Archive for the 'Creative Commons/Open Licenses' Category

Three New Documents about Creative Commons Licenses for Data

Posted in Copyright, Creative Commons/Open Licenses, Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management on January 16th, 2012

The Creative Commons has released three new documents about the use of its licenses for data: "Data," "Data and CC Licenses," and "CC0 Use for Data."

Here's an excerpt from the announcement by Sarah Hinchliff Pearson:

We have done a lot of thinking about data in the past year. As a result, we have recently published a set of detailed FAQs designed to help explain how CC licenses work with data and databases.

These FAQs are intended to:

  1. alert CC licensors that some uses of their data and databases may not trigger the license conditions,
  2. reiterate to licensees that CC licenses do not restrict them from doing anything they are otherwise permitted to do under the law, and
  3. clear up confusion about how the version 3.0 CC licenses treat sui generis database rights.

| Digital Scholarship's Weblogs and Tweets | Digital Scholarship |

Be Sociable, Share!

    Author-Pays Open Access Option Using CC-By License Now Available for Many Physical Review Journals

    Posted in Creative Commons/Open Licenses, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on February 16th, 2011

    Authors who publish in many Physical Review journals now have the option to pay an article-processing fee in order to have their articles published as open access articles under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (CC-By License). Two Physical Review journals (Physical Review Special Topics—Accelerators and Beams and Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research) have been fully converted to open access under the CC-By License. The APS announced a new open access journal in January, Physical Review X.

    Here's an excerpt from the press release:

    The new article-processing charges, which will cover all costs and provide a sustainable funding model, have been set at $1700 for papers in the Physical Review and $2700 for those in Physical Review Letters. The resulting open access articles will appear alongside and mixed in with subscription-funded articles, converting these journals into "hybrid" open access journals.

    "The most selective of our journals must have higher article-processing charges for their open access articles," said Gene Sprouse, APS Editor in Chief. "Physical Review accepts about 60% of articles submitted and Physical Review Letters roughly 25%, so the costs are higher than in less selective journals."

    Revenue from the article-processing charges will decrease the need for subscription income and help to keep the APS subscription price-per-article among the lowest of any physics journals. "We'd like to reduce the pressure on library subscriptions, while opening access more widely. Article-processing charges are a means to accomplish both," said Joseph Serene, APS Treasurer/Publisher.

    | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |

    Be Sociable, Share!

      How to License Research Data

      Posted in Copyright, Creative Commons/Open Licenses, Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management on February 14th, 2011

      The Digital Curation Centre has released How to License Research Data.

      Here's an excerpt:

      This guide will help you decide how to apply a licence to your research data, and which licence would be most suitable. It should provide you with an awareness of why licensing data is important, the impact licences have on future research, and the potential pitfalls to avoid. It concentrates on the UK context, though some aspects apply internationally; it does not, however, provide legal advice. The guide should interest both the principal investigators and researchers responsible for the data, and those who provide access to them through a data centre, repository or archive.

      | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |

      Be Sociable, Share!

        Creative Commons and Public Sector Information: Flexible Tools to Support PSI Creators and Re-Users

        Posted in Copyright, Creative Commons/Open Licenses, Open Access, Reports and White Papers on February 13th, 2011

        The European Public Sector Information (PSI) Platform has released Creative Commons and Public Sector Information: Flexible Tools to Support PSI Creators and Re-Users.

        Here's an excerpt:

        Public sector information (PSI) is meant for wide re-use, but this information will only achieve maximum possible impact if users understand how they may use it. Creative Commons tools, which signify availability for re-use to users and require attribution to the releasing authority, are ideal tools for the sharing of public sector information. There is also increasing interest in open licenses and other tools to share publicly funded information, data, and content, including various kinds of cultural resources, educational materials, and research findings; Creative Commons tools are applicable here and recommended for these purposes too.

        | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |

        Be Sociable, Share!

          Special Issue of PLATFORM: Journal of Media and Communication about the Creative Commons

          Posted in Copyright, Creative Commons/Open Licenses on February 7th, 2011

          PLATFORM: Journal of Media and Communication has published a special issue about the Creative Commons.

