 Good morning and welcome to this week's edition of Encompass Live. I am Krista Burns, your host at the Nebraska Library Commission. Encompass Live is Library Commission's weekly online event. We do this every Wednesday morning at 10 a.m. Central Time, about an hour depending. We cover commissioning activities and any type of submit of interest to Nebraska librarians across the state. We have guest speakers come in sometimes and we have our own commission staff as we have this morning. We do a mixture of things here, presentations, webinars, book reviews, anything we can think of that might be useful. Or that I requested. Today we have our technology innovation librarian, Michael Sowers, who is going to tell you all about creative comments. Right? Everybody ever want to know. Well, enough. Yes. Enough to get you started. And as I said, he has a very full presentation, so he's going to go straight through it. If you have questions, feel free to type them into the questions section of your interface. And at the end, as we have time, we'll answer those. So just put them in there. We'll save them up and then we'll see what kind of questions there are and take a look at them. Great. All right. So I'm going to dive right in here. My name is Michael Sowers. I work here at the commission as the technology innovation librarian and I do a lot of things technology related. And I'm also kind of interested in things around copyright and comments as we'll talk about here and how technology impacts that issue. So I'm just going to go ahead and dive right in and warn you that I do talk a little quickly during this presentation, but that's okay. There we go. Okay. So technology solved. Listen carefully. By accepting this material, you agree on behalf of your employer to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all non-negotiated agreements, licenses, terms of service, shrink-lap, quick-wrap, browse-wrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete, and acceptable use policies, i.e. bogus agreements. That I have entered into with your employer is partners, licensors, agents, and assigns in perpetuity without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any bogus agreements on behalf of your employer. So now that we have the licensing agreement out of the way, let me just give you a little bit of background here. One, I am not a lawyer. So please do not consider that I'm giving any sort of legal advice here. I have my own opinions. I've studied a little bit of law, but I am definitely not a lawyer. However, I have, little me has been at the wrong end of a DMCA takedown notice twice, actually. So I've kind of been on the wrong end of the law, so to speak. I'm also a published author. I write articles. I've written several books. And I've also been pirated myself twice. So literally I've been on both ends of this. I've been accused of pirating things and I've been pirated myself. So take that in consideration when you're thinking about the opinions that I have found here today. So a little bit of background. Let's talk about copyright. Copyright is a government thing. It's in the Constitution. And typically what we see out of copyright is something like this that you'll see in most books. I tend not to read my slides, but this one definitely is worth it. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems without permission in writing from the publisher except by a reviewer who make brief passages in a review. This is what most of us are used to. This is what is in most books. If you take a look at the copyright page and bother say, this is kind of the boilerplate that's in there. And if you think about it, copyright is restrictive. It is meant to say that in order to promote the progress of the useful arts, which could be a whole conversation in of itself, we are going to allow the creator of those useful arts a certain level of control over their work for a certain period of time. It's originally 14 years. In some cases now it's life plus almost 100 years in the case of the author. So things are moving faster, but they get these restrictions in what other people can do for even a longer period of time. We'll come back to that. Now, how is technology kind of running the copyright? I can give you a few examples here. The first one, I don't know if anybody recognizes this, but this is the skit, the monomona song from the very first episode of the Muppet Show. I went back and watched it recently. It was in the very first episode. And so in some live presentations, I'll actually play a bit of this video here. And what some generally younger individuals have done have created what's known as anime music videos. And what they'll do is they'll take a Japanese animation, anime, and they'll change the soundtrack and they'll create a music video to another song. And this one, it is available on YouTube last time I checked. It's called Muppet Hunter D. And it takes the Vampire Hunter D anime and creates a music video on the monomona song. And so it's creative. It's amusing if you know the Muppet Show and you know Vampire Hunter D, which I do. It's even funnier just by the juxtaposition of those two sources of content. This is what would be known as a mashup. And mashups have been around for a long time and this is one of them. And technically, this would under copyright without permission of the people at the Muppet Show and the guy who wrote the song and all the people behind Vampire Hunter D would be technically illegal. But very popular and easy to do because of technology today. Mashups themselves come from the music world. This is one example here. DJ Danger Mouse created what was called the Gray Album. What he did was he took the Beatles White Album Music and Jay-Z's Black Album Lyrics. So we have rap lyrics and Beatles music and mashed them up and created the Gray Album. This was let's say frowned upon by the music industry and he was ordered to take it off the internet. Problem is, is that pretty much once you put something on the internet in a disappearing. If you know where to look, you can find it. It's a very interesting listen. Another example from a few years ago was Dean Gray's American Edit. This was an album put together based on Green Day's American Idiot. And then mixed with everybody from the Doctor Who theme music to Johnny Cash. It's a very interesting listen also. And there are other major artists. This gentleman in the middle here in front of his laptop is known as Girl Talk. And he mixes in one song the content from literally hundreds of other pieces of music. Creates mashups that way. I mean, just to be able to do that, I produce podcasts of what we're doing here. And I know what's involved in editing that audio. I don't even want to think about what's involved in editing a hundred couple