The 9th of December 2008 is John Milton’s 400th birthday. To celebrate this life-long advocate of liberty we’ve officially launched ‘Open Milton’ – an open set of Milton’s works, together with ancillary information and tools, in a form designed for reuse:

• http://www.openmilton.org/

The Open Milton project has two main objectives:

1. Provide the works of John Milton, along with textual apparatus and tools all in an open form.

2. Deliver this material as a knowledge package that allows for easy deployment, redistribution and reuse.

Specifically we provide a full open set of Milton’s works along with ancillary material, a variety of tools and a python API. In addition to the works themselves there is a chronology, statistics, a concordance and search facilities.

All material is open so that anyone can use, redistribute and reuse these materials freely. From new printed editions of Milton’s works (any budding illustrators out there?) to new kinds of electronic resources for research or education - we hope people take the material and do interesting things with it. Happy birthday John!

Share This

Musopen is an online music library of copyright free (public domain) music. We want to give the world access to music without the legal hassles so common today. There is a great deal of music that has expired copyrights, but almost no recordings of this music is in the public domain. We aim to record or obtain recordings that have no copyrights so that our visitors may listen, re-use, or in any way enjoy music. Put simply, our mission is to set music free.

They’ve currently got material from 29 composers - from Bach to Brahms, Mozart to Mussorgsky. An interesting feature of the project is it allows users to suggest pieces that they would like to have recorded - and to pledge funds to have the recording made. The bid page lists 14 bids with over $1100 pledged.

The recordings produced are dedicated to the public domain and hence can be freely re-used and re-distributed for any purpose - from being shipped with educational projects to being remixed or sampled in new tracks. They use an open knowledge button in their footer to show that the material is compliant with the Open Knowledge Definition. Rufus Pollock, director of the OKF, is an advisor to the project.

If you know any musicians who might be interested in donating recordings, or if you’d like to participate in the project - head over to the contribute page to see how you can get involved!

Share This

We’re pleased to announce that (subject to final confirmation) the Open Knowledge Foundation is now a member of the EU funded COMMUNIA network, which is “the European Thematic Network on the Digital Public Domain”. (We blogged about the first workshop in January and the third workshop in October.)

As it says on the goals page:

The COMMUNIA Thematic Network aims at becoming a European point of reference for theoretical analysis and strategic policy discussion of existing and emerging issues concerning the public domain in the digital environment - as well as related topics, including, but not limited to, alternative forms of licensing for creative material; open access to scientific publications and research results; management of works whose authors are unknown (i.e. orphan works).

Funded by the European Commission within the eContentplus framework, the 3-years long project expects to provide policy guidelines that will help each stakeholder involved - public and private, from the local to the European and global level.

The network will now have 41 members - a full list of which is available on the membership list. We’re currently organising the 4th COMMUNIA workshop which will take place at London School of Economics in March 2009 - so watch this space!

Share This

So far, participants will include:

• Jonathan Gray, The Open Knowledge Foundation
• Rufus Pollock, The Open Knowledge Foundation
• Peter Murray-Rust, Unilever Cambridge Centre for Molecular Infomatics
• Jim Downing, Unilever Cambridge Centre for Molecular Infomatics
• Cameron Neylon, STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
• Sarah Gentleman, Research Information Network
• Non Scantlebury, The Open University Library
• Joy Davidson, Digital Curation Centre
• Terence Freedman, The National Archives
• Hilary Smith, University of Sussex
• Vincent Rouilly, Imperial College London.
• Rhian Cunliffe, In-House Editor, BioMed Central Research Notes
• Ben O’Steen, Software Engineer Oxford Research Archive
• Tim Hubbard, Sanger Institute
• Giota Alevizou, London School of Economics
• Jessie Hey, EdShare, University of Southampton

Details of the workshop are as follows:

• When: Saturday 8th November 2008, 1100-1600
• Where: London Knowledge Lab, 23-29 Emerald Street, London, WC1N 3QS. (See map.)
• Wiki: http://okfn.org/wiki/OpenScience/Workshop
• Participation: Attendance is free. If you are planning to come along please add your name to the participants list, or email us (info at the okfn domain).

