.

Over the past 100 years, tens of thousands of academic books have been published in the humanities, including many remarkable works on history, literature, philosophy, art, music, law, and the history and philosophy of science. But the majority of these books are currently out of print and largely out of reach for teachers, students, and the public. The Humanities Open Book pilot grant program aims to “unlock” these books by republishing them as high-quality electronic books that anyone in the world can download and read on computers, tablets, or mobile phones at no charge.

The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation are the two largest funders of humanities research in the United States. Working together, NEH and Mellon will give grants to publishers to identify great humanities books, secure all appropriate rights, and make them available for free, forever, under a Creative Commons license.

The new Humanities Open Book grant program is part of the National Endowment for the Humanities’ agency-wide initiative The Common Good: The Humanities in the Public Square, which seeks to demonstrate and enhance the role and significance of the humanities and humanities scholarship in public life.

The National Endowment for the Humanities and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation will jointly provide $1 million to convert out-of-print books into EPUB e-books with a Creative Commons (CC) license, ensuring that the books are freely downloadable with searchable texts and in formats that are compatible with any e-reading device. Books proposed under the Humanities Open Book program must be of demonstrable intellectual significance and broad interest to current readers. 

Application guidelines and a list of F.A.Q’s for the Humanities Open Book program are available online at www.NEH.gov. The application deadline for the first cycle of Humanities Open Book grants is June 10, 2015.

Mar 142014
 

oewLeaders in the Obama Administration, in state governments, and in corporate America have acknowledged the urgency of increasing access to higher education in the United States – particularly through community colleges.  These leaders also recognize the importance of improving completion rates and educational outcomes for those who enroll.

As we come to the close of Open Education Week, it is now time for these leaders to focus attention, energy and resources on the most immediate opportunity to make progress toward these goals while also freeing up billions of dollars that can be redirected toward this progress.  Make textbooks available to students for free or at very low marginal cost.

The Open Textbook Opportunity – Tidewater Community College Case Study

Sound too good to be true?  It’s not, and the forward-looking folks at Tidewater Community College are leading the way.  Students at Tidewater can now save 30% of the cost of a two-year Associate’ Degree of Science in Business Administration because all of the textbooks are published under a Creative Commons Attribution license which gives anyone – students and the school – the rights to freely make copies and adapt these works as long as proper attribution to the author(s) is maintained.

According to Linda Williams at Tidewater, open textbooks have not just been a cost savings but also have improved the quality of the educational experience and have opened up improvements in students’ quality of life.

In one case a student – a veteran – was routinely unable to afford his textbooks until weeks into the semester.  When he enrolled in a Pre-Calculus class for which he could freely download the openly-licensed textbook, it was the first time he’d ever started a class with the required materials in hand.

In another case, a single mother who enrolled in the Business Administration degree program was able to use her savings on textbooks to buy braces for her daughter – an expense she could not have managed without these cost savings.

Why Open Textbooks Now?

Of all of the challenges facing access to education and improved educational outcomes, the problems of textbook affordability, usability, and adaptability are the key barriers that can be readily overcome. The Tidewater case should not be an exception – let’s make it the norm.  Educational materials are moving from print to digital, but currently they are still expensive, subject to extensive restrictive copyright licensing terms, and reside behind a password-protected paywall.  To adapt the famous lines from President Reagan, leaders, use smart policies that promote open educational resources to tear down this wall!

By shifting to high quality OER, educational institutions at both the K-12 and tertiary levels can redirect billions of dollars into improved access and outcomes that currently flow into a textbook production system that is highly inefficient, a system that transfers significant wealth out of the educational sector and into the pockets of shareholders in a handful of publishing firms without corresponding benefits.

To be clear, there are historical reasons for this that predate the Internet.  The Internet is the game-changer, and while these firms currently are part of the problem, they also have the opportunity to become part of the solution.

How? By embracing the production of Open Educational Resources.  These aren’t free to produce or update, but production, adaptation, and quality control can all be done far more efficiently and at significantly lower cost than is currently the case. Just ask the folks at OpenStax College who are publishing top-notch textbooks that are free to download and are available in print for about $30.

Who Will Offer the Next Degree Program Built on Open Educational Resources?

With the pool of high quality, openly licensed textbooks and other educational resources growing every day, what traditional brick-and-mortar educational institution will be next to follow Tidewater’s lead and start using OER to promise students from the beginning that the cost of their textbooks will be free, at very low cost, or covered by the cost of tuition?

Mar 122014
 

mc at carnegieTwo bills in Congress share a basic understanding that the unclassified research articles and data that arise from federal funding should be made available over the public Internet at some point after the articles have been published.  However, these two bills have sharply divergent approaches to how this basic goal should be achieved.

The forward-looking, pro-innovation bill is the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR).  It would effectively embody in legislation the requirements outlined in this Policy Directive from the Office of Science and Technology Policy.  FASTR is a bi-partisan bill that reflects a realistic appreciation of the economics of scholarly publishing and accommodates the needs of subscription-based publishers while also promoting rapid, publicly-provided, public access.

