I have republished a number of videos of TED Talks on my YouTube channel over the past few years, as I have wanted to share them, TED allows me to, and more eyeballs for my channel means the possibility of more eyeballs for some of my other videos. Whilst doing this, I have always been careful not to violate the terms of the licence that they are issued under.
Recently though, I've been starting to get notices from YouTube/Google of a possible copyright violation. I have therefore taken the first tentative steps towards disputing this - partly to try and stop these notices, but also to stand up for my right to reuse a work I have clear permission to do so.
The text I used to dispute the claim is below:
I am disputing this claim because the original video was issued under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license, which explicitly permits me to republish the video on the condition on compliance with the terms of the license.
In this republication, I have clearly referenced TED as the original source of the materials, I have not used the video for any commercial purposes (and consider that the serving of advertising against this video with contravene the license terms), and have republished the video in full including the advertising/sponsorship in the original file, and have thus not made a derivative work from it.
I believe that the republication of this video was made in good faith and in full accordance with TED's terms of use, as laid out in their usage policy page:
This video is of a speech given by Cory Doctorow to the University of Westminister School of Law, and hosted by The Guardian as part of their 'Battle for the Internet' series. In the talk, Doctorow proposes that the so-called Copyright Wars are merely opening salvos in a wider coming (metaphorical) war on general purpose computing.
For anyone that wants to be able to retain control over what they can or can't do with a computer (which these days means most devices used in daily lives), there are some very compelling arguments here.
Thought that 'the battle to save the Internet' was won with the defeat or shelving of SOPA? Think again. To paraphrase Clay Shirky from the last video I posted here, the price of a free Internet has to be eternal vigilance, it seems.
What's next? Here are 10 things about ACTA, an international trade agreement now signed by representatives from 31 states.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards for intellectual property rights enforcement. The agreement aims to establish an international legal framework for targeting counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet, and would create a new governing body outside existing forums, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, or the United Nations.
The agreement was signed on 1 October 2011 by Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States. In January 2012, the European Union and 22 of its member states signed as well, bringing the total number of signatories to 31. After ratification by 6 states, the convention will come into force.
Supporters have described the agreement as a response to 'the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works'. Large copyright-right based organizations such as the MPAA and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America were active in the treaty's development.
Opponents have lambasted it for its potentially adverse effects on fundamental civil and digital rights, including freedom of expression and communication privacy. Others, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have derided the exclusion of civil society groups, developing countries and the general public from the agreement's negotiation process and have described it as policy laundering. The signature of the EU and many of its member states resulted in the resignation in protest of the European Parliament's appointed rapporteur (Kader Arif), as well as widespread protests across Poland.
This wiki page from La Quadrature du Net details lots of actions that can be taken by those who oppose ACTA.
6. Petitions
A big one from Avaaz.org and a smaller one for HM Government (UK). Another one from Access Now. Click on the screenshot below to go to their page detailing Europe-wide protests against the agreement on February 11th.
7. Rights Groups
We're getting to crunch time. The ball is now very much in the European Parliament's court. The good news is, that gives you a chance to say why we think ACTA is such bad news. Finally, a mechanism to influence the course of this international agreement.
European Digital Rights says that ACTA will have 'major implications for freedom of expression, access to culture and privacy', and have launched a 'What's Wrong With ACTA Week'. The page linked to also contain briefing documents aimed at presenting the key areas that this agreement aims to cover. Another good booklet of theirs is 'What Makes ACTA So Controversial (and why MEPs should care)' - also available in many other European languages.
EFF talks about ACTA's 'global consequences' and more here.
OK, so here were my 10 things about ACTA. Some parts of this post are a little sketchy though. What legal decisions have you come across that favoured fewer restrictions on copyright rather than more? Do you know any other good examples of content owners that have benefited from a more open approach to their work, or who have 'gained from sharing'? Add your suggestions in the comments below and I'll update this post with any good ones that come by.
Visited Wikipedia today to find something out, only to discover that it's blacked out? Wondered why? Read on (text reproduced from Wikipedia, under permission)...
Why is Wikipedia blacked-out?
Wikipedia is protesting against SOPA and PIPA by blacking out the
English Wikipedia for 24 hours, beginning at midnight January 18,
Eastern Time. Readers who come to English Wikipedia during the blackout
will not be able to read the encyclopedia. Instead, you will see
messages intended to raise awareness about SOPA and PIPA, encouraging
you to share your views with your representatives, and with each other
on social media.
What are SOPA and PIPA?
