Last week was Open Access Week, and the combined libraries of Leeuwarden (both the public ones and those of higher education) for the first time organised daily public presentations and discussion around Open Access. Thursday, I was the last person to provide a presentation in the week long program, and I was invited to talk about Creative Commons. It’s the first time I gave a talk in my role as a board member of Open Nederland, the Dutch supporting association behind the Dutch Creative Commons Chapter. It’s still a very personal take, and mostly only the Creative Commons related information is part of the Open Nederland role, the rest is my own experience and perspective from the field. Below is the transcript with the slides:

Thank you for the opportunity to talk about Creative Commons during Open Access Week. My contact details are down there, including twitter accounts, so if you have remarks or questions after we finished our conversation here today, you can use those. I’m here representing Open Nederland, which is the Dutch association of makers, and those interested in having a bigger pool of communal reusable creative output. Open Nederland powers the Dutch Chapter of the Creative Commons organisation.

First off all, I think it is fantastic that the Leeuwarder libraries are taking part in OA Week. Libraries are a fundamental building block of our socio-cultural resources, the commons of knowledge and re-usable artefacts, the creative commons. Open Access seeks to extend, or actually restore part of that commons, that over time has become less accessible, fenced off even. And Creative Commons licenses in turn are a building block of the Open Access effort.

Now a word of caution, I am not a lawyer. I am a pragmatist. So I am looking at all of the Open Access and Creative Commons licensing issues from a practical perspective, what it means in terms of the value to society, to all of us as the human collective. The expressed opinions are all mine, and the provided information is ‘as is’, and not legal advice.

I want to speak first about Open Access and scientific publishing, and what it means to me, my specific perspective on it. Then I will zoom in on the role of Creative Commons licenses, and your own role and individual responsibility in all of this. Let’s start with this, the Open Definition by Open Knowledge International.

Open means
anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose
(subject, at most, to requirements that preserve provenance and openness).

Freely here means both gratis, and libre, free as in beer and as in freedom.

Now this includes both the words Open and Access, but Open Access is not merely a subset of the Open Definition.

Open Access in fact covers most if not all of the Open Definition. It is basically a different representation of the scientific method, where one builds on the knowledge gained by those before you.

In order to build on the work of others, you need to have acces to it, AND be able to use and modify it, and then share it to see it taken further by yet another. This is how all human knowledge has come to be.

Building knowledge increases our collective ability to act. It’s a lever to do bigger things., to jump higher. Increasing our agency. Striking power. Resilience to counteract negative things. Agility to build on opportunities. Agency, the ability to act, is the fundamental drive behind our curiosity, our science. Agency to me is the crux of it all.

To me that there is a notion of Open Access, right next to the scientific method itself of which communication and community is already part and parcel, is because we are in a transition. Where one of the elements in making science work, in increasing agency, has become problematic: scientific publishing.

From the 16th century, when e.g. Louis Elzevier published Galilei’s Discorsi in Leiden, scientific publication increased our agency by providing multiplication and distribution, and because of those two discoverability. However digitisation and internet have made those first two trivial to do. Almost everyone has that ability now, it’s no longer an agency bottle neck. It has been democratised. Discovery still remains a hard thing to do, is the one remaining potential value add, but there are others equally or better positioned to serve it.

Meanwhile the pricing model of scientific publishing has gone the other way, based on academia’s addiction to using publications as reputation indicator. To the point where large parts of the scientific world, mostly outside highly developed economies, are practically excluded. They are actively and unnecessarily disconnected. Cut off from our collective pool of knowledge. Can’t use it. Can’t contribute to it. The same is true for non-academics: my work has been the subject of at least three PhDs and all the papers resulting from them, but I have no easy way to built on those results in my own practice or work.

From solving a bottle neck for hundreds of years, one of access and availability, scientific publishing now is the bottle neck. This is why I personally think Sci-Hub is morally ok, even if it isn’t legal. Morally ok, because it is aligned and in support of the scientific method and community, seeking to circumvent an existing bottle-neck for the express purpose of democratisation.

