Culture

Removing the bibles

In 2007 Scandic Hotels decided that it will no longer be carrying bibles in their guestrooms (via Hotelchatter & Sydsvenskan) but after “massive” protests the bibles were replaced. Now the hotel chain Ibis has decided to remove the bibles since they are offensive to others (Dagen).

I would rather have free wifi than a bible but I guess there will be “massive” protests. The problem with massive in this scenario is that the majority couldn’t give a damn while the minority is the loudest…

Seriously even if you are a believer, even if you are a believer in any form of the new testament – what does it matter if there is no bible in the hotelroom? Why are believers in a loving god so intolerant of the rest of us? If they are right then we go to hell – so what? we don’t believe in it…

If it is your favorite book then carry your own! Everyone else has to.

Posted on by mklang

Social Networks & Law

Ryan Calo over at the Standford Center for Internet and Society (is this the new Berkman?) is asking some very interesting questions about the legal issues of web2.0

An Australian court rules that a mortgage company can issue notice of a lien over Facebook. A court in the UK permits an injunction to be served via Twitter. A woman is arrested in Tennessee for “poking” someone over Facebook in violation of a protective order. Meanwhile, a 1978 provision of the Bankruptcy Code still provides that notice shall “be published at least once a week for three successive weeks in at least one newspaper of general circulation.” New forms (and norms) of communication are both expanding and contracting the avenues for legally meaningful notice. Just how do we know, in this uncharted new landscape, when notice is enough?

  1. Is the communication sufficiently engaging to reflect the gravity and context of the relevant legal process?
  2. Where’s the Miranda warning page?

In our joy of technology we must ensure that we do not forget to transfer the civil liberties developed over the course of our legal cultural history. To his list of examples I just want to add two more headlines New York man accused of using Twitter to direct protesters during G20 summit and Fraud Fugitive in Facebook Trap.

Also I want to mention the early work of Caroline Wilson who presented “Twit or Tweet? Legal Issues Associated with Twitter and other Micro-Blogging Sites” at GikII Amsterdam. (Jordan Hatcher’s liveblog of the event) for some additional questions.

Posted on by mklang

Nasty Old People

Hanna Sköld feature film Nasty old people premiered this weekend and is the first Swedish film to be licensed under a Creative Commons license. The making of the film is a classic tail of a filmmakers passion which probably deserves a film on its own but at least there is a blogNasty old people (in Swedish)

Mette is a member of a neo-Nazi gang, her day job is to take care of four crazy old people that all are just waiting to die. Her life becomes a journey into a burlesque fairytale, where the rules of the game are created by Mette herself. Mette is indifferent about her way of life, until she one night assaults a man, kicking him senseless. Waking up the day after, she realizes that something is wrong, and in company with the her crazy oldies she longs for respect and love. She can tell that the old folks are marginalized by the modern society, but together they create a world and a voice of their own.

The movie will be released with a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA License. On the 10th of October it will be available for download on The Pirate Bay. You can also support the movie by making a PayPal contribution at Nasty old people.

Posted on by mklang

Olympics threaten photographer

In what is an incredible attempt at Copyfraud and general corporate bullying the nasty International Olympic Committee once again attempts to use its power of intimidation to stamp on an individual photographer (via BoingBoing).

On August 12, 2008 Richard Giles posted the photo Beijing Olympics Water Cube below onto his flickr account under a Creative Commons BY-NC license.

The act of uploading a photo flickr is nothing in unusual since there are over 120 million Creative Commons licensed images on flickr.

So imagine his surprised when he received a letter dated 6 October 2009 from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in Lausanne Switzerland. This became even better when he read on and saw it was a Cease & Desist letter. Here are some excerpts from the letter

[THE IOC] …has recently become aware that you are currently licensing pictures from the 2008 Beijing Games on you flickr account…

…when entering any Olympic venue, you are subject to the terms and conditions mentioned on the back of the entry tickets, under which images of the Games taken by you may not be used for any purpose other than private, which does not include licensing of the pictures to third parties.

In addition, please be advised that the Olympic identifications such as the Olmpic rings, the emblems and mascots of the Olympic Games, the word “Olympic” and images of the Olympic Games belong to the IOC and cannot be used without its prior consent.

click to enlarge

Ignoring the whole issue of fair use the IOC has a very strange idea of what they are trying to protect and the methods with which they attempt to defend what they believe to be their rights.

First they argue that images can only be used privately and not be licensed. Displaying ones own images on flickr may not be exactly private but it is hardly a commercial activity. Also the fact that he licenses his photo’s under a Creative Commons license cannot be seen as a violation of “…does not include licensing of the pictures …” If he has copyright in the images his right to license them under a CC license cannot be limited.