SOPA and PIPA represent two bills in the United States House of
Representatives and the United States Senate respectively. SOPA is short
for the "Stop Online Piracy Act," and PIPA is an acronym for the
"Protect IP Act." ("IP" stands for "intellectual property.") In short,
these bills are efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by
foreign web sites, but, in our opinion, they do so in a way that
actually infringes free expression while harming the Internet. Detailed
information about these bills can be found in the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act
articles on Wikipedia, which are available during the blackout.
GovTrack lets you follow both bills through the legislative process: SOPA on this page, and PIPA on this one. The EFF has summarized why these bills are simply unacceptable in a world that values an open, secure, and free Internet.
Why is the blackout happening?
Wikipedians have chosen to black out the English Wikipedia for the
first time ever, because we are concerned that SOPA and PIPA will
severely inhibit people's access to online information. This is not a
problem that will solely affect people in the United States: it will
affect everyone around the world.
Why? SOPA and PIPA are badly drafted legislation that won't be
effective at their stated goal (to stop copyright infringement), and
will cause serious damage to the free and open Internet. They put the
burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call
for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won't have
sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek
to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if
copyright isn't being infringed. Foreign sites will be blacklisted,
which means they won't show up in major search engines. And, SOPA and
PIPA build a framework for future restrictions and suppression.
Does this mean that Wikipedia itself is violating copyright laws, or hosting pirated content?
No, not at all. Some supporters of SOPA and PIPA characterize
everyone who opposes them as cavalier about copyright, but that is not
accurate. Wikipedians are knowledgeable about copyright and vigilant in
protecting against violations: Wikipedians spend thousands of hours
every week reviewing and removing infringing content. We are careful
about it because our mission is to share knowledge freely. To that end,
all Wikipedians release their contributions under a free license, and
all the material we offer is freely licensed. Free licenses are
incompatible with copyright infringement, and so infringement is not
tolerated.
Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved, and didn't the White House
declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?
No, neither SOPA nor PIPA is dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor
said the bill will be discussed in early February. There are signs PIPA
may be debated on the Senate floor next week. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA
are just indicators of a much broader problem. In many jurisdictions
around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation that
prioritizes overly-broad copyright enforcement laws, laws promoted by
power players, over the preservation of individual civil liberties.
How could SOPA and PIPA hurt Wikipedia?
SOPA and PIPA are a threat to Wikipedia in many ways. For example,
in its current form, SOPA would require Wikipedia to actively monitor
every site we link to, to ensure it doesn't host infringing content. Any
link to an infringing site could put us in jeopardy of being forced
offline.
I live in the United States. What's the best way for me to help?
The most effective action you can take is to call your
representatives and tell them you oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any similar
legislation. Type your zipcode in the locator box to find your representatives' contact information. Text-based communication is okay, but phone calls have the most impact.
I don't live in the United States. How can I help?
Contact your local State Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or
similar branch of government. Tell them you oppose SOPA and PIPA, and
any similar legislation. SOPA and PIPA will affect sites outside of the
United States, and actions to sites inside the United States (like
Wikipedia) will also affect non-American readers -- like you. Calling
your own government will also let them know you don't want them to
create their own bad anti-Internet legislation.
Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?
Yes. During the blackout, Wikipedia is accessible on mobile devices
and smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by disabling
JavaScript in your browser, as explained on this Technical FAQ page.
Our purpose here isn't to make it completely impossible for people to
read Wikipedia, and it's okay for you to circumvent the blackout. We
just want to make sure you see our message.
I keep hearing that this is a fight between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Is that true?
No. Some people are characterizing it that way, probably in an
effort to imply all the participants are motivated by commercial
self-interest. But it's obviously not that simple. The proof of that is
Wikipedia's involvement. Wikipedia has no financial self-interest at
play here: we do not benefit from copyright infringement, nor are we
trying to monetize traffic or sell ads. We are protesting to raise
awareness about SOPA and PIPA solely because we think they will hurt the
Internet, and your ability to access information online. We are doing
this for you, because we're on your side.
In carrying out this protest, is Wikipedia abandoning neutrality?
We hope you continue to trust Wikipedia to be a neutral information
source. We are staging this blackout because (as Wikimedia Foundation
Board of Trustee Kat Walsh said recently), although Wikipedia’s articles
are neutral, its existence is not. For over a decade, Wikipedians have
spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human
history. Wikipedia is a tremendously useful resource, and its existence
depends upon a free, open and uncensored Internet. SOPA and PIPA (and
other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United
States) will hurt you, because they will make it impossible for sites
you enjoy, and benefit from, to continue to exist. That's why we're
doing this.