          Here's an excerpt from the issue's editorial by Elliott Bledsoe and Jessica Coates:

          We are privileged to be able to begin this issue with an interview with one of the leading thinkers in the field, Esther Wojcicki, the Vice-Chair of the Creative Commons Board of Directors. Esther is an award winning journalist and educator, who has taught at Palo Alto High School in California for 25 years and blogs regularly for The Huffington Post and Hotchalk. She is an articulate and experienced advocate of open, using it in her professional and personal life. In Wojcicki’s interview she introduces us to the background philosophy of Creative Commons through the lens of her experience, giving her take on why rights literacy is necessary to teach a generation that will work and play primarily on the net.

          Providing a broader overview of where things are at, the issue commences with Rachel Cobcroft’s piece chronicling the development of the international Creative Commons Case Studies initiative. The 2-year-old qualitative research project uses real world examples to gauge the impact of the Creative Commons licensing scheme's legal, technological, social, media and policy initiatives. As well as providing the fundamentals of the Creative Commons model, Cobcroft's piece examines the progress of open content licensing; identifies models of implementation and licensing trends across industry sectors as diverse as music, government, wikis and fashion; and, perhaps most importantly, explores individual motivations for the adoption of open philosophies.

          A similar focus on motivations is central to our second piece by Cheryl Foong. However, in contrast to the broad picture provided by Cobcroft, Foong takes a narrow focus for her analysis, asking the question can open philosophies go hand in hand with commercial gain? Drawing on examples of adoption of Creative Commons licensing by content creators and intermediaries, Foong concludes that, if used wisely, the open licensing scheme can be a useful tool for those creators who wish to circumvent traditional distribution channels dominated by content intermediaries, while maintaining a level of control over their copyright works. However, Foong identifies a need for caution – giving your work away is not a business model in itself, and only those who can successfully adapt the tools provided by the open movement to, as Techdirt CEO Mike Masnick puts it, connect with fans and give them a reason to buy,. . . will achieve success in this space.

          The message that open is valuable, but does not solve all problems is taken up in our third paper, a collaborative piece by Alexandra Crosby and Ferdiansyah Thajib. Viewed through the lens of video activism in Indonesia, Crosby and Thajib seek to explore the experience of individual creators attempting to tackle the behemoth of copyright in the liberated, but confusing, internet age. In doing so, they argue that while open licensing is an improvement on the models of the past, there is not yet a solution for the problems of copyright management that fits the Indonesian context. Of particular concern are issues of collaboration and credit in a world where attribution is the new currency, and the increasing gap between the global rhetoric of copyright enforcement and the diversity of practices on the ground. In the end Crosby and Thajib conclude that if the commons movement is to be successful in Indonesia, it must address cultural issues, images of imperialism and practical barriers to clear and open licensing in a society where no strong copyright tradition exists.

          The final paper by Peter Jakobsson also focuses on the principle of collaboration that underpins the current commons movement, but with a more critical, theoretical eye. Relying primarily on the analytical model provided by Rene Girard's theory of mimetic desire, Jakobsson examines the relationship between the growing trend, and rhetoric, of cooperation on the ‘social web' and the often undervalued importance of competition in the same field. In doing so, he argues that both competition and collaboration are not only valuable but central to the new forms and platforms of cultural production. Most interestingly, to demonstrate his argument he draws on the real world example of YouTube's Partnership program, demonstrating that even in a limitless world, scarcity still exists in resources such as viewer attention.

          | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |

          Be Sociable, Share!

            Open Access: Report on the Implementation of Open Content Licenses in Developing and Transition Countries

            Posted in Creative Commons/Open Licenses, Digital Repositories, Open Access, Reports and White Papers, Scholarly Journals on February 2nd, 2011

            The EIFL-OA advocacy program has released Report on the Implementation of Open Content Licenses in Developing and Transition Countries.

            Here's an excerpt:

            The survey attempted to gather information from a broad spectrum of research institutions in developing and transition countries in order to get a better understanding of the current state of the implementation of open content licenses. We looked at the web sites of 2,489 open access journals and 357 open access repositories from EIFL network countries. And this report highlights the best practices in using open content licenses by open access journals and open access repositories in developing and transition countries.

            Some general findings of the survey:

            Using open content licenses by open access journals:

            • We identified 556 open access journals that are licensed under open content licenses.
            • There are four types of Creative Commons licenses, which are used – the most liberal Creative Commons Attribution license, Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial license, Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike license and the most restrictive Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivative Works license.
            • 94% of the access journals we surveyed are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license (524 open access journals in Armenia, Bulgaria, China, Egypt, Lithuania, Macedonia, Nigeria, Poland, Russia, South Africa and Thailand).
            • Nine open access journals in China, Russia and South Africa are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial license.
            • Three open access journals in Ghana, Nigeria and Ukraine are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike license.
            • And twenty open access journals in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Serbia, South Africa, Thailand and Ukraine are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivative Works license.