of songs together to create a new song. Taking the three seconds that you want. Oh, or half a second. And I mean, it's insane. The software's out there. I've used it, but it's complicated. It takes some work. It takes some talent. I would argue. But all of these examples are technically illegal under the current copyright regime that we have today. And I've, because of my interest in this, I've started reading copyright statements in books and on CDs and things like this. And I've actually found some very interesting examples. This is actually an audio book production. And it says here, all rights reserved, all rights to the producer of the recordings and the owners of this works reserved. Unauthorized copy, hiring, renting, public performance and broadcasting is strictly prohibited. Or chorus will give you a serious suntan. There's chorus that the Egyptian god there. And he plays into the story that is on the CD. So, you know, they're admitting that, you know, it's kind of an amusing sort of thing. Another one, if you really interested this topic, this is like a 700 page trade paperback published by MIT or zone books, excuse me, on copying and facsimiles and copyright. And I'm like a quarter of the way through it after two years. But I noticed it's copyright statement that you have never heard a copyright statement like this. And I will read it to you because it's worth hearing. All rights reserved on the International and Pan American Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced, replicated, reiterated, duplicated, conjuplicated, retyped, transcribed by hand, manuscript or cursive, read aloud and recorded an audio tape, platter or disc, lip synced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including genetic, chemical, mechanical, optical, xerographic, holographic, electronic, stereophonic, ceramic, acrylic or telepathic. Except for that copy permitted by sections 107 and 108 of U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press promised to read the book painstakingly all the way through before writing their reviews without prior written permissions from the publisher. Thanks. Yeah. I once gave this talk in Jamaica at a conference where they had translators going with translator booths. And I had to apologize to them afterwards for making them translate that into three languages on the way here. But there's other examples that I've read and let me share one other one with you real briefly. It basically, it's the basic one that I kind of shared at the beginning. But what they end up doing this publisher, they say, well, okay, there are these exceptions. We accept fair use, which we'll get to in a moment. And if you want to quote from this book in a review, we say that's okay. But then they add that this review, if it's to be printed in a magazine or newspaper or electronically transmitted on radio or television. Now, I know this publisher. He's one of mine. So one day I'm going to have to have a conversation with him when he finally gets around to publishing my book. Because if we think about, they're saying that, yes, you can quote from this book if you're going to write a review, as long as that review is in a magazine, newspaper or on radio or television. Yeah. Yeah. Well, Krista, can you think of any other places where you might write a review? I don't know. How about Amazon? Okay. According to this publisher, they say they're reserving the right to not allow you to write a review on Amazon or maybe put on your own blog. All right. You know, do they really have that right to reserve? Can they say, well, yes, you can quote from this for a review, but only in these certain circumstances? Sounds like somebody hasn't caught up with updating their copyrights. That was from a book published in 2007. That's sad. Yeah. Well, you know. What has been using the same statement for 20 years? Maybe. They have no reasons. They have no reasons. Exactly. So the question this kind of leads us to is, what about fair use? In other countries, it's called fair dealing. In Canada, I know it's called fair dealing. I think also in the UK. And here in the States, we call it fair use. And fair use is actually covered under three sections of the law. So we're going to talk a little law here for just a second. And here is 17 USC, the copyright law section 107. And this is where fair use is defined. And this is where it gets real fun. Because in order to say what you've done is fair use, they have to be judge. Judge. This is important. It has to take into account the purpose and character of the use. The nature of the work, the amount that you've copied, and the effect upon the potential market for the value of the copyright to work. So, you know, whether you made or didn't make any money on it, actually isn't necessarily relevant. Right? That's what people always quote that. Yeah. Right. Well, I'm not making any money off of it. Yeah, well. I'm using other people from the people who have the rights for making money by giving away for free. That could theoretically do it. And fair use is an affirmative defense. So what that means is somebody has to charge you with copyright violation. And you have to say, yes, I violated copyright, but what I did was legal under this exception. Okay? The other area we want to take into account is section 108. Obviously, I'm not going to read all this. Okay? This is the exception for libraries and archives. It basically says libraries have the right to, in certain cases, make backup copies to re-bind something for preservation purposes, that sort of thing. Okay? So libraries in general are kind of covered. Okay? Then you have a little known section called section 113c, which has to do with the creation of useful works. And the idea is, for example, let's say I'm a bookseller and I want to print a catalog of books I'm selling. I'm allowed to use an image of the book because that helps in the sale of the book. Okay? So, you know, when I've talked to publishers and they're saying, well, you have to get permission for this screenshot. I'm like, oh, well, but isn't that useful work because I'm promoting the service or I'm reviewing the service? I mean, imagine if Library Journal had to get permission for every book cover that they actually published in their book, in their magazine. Unlikely. Section 113c is what covers that. So at this point, we're all perfectly clear on how fair use works, right? How about you, Chris? Are you clear? Oh, yeah. Yeah, sure. Okay. So fair use is one of those things that, in my opinion, kind of common sense has gone out the window. Okay? Let me show you an example. This would be another video. Yeah, I know you've seen this one. A woman posted a 29-second video of her toddler kind of dancing around the kitchen. Okay? And on the radio in the background