Nyhetsinnsamler

CC’s 4.0 license suite now in Greek

Creativecommons.org -

Guest post by Ioanna Tzagaraki from the University of Cyprus.

All six of the Creative Commons licenses v4.0 are now available in Greek as a result of the joint and volunteer effort of the University of Cyprus, the Pedagogical Institute of Cyprus, and the legal firm Ioannides Demetriou LLC. The multi-year process began when the first draft translation of the Creative Commons license into Greek was submitted to CC HQ in 2016.

Working under the supervision of Dr. Eleni Tatiana Synodinou, Associate Professor of the Dept. of Law at the University of Cyprus, the Greek Creative Commons licenses were drafted by volunteer law students of the University of Cyprus:

  • Alexander Gioumouxouzis, LL.B University of Cyprus
  • Constantina Markou, LL.B. University of Cyprus
  • Eleni Koumidou, Legal Consultant, LL.M Queen Mary University of London – Banking and Finance Law
  • Georgina Athanasiou, Attorney at Law, LL.B. University of Cyprus
  • Ioanna Georgiou, Attorney at Law, LL.B. University of Cyprus, European Master’s Degree on Human Rights and Democratisation, European InterUniversity Center
  • Ioanna Tzagkaraki, LL.B. University of Cyprus, Head of the Translation Working Group
  • Maria Spurou, Attorney at Law – Legal Consultant, LL.B. University of Cyprus.

The finalization of the Creative Commons licenses in Greek was succeeded in cooperation with CC Greece – EELLAK, represented by Alexandros Nousias.

With the Greek translation now published, Creative Commons Cyprus will continue communicating the Creative Commons licenses to local creators, users, and cultural institutions. To this end, the University of Cyprus, in coordination with the Pedagogical Institute of Cyprus, has already organized a series of conferences, seminars, and workshops in order to reinforce the message of “some rights reserved” and open access in Cyprus.

The post CC’s 4.0 license suite now in Greek appeared first on Creative Commons.

PLOS Authors Say “Yes” to Preprints

Plos -

We’ve surpassed 1,300 preprint posts to bioRxiv!

This is an incredible milestone for us and for all of our authors who chose to opt-in to our preprint service since we announced our partnership with Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s bioRxiv six months ago. We wanted to bring an easy preprint-posting option directly to the submission process for our authors and are thoroughly excited with the results we’ve seen so far.

The road to preprints

As we began this journey, about 4% of our authors reported that they had posted their submission to a preprint server. While this base remains consistent, our preprint-posting service has built upon it to offer authors more choices. In the past six months we’ve seen an additional 14% opt-in to have PLOS post a preprint on their behalf, indicating that 18% of our authors want to use preprints to share their research.

Of course, the opt-in rate varies by discipline. On PLOS Computational Biology 46% of our authors choose to make a preprint of their manuscript available, with half of those posting before submission and the other half requesting PLOS post to bioRxiv on their behalf. In biology in general, the adoption is high. PLOS Biology, which joined the service later, is already showing a promising trend towards preprints by 39% of our authors (23% of which elect to have PLOS post on their behalf).

Every opt-in we get is screened by editorial staff before posting to ensure the article fits bioRxiv’s scope and that no sensitive information is accidentally shared. We have also taken a conservative approach and avoided posting research that could have an impact on human health before the claims have been peer reviewed, which is why we do not yet offer to post preprints for PLOS Medicine authors. We’re working in partnership with bioRxiv to refine the posting criteria as we learn more about the needs for early sharing in different communities.

Overall, the openness to new research outputs we’ve seen among our community of authors is inspiring and we hope to see preprint adoption grow even more over the coming year.  

 

Author choice

We like preprints because they put your research first. We’re making it easier for you to choose preprints as a way to rapidly disseminate your research results, establish priority, accumulate citations for your work, and receive input from your community that may help shape the future of your research.

That said, preprints aren’t for everyone or for every paper which is why authors choose when and how their work becomes available. We’re also listening to our community’s feedback to make our service as inclusive as possible.

Many of our authors still prefer to wait for peer review before making their results public. However, about a fifth of the authors who responded to a survey about why they had opted out said they are unfamiliar with preprints. We’re hoping to change that by offering everything you need to know at plos.org/preprints. More information about preprints is available on bioRxiv along with their posting guidelines. ASAPbio also offers very useful guidance for preprints, including preprint policy at other journals which may help clarify any concerns you have about submitting a manuscript after you’ve posted a preprint.

Where we go from here

We’ll continue learning from our community and sharing more information that helps you make the right decision for your paper. We’re also encouraging other preprint options to authors in areas that don’t fall under bioRxiv’s scope. Both PLOS Genetics and PLOS ONE have dedicated Preprint Editors to solicit submissions from various preprint servers and we’re looking at more opportunities.

If you’re thinking of posting a preprint for the first time, take advantage of this checklist to get started and review all the benefits preprints could have for your work.

 

Join us for A Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain

Creativecommons.org -

On January 1, 2019 in the United States, tens of thousands of new works will join iconic pieces such as Katsushika Hokusai’s Under the Wave off Kanagawa as a part of the public domain.

Save the date! Please join us on January 25, 2019 for a grand day of celebrating the public domain.

Co-hosted by Creative Commons and the Internet Archive, this celebration will feature a keynote address by Lawrence Lessig, lightning talks, demos, multimedia displays and more to mark the “re-opening” of the public domain in the United States. The event will take place at the Internet Archive in San Francisco, and is free and open to the public.

RSVP now before the tickets run out.

The public domain is our shared cultural heritage, a near limitless trove of creativity  that’s been reused, remixed, and reimagined over centuries to create new works of art and science. The public domain forms the building blocks of culture because these works are not restricted by copyright law. Generally, works come into the public domain when their copyright term expires. But U.S. copyright law has greatly expanded over time, so that now many works don’t enter the public domain for a hundred years or more. Ever since the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act, no new works have entered the public domain (well, none due to copyright expiration). But for the first time this January, hundreds of books, films, visual art, sheet music, and plays published in 1923 will be free of intellectual property restrictions, and anyone can use them for any purpose at all.

Join creative, legal, library, advocacy communities to celebrate the public domain growing again for the first time in decades, and come network with an amazing lineup of people and organizations who will help us welcome this new class of public domain works.  Presenters include Larry Lessig, academic, political activist, and founder of Creative Commons, Corynne McSherry, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Cory Doctorow, science fiction author and co-editor of Boing Boing, Pam Samuelson, copyright scholar, Ryan Merkley, CEO of Creative Commons, Jamie Boyle, the man who literally wrote the book on the public domain, and many others.

In the evening, the celebration continues as we transition to Yerba Buena Center for the Arts for the World Premiere of Paul D. Miller, aka DJ Spooky’s Quantopia: The Evolution of the Internet,

a live concert synthesizing data and art, both original and public domain materials, in tribute to the depth and high stakes of free speech and creative expression involved in our daily use of media. Attendees of our Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain event can get discounted tickets here. If you can’t make the daytime event, separate tickets for Quantopia are available here.

