Downloaded 13 times
Uploaded byccAustralia
Creative Commons + GLAM
The document discusses the system of Creative Commons (CC) licenses that allows copyright holders to grant permissions for cultural works and data, facilitating public access and reuse. It highlights examples of various institutions like the Rijksmuseum and Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt that have benefitted from open access to their collections, encouraging community engagement and collaboration. The implementation of open collections is shown to enhance institutional reach, foster goodwill, and promote innovative funding models.
Law◦
More Related Content
Creative Commons + GLAM
- 1.
- 3. A simple, standardized, legallyrobust way to grant © permissions to cultural works and data
- 4. Enable ©holders to grant copy and reuse permissions to the public 6 licenses: Some grant commercial uses Some grant derivative uses All require attribution CC Licenses
- 5. Attribution ShareAlike NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4 Conditions
- 6.
- 7. CC Zero = Iwant to waive all of MY rights to a work. (legally operable)
- 9. PD Mark = Forworks already in the public domain. (legally operable)
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 16. CC licensesare robust, built on © law Clarity and specificity regarding use Data embedded w/assets; enables browse/search filters Minimizes overhead for individual transactions Clear way to share PD collections
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
- 23. Move toopen aligned w/greater sales 2010: No images available 2011: First set available via CC BY 2012: CC0; launched Rijksstudio 2013: Released all resolutions under CC0 Rijksmuseum
- 24. Source: Democratising theRijksmuseum by Joris Pekel
- 25. Promoted museumbeyond staff capabilities Curried goodwill w/public, creative industries, funders Would they do it again? “Yes, but a lot faster.” – Museum staff Rijksmuseum
- 26.
- 27. NYPL –1 million records Europeana – 30 million records Harvard Library – 12 million records Digital Public Library of America – 8 million records Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt – 75% of its collection CC0 Metadata Records
- 28. 75% ofdocumented collection data available for download via CC0 Collection data is “the raw material on which interpretations through exhibitions, public programs, and experiences are built.” Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt Museum
- 29.
- 30. “The releaseof such data into the public domain brings closer a future in which cross-institutional discovery is the norm.” Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt Museum
- 31. Engaging Users +Community
- 32. Invites usersto tag collection with their photos from Flickr, Instagram Users can help identify errors and submit corrections to collection data Encourages users to cite objects in Wikipedia Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt Museum
- 33.
- 34. Result: Wikipedia islargest source of traffic from other websites – more than FB, Twitter, Tumblr, etc. Source: http://www.cooperhewitt.org/2013/02/25/the-wikipedians-are-coming-and-weve-opened-the- doors/
- 35.
- 36.
- 37. Promotional &educational tool Increases reach + impact of museum Good will w/public, creative industries Enable unexpected, creative & delightful results Lead to refocusing of resources, new funding + revenue models
- 38. More information WarwickCathro. 2007 .“Federated discovery opportunities for Australia’s collecting institutions” https://www.nla.gov.au/openpublish/index.php/nlasp/article/viewFile/10 35/1303 Mansfield, T., Winter, C., Griffith, C., Dockerty, A., Brown, T. 2014. “An Innovation Study: Challenges and Opportunities for Australia’s Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums”. http://museumsaustralia.org.au/userfiles/file/GLAM_Innovation_Study_S eptember2014-Report_Final_accessible.pdf Rijksmuseum case study: Sharing free, high quality images without restrictions makes good things happen http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/43381 National Libraries and a Museum open up their data using CC0 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/31853 Australian Government Open Access Framework (AusGOAL) http://www.ausgoal.gov.au
- 39. Except where otherwisenoted: CC BY creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Acknowledgement & Attribution “Creative Commons & Digital Collections “ by Nerida Quatermass is is a derivative of ”Creative Commons and cultural heritage" by Jane Park.
Editor's Notes
- #2 This presentation will introduce you to the Creative Commons organisation; the licences; and the way in which application of those licences has facilitated some inspirational examples of sharing in the GLAM sector. This presentation is based on an earlier CC work by Jane Park, who I thank and acknowledge- Jan e and her presentation are attributed at the end of this presentation.