            Using open content licenses by open access repositories:

            • We identified nine open access repositories that are licensed under open content licenses.
            • A repository of open educational materials in South Africa is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license
            • A repository of open educational materials in Kenya is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license.
            • One repository in China, two repositories in Poland and two repositories in Thailand are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial-Share Alike license.
            • A repository in South Africa is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license.
            • A repository hosted in Argentina is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial No Derivative Works license.
            • Some repositories in Botswana, Poland and South Africa recommend the depositors to use Creative Commons licenses. As a result a number of publications in these repositories are licensed under Creative Commons licenses.

            | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |

            Be Sociable, Share!

              $500 Million in U.S. Department of Labor Grants Will Include Support for Open Educational Resources under Creative Commons BY License

              Posted in Creative Commons/Open Licenses, Grants, Open Access on January 23rd, 2011

              The White House has announced the solicitation of the initial grants in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program. About $500 million in grant funding will be available in the first round of grants.

              Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

              Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan ushered in a new era of hope and opportunity for millions of Americans today when they revealed the innovative application criteria for the first $500 million in grants under the four-year, $2 billion Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program. Grants will support the development and improvement of a new generation of free, post-secondary educational programs of two years or less that prepare students for successful careers in emerging and expanding industries.

              This effort, which was developed and designed in consultation with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, sets the stage for what promises to become one of the most significant expansions in access to high-quality education and job training opportunities ever. These new investments will also play a major role in helping the Nation achieve the goal set by President Obama last year that by 2020 the United States will once again have the most highly educated workforce in the world.

              But what matters most is what these new freely-available resources will mean to individuals.

              By relying on evidence-based approaches and requiring that all materials produced be openly licensed for free use, adaptation, and improvement by others, this groundbreaking federal effort will bring free, high-quality curriculum and employment training opportunities within reach of anyone who has access to the Internet.

              Open Educational Resources are learning materials that have been released under an intellectual property license that allows their free use by others. The materials produced as a result of these grants will carry the Creative Commons BY license, which also permits their free derivative use for commercial purposes. That means companies, schools, entrepreneurs, and others will be free to bundle,adapt, or customize the learning materials to create new offerings, products, and services. Schools will be able to affordably offer courses in subject areas and at levels of expertise previously beyond their reach. Students will be able to access free educational materials, including complete courses, and supportive services designed to help them accomplish their educational and job-training goals.

              Millions of students around the world have already benefited from Open Educational Resources in the decade since then-Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) President Charles Vest established MIT's pioneering OpenCourseWare project, the first of its type, based on a proposal from members of his faculty. The goal, Vest explained in 2001, was to make all of the learning materials used by MIT's faculty in the school's 1,800 courses available via the Internet, where they could be used and repurposed as desired by others without charge.

              | Digital Scholarship |

              Be Sociable, Share!

                Open Content Licensing Tool: Risk Management Calculator

                Posted in Copyright, Creative Commons/Open Licenses, Open Access on January 23rd, 2011

                The OER IPR Support Project has released the Risk Management Calculator.

                Here's an excerpt from the press release :

                As more and more open content finds its way online, licensing and rights have become a key issue on a global level.

                Licensing is complex and the more open you make content under an end user licence the greater the risk if you haven't sought the necessary permissions. In partnership with the Higher Education Academy, JISC is funding a support project on IPR and licensing issues for Open Educational Resources. The latest addition to their suite of support resources is a new tool—the Risk Management Calculator—designed to help understand levels of risk associated with publishing open educational materials. Typical examples of this might include materials which are still in copyright, but for which the rights holders cannot be traced or are unknown (so called "Orphan Works"). The calculator helps those relatively new to licensing to make the right decisions when creating open content. . . .

                More and more organisations are realising the benefits of releasing their content under Creative Commons Licences, or similar open content licences such as the Open Government Licence, which explicitly grant the end-user permission to use materials, modify or redistribute them. Institutions like the British Library are releasing their bibliographic records to be reused without attribution and Creative Commons Licences are increasingly used by developing countries to open up content.

                | Digital Scholarship |

                Be Sociable, Share!