The post Join us for A Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain appeared first on Creative Commons.

Welcome Kriti Godey, CC’s new Director of Engineering

Creativecommons.org -

I’m very excited to announce a new addition to the Creative Commons team. Please join me in welcoming Kriti Godey, who will be taking on the role of CC’s Director of Engineering.

Kriti joins our staff after four years in engineering leadership roles at Ridecell and a CTO role at CasaHop. We asked Kriti if she’d be up for writing a brief bio for the CC site. It’s pretty terrific, so I’ll share it here:

==

Kriti Godey (credit: Joseph Spiros, CC BY-ND)

Kriti shipped her first website when she was ten years old and has been coding ever since. Prior to joining CC, she focused on leading happy and productive distributed engineering teams at startups, and has enjoyed architecting and building both consumer-facing and enterprise software.

She is a firm believer in the value of remix culture and free software and is excited to expand its reach and accessibility through her work at CC.

Kriti grew up in southern India and moved to the U.S. to attend Oberlin College, where she majored in computer science and mathematics. She is now a proud American citizen, and lives in Oberlin with her husband and 13 overflowing bookcases.

==

I also want to thank the departing Paola Villarreal for her work as CC’s first Director of Product Engineering. It’s been my great pleasure to work with her, and I’m incredibly proud of all she has done in the position, and grateful for the team she’s helped build. CC will miss you, Paola, and we wish you great success in your new role.

The post Welcome Kriti Godey, CC’s new Director of Engineering appeared first on Creative Commons.

CC Certificate Changes and Improvements for 2019

Creativecommons.org -

Background: The CC Certificate provides an-in depth study of Creative Commons licenses and open practices, developing participants’ open licensing proficiency and understanding of the broader context for open advocacy. The course content targets copyright law, CC legal tools, values and recommended practices of working in a global commons. The CC Certificate is a 10-week online course for educators and academic librarians.

2018 was a big year for the Creative Commons Certificate program! We beta-tested the first two CC Certificate courses for educators and academic librarians, updated our course content, licensed it CC BY, and shared it with the world; we launched nine official courses for 225 participants, and have since iterated on almost every aspect of the Certificate based on feedback from the global community. As we approach 2019, we are taking stock of 2018’s learnings and now proudly announce updates for the new year.

Our approach to the CC Certificate is one of iteration based on community needs. Each year, we will evaluate what works and what can be improved, based on participant, instructor, and broader community feedback. Thanks to your input and our own lessons learned in 2018, we are making the following changes and improvements:

1) We’re updating our pricing. Why? First, because this program has to be sustainable – our new price will ensure we cover 100% of CC’s cost of delivery, including paying all community instructors who teach, technology and content maintenance, and program expansion and updates, including reaching new audiences and new languages. CC is a non-profit, and we want this program to thrive.

Second, from our initial launch, we knew that there would be some who couldn’t afford to pay full price for the program. As promised, we are creating a scholarship program so the Certificate can be more inclusive of colleagues with less ability to pay, especially CC’s vibrant communities in the Global South. Our new price allows us to build and replenish an annual scholarship fund, offering subsidized CC Certificates to as many participants as possible. Those who pay full price for the course subsidize those who are less able to do so. We will offer at least 15 scholarships in 2019, and hope to provide more as the program grows.

In 2019 and in years to come we will continue to make the CC Certificate both self-sufficient and financially accessible for our global audience.

2) There is more community demand for the Certificate training than CC can currently accommodate. To address this, we have built and will beta-test a CC Certificate Facilitator Training starting in January 2019. Ensuring there are more well-trained and knowledgeable facilitators will allow us offer more CC Certificate courses in the future.

3) While the Certificate program has hosted participants from every global region, we have drawn more participation from the U.S. and Canada. Because the Certificate program is global, we will continue to engage a more global, diverse community by:

  • Developing a scholarship program to support community members’ enrollment, particularly community members from the Global South (as mentioned above).
  • Supporting translations of Certificate content. Community members have already volunteered to translate the Certificate in multiple languages, from Bahasa to Italian to Arabic. We will support translations in a responsible way, ensuring languages are aligned with course developments and annual updates.
  • Developing more local case studies about copyright law and open licensing in different countries. Thanks to participants’ help, we have several case studies drafted.
  • Launching in-person Certificate trainings, or “bootcamps” specialized for select groups that need CC Certification in a short time-frame.
  • Assisting participants with new ways to learn and share with each other, since there is not one platform that works for everyone. For example, we learned a participant in China could only access our epub OER content (available here) rather than content on our main learning platform, Canvas. While we explore new avenues for learning and collaboration, we celebrate the ways participants are already doing this: hosting workshops and conference sessions, developing OER courses, and creating informational flyers for their institutions.
  • Revising the CC Certificate must balance a global, inclusive, and iterative approach with focused, specialized expertise. While we continue to gather participant recommendations and feedback from the global community, we will also launch a CC Certificate Advisory Board of legal and instructional design experts. The Advisory Board will provide input for annual content updates and engage with participants in online course webinars throughout the year.

We are proud of the Certificate we’ve built together so far. We accept anyone interested in taking the Certificate course; our costs are as low as possible, while still offering a scholarship program and maintaining quality content and services; and the course is supporting learners beyond the certification program — several other programs are freely remixing portions of our CC BY licensed Certificate OER for their own audiences. We couldn’t have done it without the contributions of dozens of experts, CC community leaders, and over 100 beta testers from all over the world. Thank you.

We will continue offering the CC Certificate with the greatest flexibility, openness and affordability we can. As such, it is important to us to keep improving the CC Certificate course with community input.

Opportunities for your engagement

In addition to the developments mentioned above, we will explore other improvements to the program in 2019 — making the CC Certificate more inclusive and globally accessible, while ensuring self-sustainability. Have ideas for us?

  • Share your ideas with #cccert on Twitter.
  • Continue to make notes and recommendations via Hypothes.is.
  • Use our CC BY licensed, downloadable and editable CC Certificate content, then let us know what is most useful to you.
  • Sign up to take a Certificate course and engage with the growing Certificate community of participants, alumni, mentors, facilitators, and content experts. Registration for courses in 2019 is open here.
  • Join us for an online Certificate overview and brainstorm session, exploring how to better deliver the Certificate and support open communities: 18:00 EST/ 23:00 UTC on https://www.uberconference.com/creativecommons. If you cannot join, please share questions in advance and we will share a recording. We look forward to working with you!

The post CC Certificate Changes and Improvements for 2019 appeared first on Creative Commons.

CC Summit registration is now open!

Creativecommons.org -

Great news! We’re excited to announce that registration for the 2019 Creative Commons Global Summit is now open.

The Creative Commons Global Summit will take place in Lisbon, Portugal, 9-11 May 2019.

Join us for three days of dynamic programming at Museu do Oriente, with a special keynote evening event held at the historic Cineteatro Capitolio.