Open Access is the less radical, gradual way of resolving that bottle neck. To strengthen free discourse about theories and findings. To regain the crucial access and ability to re-use that increases our agency. And do so for a much wider group of people. Researchers, non-academic researchers, and practitioners alike. By publishing scientific papers according to the open definition. In Europe it is becoming more and more mandatory for publicly funded research to be open access, until it becomes the new normal.

As I said earlier, what we are all after is to increase our ability to act, and having access to knowledge and being allowed to re-use it are key elements.

Openness is what allows that access and usage. And what enables agency, our ability to act.

For that it must be very clear, something is open, that you’re allowed to access, copy and re-use something, such as a scientific paper. A clear signal that individuals, researchers and academic institutions can easily give, and anyone can easily recognise. It takes a very clear license, that immediately conveys what the author allows. Otherwise you have to assume nothing is allowed.

That clear license is Creative Commons. Most if not all Open Access publications carry a Creative Commons license, or more precisely a few specific versions of a Creative Commons license.
It is an add-on to regular copyright, and also covers database rights. It’s a tool for an author or creator to manage their copyright conditions.

Let’s dive deeper into what Creative Commons is. And that dive starts with copyright.

Copyright is an automatic right that any creator gets upon creation of an artefact (not ideas, not mere data). ‘All rights reserved’ is the default. It provides a ‘temporary’ monopoly, where temporary means 70 years after you died, so not really temporary in any practical sense. If someone else wants to do something with it, it needs permission. You need to write to the author, negotiate the terms, and document the agreement. It’s a lot of work, for both author and re-user, that needs to happen for each and every use.

Creative Commons is a tool for an author or creator to give up front permission for specific conditions of re-use. No need to ask for permission, no need for negotiations, no need for contracts. From all rights reserved to some rights reserved. This allows for nuance, and to create conditions that foster knowledge sharing, stimulates creativity and equal access to all.

The principles behind CC licenses are that it’s 1 to everyone. Unlike a copyright agreement, you can’t revoke it for existing users. It’s based on 4 building blocks.

The 4 building blocks are: Attribution, Share Alike, Non-Commercial, No Derivative Works.
Creative Commons licenses allow you to create nuance with these four building blocks.

With those blocks you can create 7 different licenses, based on which and how many building blocks you use. Some are more open, some are less open.

Open Access is only those three green ones, because only they align with the open definition of free acces, use, modification, sharing, with at most mentioning the source, or sharing openly again.

These CC licenses can be applied to anything you create, where you have copyright, or where you have database rights. By doing so, especially with an open license, you are enriching our common cultural pool of artefacts and knowledge. The core principle is if you allow others to build on it, you create agency for others. There’s an enormous amount of artefacts out there already, the CC website claims over 1.6 billion.

Some of those 1.6 billion and more works with a CC license, are by me. My weblog has had a Creative Commons license for 17 years. Attribution, Share Alike. It’s an open license, because I want my blog to create conversations about my professional interests by thinking out loud. That needs openness.

I also share my photos on Flickr with a CC license, attribution, share alike and non-commercial. This is not an open license, as I think it is only fair if someone makes money with my photos, I get some share of it. Non-commercial newspapers however have used my images, as have NGOs and e.g. schools.

I don’t want to show all 1.6 billion examples but just a few to give you a sense of the diverse angles.
Dutch government publishes all their open data with creative commons licenses. This is not strictly needed from a copyright view, as Dutch government only needs to give permission if they claim copyright on their artefact, otherwise you can assume you can use it. However, they do want to give a very clear signal, to those who don’t know of the specific quirks of Dutch copyright law, such as people outside the Netherlands.

This site, for instance has freely re-usable music.
And if you search for CC license photos you can use sites like Flickr which I just mentioned, where there are 4500 open licensed photos of Leeuwarden. Some of which are from the Leeuwarden city archive.