There is a bill currently being discussed in the US Congress right now that could fundamentally cripple the Internet as we know it, with significant implications for freedom of speech, innovation and internet integrity.
Known as the 'Protect IP Act', this bill is described by Congress as a 'bill to prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property, and for other purposes.' What this would mean in practice is that the US government would have a very powerful tool in its armory for shutting down websites that were accused of allowing user-generated content that infringed copyright law. In other words, the US government would be able to shut down Facebook, Twitter or YouTube if 'pirated content' was discovered hosted by any of these sites. As so much of our lives are now either lived online or affected by unseen transactions that happen in the online world, the passing of this bill could potentially become the point at which the internet revolution is stopped in its tracks.
It also has a counterpart bill being discussed in the House of Representatives, known as SOPA (or 'Stop Online Piracy Act'). Supporters which line up behind the bill include the likes of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Microsoft. On the other side, organisations against the bill include the likes of Google, Yahoo! and Human Rights Watch.
Watch the video above for the simple message about this bill. Then (if you are American), visit FightForTheFuture.org and register your opposition.
For a more detailed and far longer piece that gives a great insight into the whole thing, visit this article from O'Reilly Radar.
I've been trying unsuccessfully today and yesterday to upload the above video to YouTube. It's of a 2007 TED Talk by Lawrence Lessig, about the effect of copyright law on creativity. I like it for a few reasons, namely that I've learned a lot about copyright and free culture from Lessig (co-founder of Creative Commons), plus as a teacher of presentation skills, I really like how he presents - both in the way he speaks and in his use of PowerPoint.
One of the things that makes TED so widely known is that they allow people to download their content (in this case videos of their talks) and re-'publish' them. They do this under the Creative Commons licences partly devised by Lessig. I do this with some of their works through my YouTube channel. This benefits both TED and myself - I get people who are interested in some of the same talks to visit my channel and they get yet more free marketing of what they do from the visitors that I bring in.
The TED Talks I have uploaded to my channel so far have had a total of 46,525 views (as of today), of which I can guarantee that I have not made a penny. Under the terms of the CC licence, I am not entitled to make any derivative works - such as producing an edited version - therefore any advertising that is part of the original file I download remains in the copy I upload.
The talk is 19:08 minutes, and my YouTube channel previously didn't permit me to upload files of more than 15 minutes. However, I've recently noticed the below sign on the upload page, so figured it was about time to give it a try:
I figured too that if it was up on the TED channel, then it was possible for me to do the same. This is with the knowledge that YouTube themselves have recently embraced CC licences and allow users to make their videos available for download under an Attribution licence.
Anyway, as soon as the file had finally been successfully uploaded, I got two emails from YouTube, one of which is reproduced below:
WMG I'm pretty sure is Warner Music Group, the world's third largest music company. The other email mentioned UMG, which I'm guessing will be Universal Music Group, the world's largest music company. Oh dear, I thought, I'm usually meticulously careful not to violate copyright laws, no matter how much I agree or disagree with the full extent of them. One of my key reasons for using CC is that I can legally build on others work and allow people to do the same with mine, also within the law. One of the potential problems of these licences however, is that the reuser has to rely on the original producer having cleared all content in order for them to be able to do so under the terms of the licence.
The video (which you can view above, as embedded from the original TED channel) contains extracts from three copyrighted works, which are used to demonstrate examples of remix culture and certainly arguable as an example of 'fair use' (a US-only legal right). These songs are Gloria Gaynor's 'I Will Survive', Lionel Ritchie & Diana Ross's 'Endless Love' and a track that I think comes from The Muppets originally but which has been endlessly parodied elsewhere.
That I received these emails so promptly after a successful upload suggested to me that Google (as the owners of YouTube) have extremely powerful algorithms and processing power to be able to pre-screen a file for copyright violations prior to it 'going live' (no great surprise there - of course Google have tech with that kind of capability). It also suggests that they have an agreement with a broad coalition of copyright holders that would allow them to be able to match the sound waves of a copyright-protected audio file uploaded by a user against a database of protected audio (this is pure and wild speculation of my part, as my guess for how it would happen technically). My understanding was that under the user's terms, suspicion of a copyright violation should be flagged up by the supposed copyright holder first rather than preventing it being uploaded at all.
Below are a couple of things that YouTube says about copyright and violation of it, from their FAQs:
YouTube respects the rights of copyright holders and publishers and requires all users to confirm they own the copyright or have permission from the copyright holder to upload content. We comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and other applicable copyright laws and promptly remove content when properly notified.
