Pete Stott | 12 Jul 12:05 2005
Picon

CC on government website

Hi,

I'm currently wireframing some content for a savings and investment website
commissioned by the British treasury. Most of the content is educational,
mainly dealing with the different ways the government suggests you save
money. 

My question is: should I suggest to the client that they place a creative
commons licence on their content? Seeing as the website's mission is to
spread knowledge and raise the profile of certain types of products,
slapping on a copyright statement seems at odds with this.

Also, if you think this is a good idea, have any of you had experience of
selling the CC philosophy to a client. What was your approach?

Thank you,

Pete Stott

_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs.
Evan Prodromou | 12 Jul 13:15 2005
Picon

Re: CC on government website

On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 11:05 +0100, Pete Stott wrote:
Hi, I'm currently wireframing some content for a savings and investment website commissioned by the British treasury. [...] My question is: should I suggest to the client that they place a creative commons licence on their content? Seeing as the website's mission is to spread knowledge and raise the profile of certain types of products, slapping on a copyright statement seems at odds with this.
Doesn't it, though?
In the USA, all work generated by government employees is in the public domain. I take it that's not the case in the UK; IIRC, government work becomes copyright by Her Majesty, correct?

A public domain dedication or an Attribution license is probably a great idea. It's unclear to me if the stipulations of the CC licenses, and/or the CC licenses for England and Wales (http://creativecommons.org.uk/) , would work for the British government.
Also, if you think this is a good idea, have any of you had experience of selling the CC philosophy to a client.
I haven't, but that sounds like an excellent topic for the Creative Commons wiki!

~Evan

-- -- Evan Prodromou evan-zOntnoXveK8sA/PxXw9srA@public.gmane.org
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-community@...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Evan Prodromou | 12 Jul 13:29 2005
Picon

Creative Commons on PBS and NPR

So, I may be a wacked-out CC hippy, but it seems to me that media created for listener- or viewer-supported networks like PBS and NPR should be available under a reasonable Creative Commons license like the by-2.0 license. The BBC Creative Archive (with all its warts) shows that there is support for this kind of idea.

Public radio and television members often will associate to form voting blocs for elections*, or just to put pressure on the networks or local stations. Does anyone know if a Creative Commons or similar member group exists for NPR, PBS, or both? If not, should we start one?

~Evan

*  (did you know there are elections?)
-- -- Evan Prodromou evan-zOntnoXveK8sA/PxXw9srA@public.gmane.org
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-community@...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Pete Stott | 12 Jul 14:02 2005
Picon

Re: CC on government website

Evan Wrote:
 
"In the USA, all work generated by government employees is in the public domain. I take it that's not the case in the UK; IIRC, government work becomes copyright by Her Majesty, correct?"
 
After reading your reply I thought that there had to be something similar in the UK. After a little bit of research (which I should of done before the original post, sorry) I have just discovered that there is something called "crown copyright":
 
"Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos and photography) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium, provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context.
Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged."
 
It sounds very much like the attribution CC licence. I wonder why they didn't just use that?

More information can be found here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/index.htm

It seems this form of copyright was only introduced on July 1st 2005!

"The aim of the Regulations is to encourage the re-use of public sector information by removing obstacles that stand in the way of re-use. The main themes are improving transparency, fairness and consistency. In doing so it will help stimulate the development of innovative new information products and services across Europe, so boosting the information industry."

Genius.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Prodromou [mailto:evan-zOntnoXveK8sA/PxXw9srA@public.gmane.org]
Sent: 12 July 2005 12:15
To: cc-community-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [cc-community] CC on government website

On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 11:05 +0100, Pete Stott wrote:
Hi, I'm currently wireframing some content for a savings and investment website commissioned by the British treasury. [...] My question is: should I suggest to the client that they place a creative commons licence on their content? Seeing as the website's mission is to spread knowledge and raise the profile of certain types of products, slapping on a copyright statement seems at odds with this.
Doesn't it, though?
In the USA, all work generated by government employees is in the public domain. I take it that's not the case in the UK; IIRC, government work becomes copyright by Her Majesty, correct?