happened to be Princess Let's Go Crazy, which the copyright is owned by Universal Music Publishing Group. She put this up on YouTube. I mean, it was fuzzy. Like, if you didn't know the song, you couldn't figure out what this song was. But Universal sued and said, you are violating our copyright for posting that 29-second incidental snippet. She didn't pick Let's Go Crazy as the soundtrack to this video. It just happened to be what was on the radio. She was sued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It was taken off. The Electronics Frontier Foundation got involved saying, look, this is obviously fair use. You can't do this. It eventually was reinstated. And she did, as I understand, end up winning. But it took several years. Yeah. You know, most people, I would argue, would say, that's fair use. Did it prevent any sales? It was 29 seconds out of a four-minute song. If anything, it might have promoted the sales, right, exactly. That's a constant song. Let's find out what it was. So what a lot of people argue, and I would probably agree, is that you have these very large corporations going after very small individuals to protect their business, which they have every right to do. I'm not going to argue that they don't have a right to protect their business. But can we think of any other large companies that have basically based their business on the reuse of pre-existing content? Anybody recognize any of these movies? Disney created the company based upon the works of others. Imagine if Hans Christian Anderson could say, no, no, no, you can't make a movie out of my work. The last time copyright was extended, a certain character was about to go into the public domain, and somehow copyright got extended. Really? Got extended as the Public Sunny Bono Copyright Extension Act. Do you know where Sunny Bono represented? Yes. Where? California. California. Covered Anaheim. Covered this guy. We know this guy. This guy's Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse used to look like this. And originally, Mickey Mouse looked like this. Do you know the name of that character? Steamboat Willie. Steamboat Willie. How many of you knew Steamboat Willie? Do you know where Steamboat Willie came from? You're looking at my slides. She's looking at my handouts. Steamboat Willie was a direct characterization of Steamboat Bill Jr. The movie had come out by Buster Keaton just a year before, and there are memos showing that Walt Disney said make a cartoon based on that. It was still in copyright, but he was allowed to do it. And now, look what has come from Disney. Their whole business is based on reusing, manipulating, mash-up, maybe, of pre-existing content. But then when you try to use Disney... You try to use Disney, they're going to come down on you with a big camera. They've come down on libraries. They've come down on libraries. They've come down on daycare centers. They've come down all over the place. Now, I'm not here to pick on Disney. I'm just using them as an example of kind of what we've gotten ourselves into. Now, I mentioned earlier, DJ Danger Mouse. That's actually the guy in the background of this picture. He later went on to form a group after he was told to take down your content called Narls Barkley. I saw him crazy. That's them now. That's DJ Danger Mouse in the back. And what some people have argued is, well, now it's okay. See, he's working now for the music industry. The music industry told him that the art he was doing before was okay, but the art he's doing now, now that we're paying him, is okay. Yeah. What some would argue, and I will do so too, is that we've created what's called a clearance culture. In other words, we have painted ourselves into such a corner with copyright that we have to ask permission for everything. I'm not sure how many people are from academics or public libraries here or whatever, but how many of you have ever heard someone say, well, you better get permission because we don't want to get sued? This is generally the legal advice you've got to get, because your city, your town, your institution doesn't want to be sued. Well, the problem is, is when you ask, even when you don't have to, you establish this precedent that says, well, that person asked, so I better ask, so the next person better ask, and we kind of give up that whole concept of fair use. Okay. Corey Doctro, who I will mention again, has said, and I'll quote him on the next slide, too, that fair use now is the equivalent of the right to hire a lawyer and defend yourself, because it is that affirmative defense. In order to prove that what you did with fair use, you first have to be sued, and nobody wants to be sued because nobody's got the money, so we ask. And Corey, who's very big in this area, also says that the problem with copyright at its core is that it treats all creators the same. I create content, I know Christa creates content, Corey Doctro creates content, he's a best-selling author, I'm not equating myself with him necessarily, but we all create content, and copyright is a single set of rules for everybody, and even if they work, some people don't necessarily want to follow those rules. So the problem is, is there an alternative? And the alternative comes from a law professor who was at Stanford, I believe he's gone back to Harvard, he was at Harvard before, he keeps going from coast to coast, I can't remember where he's right now, by the name of Lawrence Lessig. He actually sued against the federal government for the last extension of copyright, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. And if you read the copyright law of the Constitution, it says that Congress can establish this copyright, yada, yada, yada, for a limited time. And I mentioned that originally it was 14 years. Now in many cases, it's well over 100 years. And his argument was that that violates the spirit of the concept of for a limited time. Guess what? He lost. Yeah, all the way to the Supreme Court, he lost, the Supreme Court said, well, it's up to Congress to decide what a limited time is. Okay, so he lost, and so he said, okay, there needs to be an alternative. So he created what is now known as the Creative Commons. If you look back in the history of the term commons, it was originally for grazing purposes. There was the land that was shared by everybody. So he said, why don't we create commons of creative content that other people can use? The website is at CreativeCommons.org. The website looks something like this. And the idea behind Creative Commons, where I said earlier that copyright is based on restricting rights and reserving rights for certain people, Creative Commons is an allowance of rights. It's a giving of rights to others by the person who created that content. So the idea is, let's say, and for