This type of sharing allows for collective action, not just individual agency. I have a sensor kit in my garden. It shares data online, many other people and their sensors do too. And together we build knowledge about how my city deals with heat and micro climates. This citizen science project collaborates with government and academic institutions, and leads to publications. Because all parts in the chain use open licenses, that works smoothly.

I’d like to put it to you that CC is useful for everything you make and create, scientific or not, to allow yourself and others more agency.

Raise your hand if,
You have ever written a scientific paper,
Have ever designed something,
Made something (like a 3d print, or a laser cut object),
Made a song,
Wrote song lyrics,
Made a recording of yourself making music or singing,
Made a video,
Made a photo,
Wrote a poem, a thesis, a novel, a story,
Ever made a drawing, came up with a joke, a magic act,
Wrote a blogpost, a Tweet?

You all are makers. You all are copyright holders, whether you realised it or actively used that right or not. And if you ever share(d) anything of what you make, you could add to the common pool of our cultural heritage, our creative commons, by using a CC license. Let’s not wait until we all have been dead for 70 years and copyright expires, because that means for something you create today it will take another 100 to 150 years for it to become generally available.
Use open resources, and share back to our creative commons from your own creative output. So you allow others to do more too.

As a student, a teacher, a researcher, a maker, a citizen, be the change you want to see when it comes to Open Access.
Use and apply open licenses.
Copyright gives you a monopoly, and CC allows you to easily put that monopoly to communal use.

CC licenses are not what makes our creative commons, our collective space for culture and progress. People, you and me, make that commons. But using a Creative Commons license, is a clear signal you want to be part of that, part of “team human”.

And if you want to help spread that mission, you’re very welcome to join the Open Nederland association, that powers the Dutch Creative Commons chapter. We’re open. And it’s free.

Thank you for your time and attention.

In de (goede en nuttige!) sessie van de VNG over de WOO op Overheid360 eerder deze maand, werden de aanwezigen meerdere vragen gesteld. De laatste, wanneer je denkt dat de implementatie van de WOO afgerond zal zijn, leverde bovenstaande foto op.

Ik kan er nog steeds niet helemaal over uit. Het probleem van de WOO is overduidelijk dat het daarin genoemde ‘op orde krijgen van de informatiehuishouding’ tot meer werk leidt dan een overheidsorganisatie zegt aan te kunnen en budget voor te hebben (of bereid is prioriteit aan te geven).

Iedereen in de zaal zei, volgens deze foto, niet aan de wet te gaan of kunnen voldoen. Niemand zei over 5 jaren de boel op orde te hebben, de termijn die in de wet genoemd is. Twee van de 34 (6%) dachten het over 8 jaar voor elkaar te hebben, en die werden als enorme optimisten betiteld. De anderen dachten dat het tot 2030 (56%) zou duren, of nooit afkomt (38%).

De WOO krijgt het verwijt extra werk te veroorzaken. Je informatiehuishouding op orde hebben, wie eist dat nou, zo lijkt de gedachte. De WOO in huidige vorm is echter al een compromis. De eerste versie werd als onhaalbaar afgedaan, en in de nieuwe versie geeft de wetgever overheidsinstellingen vijf jaar de tijd, en de verplichting te laten zien dat je ook je best doet om in die vijf jaar een inhaalslag te maken. De 2e WOO is al een herkansing. En niet eens een tweede kans, maar de derde.