In contrast, the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology Act (FIRST), which would fund the National Science Foundation, would roll back progress already made.  The bill would allow for access embargoes of up to 24 months even though publishers have failed to bring forth evidence that the much shorter 6-month embargo in Europe or the 12-month embargo used by the NIH have had any measurable impacts on the financial sustainability of the subscription-based publishing model.  This particular feature of the bill is simply anti-innovation. Second, the bill would not require that the agency receive a copy of the article arising from federal funding.  Instead, a mere link, without any requirements about its persistence, would suffice.  Sadly, this would turn out to be a public access mirage in many cases, as links frequently break. Last, NSF already has drafted a public access plan – that the Obama Administration currently has not shared — in response to the OSTP Directive.  The bill’s requirement for another 18-month delay is therefore merely an impediment to public access in the near future.

For more on the FIRST ACT, see Tim Vollmer, “Proposed U.S. law would weaken and postpone public access to publicly funded research.”

 

Jan 142014
 
mc at carnegie

Photo by Creative Commons USA (CC-BY)

[Cross posted from Carrollogos] Whatever one thinks about the rest of the Google Book business, I think it’s important to focus on the digitization of public domain books by both Google and the Open Content Alliance and to use these efforts as the basis for conceiving of the Digital Public Domain as a more robust version of the traditional public domain.

Here’s the gist of the argument:

1. Copyright and the Encouragement of Learning.

Copyright law is at the heart of concerns about using the Internet to provide universal access to learned and cultural works. These concerns arise in particular with respect to two related issues: access to books and other printed materials that can be digitized and shared over the Internet, and access to scholarly works yet to be produced, which could be shared over the Internet but routinely are not.

The purpose of copyright law has been to promote learning and the progress of knowledge. Two features of copyright law should provide the guide for how to respond to access concerns. First, copyright is an author’s right. This is definitional. Prior to 1710, the law provided exclusive printing rights to printers, leaving authors with no rights other than ownership rights in a physical manuscript. The first copyright act, the Statute of Anne, fundamentally changed this relationship by giving rights to authors, who could then make choices about with whom or how to publish. Since that time, copyright law has consistently remained an author’s right.

Second, copyright law explicitly balances the need to reward authors for their contributions to society with the public’s interests in having access to works created by others and the rights to reuse such works. For this reason, copyright is a time-limited right. Copyright expires so that the public may ultimately gain unlimited access and use rights. This also is definitional. The Statute of Anne created the public domain, and the English courts held in favor of the public domain in the Battle of the Booksellers, in which English publishers argued that perpetual common law printing rights survived the creation of copyright law.

Therefore, by design, all copyrighted works are destined for the public domain. But, the public domain as a legal concept means only that a work is free from copyright restrictions. There is no positive commitment by the law to make such works available to the public other than the deposit requirement under U.S. law. Nonetheless, removing copyright restrictions gives those who would publish or publicize works an incentive to do so for works still deemed relevant or interesting to the public. See, e.g., Paul Heald’s article.

2. The Digital Public Domain

In the age of the Internet, we need to reconceive the public domain as the Digital Public Domain. In the Digital Public Domain, it is not enough that a work is free from copyright restrictions. A positive commitment to universal access to the public domain requires first that public domain works be digitized or at least be subject to a protocol that enables digitization when cost effective.

Second, works free from copyright restrictions should be made accessible over the Internet. Mass digitization of the public domain promotes the goals of universal access, improved learning, and the progress of science.

Third, works free from copyright restrictions should not be subject to technological measures or contractual restrictions or “terms of use” that in any way inhibit members of the public from exercising their usage rights in public domain works.

Fourth, access and the absence of legal restrictions alone are insufficient. Those who search the Internet for information often do so for active purposes. It is not sufficient to find information that is topically relevant. The information also must be useful for the researcher’s purposes. Marking and tagging works with their use rights enables computers to search for information that is both topically relevant and useful. I’ve argued more extensively about use relevance here.

From this principle follows the corollary that the digital public domain should be tagged and marked as such. An important purpose for making copyright a time-limited right is to make the work more useful to the public, who may now republish or repurpose the work without fear of legal liability. To further this purpose in the digital age, computers must be able to parse the public domain status of a work to communicate its usefulness to researchers.

Consequently, those public and private bodies that laudably have been investing in efforts to digitize public domain works should increase the returns on their investment by marking and tagging public domain works as such. Creative Commons provides a metadata standard for digitally marking works with their use rights, the Creative Commons Rights Expression Language (ccREL). Specifically, Creative Commons provides a means of marking a public domain work as such. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/. Creative Commons requires support to implement plans to update this protocol to provide more robust information about public domain works.