We’ve grown the CC Global Summit every year as hundreds of leading activists, advocates, librarians, educators, lawyers, technologists, and more have joined us for discussion and debate, workshops and planning, talks and community building. Whether you’re new to the community or a long-time contributor, the CC Global Summit is a can’t-miss event for anyone interested in the global movement for the commons.

Your Participant Pass includes: 

  • Access to all conference programming including workshops, talks, and keynotes (full schedule to be announced in early 2019)
  • Breakfast, lunch, and snacks served onsite every day
  • Evening events showcasing local Lisbon artists

Please be sure to read the event’s Code of Conduct. All attendees, speakers, sponsors, and volunteers at our conference are expected to cooperate to help ensure a safe environment for everyone.

Submit a proposal for the CC Global Summit program!

As always, the summit’s programming is built out of ideas from you. Are you an activist, artist, educator, creator, partner, community member, lawyer, journalist, or CC enthusiast? Submit a proposal for a summit session. We’re accepting proposals through December 10, 2018.

A huge thanks to the CC Portugal team for their ongoing support in co-hosting the event. We’re excited to see you in Lisbon in May!

Photo in graphic by Aurélien Maillet (aka sharkgraphic), used under CC0. Thanks, Aurélien!

The post CC Summit registration is now open! appeared first on Creative Commons.

Attention Earth Sciences: PLOS ONE wants YOUR Preprint

Plos -

Dedicated team of Editorial Board Members are now actively seeking manuscripts in the Earth Sciences from preprint servers EarthArXiv and ESSoar.

Preprint servers offer a myriad of benefits to authors who are excited to share their work with the community as soon as possible, so we’ve offered our authors the ease of automatically posting their life science submissions on bioRxiv. But PLOS ONE is a community of many different voices and we want to help promote preprints in all disciplines. This includes providing authors with more reasons to post a preprint – on top of the advantages that posting a preprint already offer such as faster dissemination and allowing for input from the whole community. We’re therefore delighted to announce the introduction of a new program to invite submissions of posted preprint manuscripts specifically in the Earth and Space sciences. Our aim is to support authors posting their papers with a fast and efficient peer review process and journal publication of their work.

Introducing PLOS ONE Preprint Editors

Going forward, we’ve tasked a small group of PLOS ONE Editorial Board members with reviewing and inviting preprint submissions from EarthArXiv and ESSOAr that they feel would be a good fit for the journal. This group will be led by Section Editors Guy Schumann (Bristol University, UK) and Juan Añel (University of Vigo, Spain) along with dedicated Preprint Editors, Xialoe Sun (Stockholm University, Sweden) and Julien Bouchez (Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, France).

As part of this program, submissions invited through preprint servers will receive special attention from the staff editors which may include extra promotion on social media. Climate change papers may also be recommended to the “Responding to Climate Change” Channel, of which Juan Añel is also an editor.

“As a preprint editor one can have a substantial positive impact and contribute a potentially very high added-value to the scientific community of a particular research field.”

  • Guy Schumann, Section Editor PLOS ONE

We are truly excited to place this program in the hands of these individuals who’ve proven their dedication to their communities and eagerness to advance scholarly outputs for scientific communication in the Earth and Space sciences.

Why we choose preprints

Recruiting research from preprint servers is nothing new in academic publishing, other journals like PLOS Genetics and eLife already do so. Preprints represent huge opportunities for improvement on slow publication times. When it comes to critical issues like climate change and others, getting results out sooner can have a dramatic impact on our ability to advance science and foster early collaboration and debate on new research results.

“For me, a main advantage of preprints is that they can help to advance science faster, with public exposure of what is going on, what is cutting-edge”

  • Juan Añel, Section Editor PLOS ONE

I’ve never posted a preprint before, should I?

Yes! The benefits are endless. Preprints are an easy way to generate exposure for your research before you even decide where to submit (ESSOAr also accepts uploads of conference posters and other materials). When you post a preprint, you have immediate and unlimited reach allowing you stake the first claim on your methods and results, and even get early feedback from your community. Sounds great, right? Preprints are also beneficial for early career researchers who need discoverable, citable content that speaks to their academic contributions and can help advance their careers.

“Particularly for young scientists, who are the major driving force for science today and need a… good publication record to look for their next job, preprints would be a very [good] choice for them to publicize their findings in a timely way and “decorate” their CV”.

  • Xiaole Sun, Preprint Editor PLOS ONE

We encourage you to join us in our support of preprints, not just in the earth sciences but across all disciplines. Preprints are already one of the fastest growing research outputs, and we can all do our part to making it an even more successful outlet for new communities that are just beginning to explore its potential.

 

EU’s proposed link tax would [still] harm Creative Commons licensors

Creativecommons.org -

Chains by Christina McCarty, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

In September the European Parliament voted to approve drastic changes to copyright law that would negatively affect creativity, freedom of expression, research, and sharing across the EU. Now the Parliament and Council (representing the Member State governments) are engaged in closed-door negotiations, and their task over the coming months is to come up with a reconciled version of the directive text, which will again be voted on in the European Parliament next year.

Article 11: The wrong solution to a real problem

A major provision that will be discussed is Article 11, the new “press publisher’s right” (also known as the link tax). Both the Parliament and Council have already approved versions of this unnecessary and counterproductive “publisher’s right,” which would require news aggregators that wish to index or incorporate links and snippets of journalistic content to first get a license or pay a fee to the publisher for their use online.

The Parliament’s version of Article 11 says Member States must adopt the new right so press publishers “may obtain fair and proportionate remuneration for the digital use of their press publications by information society service providers.”

Article 11 is ill-suited to address the challenges in supporting quality journalism, and it will further decrease competition and innovation in news delivery. Spain and Germany have already experimented with similar versions of this rule, and neither resulted in increased revenues for publishers. Instead, it likely decreased the visibility (and by extension, revenues) of published content—exactly the opposite of what was intended. Just last week a coalition of small- and medium-sized publishers sent a letter to the trilogue negotiators outlining how they will be harmed if Article 11 is adopted.

Collateral damage: those that want to share under CC

Not only is a link tax bad for business, it would undermine the intention of authors who wish to share without additional strings attached, such as creators who want to share works under open licenses. This could be especially harmful to Creative Commons licensors if it means that remuneration must be granted notwithstanding the terms of the CC license. This interpretation is not far-flung. As IGEL wrote last week,

“the Parliament’s proposal makes it clear that press publishers should receive financial compensation from search engine providers in particular when they display links to publishers’ websites. Member States, however, could now come up with the idea that this goal could be achieved most effectively if publishers could not waive their right to remuneration. Only the amount of the remuneration claim would then still be negotiable, but not its assertion.”

As we’ve said before, such a right “directly conflicts with publishers who wish to share freely and openly using Creative Commons licenses. Forcing publishers who use CC to accept additional unwaivable rights to receive payment violates the letter and spirit of Creative Commons licensing and denies publishers the freedom to conduct business and share content as they wish.”