Veertig jaar geleden, 1980, werd de WOB van kracht, die openbaarheid regelt. Sinds die tijd is er vrijwel niets gedaan om openbaarheid als grondbeginsel in de informatiehuishouding op te nemen. Nog altijd wordt een WOB verzoek als lastig ervaren, want dan moet je zo zoeken waar je je spullen hebt. Omdat je je informatiehuishouding nooit hebt aangepast om openbaarheidsverzoeken snel te kunnen afhandelen. In Noorwegen krijg je per kerende post je gevraagde informatie, maar hier is een WOB verzoek (en elk verzoek om documenten, in welke vorm dan ook, is een WOB verzoek, ook dat besef is er na 40 jaren nog altijd niet) altijd extra werk, naast je gewone taken. Alsof openbaarmaking niet een wettelijke taak is. Dat heeft altijd al tot gekrakeel geleid, en de wetgever heeft de overheidsinstellingen voor die krampscheuten uitsluitend beloond (zoals het verwijderen van dwangmiddelen, anders dan de rechtsgang).

Nu verplichte actieve openbaarmaking dichterbij komt wordt nog veel zichtbaarder dat de informatiehuishouding daar niet op ingericht is. Dat was deze namelijk voor de passieve openbaarmaking van de WOB al niet. Enige tijd geleden kwam ik nog een hoofd bedrijfsinformatie bij een overheidsinstelling tegen die me vroeg “dus jij zegt dat openbaarheid wettelijk is omschreven?”. Ja dat zei ik. En wel al veel langer dan iedereen in die sessie waar ik bovenstaande foto maakte bij de overheid werkt.

Er zijn diverse zaken die al lang verplicht zijn om actief openbaar te maken (denk aan besluiten, vergunningen etc.), en dat lukt. Er is dus niet echt reden aan te nemen dat het voor een lijst van anderen zaken, zoals de WOO opnoemt, in vijf jaren niet ook zou kunnen.

Uit de slide bovenaan blijkt dat men al heeft opgegeven voordat de WOO er nog maar is.
Het is kennelijk een erg radicaal idee om een algemene openbaarheids- en data/informatie-strategie op te stellen die ook belooft de implementatie van de WOO netjes op tijd af te ronden. Een aanpak waarbij je actieve openbaarmaking als kans ziet. Als een instrument waarmee je het gedrag van allerlei externe betrokkenen kunt beïnvloeden. Zoals je nu financiering (subsidies) en regelgeving inzet om gedrag te beïnvloeden, is openbaarmaking een derde beleidsinstrument. En wel de goedkoopste van de drie.

Mij doet het allemaal denken aan het onderstaande plaatje dat in al mijn vroegere kennismanagement- en veranderprojecten wel van toepassing was. “We hebben geen tijd voor fundamentele aanpassingen, want we zijn al zo druk met ons normale werk en brandjes blussen”.

Too Busy To Improve - Performance Management - Square Wheels
Alan O’Rourke, license CC-BY

Das sieht sehr interessant aus, Heinz. Die Verbindung zwischen Degrowth-denken und Contentstrategien; ich glaube wir brauchen mehr solche Beispiele wie man abstrakte Vorhaben umsetzt oder übersetzt in kleinere, mehr alltäglichen Kontexten, ohne dabei in die Falle des ‘toten Urgrossvater Prinzips*’ zu tappen.

Vielleicht ist auch dieses Event am 11.11. in Brüssel etwas für dich (ich habe vor dabei zu sein, hoffentlich klappt das auch): SciFi Economics Lab, von Edgeryders organisiert. Im Orga-Team ist Alberto Cottica, die du vielleicht im letzten Jahr bei Elmine’s Geburtstags-unconference gesprochen hast.

Ich habe aber auch eine ganz praktische Frage, über den Formfaktor deiner Präsentation: mir gefallen immer die HTML Folien, weil es ja leicht teilbar und in einem offenen Standard ist. Aber bist du während deines Vortrags von Internetzugang abhängig, oder hast du einen Weg das auch lokal auf der eigenen Maschine zu zeigen?

* Mein toter Urgrossvater ist Weltmeister in Energie, Wasser, seltene Erdmetalle, und CO2 usw. sparen. Seit er gestorben ist spart er 100% bis in aller Ewigkeit. Leben heist Verbrauch, und daher ist ‘sparen’ als Ziel an sich keine Lösung, ‘smartes’ denken über sparen im Kontext (neuer) Ziele aber schon (wie LED). Frei nach Bruce Sterling bei Reboot 2009.

