Copyright

RMS & CC

Hows that for a title which demands that you know what its all about?

Richard Stallman (RMS) was recently interviewed in LinuxP2P and was asked “…what differences are there between generic CC licensing and the GPL?”

Some Creative Commons licenses are free licenses; most permit at least noncommercial verbatim copying. But some, such as the Sampling Licenses and Developing Countries Licenses, donâ??t even permit that, which makes them unacceptable to use for any kind of work. All these licenses have in common is a label, but people regularly mistake that common label for something substantial.

This has caused a minor blog/email rumble of surprise that RMS is against CC. (Its even on Slashdot). I know of, respect and support RMS views. Even though I am project lead for CC Sweden I am also a member of FSF Sweden team and I dont see any contradictions with this or any contradictions in RMS on this topic. Therefore I am a bit surprised at the effect RMS’s statement has caused.

CC cannot be understood as one principle. It is a set of licenses offering the user many different options. The GPL is more ideologically stringent and therefore one can be “for” the GPL on ideological or political grounds. Claiming to be “for” CC on ideological or political grounds can only mean that you are for a simple licensing system which helps creators which is admirable but hardly as ideologically deep as creating an accessible infrastructure based for all.

Posted on by mklang

Memory & Art

This painting has been with me since I was born. Its almost strange to have had something for this long and still discuss who owns it. Does it belong to the culture from where it came? Many cultures claim art that has ended up in foreign countries. Does it belong to the artist? Intellectual property is life + 70 years and moral rights last forever… What did my distant relative agree upon (and with whom) when he bought the painting in Africa and transported it to Sweden? It has since then travelled to many other places in the world. Does it matter? One day I must write a longer analysis on this topic… a book maybe?

pilipili

About the artist: Pilipil Mulongoy
Born in 1916, he occupies an exceptional place in Congolese painting; they call him the Sorcerer of African luxuriance. Son of a fisherman from Lualaba, he participated in hunting and fishing where he gathered these themes which he later transposed onto his canvas. Pilipili Mulongoy studied in the atelier and later, the Academy of Beaux-Arts of Romain Desposes in Lubumbashi where he developed an essential understanding and skill in the plastic arts in the vast African subcontinent. Pilipili became a professor and integrated a new studio, the “Hangar” at the Academy.
The text was taken long ago from somewhere else… I would love to acknowledge the source but I cannot remember or find where I found it. Another flaw with a copyright system is that you have to remember things like this! (last part in italics added later).

Posted on by mklang

Gästblogga

Henrik & jag gästbloggade på centerpartisten Johan Linander med rubriken Disney, upphovsrätt & dig.

Här är texten:

Disneys framgång bygger, i grunden, på en uråldrig tradition. Man tar en berättelse som de flesta har hört talas om, man omvandlar den (i Disneys fall till tecknad film) och sprider den till andra. Se bara på Askungen, Robin Hood, Törnrosa och Peter Pan. Genom deras återberättande har Disneys ikoner blivit en del av oss.

När en okänd svensk tecknare, Charlie Christenssen, ville göra detsamma tog han Disneys ikon och förvandlade honom till Arne Anka. Christenssen tolkade, bearbetade och spred en ny anka. Disney agerade snabbt och brutalt för att försvara deras Anka. Hade Christenssen inte orkat så hade Arne försvunnit som så många andra före honom. För att veta hur Christenssen lyckades rekommenderar vi att ni köper samlingsvolymen om Arne Anka, alternativt kan ni höra av er till oss, så berättar vi.

SÃ¥dana problem har länge varit nÃ¥gon annans problem. Större delen av befolkningen har inte möjlighet att skapa nÃ¥got som kan reta storföretag som Disney. Men som alla ni som läser detta vet â?? tekniken förändrar och skapar möjligheter. Vi och vÃ¥ra barn har nu möjlighet att ta det som finns omkring oss, tolka det och sprida det till en ringa kostnad. Vi kan som aldrig förr vara delaktiga i att tolka vÃ¥r egen samtid. Men nu när vi har möjligt att vara med rent tekniskt och ekonomiskt â?? har vi det rent juridiskt? Christenssen â??besegradeâ?? Disney, men kommer du att orka ta risken, ta striden?

Disney visar oss mycket. De lär våra barn och underhåller oss. Men bakom allt detta finns ett stort problem med vår upphovsrätt. Det handlar om att det inte finns någon möjlighet för den som vill ta en del av sin samtid och kommentera den. I striden mellan Kalle & Arne stod rätten att teckna en anka. Tack vare teknologi finns fler människor som kan skapa och sprida.

Borde inte lagen omfatta möjligheter för alla att kommentera sin egen samtid?

Mathias Klang är bitr. forskare på Göteborgs Universitet samt
projektledare för Creative Commons Sverige.

Henrik Sandklef är programmerare samt styrelsemedlem för Free Software Foundation Europe.

Posted on by mklang