When an author applies a Creative Commons licenses to their work, they grant to the public a worldwide, royalty-free license to use the work under certain terms. The license text specifically states, “To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory licensing scheme.”

For example, the Spanish news site eldiario.es releases all of their content online for free under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. By doing so, they are granting to the public a worldwide, royalty-free license to use the work under certain terms. Other news publishers in Europe using CC licenses that could also find themselves swept up under this new provision include La Stampa, 20 Minutos, and openDemocracy. These outlets have made a conscious decision to share their works for free under Creative Commons licenses without having to jump through additional hoops of charging aggregators or search engines for displaying links and snippets to their stories. If Article 11 would be deemed an unwaivable right, would it prevent these news publishers from using CC altogether since the license would conflict with the legal requirement?   

We firmly believe the author’s right to choose to share, or to seek compensation for all or some uses of their works. At the same time, the EU copyright directive must find a solution that also honors those authors who choose to share with few or no restrictions.

What can be done?

Article 11 should be deleted. Publishers already benefit greatly from the copyrights they have in their content, and don’t need an additional exclusive right to protect or exploit those rights. It’s clear that an additional right for press publishers will not support quality journalism, increase the diversity of media content, or grow the digital single market. Instead, it will negatively affect access to information and the ability for publishers to share using the platforms, technologies, and terms beneficial to them.

For years academics and public interest advocates have advocated for an easier and more effective way to promote the aims of quality journalism and the ability of press publishers to sustain their efforts without a new press publishers right. This approach was presented in the Parliament by former JURI Rapporteur Comodini, and that would rely on a presumption that publishers are the rights holders, thus making it easier for these entities “to conclude licences and to seek application of the measures, procedures and remedies.” The Parliament’s own research even recommended such an approach. This framing, which draws from Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, already provides a robust legal framework for the protection of content without the negative aspects of introducing a new right.

If including some version of Article 11 is unavoidable, the Council version should be prioritised, since it already includes some protections for works under open licenses, or in the public domain. For instance, the previous Council text includes the following provision: “When a work or other subject-matter is incorporated in a press publication on the basis of a non-exclusive licence, the rights […] may not be invoked to prohibit the use by other authorised users [or] works or other subject-matter whose protection has expired.” In addition, the Council text only permits a 1 year term of protection, as opposed to the 5 year term offered by the Parliament version.

So far, the direction of the EU copyright directive reflects a disturbing path toward increasing control of the web to benefit only powerful rights holders at the expense of the open internet, freedom of expression, and the rights of users and the public interest in the digital environment. In the current negotiations, the Parliament and Council should not double down and punish Creative Commons licensors and others who want to share broadly with the world. These authors and creators have made a deliberate choice to use CC legal tools so that others may benefit. Their contributions to the commons should be respected and protected.

Authors:

Timothy Vollmer is Senior Public Policy Manager at Creative Commons. 

Dr. Till Kreutzer is a lawyer,  journalist, and Creative Commons Global Network Council Representative for CC Germany. He leads the Initiative Against An Ancillary Copyright For Press Publishers (“Initiative gegen ein Leistungsschutzrecht”, or IGEL).

The post EU’s proposed link tax would [still] harm Creative Commons licensors appeared first on Creative Commons.

CC Working with Flickr to Protect the Commons

Creativecommons.org -

Flickr is one of the most important platforms to host and share CC licensed works on the web, and over 400 million of the photos there are CC licensed – representing over a quarter of all CC licensed works on the web. When Flickr was acquired by online photography service SmugMug last year, we were excited to see that a family-owned values-driven company had purchased it.

When I visited the SmugMug offices, I met a group of people with a deep passion for photography communities and a love for Flickr. They were also worried about its future after many years of neglect and a lack of a viable business model. They were committed to getting the service back on track — doing all the necessary back-end engineering, fixing things that users hated like Yahoo! login, and protecting and expanding the Commons.

For the first time in a long time, I was optimistic about Flickr and its future. I still am.

Today, Flickr announced that they will be limiting the number of photos in their free accounts to 1,000 images, and offering an extended Pro service for $49.99 a year. Users have 3 months to consider their options. Many users are concerned such a limit on free account capacity might cause millions of CC images to be deleted from the Commons. A lot of people have reached out to us directly and asked what we can do. I’m confident that together we can find solutions, if we assume goodwill and bring our collective creativity to the problem.

Creative Commons is working closely with Flickr and its parent company SmugMug to find ways to protect and preserve the Commons, and ultimately help it grow and thrive. We want to ensure that when users share their works that they are available online in perpetuity and that they have a great experience.

At the same time, I think it’s fair to say that the business models that have powered the web for so long are fundamentally broken. Storage and bandwidth for hundreds of millions (if not billions) of photos is very expensive. We’ve all benefited from Flickr’s services for so long, and I’m hopeful we will find a way forward together.

I’m glad that Flickr hasn’t turned to surveillance capitalism as the business model for its own sustainability plan – but that does mean they’ll have to explore other options. No one wants to see works from the Commons deleted, and we’ll be the first ones to step forward to help if that ever were to happen.

I have confidence in Don and Ben and the SmugMug and Flickr teams: they want to do right for the Commons, and they understand how deeply CC and the photo Commons is integrated into the goodwill that Flickr has retained over all these years. We welcome your ideas on how we can help Flickr support the Commons, and hope we’ll be able to share something with you soon.

The post CC Working with Flickr to Protect the Commons appeared first on Creative Commons.

Towards minimal reporting standards for life scientists

Plos -

A group of journal editors and experts in reproducibility and transparent reporting are putting together a  framework for minimal reporting standards in the life sciences. Part of this group, PLOS Executive Editor Veronique Kiermer shares a joint announcement.

Transparency in reporting benefits scientific communication on many levels. While specific needs and expectations vary across fields, the effective use of research findings relies on the availability of core information about research materials, data, and analysis. These are the underlying principles that led to the design of the TOP guidelines, which outline a framework that over 1,000 journals and publishers have elected to follow.

In September 2017, the second major TOP guidelines workshop hosted by the Center for Open Science led to a position paper suggesting a standardized approach for reporting, provisionally entitled the TOP Statement.

Based on discussions at that meeting and at the 2017 Peer Review Congress, in December 2017 we convened a working group of journal editors and experts to support this overall effort by developing a minimal set of reporting standards for research in the life sciences. This framework could both inform the TOP statement and serve in other contexts where better reporting can improve reproducibility.

In this “minimal standards” working group, we aim to draw from the collective experience of journals implementing a range of different approaches designed to enhance reporting and reproducibility (e.g. STAR Methods), existing life science checklists (e.g. the Nature Research reporting summary), and results of recent meta-research studying the efficacy of such interventions (e.g. Macleod et al. 2017; Han et al. 2017); to devise a set of minimal expectations that journals could agree to ask their authors to meet.