- #3 Creative Commons is a global nonprofit organization with staff and affiliates across the world. CCs mission is to make it easy for individuals and institutions to access, build on, and help grow the public commons of cultural, educational, and scientific works – that has existed for thousands of years. Locally, the CCau affiliate is made up of QUT- GLAM sector AusGOAL- Government National Copyright Unit- education
- #4 CC filled the gap between “all rights reserved” and the public domain. Before CC, a creator could either reserve all rights or give them all way. With CC, a creator can now maintain their copyright, while granting certain reuse permissions to the public. To facilitate safekeeping and widespread growth of the commons, CC developed a simple, standardized and legally robust set of tools that allows institutions and individuals to grant © permissions to their works. Before CC, there was no standardized way to do this.
- #5 CC provides six copyright licenses, free of charge, for any entity to use. With all the licences the owner retains copyright, and all of our licenses require attribution to the copyright owner. But some of these licences grant commercial uses while others reserve commercial uses; some grant derivative uses while others reserve the right to remix, translate or build upon the material.
- #6 This is achieved through four conditions: Attribution, ShareAlike, Noncommercial, and No derivatives. All licenses contain the basic element of Attribution, on top of which you can choose to apply one or more of the additional three conditions. For example: - If you want to prohibit commercial uses, you would add the non-commercial condition - If you want to require that downstream users also license their adaptation of your work under the same conditions, you would add the sharealike condition - If you want your work to be redistributed “as-is” or verbatim, you would add the no derivatives condition
- #7 These four license elements can be combined in six ways, resulting in Six CC licenses. They are featured here on a spectrum of the most open or permissive license, which is CC Attribution, to the most restrictive license, which is CC Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives. Or from a re-use point of view least restrictive to most restrictive. In addition to the licenses, CC offers two public domain tools. CC0, the public domain dedication tool, The PD Mark which will figure in the examples. The “free cultural Works seal” is applied to the Creative Commons licences that qualify as Free Culture Licenses according to the “Definition of Free Cultural” which was coined in the context of Wikimedia development. Public domain is also an acceptable copyright status for free cultural works according to the Definition. This seal and approval signals an important delineation between less and more restrictive licenses, one that creators and users of content should be aware of some important projects accept only freely (as defined) licensed or public domain content, in particular Wikipedia and Wikimedia sites, which use the Definition of Free Cultural Works in their licensing guidelines …………………………………………………………………………………………. A free cultural work must not restrict any particular kind of use- Freedom to use the work itself Freedom to use the information in the work for any purpose Freedom to share copies of the work for any purpose Freedom to make and share remixes and other derivatives for any purpose “Cultural works” is simply the term chosen by Freedom Defined to distinguish non-software works that should be under a free content license rather than a free software license. https://creativecommons.org/freeworks
- #8 CC ZERO = you waiving all of YOUR rights so that you have zero rights left in a work, effectively dedicating it to the public domain. In this sense, CC0 is often called the public domain dedication tool.
- #9 CC0 has a legal code beneath it, because it’s a tool for creators to use to relinquish their rights to a work, and you need a legal mechanism to do that.
- #10 The Public Domain Mark is for marking works that are already in the public domain. It is mainly used by institutions to mark materials known to be out of copyright. The PD mark is a really useful service for the GLAM sector to provide to our audience. We’re often reluctant to explicitly say that a work is in the public domain, leaving it up to the user to determine. This is hard for users to determine and nobody will know provenance better than the curators. I’ll detail the Rijksmuseum as an illustration. Also Wikimedia Commons uses the PD mark -Flickr- stops short of the PD mark- “no known copyright restriction”-https://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/ ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain. Other countries are not bound to that 1923 date, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain The ACC information sheet “Duration of copyright” includes a very useful “public domain” table”.
- #11 This is what the deed for the public domain mark looks like. The language states: “this work has been identified as being free of known copyright restrictions…” There is no link to a further legal code beneath this summary, because there is none. It’s just a label to make it easier for other people to see that the work is in the public domain.
- #12 All of the legal tools are designed with the web in mind. The licenses have a 3 layer design, which gives three ways to communicate the license: one for legal interpretation, one for plain English, and one for machines. So just a quick snapshot of each –
- #13 This is the legal code - written by and for lawyers. It’s the actual license, the document that lawyers drafted so that the license works like it’s supposed to according to domestic and international copyright laws.
- #14 This is the “human readable” summary of the license, which sums up the most important terms and conditions of the license in non-technical language. One way to think of it is as the user-friendly interface to the actual license.