simplicity's sake, I'll use photographs as my main example here, because I take a lot of photographs, as some people well know, post them all on Flickr. And I take a photograph, and I can then choose what rights I want to give other people to reuse that content. Under traditional copyright, I would put it on Flickr, it would say, already it's reserved, and everybody who wanted to use it would have to ask me permission. Or I could sue them for violating copyright. But I'm pretty free with my content. I'm not necessarily looking to make money off of it, especially with the photographs. Although I have, I have sold photographs. So what I have to do is I have to choose what rights I wish to kind of give to others. And so each right has a symbol that matches with it. This is the first one, this is known as the attribution right. And basically every single Creative Commons license you can put on something has this one requirement that says, if you are going to reuse my content, you must give me credit because I created it in the first place. So I can put up a photo and say, you can do whatever you want with it as long as you give me credit. Tim O'Reilly, the head of O'Reilly Media once said that the problem for most creators is not piracy, it's obscurity. In other words, I would rather people knew me than necessarily one person paid me a lot of money. Although I realized if you paid me enough money I could probably change my principles. But I'll be honest. Alright, then what I can decide is whether or not I would allow commercial use of my content. So most content I've pushed on Flickr is licensed under attribution non-commercial, which means you may use it as long as you give me credit and you're not making money off of it. Now, anybody who's thinking, well what is making money off of it mean we'll come back to that. Yeah, exactly. And I have a slide specifically on that issue. I can also say I do not want to allow derivative works. So let's say I could say, yes, use this photo, but give me credit, don't sell it, and don't change it. Don't crop it, don't rotate it, don't whatever. If it was a novel I wrote, no derivative works would mean you can't turn it into an audiobook, you can't make a play out of it, you can't change the work, you can't do an abridged version of it. In my case, I say if you want to change it, go ahead. I generally do not do the no derivatives part of the license. You know the kind of person that's into those mashups like you're talking about before, you'd want to encourage that kind of thing too. Please use my photo, crop it to your needs, place it in your collage, as long as you say where you got that photo from. I don't care. Speaking of that, I won't spend much time on this, there is a remix allowance you can also do. You can specifically allow for remixing. This mostly has to do with musical content. So since I don't create any musical content, I'm not intimately familiar with that version of the license. You can then also add what's called a share a like license, which means that if you reuse my work, you must also share the work you created based on my work under Creative Commons. Kind of a pay it forward scenario. You have to use the same Creative Commons license I chose. I'm not 100% sure if you have to use the exact same one, but you do have to kind of re-license it under Creative Commons. That's a very good question. I've never actually dug into that level. I don't use this one. I found that actually I started using it when I took that off. I think it tends to scare some people because not everybody does Creative Commons. So I'll go find something else to use instead. So my general license on 99.9% of my content is attribution non-commercial. Give me credit? Don't sell it. And then I have had organizations, including Library Journal, email me and say, we want to print this photo in Library Journal. 20 bucks. Actually, Library Journal said we can't pay you. I said, well, you're Library Journal. A French magazine said we'll pay you 50 euros. I said, okay. I'm not going to argue with that. So how do you actually set up this license? Well, the easiest way to do it is you can go to Creative Commons.org. There's a license link. You bring up this form. You've got to zoom in on it there. You basically just answer a couple simple questions. One, do you want to allow commercial use of your work? Two, do you want to allow modifications? Yes. Yes, as long as others share a like. Or no, which would be no derivatives. And then the jurisdiction of your license, you do need to pick which country you're in. I do believe we have a Nintendee that's either in or will be going back to Brazil. You'd have to look at the list. But I'm assuming Brazil does have a license available because there is actual legal contract behind this, which has to be written in your jurisdiction. So there's a whole list of 30, 40 countries available in that list. Then if you want, you can add some additional metadata, if you would like, down below under additional information, and then you click select the license. So once you do that, what do you get out of the back end? Well, the first thing you get is you get a little icon that you can place in or out of the work. So this would say that I have licensed this work under Creative Commons under the attribution non-commercial license. And if a user clicks on that, they'll get what's called a Commons deed. And that is a brief explanation, kind of in simple English or language of said country that says, here is what you are allowed to do without asking permission of the creator. I am giving you this permission. You are free to share it and you are free to remix it as long as you give me credit and you use it in an non-commercial way. That's pretty straightforward. You will also get, what you can link to off of that, is the legal contract behind this. That's as big as I can make the divit on the slide. That is the U.S. license. So far, these licenses, to my knowledge, have not been challenged in the United States. But they have been challenged in other countries and they have been held up in every case in those courts. If you violate my Creative Commons license, I then have the right to sue you for your official copyright law. Basically is what this says. I have had people violate my CC license and I sent them a polite email and sometimes I know these people and I hate to do it but I kind of like, Steve, I am making that name up. You have got to use my photo and you forgot to give me credit and you say, oh sorry, and they fix it immediately. I have other websites but just give me credit. I am like, oh no, we took it down. I am like, okay, whatever. You didn't have to do that. You will also get some HTML that if you are putting this on a web page, you can post that in the header of your