Repeat infringers' videos are removed and their accounts are terminated and permanently blocked from using YouTube. Users with suspended or terminated accounts are prohibited from creating new accounts or accessing YouTube's community features.
...
We provide content owners with the ability to control the use of their content on YouTube. Because content owners have the right to change their mind about how their content is displayed on our site, it's possible that content that was once allowed is subsequently blocked. Also, it is possible that multiple parties hold rights to a different components (e.g. audio, video) of a copyrighted work. While one owner may allow the use of their material on YouTube, another may decide to disallow use.
After scratching my head at the emails, bemused at how easy it seems to be to inadvertently break the law these days (plus going to Google to find out who WMG and UMG were), I went back to the file upload page to see the following:
Hooray I thought, it looks like it's gone up at last. A quick check of my video dashboard however, showed this:
The audio track had been disabled and it was described as 'blocked in some countries'. Hmm.
I then went to the URL for the video itself, which YouTube had given me, and found this:
If you're still with me thus far, you'll remember that YouTube had proudly told me that I was entitled to upload files of longer than 15 minutes. More than 15 but less than 20? I doubt it. A bit of a disconnect with what they talk about in terms of copyright violation though.
I'll draw no particular conclusions at the end of this post but have opted to share this experience as I feel it raises a number of curious questions.
I'll leave it up to you, dear readers, to see what questions it raises for you, if any...
On Tuesday 19 April, I will be speaking at IATEFL in Brighton - my first presentation at an international conference. I am due to present on the use of Creative Commons-licensed works (hereafter CC) in the classroom and other copyright-related issues. It was very fortunate that the first time I was able to present at this conference, it happened to be in my home town!
In many ways, it's an exciting prospect as get to stand up in front of professional peers from around the world and talk with them on a subject that I know a little something about (and which will hopefully be useful for them). On the other hand, it's also a fairly nerve-wracking idea, as I'll be standing up in front of professional peers from around the world and talk with them on a subject that I know a little about.
Partly because it's rather a big deal for me (I've organised a conference before, but never spoken at one), I've trialled the presentation at an in-house conference and a couple of workshops at work. It seems to have been mostly well received so far, with other teachers telling me that it was useful to know and interesting in parts. However, I'm aware that copyright is not the most thrilling subject to speak on and many people - teachers, students, others - pay little consideration to the idea beyond possibly the occasional thought in the back of the mind ('I should probably think about this, but…'), so I really need to try and make the subject come alive and relate it directly to people's lives.
This post then is an attempt to introduce the subject and to call for testimonies from other teachers, in order to add some authentic voices to the topic. If you're already familiar with copyright and CC, please scroll down to the section 'A request for input'. If not, then firstly here's some context…
What is copyright, and where's the problem?
Copyright is 'a set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work' (Wikipedia). In law, it is a form of intellectual property and while it is not possible to provide legal protection for an idea, copyright covers the expression of an idea. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, copyright exists 'to encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public'. As we shall see, this is often not how things turn out in practice.
In most countries (including the UK), copyright is automatically conferred on a work once it has been created, enabling 'all rights reserved' to the creator without them having to register the work with an official body. Although copyright law initially applied only to the copying of books, it now covers a wide range of works, including (but not limited to) the following:
Written articles
Maps
Charts
Musical compositions
Photographs
Paintings
Motion pictures
Sculptures
Computer programs
Databases
'But I'm a teacher, not a sculptor, a film-maker or a computer programmer. What does this have to do with me?' Teachers and students make use of copyrighted works all the time. Whenever we use a textbook. Whenever we screen or watch a film or video clip in class, or listen to a piece of music or other audio file. When a teacher makes a lesson plan. When a student creates an original piece of writing. This means that within even just one classroom, large numbers of copyrighted works are both being used and created every day.
Secker (2010) claims that there is a 'general perception that there exists some sort of blanket exception for educational or not-for-profit use prevails in education, particularly outside of higher education'. This 'educational exception' is often not the case. In the UK, educational institutions are required to purchase a licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA), in order to use copyrighted works. This licence generally permits the photocopying of 5% of a published edition (e.g. a textbook) or one complete chapter. I have yet to meet a teacher, even the most cautious of rule-followers, that will stand over a photocopier as the clock ticks for a fast-pending class and count the pages that they are copying to make sure they fall within their allocated page count.