- #15 This is the machine-readable metadata. When you mint a licence for online use all you have to do is copy and paste the resulting html it into you your webpage editor. The HTML code summarizes the license and associated metadata (such as author and date) into a format that software, search engines, and other kinds of technology can understand.
- #16 The licences are globally operable. Earlier versions of the licences which included jurisdiction specific versions e.g. 3.0 Australia have been updated in V4.0 licences which are regarded as “international” without requiring local versions ie. “porting”. …………………………………………………………………………. License Versioning history- https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions Retired tools- http://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses (e.g. sampling) SA Compatible Process- both earlier SA versions and also non- CC licences e.g. Free Art/ GPL https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility
- #18 For the 2014 State Of The Commons report Google gave us data regarding CC licensed works on the web. The conservative estimate today is that 882 million works exist under CC licenses or CC0. It’s expected that the number will exceed 1 Billion in 2015. These works are images, videos, songs, podcasts, government works, educational materials, scientific data, and more.
- #19 There is a clear trend toward open-ness more creators are allowing adaptations and commercial use than before Over half are free culture works
- #20 Many of these are works that have been released by cultural heritage institutions. Creating digital collections and facilitating access and re-use through open licensing creates a new dimension to engagement with users and community. CC is the optimal choice for many museums when it comes to sharing their digital collections.
- #21 Sharing Digital Collections – whether those collections are made up of Images, Audio, Video – or a mixture of all three Sharing Collection Records – catalog data about collections engaging their communities of users, going above and beyond simply sharing their digital collections. They are actually encouraging certain reuses and participation around their collections. For information read the 2014 Innovation Study: Challenges and Opportunities for Australia's Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums report referenced at the end of the presentation In the next slides I am going to share some Creative Commons case studies from the GLAM world to show how CC is an enabler in making these aspirations possible.
- #22 This is a much cited example because of its international impact on museum sharing practices… The Rijskmuseum is the Dutch National Museum in The Netherlands, founded 1800, with a focus on art and history. It contains many of the original artworks of European masters such as Rembrandt and Vermeer, in addition to high resolution images of these and other original artworks The journey to open began when the physical collection was closed because of renovation. The museum decided to release 150,000 high res images of its public domain collection to the public using CC0. They abided by the principle of unrestricted access to the digital public domain. As in the U.S., faithful digital reproductions of PD works are considered PD in Europe.* Their reasons for using CC were numerous. The museum really saw the release of images as a: Promotional tool to extend the museum’s reach beyond its own website to other platforms, such as: Wikipedia and educational sites (artstor), Educate public about its collection via true color images, accurate metadata They wanted the public to engage with more than what they had on display, which even when the museum was open at full capacity was only ever 8,000 objects out of its 1 million (And lastly, at this time) many Unofficial digital representations of the R’s works were floating around on the web, which people confused with the R’s own collection. For example: People didn’t believe that the R possessed the originals, or they believed that the poor digital versions were R’s. Museum staff decided that they would rather people use their official high quality images than bad reproductions which would be associated with the museum. ……………………………………………………………… *In Australia this issue has yet to be considered. At its heart is the question as to what constitutes originality for the purpose of copyright. See http://www.artslaw.com.au/articles/entry/photo-reproduction-of-artworks/
- #23 So each image’s rights info links to the CC0 deed, which explains that the R dedicates the image to the public domain by waiving any rights it may have, since it doesn’t claim copyright on images of its PD collection. Process (by which the R released its PD collection is well documented..) Decision was not made overnight… it took many small steps and internal/external conversations among staff and organizations, including Creative Commons, which was involved from the beginning..to result in this release of images Digital collection dept took on a pioneering role: added separate rights tab to their collection mgmt system; marked the beginning of a shift in strategy