The next problem occurs (well actually its probably the biggest problem) in the words “…when entering any Olympic venue…” and the problem is… the photograph was taken from outside the the venue.

UPDATE: So actually the IOC refers to all Richards photographs including those taken in the arena. The one’s taken in the arena make for a more complex legal discussion (the terms on the ticket and so on). But even here the main thing is that the IOC allows private use. Richards posting to flickr is included in such use. He is not commercializing his photographs he is displaying his life online.

The last issue is one of trademark. Trademark law naturally can prevent competitors from using others marks. But trademark law cannot be used to prevent a photographer from describing his photo as being from the Olympics. Neither can it, nor does it, prevent us from talking or writing about the Olympics – even without the IOC’s prior consent.

Searching Richards photostream with the search term Olympics gives 287 results. But if you do a general search on flickr you get 860 000 photographs that match the search term. There must be thousands more photographs with Olympic content but are not connected to the search term.  This is not an excuse or a defense but it does make me wonder what the IOC is going to do…

Posted on by mklang

The WMG story – A tribute to YouTubers

In 2006 Warner Media Group became the first major media company to form a strategic relationship with YouTube. They launched a business model based on user-generated content. It looked really good.

But…

The arrangement with YouTube required that royalties be paid based on the number of views that videos featuring music from WMG artists received. By December 2008, negotiations between WMG and YouTube broke down. YouTube clips containing WMG music were blocked completely and replaced with a message indicating copyright infringement. Fair use wasn’t even on the agenda.

This pissed off the YouTubers (and still does). Proving that when creating a business based on open content it is kind of important not to piss off your fans, your customers and your producers all at once.

So here is a nice YouTube historical tribute to the WMG Story!

Warner Music Group might be getting back with Youtube, but they need to get back with the users as well. See what YouTube users had to say to WMG. In the aftermath of the WMG story several important questions remain open:

What can we learn from the WMG saga?
Who owns what?
What is original?
Who gets paid?
Who gets to make the rules?
Who does the copyright law serve?

Be heard! Respond, rate and comment.

This invitation is also a tribute to users, who have spoken their minds (and continue to do so). The playlist of WMG related videos (those featured and several others) is available at:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list…

Music: www.JonathanCoulton.com
Animation: Creative Commons Australia – www.creativecommons.org.au/animations

Posted on by mklang

The Gandhi pen (owning the dead)

Yesterday was Gandhi’s 14o th birthday, an event that was celebrated and commemorated by many. Google for example had its traditional picture change. But probably the weirdest attempt to celebrate was conducted by luxury pen maker Montblanc (via BoingBoing):

The limited-edition Ma­hatma Gandhi pen, priced at Rs1.1m ($23,000, €15,800, £14,400), has an 18-carat solid gold, rhodium-plated nib, engraved with Gandhi’s image, and “a saffron-coloured mandarin garnet” on the clip. The pens were unveiled this week, before the national holiday on Gandhi’s birthday.

Dilip R. Doshi, chairman of Entrack, Montblanc’s distributor in India, said the pen embodied Gandhi’s timeless philosophy of non-violence and respect for all living creatures. “We are creating a thing of simplicity and beauty that will last for centuries,” he said.

I have always been uncomfortable when dead people are used in advertising – this latest example has done nothing to improve this.

Posted on by mklang

Disruption in Uppsala, Memory in Barcelona

Despite needing sleep the presentation in disruptive technology presentation in Uppsala went well. The discussion focused on integrity and social networks and presented some of the early early results of the emerging research project. Now its onwards to Barcelona for the 6th Communia Workshop Memory Institutions and the Public Domain… This is going to be really good.

Disruptive technology: Social Networks and Integrity (Samhällsomstörtande teknik: Sociala Nätverk och Integritet)

Posted on by mklang

The dangers of editors

Time Magazine has an interesting article on the decline of Wikipedia. It puts the blame where it belongs – squarely on the editors

Wikipedia’s natural resource is an emotion. “There’s the rush of joy that you get the first time you make an edit to Wikipedia…

Over time, though, a class system emerged; now revisions made by infrequent contributors are much likelier to be undone by élite Wikipedians. Chi also notes the rise of wiki-lawyering: for your edits to stick, you’ve got to learn to cite the complex laws of Wikipedia in arguments with other editors. Together, these changes have created a community not very hospitable to newcomers.

This means that a topic expert with deep knowledge in the subject will lose to any expert at Wikipedia. This is not the most advantageous way to get information to the public.

Posted on by mklang