HTML. It is metadata. And what this will then allow to do, for example, there is a plugin for Firefox that will look for this code and if it finds it, it will put the appropriate icon on your status bar at the bottom of the screen. So you know as you are surfing around if you find something that is licensed under Creative Commons. Catalogers like metadata. Don't tell anyone. Little sidebar here, there are some other licenses that are supported through the website. You can license things in the public domain and founders copyright and what is known as the new public license and music sharing in Wiki. I just want to say that these are available. I have not studied them in so much detail. There is also another one that is called CC0 which started about last year. It is like public domain but not really public domain but basically says I put this work out do whatever you want with it. You don't even have to give me credit. But yeah, then it gets into patent and trademark stuff down below and it gets really, really weird but that sounds like something you are interested in. Go into the website and take a little more look into that. So are there other ways to assign CC licenses to content? Maybe you got something you want to go to that form every single time. Well in Flickr you can do this excuse me so you can set a default of all your Flickr photos. This is actually incorrect. My default is now attribution noncommercial. The second one down and that is the default license. Now everything I upload to Flickr by default has that license on it. Then if I want change the license on a photo by photo basis or in batches if I want to. We are almost set on that. I have a sense of like some people do a mixture of things on their Flickr accounts that are personal and work related to issues like the pictures of their children. I didn't all rights reserved for this for my wedding. I have pictures of friends, kids and all those are all rights reserved. We'll come back to that too because Creative Commons is not perfect. Another example there is an add-in for Microsoft Office that you can install that will give you under the file menu a licensing choice and allow you to assign a Creative Commons license to a PowerPoint, Excel spreadsheet, a Word document, whatever and it will embed the code and metadata of the file and give you the icon right in your file also. I actually use this to assign the license to this PowerPoint. Let me just run through some examples of where you can find CC license content online. Flickr, as I mentioned several times already if you look in the bottom right corner there by the red arrow, you will see that there is a license set that one in that case is attribution non-commercial share alike. Because I'm logged in I have that little edit where I can change it if I want to anybody else would click on some rights reserved for brief explanation. Slide share which is a service we use here a lot at the commission for posting our PowerPoint presentations and some of these videos starting this week and you can see again with the red arrow this would be a non-commercial attribution share alike license also. Web junction, now they have completely redesigned it doesn't look like this anymore. I seriously need to update this slide. However, this they do license the content under Creative Commons this is an actual article that I published with Web Junction several years ago, 2007 and you will see there is a CC icon kind of in the bottom center there. They were using a generic icon and you have to click on it to actually see which license it was under you know, kind of optional there. And then Corey Doctorow who I have mentioned already he actually publishes novels. He licenses everything he does and makes it available for free online under Creative Commons license. So you can buy his new book in Minds & Noble or Amazon or Borders and I want to pick a particular one. Or you can download completely for free under Creative Commons license from his website in many many formats and in fact you see there Dorthia Salo she's a librarian. She actually created one of the versions of this particular book. I've got one in there too. I created a version of one of them. And because his license allows us to create the different versions it would be a derivative. So maybe one's HTML, one's EPUB, one's plain text, one's a Word file, etc. So there you go. And kind of the last example I'll give you here. This is another video you can look up on YouTube called The Flickr Song. This is by Jonathan Colton a computer programmer who decided to quit his day job and create music. He's did a song called Code Monkey Read Your Brains Talking About Zombies. Various other things. It doesn't even know who he is he's probably laughing right now. And what he did for the first year after he quit his job was he released one song a week for 52 straight weeks and licensed them all under Creative Commons. And this example though, he kind of did a little bit of a reversal. He went through Flickr and found random Creative Commons licensed photos. Excuse me. And then wrote a song to match them. It is a funny song, yes. So just go to YouTube search for Flickr Song Jonathan Colton C-O-U-L-T-O-N is his name if that helps you narrow it down. It's an amazing song and he gives all the credit for everybody's photos at the end of the video. So let's say now you want to create something using Creative Commons content. I do this all the time. I create PowerPoints. I'm looking for photographs and putting the PowerPoints. I need to find content that I don't need to ask permission to use. So there's a couple of options. First is you can go to search.creativecommons.org look something like this and most of the major search engines today including the ones listed here Google, Yahoo, Flickr under their advanced search the ability to limit your results to Creative Commons license content. In this case this interface just kind of pre-sets that for you as you can see here with the Google example search only create pages that are free to use or share. Specifically looking for photographs I use a service called com-fight-z-o-m-p-f-i-g-h-t .com I'll put that in the links for this presentation it's probably already there actually. And what that does is it searches Flickr in a very easy to use interface but I can say please give me anything that I'm allowed to use under Creative Commons and I get amazing results from that and we're going to come back to that in just a second here because I'm kind of giving you the copyright end of it what led up to Creative Commons how Creative Commons works but it's not perfect are there any problems with Creative Commons and some people would argue there are problems with copyright I'm not here to say that Creative Commons is perfect there are issues