From the wiki page:

This informal, hands-on workshop will focus on finding and re-using open scientific resources - including public domain data, open access journal articles, and open educational materials. We will look at existing tools for discovering open material, metadata standards for relevant material in different domains, and how researchers go about looking for the material they need.

In addition to focused discussions about legal and technological aspects of re-use, open scientific resources will be documented and tagged on CKAN, a registry of knowledge resources.

Share This

The third COMMUNIA workshop ‘Marking the public domain: relinquishment & certification’ (which we mentioned last week) took place in Amsterdam on Monday and Tuesday.

It brought together COMMUNIA members and other relevant parties from across Europe for talks and workshops focusing on legal issues related to the public domain, and how public domain works can be found and re-used.

I spoke about our work on Public Domain Calculators, and the possibility of working more closely with the COMMUNIA network and its members, as well as with Europeana and CCi. We’re pleased to say that there will now be a new COMMUNIA Working Group - which will include work on Public Domain Calculators for across the EU.

Speakers included:

• Bernt Hugenholtz, IViR Amsterdam
• James Boyle, Center for the Study of the Public Domain
• Mike Linksvayer, VP Creative Commons
• Diane Peters, General Counsel Creative Commons
• Lucie Guibault, IViR
• Mireille van Eechoud, IViR
• Jennifer Jenkins, Center for the Study of the Public Domain
• Paul Keller, Knowledgeland
• Patrick Peiffer, Bibliothèque nationale de Luxembourg
• Mario Pena, Safe Creative
• Antoine Aubert, European Copyright Policy Counsel, Google
• Peter Gorgels, Web Director Rijksmuseum Amsterdam
• Harry Verwayen, Knowledgeland/Europeana

There was a workshop on CC0 from a European perspective - which included interesting conversations with Jordan Hatcher of the PDDL. Mireille van Eechoud gave an informative presentation on Directive 2003/98/EC - on Public Sector Information, and its implementation across Europe.

Notes

Full documentation will be published by COMMUNIA in due course. Meanwhile, below are some rough notes from the opening session with James Boyle and Bernt Hugenholtz - which included a fascinating discussion on the history and future of the public domain in the EU and the US.

James Boyle

• Discussion of conception of copyright in Scottish Enlightenment. A necessary evil and a temporary purgatory in which works languish before the paradise of the public domain.
• ‘The best of a bad series of alternatives’. Better than patronage or subsidy.
• The public domain available for re-use and adaptation. Copyright as the price of rich public domain.
• Works would not fall into public domain - they would emerge into public domain.
• Strand of liberalism from Scottish Enlightenment.
• Default state of works (after relatively brief period of protection), rather than conception of public domain as dusty ‘lost and found office’.
• Minimalist vs maximalist visions of copyright. This picture is too simple.
• Booksellers stripped of privileges - hired Diderot as lobbyist.
• Diderot argues literary property is highest form of property. Don’t impoverish common store, add to the common store.
• Condorcet argues that copyright is placing restriction on freedom - not only of those who want to copy, but those who want copies. Question of use or harm to progress of enlightenment.
• Condorcet and Diderot’s visions going to war. We have a mix of both.
• Notion of works in the public domain as pre-requisite to ‘being a cultural hero’.
• On both sides of atlantic discussions of pd more complex than we acknowledge
• Writing and re-writing history of the public domain on both sides of the atlantic