An advantage of aligning on minimal standards is consistency in policies and expectations across journals, which is beneficial for authors as they prepare papers for publication and for reviewers as they assess them. We also hope that other major stakeholders engaged in the research cycle, including institutional review bodies and funders, will see the value of agreeing on this type of reporting standard as a minimal expectation, as broad-based endorsement from an early stage in the research life cycle would provide important support for overall adoption and implementation.

The working group will provide three key deliverables:

  •       A “minimal standards” framework setting out minimal expectations across four core areas of materials (including data and code), design, analysis and reporting (MDAR)
  •       A “minimal standards” checklist intended to operationalize the framework by serving as an implementation tool to aid authors in complying with journal policies, and editors and reviewers in assessing reporting and compliance with policies
  •       An “elaboration” document or user guide providing context for the “minimal standards” framework and checklist

While all three outputs are intended to provide tools to help journals, researchers and other stakeholders with adoption of the minimal standards framework, we do not intend to be prescriptive about the precise mechanism of implementation and we anticipate that in many cases they will be used as a yardstick within the context of an existing reporting system. Nevertheless, we hope these tools will provide a consolidated view to help raise reporting standards across the life sciences.

We anticipate completing draft versions of these tools by spring 2019.  We also hope to work with a wider group of journals, as well as funders, institutions, and researchers to gather feedback and seek consensus towards defining and applying these minimal standards.  As part of this feedback stage, we will conduct a “community pilot” involving interested journals to test application of the tools we provide within the context of their procedures and community. Editors or publishers who are interested in participating are encouraged to contact Veronique Kiermer and Sowmya Swaminathan for more information.

In the current working group, we have focused our efforts on life science papers because of extensive previous activity in this field in devising reporting standards for research and publication.  However, once the life science guidelines are in place we hope that we and others will be able to extend this effort to other areas of science and devise similar tools for other fields.  Ultimately, we believe that a shared understanding of expectations and clear information about experimental and analytical procedures have the potential to benefit many different areas of research as we all work towards greater transparency and the support that it provides for the progress of science.

We are posting this notification across multiple venues to maximize communication and outreach, to give as many people as possible an opportunity to influence our thinking.  We welcome comments and suggestions within the context of any of these posts or in other venues.  If you have additional questions about our work, would like to be informed of progress, or would like to volunteer to provide input, please contact Veronique Kiermer and Sowmya Swaminathan.

On behalf of the “minimal standards” working group:

Karen Chambers (Wiley)

Andy Collings (eLife)

Chris Graf (Wiley)

Veronique Kiermer (Public Library of Science; vkiermer@plos.org)

David Mellor (Center for Open Science)

Malcolm Macleod (University of Edinburgh)

Sowmya Swaminathan (Nature Research/Springer Nature; s.swaminathan@us.nature.com)

Deborah Sweet (Cell Press/Elsevier)

Valda Vinson (Science/AAAS)

 

Manuscripts Selected For Live-streamed Preprint Journal Club Event

Plos -

We are teaming up with PREreview during Open Access week to bring together scientists from around the world to discuss and review an actual preprint…live-streamed! We have now selected a manuscript for each discipline and finalized the moderators. Read the original blog here. Details about how you can register are at the bottom of the page.

Neuroscience – Monday, October 22, 9am PDT / 12pm EDT / 5pm GMT+1

 Bioinformatics – Tuesday, October 23, 9am PDT / 12pm EDT / 5pm GMT+1

Ecology – Wednesday, October 24, 9am PDT / 12pm EDT / 5pm GMT+1

REGISTER NOW to join us and invite others to come along. You can choose to join any (or all) of the subject areas listed above. We are using the video conference software Zoom, which is free to download. Please register and we will send you the information on how to join the calls.

Get ready to spend one hour with your fellow colleagues diving straight into the preprint and resurfacing with constructive feedback for the authors. This is a great opportunity to share your expertise with your peers from all over the world, learn about preprints, build your network, and get credit for your feedback.

Gathering Steam: Preprints, Librarian Outreach, and Actions for Change

Plos -

Note: This post was written by Robin Champieux, Research Engagement and Open Science Librarian at OHSU.  Robin is the co-founder of the Metrics Toolkit and Awesome Foundation Libraries Chapter.  Her work and research is focused on enabling the creation, reproducibility, accessibility, and impact of digital scientific materials.

Librarians, are you talking about preprints? A preprint is a complete scientific article posted on a public server before peer review.  Preprints speed dissemination and encourage early feedback.  But, this post isn’t about defining preprints and their value.  It’s October, I’m a scholarly communication librarian, so I’ve been panicking–I mean thinking–about what do for Open Access Week.  This year, I’m focusing my outreach efforts on preprints and I want to tell you why.

I am passionate about open science and realizing its benefits, but I am just as passionate about supporting student, faculty, and institutional success.  These goals, which are increasingly aligned, require a deep understanding of the scholarly communication and research landscape and right now preprints are a center of conversation in this space1.  Funders like the NIH and Helmsley Charitable Trust are encouraging researchers to share and cite preprints, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is even requiring it:

“To encourage rapid dissemination of results, any publications related to this funded work must be submitted to a preprint server, such as bioRxiv, before the first submission to a journal.”2 

Journals are accepting manuscripts previously posted as preprints, inviting submissions from preprint servers, and linking to preprint versions of papers under consideration3.  The number of published preprints is rising4 and stakeholders are responding with support and concern5.

Researchers have to navigate this context and make decisions about how to share their work:  librarians can contribute to their success and affect change by responding to this need. In my experience, most researchers encounter and experiment with innovations in scholarly communication via specific points of choice or pressure. Librarian led outreach related to preprints can lead to conversations that catalyze a deeper interest in scholarly communication issues and changes. Collectively and over time these small and personal experiments and the discussions that surround them (including critical ones) help shift the needle towards openness.

I also believe in a definition of and critical approach to open science (and librarianship) that acknowledges how history, inequality, and privilege influence our scholarly communication practices and priorities.  Author and NYU Scholarly Communication Librarian April Hathcock advocates for flipping the script on how we view open:

“Rather than looking at it as a means of getting mainstream scholarship out to the margins, instead I want us to see it as a way of getting scholarship from marginalized communities into our mainstream discourse.”6

Preprints sit within a larger and evolving discussion about how scholarship is communicated and endorsed. I am excited about initiatives, like PREreview, that communities are developing around preprints to address issues of inclusion and representation in peer review.  From this perspective, preprints are a tool for democratizing “access to [and participation in] science on a global scale”7.  As librarians, we can support these projects and invent new ones that leverage preprints to take up April’s challenge.

So, what can you do to raise the volume on the “power of the preprint” and address the reasons why some researchers are reluctant to share them?:

  1. Do a deep dive on the preprints landscape.  ASAPbio’s preprint info center is a great starting place.
  2. Connect with your institution’s preprint champions and ask them about their motivations.
  3. Use your preprint and institutional knowledge to launch an engagement and demystification campaign.  Low bandwidth? Keep it simple by promoting existing events and reusing the work of others.
  4. Start a discussion with organizations on your campus working to address inequities and increase diversity in science about this year’s Open Access Week theme and the role preprints might play.
  5. Model the shift to open!  Share your own scholarship on LISSA, e-LIS and other preprint servers.