A public domain dedication or an Attribution license is probably a great idea. It's unclear to me if the stipulations of the CC licenses, and/or the CC licenses for England and Wales (http://creativecommons.org.uk/) , would work for the British government.
Also, if you think this is a good idea, have any of you had experience of selling the CC philosophy to a client.
I haven't, but that sounds like an excellent topic for the Creative Commons wiki!

~Evan


_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs.
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-community@...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Evan Prodromou | 12 Jul 14:09 2005
Picon

Creative Commons on Pacifica (was Re: Creative Commons on PBS and NPR)

On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 07:29 -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
So, I may be a wacked-out CC hippy,
While on the subject of wacked-out hippies: what about the Pacifica Radio Network (http://www.pacifica.org/ )? Unlike PBS and NPR, Pacifica is 100% listener-funded, and has a very strong democratic infrastructure. Would it also be ripe for a Creative-Commons-licensing campaign?

~Evan

-- -- Evan Prodromou evan-zOntnoXveK8sA/PxXw9srA@public.gmane.org
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-community@...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Rob Myers | 12 Jul 14:10 2005
Picon

Re: CC on government website

Heya.

Crown Copyright's a little older than that:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright

And I think the page you refer to might be a waiver rather than a  
general statement of the terms of Crown Copyright.

Do ask about this on the cc-uk list, which has the authors of the  
various UK licenses and other interested parties subscribed:

     http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-uk

- Rob.

On 12 Jul 2005, at 13:02, Pete Stott wrote:

> Evan Wrote:
>
> "In the USA, all work generated by government employees is in the  
> public domain. I take it that's not the case in the UK; IIRC,  
> government work becomes copyright by Her Majesty, correct?"
>
> After reading your reply I thought that there had to be something  
> similar in the UK. After a little bit of research (which I should  
> of done before the original post, sorry) I have just discovered  
> that there is something called "crown copyright":
>
> "Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and  
> departmental or agency logos and photography) may be reproduced  
> free of charge in any format or medium, provided it is reproduced  
> accurately and not used in a misleading context.
> Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being  
> republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be  
> identified and the copyright status acknowledged."
>
> It sounds very much like the attribution CC licence. I wonder why  
> they didn't just use that?
> More information can be found here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/ 
> crown-copyright/index.htm
>
> It seems this form of copyright was only introduced on July 1st 2005!
>
> "The aim of the Regulations is to encourage the re-use of public  
> sector information by removing obstacles that stand in the way of  
> re-use. The main themes are improving transparency, fairness and  
> consistency. In doing so it will help stimulate the development of  
> innovative new information products and services across Europe, so  
> boosting the information industry."
>
> Genius.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evan Prodromou [mailto:evan@...]
> Sent: 12 July 2005 12:15
> To: cc-community@...
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] CC on government website
>
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 11:05 +0100, Pete Stott wrote:
>> Hi, I'm currently wireframing some content for a savings and  
>> investment website commissioned by the British treasury. [...] My  
>> question is: should I suggest to the client that they place a  
>> creative commons licence on their content? Seeing as the website's  
>> mission is to spread knowledge and raise the profile of certain  
>> types of products, slapping on a copyright statement seems at odds  
>> with this.
> Doesn't it, though?
> In the USA, all work generated by government employees is in the  
> public domain. I take it that's not the case in the UK; IIRC,  
> government work becomes copyright by Her Majesty, correct?
>
> A public domain dedication or an Attribution license is probably a  
> great idea. It's unclear to me if the stipulations of the CC  
> licenses, and/or the CC licenses for England and Wales (http:// 
> creativecommons.org.uk/) , would work for the British government.
>> Also, if you think this is a good idea, have any of you had  
>> experience of selling the CC philosophy to a client.
> I haven't, but that sounds like an excellent topic for the Creative  
> Commons wiki!
>
> ~Evan
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community@...
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
Peter Brink | 12 Jul 14:16 2005
Picon

Re: CC on government website

Here's a lengthy summary of Crown Copyright: 
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/conf/dac/en/sterling/sterling.html

As Rob mentioned, do ask the cc-uk list for advice on this matter.