you need to be aware of so let me take a few minutes to kind of run through those the first complaint that some people have with Creative Commons that is once you license your work it's technically an irrevocable license yes, no one's sort of he's kind of the answer let's say I license a work and I say attribution non-commercial share alike and then six months down the road I decide you know what really I don't care what you do with it just give me credit so I change it to just attribution I now change the license well then somebody does actually I should give a better example let's say originally I just said attribution then six months down the road I said attribution non-commercial if I made it more restrictive and then somebody does something commercial with it well now it gets into the argument of when did they find it and what was the license when they found it you're not supposed to change your licenses now under traditional copyright eventually things go into the public domain but technically if you license something things don't technically ever go into the public domain because you're not supposed to change the license I mean I'm getting a little you know policy wonkish here but it is a legitimate criticism of how Creative Commons works this was the rest are a little easier to understand for most people this one negative market effect you get this a lot from photographers professional photographers who take stock photography and try to sell it do things like I stock photo and other websites then Flickr comes along and all of us amateur photographers who post 25,000 photos in their Flickr account covering any topic you could possibly conceive of some of which those photos might actually be good I got a couple photos I think are okay and we give them away for free we are now we are the negative market effect on the professional photographers they're afraid of losing business from us exactly they're afraid of losing business they're giving our stuff away for free two ways to be completely honestly I have to say I'm sorry deal with it I mean I understand their point but markets change I have sold photos I'm also not trying to make a living off of selling photos so I you know but it's an issue and here's that one what is non-commercial the example in my case I'm giving you a non-commercial from my content and through a lot of other people I've talked to other creative companies who license their content basically means don't sell it or so if you print it in your magazine and you sell your magazine you're technically selling the photo you print it in a book and you sell the book you print it out you put it in a frame you're selling the photo but the situation I ran into the one of the two times that I got the DMCA takedown notice I took a book that was licensed under creative commons and said attribution to non-commercial the whole book and so I posted it on a website called Scribes and gave the guy credit and I wasn't making a dime I posted it up for other people to be able to read some of the books since Scribes takedown notice because Scribes had ads on their website so by posting his content on their website he thought that they were selling his work while they weren't selling it they were making money off of his work by his work being there I talked to both Scribes and the author we did have a very good conversation we basically agreed to disagree Scribes agreed with me but legally because he was the owner of the content they had to take it down and he and I agreed to disagree so you know that's going to be a personal agenda for each creator is do I care that my thing is out on a website that anyone can go to and see for free and I'm actually selling my item but over here next to it is an ad that if someone reading my thing happened to click on that ad the company would make money and it would be that bad let me give you one other quick example up to the conversion to the site there's not one here I work for the government so I'm non-profit but every once in a while I get paid to speak outside of my employment a conference call me a state will call me and I take a day off and I go drive out to where I run and I give a talk and I go back to work the next day if I use a photo that was licensed non-commercial in one of my presentations that I got paid to give is that a commercial use of that photo I don't know if you can tell but Chris's head is spinning just a little bit here the general consensus is no but I could see somebody making that argument and nobody's called me on it you made money but it wasn't just because of that one picture in your 60 slides I didn't sell that photo I really could have done it without that photo and chances are my presentation ends up getting posted for free I'm wanting for anybody else to see anyways so you know if you find your photo in one of my presentations and I've gone to people in conferences saying hey I recognize that photo I didn't see you gave me credit and they're like oh the credit was at the end I was like okay good another issue unintended use this again happened to me for those of you that know me things I'll get on a soapbox on every once in a while it's about signs in libraries and no cell phone policies we can give a whole other presentation on why I don't like cell phone policies and there are no cell phone policies and so this is a photo I actually took that said please turn off cell phones in the library and I posted it to my Flickr account and it got used to this blog post on a PBS blog I thought this was cool and they gave me credit whatever here's the problem it was used to illustrate the concept of in the worst of the worst category don't use a cell phone while in the library I completely disagree with that statement but they're using my photo to illustrate that point this is an unintended use of my photo now I couldn't complain that he used my photo because he didn't follow my license I couldn't complain but whatever but luckily because it was a blog I just wrote a comment saying thank you for using my photo but by the way I completely disagree with you and here's why so when you let yourself out there when you put your stuff out and you don't make them ask your permission it could be used in a way you don't like and then you can decide what you want to do about it do you want to tell them I could have requested he take it down and the last one is right of publicity there is another law here you do have to take into consideration when you are using a photo of a person this actually happened to Verizon Wireless where they used a Creative Commons licensed photo of a person in an ad campaign and the problem is the person in the photo has a weight of publicity and even though the photo was legal the use of that person's face was not because they didn't get