 

Congratulations to the Graduates of our July 2018 Certificate Courses!

Creativecommons.org -

From July 16-September 23, Creative Commons hosted two Educator Certificate courses and two Librarian Certificate Courses. Participants from Bangladesh, Canada, China, Great Britain, Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, and the US engaged in rigorous readings, assignments, discussions and quizzes. See examples of the assignments that participants participants’ assignments they’ve publicly shared under CC licenses. With the course now complete, we are thrilled to announce 83 new graduates.

The CC Certificate provides an in-depth study of Creative Commons licenses and open practices, uniquely developing participants’ open licensing proficiency and understanding of the broader context for open advocacy. The training content targets copyright law, CC legal tools, as well as the values and good practices of working in the global, shared commons. The CC Certificate is currently offered as a 10-week online course to educators and academic librarians. In 2019, Creative Commons will expand offerings to include 1-week boot camps, a Certificate instructor training, scholarships, and initial translations of the Certificate into multiple languages.

Interested in taking the CC Certificate, yourself? Visit our Certificate website at the end of this month for updates! We will share new updates and open registration for 2019 courses by 31 October.

Also, stay tuned for an updated list of our Certificate graduates by the end of the year. CC kicked off five new Educator and Librarian courses with 125 participants from 14 countries on 1 October and we look forward to welcoming more Certificate graduates at the end of these courses.

We are inspired by our 83 recent graduates, and filled with gratitude for their amazing work. We congratulate them on successful completion of the Certificate, and look forward to their future open efforts!

The post Congratulations to the Graduates of our July 2018 Certificate Courses! appeared first on Creative Commons.

Failures: Key to success in science

Plos -

This post was collaboratively written by PLOS staff (Ines Alvarez-Garcia, Phil Mills, Leonie Mueck and Iratxe Puebla)

Note: Join us Monday, October 15 at the Cambridge Festival of Ideas for a free interactive discussion with panelists from CamAWISE, University of Cambridge, the Sanger Institute, and Cambridge University Press to talk about how we can shift perceptions on failure and success in scientific careers.

Most scientists are fortunate to have a job that they love and feel passionate about, but a ‘successful’ career in research can be among the hardest career paths to pursue – dragons hide in almost every corner. In spite of many hours of effort and meticulous protocols, experiments fail and careful measurements yield unexpected results that one’s hypotheses cannot explain. There is also the risk that the same or related results are suddenly published by another group. These events are often regarded as failures in a research environment, but are they really failures? Could they actually hold the key to success in science?

There is scope to redefine what failure and success mean in science, and there are signs that the recipe for having a successful research career is changing. Being ‘scooped’ by a ‘competitor’ actually provides confirmation for your results, so shouldn’t that be viewed as support for the validity of your findings? Disseminating results fast in all of their forms, positive or negative – for example, as preprints – can also contribute significantly to the advancement of science; sharing all scholarly outputs allows others to build on the findings and prevents duplication of efforts.

Researchers are often constrained by a metric-based evaluation system that doesn’t reflect all the nuances, interactions and efforts that contribute to research endeavours. But some institutions and funders have started looking at their assessment framework afresh with a view to encouraging a more responsible use of metrics in the context of researcher assessment. At the same time, studies have consistently shown that there’s a lack of diversity in many scientific disciplines. In today’s landscape, where we have more options to travel and share information than ever before, we should move towards a place where diversity and collaboration are both sought and rewarded.

We will tackle all these questions and many more in the Cambridge Festival of Ideas event, “Failures: Key to success in science”. We’ll host an interactive discussion to engage the public and bring forward recommendations for the research communities on how we can better celebrate efforts and discoveries that do not currently fit the mould of a ‘successful’ research career. Our five panellists will help us explore the topic from their different perspectives:

Stephen Eglen, a reader in Computational Neuroscience (University of Cambridge)

Fiona Hutton, a publisher (Open access journals, Cambridge University Press)

Tapoka Mkandawire, a PhD candidate (Sanger Institute, Cambridge)

Arthur Smith, Acting Joint Deputy Head of Scholarly Communication (University of Cambridge)

Cathy Sorbara, Co-chair of CamAWiSE (Cambridge Association for Women in Science and Engineering)

If you’re in the Cambridge area, why not join us and participate in the debate, which will take place on Monday 15th October at Anglia Ruskin University, Lord Ashcroft Building Room 002. Book your free ticket here. Can’t attend? We’ll be live tweeting during the event. Check us out at #RethinkFailure. The Festival of Ideas hashtag is #cfi2018. We’ll also recap the entire day in a follow-up blog.

 

What’s next with WIPO’s ill-advised broadcast treaty?

Creativecommons.org -

Broadcast Tower by Alex, BY-NC-ND 2.0

Six years ago we wrote a blog post titled WIPO’s Broadcasting Treaty: Still Harmful, Still Unnecessary. At the time, the proposed treaty – which would grant to broadcasters a separate, exclusive copyright-like right in the signals that they transmit, separate from any copyrights in the content of the transmissions – had already been on WIPO’s docket for several years. It’s still on the table today, and now some countries are calling for actions to finalise the agreement.

The broadcasting treaty is still harmful and still unnecessary.

The current text contains many of the same damaging provisions, such as long term of protection (possibly 50 years) and little to no support for limitations and exceptions to the right which could provide needed protections for activities such as news reporting, quotation, education, personal use, and archiving.  

But the dealbreaker for CC is the fact that the treaty would essentially invalidate the permissions that users of Creative Commons grant when they share their creativity under open licenses, and instead gift new and unwarranted rights to broadcasting organizations that have added little or no value to the underlying work being transmitted. This is because the rights provided to broadcasters in the treaty would apply separately from copyright, thus permitting them to restrict how the content is shared even if the creator of the video or audio content has already released it under a Creative Commons license, or if it’s already in the public domain.

This week CC CEO Ryan Merkley presented at a seminar in Geneva hosted by Knowledge Ecology International. The event examined the broadcast treaty in relation to access to culture.  

Below is an excerpt from Ryan’s talk. You can watch the entire event online (Ryan’s remarks begin at 2:05:50).

Journalists, documentary filmmakers, podcast creators and others are using CC licenses to share their works broadly, and some of this media are used by traditional broadcasters too. These creators who choose to share their works and enable some permissive uses expect their works to be broadly accessible to the public under the terms of the CC license they chose. And they should be applauded for sharing works under permissive terms so their audiences can view and use them.

