digital

Scholarly Communication (NCSC 2008)

On my way down to Lund to attend the Fourth Nordic Conference on Scholarly Communication. for me the highlights of the first day will be

Open Scholarship: Synergies between Open Access and Open Education
Melissa Hagemann, OSI

Access, Usage and Citation Metrics: What Function for Digital Libraries and Repositories in Research Evaluation?
Chris Armbruster, Research Network 1989 and Max Planck Digital Library

Judging Merit – The Value of Publications
Ingegerd Rabow, Lunds Universitet

And naturally the opportunity to speak to lots of people with the same interests.

Posted on by mklang

Camera License

Not long ago in a recent awareness campaign the London police managed to link photography to terrorism.

1.jpg

This was silly enough and would only really have two effects – either it is ignored or it creates panic. But even worse is the example when a policeman asked a person taking photographs whether he has a license to do so…

The BBC reports that Phil Smith was taking pictures in a public place and was challenged by a police officer who asked if he had a licence for the camera.

After explaining he didn’t need one, he was taken down a side-street for a formal “stop and search”, then asked to delete the photos and ordered not take any more. So he slunk home with his camera.

Obviously the policeman was wrong but the considering the strange climate of fear and paranoia coupled with the official power of the police the potential for abuse is great indeed.

Posted on by mklang

New book: Wikiworld

The works on the causes and effects on the “new openness” are coming in fast. My most recent find is Juha Suoranta & Tere Vadén (University of Tampere, Finland) who have published an open access book entitled Wikiworld – Political Economy and the Promise of Participatory Media:

In the digital world of learning there is a progressive transformation from the institutionalized and individualized forms of learning to open learning and collaboration. The book provides a view on the use of new technologies and learning practices in furthering socially just futures, while at the same time paying critical attention to the constants, or “unmoved movers” of the information society development; the West and Capitalism. The essential issue in the Wikiworld is one of freedom ­ levels and kinds of freedom. Our message is clear: we write for the radical openness of education for all.

It sounds interesting and  I will download it as soon as I get to a better connection. Right now I am on a train surfing via mobile not the best thing for downloading books… its online here.

Posted on by mklang

Boyle Book Cover Competition

Via an email list I found out that James Boyle, the new Chairman of the Board at Creative Commons and a founder of Science Commons, is holding a contest to design a cover for his new book, The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. In the book, Boyle argues that more and more of material that used to be free to use without having to pay a fee or ask permission is becoming private property — at the expense of innovation, science, culture and politics.

Details, including specs and a link to some great source material for imagery, are available at the Worth1000 website. Both the book and the cover will be distributed under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial license.

Boyle is a great writer and enjoys exploring legal questions surrounding property in a way which makes it accessible and interesting to the reader. His book Shamans, Software and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society was a real eye opener for me. I am definitely going to get his new book.

When my PhD was almost finished I announced a similar competition for the design of the book cover and was lucky to get it widely publicized. The whole idea of the competition was actually quite resented and discussed on my blog. Professional designers felt I was cutting them out of the market by asking for free work. Interesting discussions ensued. The results of the competition were posted on my blog and the winner was chosen by popular vote and used on the cover of my PhD.

Posted on by mklang

What is the lecture?

No one can tell you what the lecture is… sorry for the silly Matrix reference. The question here is on the issue of property and the lecture. The questions I hope to address are Who owns the lecture? Who controls the lecture? Who owns the lecture notes? What can the audience do? Who owns the audiences’ notes?

Some early background: In November 2006 I wrote the post Do you hand out your handouts which was concerned with students demanding (not asking) to have handouts in advance. This is also part of a larger issue of the impact of becoming dependent on technology in teaching (see post Teaching with powerpoint).

What triggered these reflections was the news that University of Florida professor Michael Moulton was claiming the right to prevent his students from selling their lecture notes. His claim was based upon the concept that the students notes were actually derivative works from his own notes and therefore the lecturer could use copyright to prevent the students from selling their notes. This is the basic story read more details at Wired.

Standing and talking i.e. giving a lecture is not copyrightable per se, this is actually a good thing as most lectures tend to be the explanation of the works of many others (not all mentioned). A lecture on basic copyright law will include ideas and direct quotes from the law, courts and often other jurists. The nature of the lecture is to educate the audience on a certain issue and therefore cannot be only the ideas and opinions of the lecturer. This use of the ideas and texts of others is neither copyright infringement or plagiarism.

The lecture becomes copyrightable when it is a derivative work of the lecture notes. In other words a lecture given without notes is not copyrightable, nor is a lecture given from notes taken from the public domain. If the non-copyrightable lecture is filmed or recorded then the copyright goes to the person recording (the director).