their permission that person didn't get their permission the subject of the photo did not get permission and Verizon got their hand slapped for that one because they didn't ask so the moment you start using the images of other people to promote a particular thing then you know whatever and I almost wonder now thinking about it since you can see my silhouette in that picture I wonder if I can write a publicity article but probably not so those are the problems that you can run into with Creative Commons and you need to at least give a passing plot to them before you decide to use Creative Commons if you want to because you can run into those problems so how can Creative Commons be used in libraries I basically got three points here that I want to make about the application of Creative Commons in libraries and the first one is to teach your patrons and or students to use CC license to work we have a teaching opportunity here some of us I know cringe when dealing especially with students where they just want to pull anything they can off the internet and use it and I've got a 60 year old in my house she's about to graduate high school and she's had a new PowerPoint presentation for school over the last couple of years and she would just kind of pull pictures and images off the internet and I said okay well now regardless of what I think of how copyright should work whether I think that should be fair use and all of these other things let's teach her a way that she can learn that here is a good way to do it you won't have to worry about this stuff so I said go to comflight.com search for snakes make sure you set that you want stuff you're allowed to use and then anything you can use you're allowed to use as long as you create a URL back to the original in either credits at the end or at the bottom of the slide in a little tiny text or something like that and if nothing else she found much better photos than she had found before than her randomly googling mistakes or whatever I mean she found some great photos she did some really great presentations I think that way and she gave the original credit she didn't have to worry about violating somebody's rights she just did it you can find those opportunities in working if you're a school librarian especially but even in public libraries in academics definitely also you know learn how to create a commons works and then teach your students about that license your work under creative commons I did I did too some of you might be doing it already in something like Flickr but you know if you're going to put up a PowerPoint somewhere license that if you are an office user get that plug in add that content that sort of thing I even did it on because I've seen other people do this on my personal blog I've put a little I've seen other bloggers have done this it's not work related to my own thing I do work related stuff on it but a little creative commons license on that you know I wrote this stuff and I just want to be sure it's a cover you know someone also argued that if you put it on the web you pretty much want people to you've got to expect that somebody's going to copy it at some point so try to encourage them to give you credit and then the last one and this is where I'm like this lone voice in the wilderness I swear but catalog creative commons works we've started a project we've got a little bit away from it but I'm next couple weeks we're going to kick it back up again but actually fighting creative commons license works online and actually cataloging them and making them available and in most cases this is digital content so it's not necessary too difficult so let me just talk briefly about what we've done here at the commission one thing we've actually done in very limited circumstances was we've actually printed and bound cc license whole books Lawrence Lessig's books have versions that are allowed and he doesn't say no derivatives so we created a bound book we've done that with one or two core doctor's novels in fact he even quoted he said it was all kind of awesome or something like that when he found out we had done this trigger happy by Steven pool this is actually the author that I got into the debate about posting it online he's the one who said he got to take that down he was cool with this but he didn't like it being unscribed and some other ones back up just a second here with these three books that we actually had we sent them to the state printing department and then the person who actually did the sending over actually got a phone call saying we can't print whole books that's against copyright and so we had to call them back yes and we had to say no it is okay the state will not get sued these are allowed under creative comments so we had to do a little teaching over there with the state printing office this was actually a six page electronic pamphlet that we cataloged tips for comfort bloggers we've even cataloged a fan fiction firefly novel for that it's actually was done by a professional science fiction author but we've cataloged some of that the maintain it project has cookbooks the big license of the creative comments we've added all of these things to our collection oh yeah sorry technology cookbooks they're for computer technology issues and stuff that they've just given yep and we found other things that are available online in classic texts things like that that have been licensed under CC and we've added them to the collection we've actually created OCLC records for these things we have linked back to the original location we found them but we've also created an archive copy on our own server so in most cases PDFs and we've linked to them so you will always be able to get to them through through us even if the original item did do it but there were some questions raised during this project and to which I will also add I'm not a cataloger oh in fact that slide was later some people asked well are we competing if we post a copy on our system but maybe we also offer that same content through a vendor that we deal with say I'm not saying this have net library they have ebooks yes so if we there's an ebook version of one of them yeah there's an ebook version through net library which we pay for but then we're also putting it for free is it competition we didn't really answer that somebody just went was it competition and we went hmm and we never went back our collection development policy we're a state library we don't generally put fiction in our collection we definitely don't put firefly, fan fiction science fiction in our collection so a discussion need to be had about what is our mission and it was agreed that within the scope of this project I have been given some additional latitude to add things that we wouldn't typically add to our collection for