Bernt Hugenholtz

• Agrees that history of public domain is more complex than we may assume.
• History of European copyright does not end at end of 18th century.
• 19th century thinkers tried to rationalise knowledge as property
• Nature of intellectual property, philosophical discussion.
• IP as subcategory of personality right (a bit like a human right).
• Lots of interesting ideas from German thinkers. Monist conception where copyright does not allow transfers. Copyright is other side of personality. Germany is most problematic.
• What are the differences between EU/US systems and histories of copyright?
• In EU copyright reflects personality and gives them human rights status
• Absence of constitutional mandate in EU jurisdictions is a big difference
• In US have the supreme court as an opportunity, constitutional scrutiny
• Except in places like germany that are structurally more like the US
• More difficult to come up with CC0 style declarations
• Government/legislative intervention
• Freedom of public sector information is not well grounded in europe

Discussion with James Boyle and Bernt Hugenholtz

• JB: Theoretical dimension in addition to historical dimension. In US copyright expires then freedom. What is freedom? Access? Free trade? Notion of the commons. Privately created commons. Created by individuals. Jefferson, Diderot, et al were not thinking of privately created commons. We should pause and reflect on this.

  • One vision: Private commons are second best as we have bad IP law. CC would be unnecessary if we had better rules and systems. CC deals with screw ups of corrupt/broken system.
  • Another vision: Not second best but first best. E.g. viral licensing. Sharealike. Imposing condition that public domain could not impose. Not just absence of rights, but stipulation of regulation.
  • We need to be clear about which vision of commons we are talking about.
  • E.g. strong public domain conditions. Notion of attribution. E.g. with large databases. Lots of science unworkable with viral licensing. Attribution stacking. On theoretical level having a more complex view. Analogy with property. Initially on/off switch conception. Then to much more complex/granular notion involving mortgages, rent, environmental regulation, etc.

• BH: What is public domain? Negative version of copyright? Or is it more than that? Is it a symbol or metaphor for a desirable situation in policy/legislation? Absence of IP right can lead to restriction on access. E.g. with databases. William Hill case in 2004. Events schedules not subject to copyright. Lots of events schedule data (sports schedules, etc.) is disappearing underground as a result of the fact there is no protection. Not saying it was a bad decision - but unintented consequences. Back to question - what is your conception of the public domain?

• JB: Many public domains. Appropriate definitions fit with a particular purpose. Notion of public domain depends on ‘evil’ we are addressing. Free as in beer. Limitations/exceptions. Fair use. Every creative work has public roads running through it. Animating vision is one in which public domain is a cluster of ideas - not single idea - that motivate good policy. Often people project their experience from point of entry into debate. Bring presuppositions from point of entry. E.g. software people may think viral licensing is best. E.g. synthetic biologists keen on viral licensing. Able to convince some of them that this was a bad idea. BSD-type or public domain approach better. Different approaches for different circumstances. We should ask question ‘what do we want to do?’ first, then vision of freedom.

• BH: Regarding CC0. Creative Commons has evoked criticisms. Like saying: on left there are always people left of you. Niva [Elkin-Koren] writes critically about Creative Commons. Proliferation of license-based approach adds to property rhetoric that movement wants to cut down on?

• JB: Good question. CC started by people irritated by not being able to share things. Notion of a statement, a bit like a t-shirt, pen. A declarative idea - ‘I like the commons’. People found and loved it. Applied to genetics databases. Disregarding things like Database Right in EU. People motivated by irritation. CC0 came out of that.

• Prodromos: Different visions. What about institutionalisation of PD? Interoperability of material?

• JB: I view myself as hurried waiter rather than legal tsar handing down orders. Mechanic for CC. Where is CC0? Flipside is none of this will mean anything unless public have a sense of everything everyone has a stake in. Not just lawyers/companies. So.. metaphor of environmentalism or ecology. In 1950s there was no idea of ‘the environment’. People worried about species diversity, pollution, etc. Worried about different things. Then notion of ‘environment’. Similar vision for ‘public domain’ to unify different approaches.

• BH: Not quite sure I understood Pro’s question. To rephrase: how to internalise norms? Software copyright situated in law. Existed long before it was codified. Institutions may agree on certain things, e.g. PSI should be free, publicly funded research should be free. Much prefer good norms/policies to CC0.