Under British law, photocopying and scanning of published works when performed in education falls under the concept of 'fair dealing'. This is a legal defence rather than a legal right, as the UK does not have the concept of 'fair use' enshrined within its copyright laws (as the US does, being theoretically more lenient on the use of copyrighted works in a educational context). Fair dealing in the UK does not apply to electronic resources, meaning that copying pages from a textbook and making it available across a Virtual Leaning Environment (VLE) can be a risky business.
Plagiarism. Using 'Google Image Search' to source pictures for learning materials. Uploads to VLEs. Student work that builds on existing works. These are just some of the many other copyright-related issues that also arise in learning contexts, few easily solvable. Perhaps most importantly, if teaching is supposed to be about the spread of knowledge in order to facilitate learning, the greater the restriction on that knowledge, the more that learning opportunity is inhibited.
Creative Commons - towards a solution
There are some who claim that in the so-called Information Age, existing copyright regimes are in need of radical reform, in order for them to be more relevant in the reality of the Internet ('the world's greatest copy machine', as Cory Doctorow has described it). Under Britain's Copyright, Designs & Patents Act (1988), it was still technically illegal to view a website (Secker), until a 2003 amendment fixed this anomaly. This was because in order for a computer to display a web page, it has to download a copy of it from the server onto the client machine. The very tools that facilitate our modern times have copying built into their DNA.
Step forward, Creative Commons. This non-profit organisation was founded in 2001, to create 'a balance between the reality of the Internet and the reality of copyright laws'. The licences they issue enable the sharing and use of creativity and knowledge through free legal tools, by allowing the user to communicate which rights they wish to reserve on their work. Their mission statement depicts a 'vision (that) is nothing less than realising the full potential of the Internet - universal access to research, education, full participation in culture, and driving a new era of development, growth, and productivity'. They are not an alternative to copyright, more a compliment to it - a case of 'some rights reserved'.
There are four key elements to these licences - Attribution ('give my name when you use my work'), Non-Commercial ('please don't use my work to make money for yourself from it'), No Derivatives ('you can use this as long as you don't make any changes to the original') and Share-Alike ('you can use this as long as you issue the resulting work under the same licence terms'). Works can be issued under any combination of these elements, from the least restrictive Attribution (CC-BY) to the most restrictive Attribution - Non-Commercial - No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND). Generally, these conditions are fixed into the digital file, either within the metadata or in some visual form (such as by using the CC symbols), which is then uploaded to the Internet. I believe that they are an essential of a modern Internet user's toolkit, teacher or not.
Barack Obama uses them. So does TED. So does Wikipedia, MIT, and the Open University. And so do many millions of individuals around the world that wish to share ether work as a contribution towards a global creative commons. By the end of 2009, there were approximately 350 million such licenced works available on the Internet. At the growth rate they have been showing, it is likely to now exceed 1 billion. That suggests that it's not so much 'are there any quality works I can find related to my subject?' but more a case of 'how do I filter through this mountain of free stuff?'
Here are a few good reasons for using CC in education:
Getting appropriate copyright clearance for certain materials can take too long for the material to remain relevant to the teaching objective
Academic staff often don't have time to absorb the complexities of a copyright licence
Institutional licences may not cover all student work, such as something which incorporates images and text from multiple sources that is then shared with others
As the traditional content industries lose more income in the face of challenges to their business models, there are greater risks of prosecution for copyright infringement
Cleared digital resources are easier to source, reuse and adapt than uncleared or non-digital resources
Not misusing copyright is good 'netiquette' and should be part of teaching today's younger people to become digitally literate
There's masses and masses of really high quality material available for use
A request for input
This post is meant more as a beginning than an end. Although many teachers I speak to often don't see how the copyright issue affects their daily work, the deeper I go into this issue, the more I hear of people that do have genuine concerns about copyright. On the other hand, while there are many examples of use of CC works in education around the world, I have so far come across very few examples within ELT (English Language Teaching).
'Whodunit', the first free-to-share commercial ELT textbook, was only released last year. The eltpics project on Flickr (thanks to Phil Bird for alerting me to it), an image pool that collects CC resources in one place, was started only in October 2010. Further cursory Google searches bring up the odd few language teachers that use CC in the classroom but not a great deal.
I have two questions for readers - whether teachers or students. Please either add your responses in the comments section of this post, or for private communication please send an email using the icon in the sidebar:
Have you ever had any negative experiences with copyright at work/school?
Have you ever had any positive experiences with using Creative Commons in the classroom?
I'll use the best responses in the presentation, either as part of the slides or in the audience handout. And of course, in the CC spirit, with an attribution!