All Creative Commons licensors permit their works to be used for at least non-commercial purposes. When an author applies a CC license to her work, she grants to the public a worldwide, royalty-free license to use the work under certain terms. And many authors simply want to share their creativity freely under open terms to benefit the public good. For example, educators and scholarly researchers create and share works primarily to advance education and to contribute to their field of study—not necessarily for financial remuneration.

CC has pushed back on other policy changes in the realm of IP that would downplay or break how the CC licenses work, or enclose works that should be in the public domain. I remain concerned that the current draft would have a number of negative impacts, because it grants rights that reach overtop of those of creators.

The broadcasters argue that their investment should give them this right. But this shouldn’t be the test. The same argument could be used to give Museums rights over the works on their walls (which of course they want, and which at least one museum in Germany has successfully argued for in their courts), Movie theatres a right over the light particles that pass from the projector to the screen, or Booksellers the right over the books they put on their shelves, or even the trucking company that moves the books from the warehouse to the bookstore. Promoting and delivering content should not convey rights over the content itself — whether we call it the signal or not.

One alarming element in the proposal gives rights over the broadcast signal of works that are in the public domain or openly licensed.

In no cases should the treaty give broadcasters post fixation rights in works that are in the public domain, or openly licensed. It violates the spirit and wording of Creative Commons licensing, and creators who wish to have their works travel freely without additional strings attached. Broadcasters don’t own the content, and have no rights to the content of public domain and Creative Commons licensed works.

Works in the public domain should be free of these copyright-like restrictions, as we’ve argued in other areas – such as the notion that digital reproductions of works in the public domain should also be in the public domain (and not give rise to new copyrights).

Supporters of the broadcast treaty have failed to make a compelling, evidence-based case for a separate right, to identify the specific causes and resolutions for harm, and to show likely positive impacts of the treaty. However, there is significant risk that granting this new broadcasting right will limit access to information and culture.

Broadcasters already have legal remedies available to them to combat signal theft, and copyright law covers infringement in the underlying content.

WIPO should halt the proceedings of the broadcast treaty. With each passing year, it looks more and more like a solution in search of a problem.

The post What’s next with WIPO’s ill-advised broadcast treaty? appeared first on Creative Commons.

We are seeking a new Director of Engineering

Creativecommons.org -

Photo by WOCinTech Chat / CC BY

A couple of weeks ago, I stepped into the role of Director of Product and Research. We are now in the middle of our second sprint for CC search (see results from the last one here) and seeking a new Director of Engineering. Paola Villarreal, our current Director of Product Engineering, will be leaving us in December for a new opportunity. While we are sad to see her leave, we are excited to shape and launch a new phase for Creative Commons that aligns our vision and strategy for product with real world user needs.

The new Director of Engineering will work closely with me, the Director of Product and Research, to lead the technical design, development and implementation of CC’s products and services. Right now that primarily means CC search and its supporting parts (the CC catalog and API), and in the future that may mean new product ideas resulting from user research and pending alignment with our new product vision and strategy (read more about current usability prototypes and research here).

The Director of Engineering will also work closely with our newly formed Tools and Product team, which consists of the following fantastic people:

Sophine Clachar (Data Engineer building the CC catalog that fuels CC search), Alden Page (Software Engineer that is working on all things backend to CC search, in particular making the CC catalog accessible via an API), Steven Bellamy (Front-end Engineer that is making CC search elegant and usable for real people), Diane Peters (General Counsel that makes sure CC is legally covered across all its tools and product offerings), Sarah Pearson (Senior Counsel that also serves as product counsel for CC search), and myself. A Core Systems Manager will also be joining our team next week.

You will be stepping into a role with a lot of moving parts, but with lots of support and excitement from your peers. We look forward to your application! 

Job Opportunity: Director of Engineering

 

The post We are seeking a new Director of Engineering appeared first on Creative Commons.

Creative Commons Danmark bliver et nationalt chapter

CC Danmark -

Creative Commons Danmark bliver et nationalt chapter under Creative Commons 

Mandag d. 1. oktober 2018 blev Creative Commons Danmark til et såkaldt chapter; en national afdeling.

CC Danmark

En national afdeling af Creative Commons, kaldes internt for et chapter, hvorfor man vil kunne finde vores afdeling omtalt og nævnt som CC Denmark, The Danish chapter of Creative Commons og lignende. På dansk og i daglig tale vil vi oftest benytte CC Danmark eller Creative Commons Danmark.

Et chapter kan ifølge betingelserne i Creative Commons global network strategy dannes af de medlemmer, der måtte være af CCGN (Creative Commons Global Network). Se beskrivelse for oprettelse af en national afdeling her.

Til mødet deltog de nuværende fire danske CC Medlemmer Rikke Falkenberg Kofoed, grundlægger af firmaet Leg med IT, Martin von Haller Grønbærk, it-advokat, nuværende og mangeårig Legal Lead for CC Danmark, Christian Villum, nuværende og mangeårig Public Lead for CC Danmark, forlægger, producent og projektleder ved Dansk Design Center, samt Peter Leth, lærer og uddannelsesrådgiver for CC Danmark.

Vi har på mødet valgt at fordele opgaverne på følgende vis:

Chapter lead: Peter Leth
Repræsentant til det globale netværksråd: Christian Villum
Uddannelsesrådgiver: Rikke Falkenberg Kofoed
Juridisk og særlig rådgiver: Martin von Haller Grønbæk

Referatet fra mødet kan læses her.

Live-streamed Preprint Journal Clubs!!!

Plos -

Note: This post was written in collaboration with the PREreview team (Monica Granados, Samantha Hindle, Daniela Saderi)

We are teaming up with PREreview during Open Access week to bring together scientists from around the world to discuss and review an actual preprint…live-streamed!

PREreview helps scientists receive acknowledgement for their time spent reviewing others’ work. We are proud to collaborate with them to shine a spotlight on our shared goals: to encourage more scientists to post feedback on preprints, and to provide credit for their contributions to peer review. PREreview’s aim is to promote the discussion of preprints at journal clubs by providing resources and a platform where these discussions can be shared, and to ensure reviews are citable by assigning a digital object identifier (DOI) for each preprint review.

In the spirit of Open Access week, together we decided to leverage today’s technology to make these journal clubs more accessible to a diverse group of scientists by running them entirely online!

Want to participate? Read on for more details.

What is a preprint and how can it enhance your research?

Preprints are open access scientific manuscripts that have not yet been through editorial peer review. Because they are shared freely online while undergoing more formal peer review in a journal, they accelerate the communication of knowledge, thereby increasing the impact and reach of scientific discovery. Backed by many funders, journals, and institutions, preprints have become a legitimate part of research dissemination. To learn more about how preprints can help you and your science move forward, visit PLOS’ preprint resource page and ASAPbio.org.

One of the many advantages of preprinting is the potential for authors to receive immediate feedback from the rest of the scientific community and improve their article before formal publication in a journal. In a sense, it’s similar to the feedback one might receive after a talk or a poster presentation at a scientific meeting, except that it makes the process easier and more inclusive because anyone with internet connection around the world could comment on your work.