                  Access to Knowledge: A Guide for Everyone

                  Posted in Copyright, Creative Commons/Open Licenses, Open Access, Reports and White Papers on August 31st, 2010

                  Consumers International has released Access to Knowledge: A Guide for Everyone.

                  Here's an excerpt:

                  Access to knowledge (A2K) is the umbrella term for a movement that aims to create more equitable public access to the products of human culture and learning.

                  Fields of advocacy that it subsumes include most centrally copyright and patent law reform, open access, open data and open standards, but also access to public information, broader communications rights such as freedom of expression, and issues around ownership of and participation in public media.

                  Be Sociable, Share!

                    Lawrence Lessig: "Getting Our Values around Copyright Right"

                    Posted in Copyright, Creative Commons/Open Licenses, Digital Copyright Wars on April 15th, 2010

                    Lawrence Lessig has published "Getting Our Values around Copyright Right" in the latest issue of EDUCAUSE Review.

                    Here's an excerpt:

                    The existing system of copyright cannot work in the digital age. Either we will force our kids to stop creating, or they will force on us a revolution. Both options, in my view, are not acceptable. There is a growing copyright abolitionist movement—people who believe that copyright was a good idea for a time long gone and that we need to eliminate it and move on in a world where there is no copyright. I am against abolitionism. I believe copyright is an essential part of the cultural industries and will be essential in the digital age—even though I also believe it needs to be radically changed in all sorts of important ways and doesn't apply the same in science and in education. Copyright is essential to a diverse and rich (in all senses of that word) culture.

                    Be Sociable, Share!

                      "Five Dozen Doctoral Students Chose Bits and Bytes over Ink and Paper"

                      Posted in Creative Commons/Open Licenses, Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) on January 21st, 2010

                      In "Five Dozen Doctoral Students Chose Bits and Bytes over Ink and Paper," Kathleen J. Sullivan discusses Stanford University's ETD program.

                      Here's an excerpt:

                      Most of the Stanford graduate students who uploaded their dissertations—47 out of 60—chose to display their dissertations in their entirety.

                      Most of the students—52 out of 60—selected the "attribution non-commercial" license from Creative Commons. . . .

                      More than half of the doctoral students—36 out of 60—chose to release their dissertation immediately. Ten of them chose to delay the release for six months; nine chose a one-year embargo; five chose a two-year delay.

                      Be Sociable, Share!

                        Defining "Noncommercial": A Study of How the Online Population Understands "Noncommercial Use"

                        Posted in Copyright, Creative Commons/Open Licenses on September 15th, 2009

                        The Creative Commons has released Defining "Noncommercial": A Study of How the Online Population Understands "Noncommercial Use".

                        Here's an excerpt:

                        In 2008-09, Creative Commons commissioned a study from a professional market research firm to explore understandings of the terms"commercial us" and "noncommercial use" among Internet users when used in the context of content found online.

                        The empirical findings suggest that creators and users approach the question of noncommercial use similarly and that overall, online U.S. creators and users are more alike than different in their understanding of noncommercial use. Both creators and users generally consider uses that earn users money or involve online advertising to be commercial, while uses by organizations, by individuals, or for charitable purposes are less commercial but not decidedly noncommercial. Similarly, uses by for-profit companies are typically considered more commercial. Perceptions of the many use cases studied suggest that with the exception of uses that earn users money or involve advertising—at least until specific case scenarios are presented that disrupt those generalized views of commerciality—there is more uncertainty than clarity around whether specific uses of online content are commercial or noncommercial.

                        Uses that are more difficult to classify as either commercial or noncommercial also show greater (and often statistically significant) differences between creators and users. As a general rule, creators consider the uses studied to be more noncommercial (less commercial) than users. For example, uses by a not-for-profit organization are generally thought less commercial than uses by a for-profit organization, and even less so by creators than users. The one exception to this pattern is in relation to uses by individuals that are personal or private in nature. Here, it is users (not creators) who believe such uses are less commercial.

                        The most notable differences among subgroups within each sample of creators and users are between creators who make money from their works, and those who do not, and between users who make money from their uses of others' works, and those who do not. In both cases, those who make money generally rate the uses studied less commercial than those who do not make money. The one exception is, again, with respect to personal or private uses by individuals: users who make money consider these uses more commercial than those who do not make money.

                        Be Sociable, Share!

                          Page 3 of 812345...Last »

                          DigitalKoans

                          DigitalKoans

                          Digital Scholarship

                          Copyright © 2005-2015 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

                          Creative Commons License
                          This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license.