the purposes of this as the Nebraska Library Commission part of our mission is helping teaching our libraries in the state to do various things so we do a lot of things by example we have plenty of libraries that will have fiction and here's a way we've done it so you can do it now a couple of bands over the years have also released complete albums under Creative Commons and I keep trying to find a public library who will literally burn one of these albums to a CD and add it to their collection and I thought I had one and then I lost them but music CDs are really pushing our collection development policy so if your public library wants to get into this give me a shout I will help you out I promise some of the cataloging issues that were raised so this is where I stress I'm not a cataloger who is the publisher if Cory Doctorow published a book and it's printed by Tor but then he puts it on a server for free download is he the publisher or is Tor the publisher another question that was raised and this is where I prove I'm not a cataloger because I don't even understand this place of publication is a required field so if he wrote it while he was in San Francisco he published it while he was in Toronto it's on a server in New York City and he now lives in London where is the place of publication they're right and if you're linking to our copy which is on our server here in Nebraska are we the place of publication when you're looking at our our cataloger solved it I don't know what you did yes look at our records and find out so it was fun boing boing is a big monster blog that's out there, Cory Doctorow is involved we started this project in February 2008 and we blogged about the fact that we were doing this include some of Cory's stuff and the blog hits that we were getting about that time on our blog at the commission here were 700-800 hits things like that just the one blog post we wrote we got a well over 2,000 hits so there was definite interest in this project when it went out it's kind of slowed down a bit but like I said I'm looking to revive it and I'm looking for some partners so if anybody's interested give me a shout and with that just under time we can probably take a couple of questions the email address is long excuse me my little pen here but actually it still works for right now but ultimately it should be michael.sours at nebraska.gov we will update this slide before we post it online there is where you can find all my creative comments bookmarks we'll also mirror those onto the commission's account for Encompass Live you can find this and other presentations of mine there we will also be mirroring this on the commission's slide share account also and if you look way down in the bottom corner there you will see that I have licensed this under creative commons it looks like I did do a share a life license there's three circles there our screen has kind of cut off it's probably cut off on theirs as well wait for the presentation everybody will get a link to all of this stuff in their email if the recording has been done and the link to this will all be on the page with all the recording information that you will get emailed to in the week worst case so with that we do have some time we can go a little long we don't have a hard one hour cut off here Chris do you want to see if there's any questions outstanding if anybody does have any questions feel free to type them into the questions section of your interface or if you have a microphone you want to use just let us know that I have a mic unmute me and we can do that if you have a question on your microphone I realized it's a lot yes someone is telling us they have no questions well you guys can see this thanks for this incredibly informative presentation no questions right now thank you thank you for all the good information it's really not as hard as you think about it I've been listening to some recent talks that Corey Dockrow has given they always ask him about posting his stuff for free under Creative Commons and Laylee I have to edit his language just a little bit here but Laylee he's been saying that most people honestly when they see a Creative Commons license they think the person that created this isn't a jerk and I shouldn't be a jerk either in other words they don't necessarily understand it kind of implies that it's like a do unto others he doesn't use the word jerk this person understands there's probably some things wrong with copyright he wants people to share his or her stuff please do so and please don't be a jerk about it in other words don't print it out and sell it or something like that I don't know if we're going to pay it forward you know what they're being nice about it I will too I know some people just hearing where copyright makes them cringe because of trying to understand and figure out especially in the library world and I think this really helps clarify it a bit this presentation is very boiled down information and especially the Creative Commons stuff makes it I think it makes me feel a lot more relaxed and comfortable with what's going on with myself and anything we do here with commission that it's not the end of the world to protect yourself and if you're in one of those institutions where the lawyers the administration are very very concerned about being sued and violating copyright and whatever there is a ton of Creative Commons license stuff out there and if you start mining that for good content you can just completely avoid the issue you can stop making phone calls and e-mail saying can I have permission to do this because you know you have permission by the license as it exists to make your life easier yes less fear we need less fear in the world there's nothing else I don't think we have any urgent questions that I think we'll wrap it up thank you very much for attending today as I said it's recorded we'll get that up in the next day or so hope you'll join us next week is Conducting Surveys 2 it's part 2 in a 3 part series that Katherine Brock Meyer, one of our staff heard the commission is doing about doing a survey of your patrons and users on data collection next Wednesday so check our website for that can I throw something in and for those of you participating in Nebraska Learns 2.0 this love thing is on polling and surveys yes you just put out live yesterday so yes if you're interested if you're already doing Nebraska Learns 2.0 go and check out the new one if you're not go to our website I think it's anylearns.blogspot.co but don't hold me to that take our site maybe we'll link to it or something yeah google search Nebraska Learns 2.0 you'll find it join in if you want to it's our ongoing 23 things program where we're doing new items every month so thank you very much and we will see you next week bye bye