Here’s the plan – Join us and become part of the discussion!

WHAT

We will facilitate three interactive preprint journal club events that will be live-streamed via videoconference in which anyone can participate remotely. The focus will be on neuroscience, bioinformatics and ecology. Each online journal club will be hosted by two facilitators with experience in mediating video calls, as well as subject matter experts. They will guide participants through a constructive discussion of the preprint and collate feedback into a review report. These PREreviews will receive a DOI and will be shared online with the community as citable and discoverable objects. For more information about the format of PREreview online preprint journal clubs, check out PREreview’s information doc or email contact@prereview.org.

WHO

You! We encourage all interested researchers to be part of the discussion and offer their expertise. Of course, anyone who wants to see the power of preprints in action is also welcome. All you need is an internet connection or phone-in capabilities to join.

WHEN

Neuroscience: Monday, October 22, 9am PDT / 12pm EDT / 5pm GMT+1

Joining as a subject matter expert: Dr. Tim Mosca, Jefferson University

Bioinformatics: Tuesday, October 23, 9am PDT / 12pm EDT / 5pm GMT+1

Joining as a subject matter expert:   Dr. Shannon McWeeney and Dr. Ted Laderas,

Oregon Health and Science University

Ecology: Wednesday, October 24, 9am PDT / 12pm EDT / 5pm GMT+1

Joining as a subject matter expert:  Dr.Timothée Poisot,

Université de Montréal

HOW: REGISTER NOW to join us and invite others to come along. You can choose to join any (or all) of the subject areas listed above, and we will follow up with call-in details and specifics about the preprint that will be discussed closer to the event. Not sure if you can join yet? Sign up anyway to receive updates on the events and decide later.

WHERE: The video conference software Zoom, which is free to download. Please register and we will send you the information on how to join the calls.

Get ready to spend one hour with your fellow colleagues diving straight into the preprint and resurfacing with constructive feedback for the authors. This is a great opportunity to share your expertise with your peers from all over the world, learn about preprints, build your network, and get credit for your feedback.

Latvian 4.0 and Basque 4.0 and CC0 translations now available

Creativecommons.org -

Creative Commons is proud to announce the release of the official translations of the Latvian 4.0 licenses and Basque 4.0 licenses, as well as the Basque CC0 translation.

After one and a half years and many rounds of consultation, the Latvian 4.0 translation is now published on the Creative Commons site and will benefit almost 2 million native speakers. We would like to thank Toms Ceļmillers and the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia for their dedicated efforts in coordinating this translation.

Thanks to an ambitious team, the Basque 4.0 and CC0 translations took only about six months of production. The translation team was comprised of Marko Txopitea, Gotzon Egia, and Ignasi Labastida i Juan. There are around 750,000 native Basque speakers in the world and almost 2 million passive speakers.

With the Spanish (Castellano) translation of 4.0 recently published and the Catalan translation underway, the CC licenses will be officially translated into three of the most frequently spoken languages in Spain.

If you are interested in helping with CC’s translation work, please join our Translation Working Group on Slack, where you can stay informed about materials that need to be translated and/or suggest new materials for the community to translate.

The post Latvian 4.0 and Basque 4.0 and CC0 translations now available appeared first on Creative Commons.

CC submits proposed Amicus Brief to 9th Circuit on Proper Interpretation of BY-NC-SA 4.0

Creativecommons.org -

Photo copier by David Hall, CC BY 2.0

Creative Commons (CC) has asked a U.S. appeals court for permission to file an amicus brief in a lawsuit brought by Great Minds against Office Depot, to aid the court in its proper interpretation of the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

This case involves a dispute between Great Minds, the creator of educational materials paid for with public funding and licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, and Office Depot, a commercial copyshop hired to make copies of those materials by public school districts. Great Minds claims here, and in an almost identical lawsuit brought against FedEx Office, that the schools cannot hire outside help to make the copies they need to use the materials for their non commercial purposes in the classroom. Notably, Great Minds explicitly did not object to the idea of a school board employee going to an Office Depot and using a self-serve copier (where copies are sold to customers at a profit). It was only when they engaged an Office Depot employee to make the copies that GM objected.

In the litigation against Office Depot, the district court in California ruled in favor of Office Depot, just as the New York district court and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in FedEx Office’s favor. The California court agreed that so long as a copyshop is acting at the request of a non commercial actor, here the school district, the shop can make the copies and charge for and receive a profit to do so, without violating the license. This is because the copyshop is not acting on its own accord but as a delegate of school district, just as a paid employee of the school might when making copies for use in her classroom.

The brief we request be accepted reinforces what is already the established legal precedent established by the FedEx Office case in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States (spanning New York, Connecticut, and Vermont), as well as the law in the district court in California that Great Minds is now appealing.

CC supports the decision of the California court, which found Great Minds’ lawsuit was an attempt to re-argue the same facts in a different court – a previous lawsuit it had filed, appealed, and lost in the 2nd Circuit against FedEx Office. (See the court order requiring Great Minds to pay Office Depot’s attorney fees for having done so). As both the 2nd Circuit concluded in a case involving FedEx Office [pdf] and the district court concluded in California [pdf], a bona fide non-commercial user may engage contractors to exercise the licensed rights on their behalf and at their direction, irrespective of whether the contractor is itself a non-commercial actor. Notably, in the course of all of its litigation, Great Minds has never objected to the idea of a school board employee going to an Office Depot and using a self-serve copier (where copies are sold to customers at a profit). Its concern has been limited to the nearly identical circumstance a school district employee paying an Office Depot employee to make the copies instead. Were Great Minds’ theory to prevail, it would require every re-user to own the means for reproducing NC-licensed works and avoid using any for-profit actor in doing so, a result that our licenses never intended.

This is not a change from how our licenses have always worked. This does not mean, for example, that a commercial copyshop can independently make copies of NC-licensed textbooks and turn around and sell them. Nor does it mean a teacher can sell an NC-licensed textbook to her neighbor that she previously received from her school district to use in the classroom. In those cases, both the copyshop and the teacher are bound by the NC restriction because they are acting on their own and thus are licensees, in their own right, and the NC restriction would almost certainly be violated.

The filing and acceptance of amicus briefs is standard practice in U.S. appellate courts. Unfortunately, Great Minds has opposed our request on grounds that CC’s interpretation of the very licenses that we wrote and steward will not be of assistance to the Court. Filing such an opposition is rare, and CC has filed a short reply in response.

The outcomes of this case against Office Depot and the prior case against FedEx Office demonstrate the strength of the CC licenses, and we look forward to a successful conclusion in the 9th Circuit.

Finally, we want to thank Andy Gass and his team of lawyers at Latham & Watkins for their expertise and valuable insights in connection with both lawsuits.

The post CC submits proposed Amicus Brief to 9th Circuit on Proper Interpretation of BY-NC-SA 4.0 appeared first on Creative Commons.

Sider

Abonner på creativecommons.no nyhetsinnsamler