The “right” of the lecturer to refuse the audience to record is actually not a question of copyright but more a question of labor law. For example, if I were to refuse to let my students record me the question would be one of my refusal to carry out my job as a lecturer. The ensuing discussion between my employer and me would be a re-negotiation of my contract to take into account the audiences’ desire to record my work. Many lecturers I have spoken to are not aware of this position and some react very strongly to being recorded while they work. The audience taking notes is a developed fair use but again the lecturer could theoretically refuse to talk if someone were holding a pen (as with a recording device) but it is doubtful that the academic employer would support this position.

What can the audience do with their notes or recordings? If we presume that the lecture is based upon the copyrightable notes of the lecturer (as opposed to an ad hoc talk or a folk dance following a traditional pattern i.e. uncopyrightable) then any kind of reproduction of the notes/recording would be a violation of the copyright of the lecturer. The audience can however sell their copies or make copies for their friends within the limits of fair use but this would not allow them to make several copies or post the notes/recording on the Internet.

Therefore the lecture is a collection of rights and it intersects with different legal areas. Beyond that it is also a specific situation based upon the traditions and expectations of the audience and lecturer. The lecturer seems to have more power since he/she has chosen the subject, scheduled the event and does all the talking  but this is not necessarily the case. The lecture is a socially constructed affair which requires audience participation in specific forms (coming on time, sitting properly, silence, attention etc)

On top of all this comes the control via labor law and contracts. Wow, who said that giving a lecture was easy?

Posted on by mklang

Vuxenpoäng

The first time I came across the concept of vuxenpoäng was when a friend of mine bought new plates and since then the idea has been developing. I am not sure if it is a real concept but it is something that my friends and I tend to use. The basis of the concept comes from the realization that we are getting older but not necessarily growing up.

Vuxenpoäng is translated inelegantly as adult points and there are certain actions in life which give a large amount of adult points. These are not the typical, semi-inevitable, moments in life like getting a real job, having children or buying a car but the more subtle actions which could be avoided and were, earlier in life, seen as unnecessary acts of adulthood.

Here are some examples of what the concept of vuxenpoäng entails. It is however important to note that all of these acts must be carried out voluntarily. Being forced into an act by partner, friends, parents, family pet greatly diminishes the whole value of the act. Adulthood comes from within.

Buying a large new sofa, but not from Ikea (or similar discount store) is an action which will earn you a mass of adult points. As trivial as it may sound many of us go through a large part of our lives without buying a new sofa and are not stigmatized by this. Therefore the act of buying the new sofa is not social pressure or basic necessity, but is, in a word, adult.

Spending money on certain objects is very adult. Deciding that hard earned cash should be used to invest in new plates and/or cutlery is adult. You have plates to eat off. You don’t need new plates and yet you decide to invest money in this instead of new technical stuff, clothes or vacation.

Moving house/apartment within the same region and still using professional movers. The realm of friends helping in the move and rewarding them with beer and pizza afterwards is one of the bastions of anti-adulthood.

Curtains. Curtains are generally a vaguely adult concept but there are two areas which make curtains particularly adult. The first is spending more than 15 minutes on deciding which curtain rails you would like to have. Curtains exist. Even the immature have them. But spending a large amount of time deciding upon the style in which they should defy gravity is an act filled with adult points.

Curtains: The Sequel. Having and using extra curtains. Lots of vuxenpoäng in this activity. Actually any activity besides drawing and opening the curtains once they have been installed will probably entail vuxenpoäng.

grownups.png

This reminds me, have you seen this one from XKCD?

So do you get the concept? What about you? How adult are you?

Posted on by mklang

What is art? Confusion in copyright

In many forum discussions the acronym ianal (I am not a lawyer) is used to denote that the writer is not a lawyer. In all fairness then I should begin this article by adding ianaa – I am not an artist. My interest in the definition of what is, can and should be art come mainly from my work in the field of copyright – even though I have an amateur interest in art.

When I first attempted to approach the question of art in 2003 I was naïve enough to think that there was a simple answer to be found and that it was just a question of locating it. Boy was I wrong. The only thing that I have found to be common to a definition of art at large and art in copyright is that it must have an expressive element.

Most often the artist must intend a work to be art for it to be considered art. But this is not always necessary. In some cases the viewers of the work may raise an aesthetic expression to the status of art despite their being no intention from the creator.

The utilitarian object: A dustpan in my house is not art. A dustpan hanging in the cleaning closet at the museum of modern art is not art. A dustpan hanging on the wall displayed among exhibits of the museum of modern art is art. The creator of the dustpan did not have the intention of creating art however the artist may use this everyday object as a piece of art and display it as art in order to create an aesthetic expression.

