Originally I wrote it somewhere on a blog ( http://dammit.lt/2009/03/28/im-a-creative-commoner/
), so this is a bit long copy-paste into an email:
Lately Creative Commons is becoming very dominant topic in my life.
First of all, I see all the people in free culture world holding their
breath and waiting for Wikipedia switch to CC license. I’m waiting for
that too - and personally I really endorse it. Though usually people
do not really notice licenses on web content, they really do once they
see something they really want to reuse. Wikipedia ends up being
isolated island, if it doesn’t go after sharing and exchanging
information with other projects.
It takes time to understand one is ‘creative commoner’. I do have a t-
shirt with such caption, but it is much more comfortable once you
start feeling real power of use and reuse of information. Few anecdotes…
> Dear Mr. Mituzas,
> Thank you for making your photographs available under a
> Creative Commons license. I am writing to inform you that
> the American Society of Civil Engineers has featured a
> silhouette of “Up we go” on the cover of its new book,
> “Constructability Concepts and Practice.”
> https://www.asce.org/bookstore/book.cfm?book=7742
> Per the terms of the license, the following credit appears
> on page ii of the book: “Front cover photograph by Domas
> Mituzas used under a Creative Commons license.
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/.”
> I will be happy to send a copy of the book to you if you
> will provide me your mailing address.
I got this email back in summer, 2007. Did I just steal a job from
professional photographer? Or would they just leave blank book cover?
Will this lead to a better bridge in future? Did I join a civil cause?
All I know now, is that I’m book cover photographer, albeit quite
cheap one. Also, by using CC license I simply used lingua-franca of
world I’m in - and now my content can evolve into shapes that I
couldn’t expect, and that would be limited by non-portable licenses.
Other anecdote is way more internal. I have cheap point-and-shoot
camera (same one to shoot book cover pictures :) that I use during my
travels. It fits well into my jeans pocket, it doesn’t provide me any
self esteem in professional photography. Still, I get to places, I
take pictures, I place them on my flickr photostream, and I license
them under creative commons. And fascinating things happen - my
pictures appear on top of Wikipedia articles (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_buildings_in_the_world
), without any intervention of mine. People just use it, I can sit
back, relax, and see how the contribution widens.
Of course, there other different stories. My colleague (and manager)
runs a wiki about his own town, Bielepedia, and he wants to exchange
information with Wikipedia. Now he can’t, as well as quite a lot of
other free content community projects. Though of course, some may
believe license difference doesn’t mean much, in this case it means
that we’re building borders we don’t need nor we have intent to
maintain.
I live and breathe Wikipedia technology, but I do not feel competent
enough to go and push content itself around, and it just shows up
there itself (oh, of course, there’s army of committed volunteers who
help with that). So, I benefit the project just by being creative
commoner, and I may benefit lots of other projects. We at Wikipedia
technical team are very open in what we do, and try to spread our know-
how in many directions. Documents I wrote about how we do things ended
up downloaded hundred thousand times, and I really hope that some of
that know-how will end up used and reused.
I guess I’m taking this to extremes - I ended up talking to people in
government of Lithuania, journalists and non-profit activists. Imagine
a government, that would commit to open licensing for produced
content. Well, no need to imagine - US federal institutions release
information to public domain, but in Europe it is way more restricted.
Still, what one has to realize - at government level it is not only a
right to be given, it also has to be a right that has to be protected.
Nowadays that means going to copyright powerhouses that serve large
record labels and movie studios, and will charge for services, that
government has to provide for free (and does in other areas, like
looking for your stolen car).
We have lots and lots of talks about knowledge-societies at government
levels, but we never get to the point, that every individual is part
of that, and first of all we have to teach those rights, and guard
them. But of course, to prove, that our rights have to be guarded, we
have to show how great our work is - and how powerful can our sharing
be. To achieve that we have to build bridges between license islands,
talk same languages, and of course, create.
I’m a creative commoner. So should be you.
P.S. So should be Wikimedia Foundation. I’m extremely excited about
the work being done to make it reality (thanks Erik, Mike, Mako,
everyone!), and you know my personal position on the matter by now :)
Cheers,
--
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]
--- On Tue, 3/31/09, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 9:48 PM
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:45 PM,
> Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > This is a (predominantly) English-language mailing
> list, so using
> > those traditions used in the English-speaking world
> seems to make
> > sense to me.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> Of course, wasting resources on april 1st is very
> sensical.
>
> And who cares about purported reach to the whole world and
> all that fancy
> words
> let's bother them with our idiotic pranks becuase we are
> majority and
> thereforewe have the right to do so
>
> Very good attitude on the wikimedia foundation list (I
> don't care if you do
> so on english wikipedia list)
Right, it obviously "the pompous English majority" conspiring here because you received a prank from every English speaker on the list.
If the list were in Spanish so every immature youth in Latin America with too much time on their hands could access it without scholarship, you would be unable to spare the rest of us on Dec 28. Follow David's example and ignore those who actually choose to waste your time and spare the rest of us your stereotyped rant.
Birgitte SB
-- On Tue, 3/31/09, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 7:50 PM
> Well, the poll was closed with 80%
> support. It probably should have been
> extended, if for no other reasons than that votes continued
> to come in at a
> pretty good clip and there is no pressing reason to close
> it on deadline.
>
> If I were a developer or a WMF executive, I might pause at
> implementing a
> proposal for quite significant change on the English
> Wikipedia based on a
> poll with only 320 participants.
>
I am afraid this one is serious.
Asking Foundation staff to overrule a community decision is not going find support here. However vaguely you phrase it. Sort it out on en.WP.
Birgitte SB
Well, the poll was closed with 80% support. It probably should have been
extended, if for no other reasons than that votes continued to come in at a
pretty good clip and there is no pressing reason to close it on deadline.
If I were a developer or a WMF executive, I might pause at implementing a
proposal for quite significant change on the English Wikipedia based on a
poll with only 320 participants.
Nathan