/Peter Brink
Evan Prodromou | 12 Jul 16:12 2005
Picon

Re: Creative Commons on PBS and NPR

On Tue, 2005-12-07 at 07:29 -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:

> [...] a reasonable Creative Commons license like the by-2.0 license. 

Whoops! Of course, I mean by-2.5. Takes me a while in January to write
the correct year on my checks, and I'm also pretty slow updating version
numbers when talking about Creative Commons licenses.

~Evan
vade | 12 Jul 16:23 2005
Picon

Any feedback..

Hi,

Im sorry to be pushy, but does anyone have any feedback regarding the email I posted to this list on June 28th? Ive tried emailing info-QpgY5M4lfL0@public.gmane.org, but have received no response.

Thanks again.

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-community@...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Baryonic Being | 12 Jul 20:00 2005

Re: Creative Commons Q.A/Workshop for Interactive Artscommunity

Hello,

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I represent/work for Creative Commons, but I didn't want you to feel as though you were being ignored. My advice would be to contact CC directly, perhaps by phone, fax or snail mail using the details at http://creativecommons.org/contact. The Share project sounds like fun, and yes, Creative Commons sounds like its perfect partner.

I notice you record and stream the creations. These are stored somewhere I presume? Obviously you'd need permission from those contributing, but if they were released with a CC license (either the Sampling or BY-SA-(maybe NC), you could have the Internet community remix the material during the week...

There's a huge potential.
Sorry I can't help.

On 29 Jun 2005, at 03:08, vade wrote:

Hello List (and share folk)

I have a question regarding the possibility of setting up a workshop/Q.A. session for an interactive/performance art collective in New York City.

I am one of the longtime members of Share (http://share.dj), "a weekly open multimedia jam and community for portable performers", and wed like to learn about Copyright/left, and the creative commons licensing (and how best to use it) in our context.

Basically, every sunday we host a free event that is open to the public for live audio and video jamming. People bring laptops, homemade electronics, sensors, custom software, etc, and join a collaborative realtime improved performance. We occasionally host workshops for audio and video, programming languages, etc, and would love for a Creative Commons representative, or anyone qualified in copyright law to possibly give a small workshop on Copyright (and left!). Basically, we are curious what we as a community need to be aware of in our environment (an open to the public, live,and importantly recorded jam session type environment), and what the public joining the jam should be made aware of. We would want to record this workshop, and share it with the world as well. Wed like to begin posting our extensive audio archive online, and would want to document and record parts of our upcoming nights. Obviously, since this is an open to the public event, we have to worry about disclaimers, people playing their (and others) copyrighted material. Im sure you can see where this gets complicated!

Our website has creative commons licensed material (and the content management system that drives it will soon be an open source-creative commons powered project..), We love what Creative Commons is doing and most of us feel its right in line with what we are all about, but none of us are fully qualified to speak about any of these issues to our community in a knowledgeable way. Our project is growing (there is now a Share event in Montreal), and we have received non-profit status/coverage from NYFA and would like to start fund raising, larger event planning, etc. So I woudl imagine we have to prepare for some sort of legal foundation to protect ourselves. Ive tried to arrange for a member of the EFF to possibly speak, but unfortunately that has fallen though. Since the Creative Commons are arts oriented, I'd imagine you all would have a good foundation for helping us.

If anyone has any suggestions, would like to help out, or has any pointers in general, please let me or the share administrators know ( admin-qvTvkJzft5w@public.gmane.org ).

Thanks again, and I look forward to hearing from you all.

-vade /// 

-- This email has been verified as Virus free Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list


_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-community@...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Gmane