3. The Open Access Connection

Looking forward, how should the features of author’s rights and balance between author and public influence the availability of contemporary and future learned works, particularly scholarly research reported in peer-reviewed journals? Here, the open access movement has an answer.

Faculty authors and other professional researchers have a responsibility to manage their copyrights in a way that ensures public access to the scholarly record well before copyright expires in these works. Why? Because the standard justification for granting author’s rights does not neatly apply to these scholarly authors. They are motivated by the desire to be read and are not remunerated by journal publishers for publishing their work.

When authors have no need to limit access to their work for purposes of remuneration, they should make their work freely available to promote the progress of science. When researchers have been funded by the government or by private charities, it is inexcusable not to ensure reasonable and timely free public access to the fruits of this research consistent with copyright.

Progress has been made recently in improving free public access to recent scholarship. As directed by the United States Congress, the National Institutes of Health now requires researchers who accept NIH funds to ensure that NIH receives a copyright license to make peer-reviewed articles publicly available on the Internet no later than 12 months after the date of publication. Many public and private science funders in Europe, Canada, and Australia have similar policies, with 6 month deadlines.

Faculty authors are coming to the realization that the way they manage their publishing rights should reflect their core values and the university’s core commitment to disseminating knowledge. A number of faculties have adopted resolutions recommending open access, but these have led to very few results. Just as was the case when the NIH policy was voluntary, authors at these institutions generally continue to sign away their rights to make their work available on the Internet or fail to use such rights when they have them by depositing manuscripts in an open access repository.

Change is on the way. Taking the lead in the United States, the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences has adopted a policy through which faculty authors commit to deposit their peer-reviewed articles in the university’s new digital repository and to grant the university an advance copyright license to any scholarly journal articles written by faculty members, subject to the author’s right to waive the license on a per-article basis. Under the policy, faculty authors must manage their copyrights to ensure that their publication agreements are consistent with the university’s public access license. Some faculties or departments at universities around the world have adopted similar open access mandates.

4. The Role of Universities

It is time for faculty and university administrators to get serious about the Internet as a knowledge medium. They need to organize a campus-wide process for developing a policy on knowledge dissemination in the digital environment. At most institutions it would be unwise or impractical for university administrators to impose an open access policy on faculty authors, unless the university were to take the position that peer reviewed journal articles are works made for hire and are therefore owned by the university. But, administrators should show leadership by organizing an ad hoc task force on scholarly communication comprised of leading scholars from major departments.

This should not be done by the library committee because the issue goes to the heart of the university’s mission and is not merely a departmental budgetary concern. And, it should be made clear that experience teaches that if the task force recommends only adoption of a hortatory resolution requesting that faculty authors provide for open access, that is tantamount to a decision to do nothing to improve access to the scholarly record. Mandates work. Requests do not.

Those studying open access should take note that some authors have gone further to use public licensing as a means of giving the public broad use rights along with free access. Scholars who publish with publishers such as the Public Library of Science, BioMed Central or Rockefeller University Press grant the public a Creative Commons license that provides generous rights to translate, adapt and republish (with proper credit) their articles.

In sum, the initiatives to digitize public domain works and to provide open access to contemporary learning share the common goal of making the Internet a repository for human knowledge and a more powerful resource for researchers, students, teachers, and learners of all kinds around the world. Three principles derived from the purposes of copyright law, should guide these efforts: (1) the works should be freely available; (2) public domain works should be free from any contractual restrictions on use; and (3) the works should be marked with their use rights.
This post is derived from my presentation at the Boston Library Consortium’s Universal Access Digital Library Summit in September with the aim of showing connections between book digitization projects and the open access movement.

Photos from the CC-USA Launch Party

 Posted by on October 21, 2013
Oct 212013
 
wilbanks and noah

CCUSA on Flickr, CC-BY

Creative Commons-U.S. had a great launch event last night with a lot of enthusiasm in the room, and ambassadors from CC Chile and CC Qatar, as well.

Some photos are posted on the CCUSA photostream on flickr.

Tweets from the talks are at #ccusa, alternatively, my former student Ali Sternburg tweets faster than anyone I know.  She captured some of the best lines of the evening.

 

Oct 162013
 
Photo by Mike Baird (CC-BY)

Photo by Mike Baird (CC-BY)

American University Washington College of Law’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP) is proud to announce that it is the new home of Creative Commons United States (CC US). CC US is the U.S. volunteer affiliate in the Creative Commons Affiliate Network.

Join us on October 17, 2013 for the CC US launch party from 6:00 – 9:00 p.m. at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C. To learn more about the launch, click here.

CC US promotes understanding of sharing through open licensing and other issues related to uses of Creative Commons licenses in the United States. To find out more about CC licenses, click here. CC US also gives sustained attention to U.S.-specific policy and legal developments affecting the commons, such as state government support for the development of Open Educational Resources. We provide outreach, education, and support to local organizations and communities that use (or could use) the Creative Commons license suite.