- #24 Many issues were considered, including Cost of digitization, preservation, storing, cataloging And the loss of a Potential source of income – licensing fees of high res images esp for merchandizing, which a lot of museums do. So here’s a rough timeline of their process. Interestingly, their move to release their images resulted in greater sales of the images. In 2010, they had no images available for free, this was before the museum’s OA policy. Revenue was actually the least amount than the following years once OA policy was put into place 2011: Initial hybrid approach to revenue stream: 2 sized images (4500px) for free, 40 euro for 200MB masters; Revenue more than in 2010 2012: they moved to CC0 for the 4500px images, and they saw a substantial increase in sales, 181,000 euro – but still only .2% of museum’s total revenue. This was more than enough to cover the total cost of employees for that year (100k euro) Found that admin cost of process image requests was higher for individual requests and less for entities that requested bulk access to a collection 2013: despite steady increase in revenue they decided to do away with the tiered offerings and release all files of all resolutions under CC0, and instead refocus their resources and efforts to generate project funding from art foundations that would digitize entire collections They felt Admin costs were much lower for bulk digitization; image sales were a relatively small percentage of the museum’s overall revenue; so did away with it in favor of currying good will with the public and using CC as promotional and educational tool
- #25 So this is a graph showing the increase in revenue since they started releasing images first under CC BY, and then CC0 in 2012. ……………………………………………… Source: Democratising the Rijksmuseum http://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Publications/Democratising%20the%20Rijksmuseum.pdf
- #26 So the Results of releasing 150,000 images into the public domain increased the museum’s exposure, esp during a time when much of the physical museum was closed. It definitely promoted the museum well beyond existing staff capabilities and the reach of the museum was international, not just local as it might have been during this time. It curried a lot of good will with the public but also New audiences with developers, designers, and their social networks. The R was featured in several “museum of the future” case studies, they were invited to conference panels, and were covered by international media (nytimes) even while closed (2003-2013) And perhaps importantly for the museum staff themselves, it Resulted in restrategizing around funding – to run more cost-effective programs And when asked whether they Would they do it again? Staff were very much in the affirmative, that they would do it even faster had they known the results. Move from CC BY to PD aligned to museum goals/principle and was practical Believed in PD access to PD works nobody will know provenance better than them. Impossible and undesirable for museum staff to police attributions every time an image is used
- #27 Collections of data are not always made available by institutions, and even when data is, it’s not always clear to the end user that they are free to use that data.
- #28 Here are some examples of initiatives which have made catalogs or collection records open in bulk, and made it very clear that these records are in the public domain by using the CC0 dedication. The Cooper Hewitt is the example I’m going to use to illustrate this...
- #29 The Cooper-Hewitt is an amazing design museum. They recognized that its collection data should be free so they made it available on the GitHub source repository via CC0. Museum staff posted a great blog about why they think releasing metadata is important, they said It’s important to remember that “collection metadata is not the collection itself” but rather that it’s a tool for discovery Cooper Hewitt calls collection data the raw material…
- #30 This is a great graphic for illustrating that concept. You can see the collection database at the very bottom, and then see how programming interfaces can be built on top of that, and on top of that websites and applications and data visualizations.
- #31 Another quote from the museum.. Cooper Hewitt chose GitHub b/c it didn’t have its own repository. Over the years many have used it for versioning all kinds of projects, and it is especially ideal for making available datasets thanks to the ability track changes and versions over time.
- #32 The following example illustrates creative re-use through crowd sourcing to develop collections
- #33 So the Cooper Hewitt not only releases its dataset to the public- it also invites users to add additional metadata by tagging the collection with their own photos from flickr, instagram and other social networks. identify errors in the collection data and to submit changes – a way to crowdsource corrections. CH also makes it easy for users to cite their collection objects in Wikipedia articles, which in turn increases exposure to the museum.
- #34 This is how- On pretty much every object page they encourage users to participate in these ways.
- #35 * they posted a blog about the results of encouraging Wikipedia use within the community. They found that Wikipedia was the largest source of traffic from external websites to the hewitt’s own website, more than FB, Twitter, Tumblr or any other social media platform.
- #36 Open collections are scaffolded by legislation, policy and procedures. The AusGOAL (Australian Governments Open Access & licensing) framework is an enabler for implementing open licensing of digital collections…AusGOAL is a CC Australia affiliate member This short video illustrates the application of the AusGOAL framework- this is about History SA …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
- #37 So you can see by now that sharing digital collections and collection records naturally leads to engaging and growing users, in addition to bringing wider exposure for collections. A variety of benefits result for an institution when it opens up its collections in even the smallest ways, as evidenced by the move from more restrictive to more open by many institutions over time.
- #38 In summary, these are the benefits of open licensed digital collections to consider…
- #39 Handout- These are useful extended reading and relevant assistance