• Bodo: Ethnographers have been talking about norms for years. Indigenous communities having norms. How doe PD/CC0 relate to indigenous knowledge? Are they opposed?

• JB: Better solution is government data is free - period. Not even WIPO would forbid sharing of indigenous knowledge. Not opposed. CC0 is agnostic. E.g. rapacious capitalist and tree-hugging environmentalist.

• Phillipe Agrain: Parallels with physical commons. Rivalrous resources. Similar standing with physical/intellectual commons. Different take on JB’s environmentalism metaphor.

• BH: Conceptualise vision at pre-norm setting level. Human rights. Article 10, Paragraph 2. Freedom is the rule. Ownership is the exception and has to be proven/proportional. Danger to human rights narrative. Also powerful human rights argument in terms of protection. Personality right argument. Freedom of expression and intellectual property. Also relate this to previous question regarding traditional knowledge.

• Charlie Ness: Creating public domain. What open universities could do.

• JB: Phillipe’s metaphor is dangerous. The notion of great old stuff that you should leave alone. Just like French view of public grass - do not walk on it. PD is stuff that is too good to use. Avoid view of public domain that says ‘how lucky we are to have it - lets leave it alone’.

• Innovation from outlaws? File sharing. Then Radionhead/Nine Inch Nails etc.

• JB: Three different answers. (1) As scholar you may be right but not just for last 15 years or so. Line between legal/illegal. Always dialectic. Trade secrets. Elizabethan plays (people writing them down). DRM was people with bludgeons hitting copiers. In this sense comment is true. (2) In many ways this is too ‘deep’ to be useful. Notion of ‘X supporting piracy’ being fodder for newspapers. (3) Danger in public complacency. ‘We don’t need stinking freedoms as we have X technology to undermine protection/etc.’. ‘Who needs limitations and exceptions when you have YouTube?’ (until it gets a takedown notice). Danger in celebration of and reliance on piracy.

• How long will this remain deep/dangerous?

• JB: McCain campaign with letter to YouTube is big step. Freedom to remix is part of American culture. Big progress.

• Severine Dusollier: Before both maximalist/minimalist people took pd as given. Public domain is no longer a given. Thats why we need things like cc0. Building pd.

• BH: Example of proposal on term extension is good example of weakness of notion of public domain in EU. Bloggers saying ‘What are these acdemics complaining about - do they want a free ride on the beatles?’. Public information law approach. Can learn from US.

• JB: Case of patents over ploughshares. Unconstitutional to withdraw something from the public domain. Or to impede access to PD. Public domain as a zone of freedom that citizens get to play with. Normative vision. Speech based/innovation based that we can work with.

Share This

There are now individuals and groups keen to contribute to the calculators in at least 10 countries:

• Argentina: Bienes Comunes
• Canada: Access Copyright + Creative Commons Canada, Creative Commons + Wikimedia Foundation
• Chile: Derechos Digitales
• Italy: Università di Trento
• Norway: University of Oslo + Creative Commons Norway
• Philippines: Philippine Commons + Arellano University School of Law
• Sweden: University of Lund
• Switzerland: Creative Commons Switzerland
• United Kingdom: Open Knowledge Foundation
• United States: Creative Commons + Open Library

For more information, see the PublicDomainCalculators wiki page!

Ultimately we’d like to see the formation of loose-knit groups to create, maintain and review charts representing relevant legislation in different countries. These charts would be converted into code, and combined with metadata about works to give a sense of what works are in the public domain in each jurisdiction.

We’ve set up a mailing list for interested parties to discuss developments and to share experience in creating flow charts to represent the law:

• http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-calculators

I’ll be talking about the Public Domain Calculators at the 3rd COMMUNIA Workshop in Amsterdam on Monday. As I suggested back in January it would be wonderful if we could build on the collective expertise and experience of the COMMUNIA network to trace the contours of the public domain in Europe!

Share This