In 2004 a survey among 500 art experts chose Marcel Duchamp’s urinal to be the most influential modern art work of all time. The creator of the urinal does not have copyright in it – although he or she may have protection for its design but this protection can only be awarded for the elements of the design that are not their for solely functional use.

urinal2.jpg urinal.jpg

Left image of Duchamp’s urinal 1917 photo: Readymade by GriXx (CC by-nc-nd), Right image photo Urinal by Eatmorechips (CC by-nc-nd)

Copyright law is in trouble here since the object cannot be protected as it is and yet it is possible to protect the work via copyright. The photo’s here are the copyright of the photographers. The Duchamp urinal is made specific via his signature and making copies of it are limited since the rights to the work belong to the copyright holder.

Unintentional art: In an recent post about snowmen and copyright I discussed how a snowmen scene (two snowmen pushing and pulling a large wheel over a third snow figure lying in front of the wheel) could be seen as art even if it may not have been the intention of the creators to create anything beyond their own amusement. The creator may, for many reasons, not be intending to create art but the world at large may appreciate the results and classify the work as art. In this case the expression is awarded the full protection of copyright law despite the lack of author intention.

Koko is a lowland gorilla with a sign language vocabulary of 1000 words. Koko has also painted many pictures which have been sold in art auctions.


Bird Red Slice (abstract) by Koko (acrylic on canvas) 1984

The problem with copyright in unintentional art is interesting but it is made even more so by Koko. First, does copyright have a requirement of intent in the expression of art? Here the answer should be no. Second, and more specific to unintentional animal art (Koko is not alone) can animals be authors as understood by copyright law? There does not seem to be a formal requirement to be human in the law but I have been unable to find a non-human copyright holder.

 

The problem is that this is not the way in which art is defined by Encyclopedia Britannica (login required): “…the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others…” since this definition seems to require the intent of the creator.

Art and copyright are complicated subjects and I think that the only way to end this quote is with a Monty Python classic sketch with the pope discussing art with Michelangelo which ends with a comment by the pope (played by John Cleese): Look! I’m the bloody pope, I am! May not know much about art, but I know what I like!

Posted on by mklang

Trademark Violation

On my way to work I saw an interesting advert on the tram. Göteborg University is attempting to attract new students by using the Pirate Bay trademark. The advert has changed the logo slightly by replacing the skull and crossbones with a globe but this still makes it a trademark violation… I guess that piracy sells even academia.

gu_pirate.jpg

Posted on by mklang

Digital Billboard Liberation

The higher philosophy behind billboard liberation is the re-appropriation of public space. It is a reaction against the commercialization of the world in which we live where there is a virtual monopoly on the right to broadcast messages into the public sphere. Individuals and organizations (for example the Billboard Liberation Front) carry out acts of adbusting in order to show that culture jamming is a way in which protest is possible.

In a rare example of digital billboard liberation a hacker known as Skullphone has hacked ten of Clear Channel Communications’ digital billboards in Los Angeles. The to achieve this billboard liberation Skullphone had to hack into the Clear Channel network and insert his trademark skullphone between the commercial messages shown on the billboards.

Update: Fresh information suggests that this was not a hack at all but a paid commercial approved by Clear Channel. More information will be presented as soon as it is available.

(via Supertouch who also has more pictures)

Posted on by mklang

Do you own your library?

After having packed most of my books into boxes, physically transported them to their new home and placed them haphazardly in the bookshelves to await the slower and more pleasurable task of re-arranging my books I feel a strong sense of ownership, property and belonging. My books are part of who I am. Their physical appearance and their content are telltale clues to the identity of their owner.

I have previously written against the e-book but there is a specific issue which is important to point out. Cory Doctorow has written a short note entitled In the age of ebooks, you don’t own your library. The note points out the tendency of e-books to limit the rights previously held by the book reader. Today when buying files for the e-book reader the transaction is often termed as a license and may (this needs to be tested in the courts) limit the ways in which we can buy, sell, borrow and copy our books. In the worst case scenario licenses such as these will spell the end of borrowing books from friends and become another nail in the coffin of the second hand bookstore. Cory writes:

It’s funny that in the name of protecting “intellectual property,” big media companies are willing to do such violence to the idea of real property — arguing that since everything we own, from our t-shirts to our cars to our ebooks, embody someone’s copyright, patent and trademark, that we’re basically just tenant farmers, living on the land of our gracious masters who’ve seen fit to give us a lease on our homes.

The physical property we own will be dependent upon our behavior towards the content we require to fill it. Television requires the shows and we must pay the cable company, computers require software and we must license it, e-books will require us to subscribe to the rules of those who own the content.

Unless we stick to the old fashioned paper versions of course…

Posted on by mklang