Replied to a post by Heinz Wittenbrink Web teacher and blogger, living in Graz and sometimes in Dubrovnik.Heinz Wittenbrink Web teacher and blogger, living in Graz and sometimes in Dubrovnik.

Preparing an English version of my presentation on Content Strategy for Degrowth for our #coscamp today

IWC Amsterdam day 2 focused on doing. We started with a round of idea pitches that the dozen people present intended to work on, as well as listing things people could assist with.

IndieWebCamp Day 2All work ideas on a ‘windows wiki’

Then we all worked in different constellations until lunch, which we enjoyed at Hannekes Boom. Lunch, just like yesterday, took a bit more time as conversations were animated. We got back to work later than planned therefore and moved our time for demo’s correspondingly. Demo”s were live streamed, with Frank joining us remotely. With a final group picture we closed Indiewebcamp Amsterdam.

Lunch Day 2During lunch

On the train home I am jotting down notes for future editions.

Find the local others
First of all, while we did have more local, meaning Netherlands based participants than last time, we didn’t get any tangible interest from the networks Frank and I have access to. Without the interest of the wider international Indieweb community and holding the event in conjunction with two similarly themed international conferences the event would not have been a success (We had just over 20 people on day 1).
Though for the Utrecht event last spring it might have been because we announced it relatively late, this was definitely not the case for the Amsterdam event. This I feel at least partly comes from not being clear enough in explaining the intent and purpose of Indieweb. That is most likely why three of us dutchies worked on Dutch language texts to draw more people in. E.g. by avoiding jargon until you’re sure the reader gets what you’re saying.

A better on-ramp for new participants
Organising an indiewebcamp is fun and not particularly difficult if you have done small informal events like barcamp before. I think we do need to become better at catering to all levels of proficiency so we can be more inviting to those we think we want to include, especially locally. Perhaps by having a few preset intro sessions as a track you can announce, in contrast to the otherwise unconference approach.

Eventbrite not fit for this purpose
Both for the IndieWebCamp Utrecht and for this Amsterdam edition I used Eventbrite for registrations. This I will not do again. First it feels like a clash with the IndieWeb spirit, and there are IndieWeb ways for this available. More importantly it leads to fake and spam registrations, as well as a higher percentage no-shows. Where for a more formal or bigger event, Eventbrite can be really useful (I’ve used it for organising international conferences with up to 350 participants), for small informal ones like this the promotion Eventbrite itself gives to a listed event through their own channels only creates unwanted noise. Meet-up might be more useful in comparison even, as that is based of building up a group of people, and then host events for them. That fits the model of seeking to create a wider active audience for IndieWeb much better.

Setting a rhythm
I think for next year doing two events is again a good option. We will need to work harder though to get a more local crowd. Having our IndieWeb colleagues from abroad visit us is great, and most welcome (to both ensure connection to the wider community as well as for the enormous experience and technological knowledge they bring with them), but not enough to sustain doing these events. Having two in a year may seem contradictory to this, but it likely can serve to set a more observable rhythm. A drumbeat that can draw in more people, and can mean someone not able to join one event may be motivated to commit to the next one if it’s already on the horizon. I think Frank and I would do well to fix dates early for both events and announce them both at the same time.

Ability to live stream
Being able to stream the sessions is a key element of IndieWeb events, but we’ve now depended both times on existing experience and gear from outside. In Utrecht Rosemary brought everything we needed from Vienna and set it up for us. In Amsterdam she volunteered to do it again but ultimately couldn’t make it. If not for Aaron also participating, we would have gone without live streaming as he happened to have the gear for two simultaneous streams with him.

Have a third organiser
Due to family circumstances the Utrecht edition was mostly done by Frank, and this Amsterdam edition mostly by me. Not a problem, and I felt fine doing it throughout, simply because I’ve done loads of these type of events. Yet, being able to hand-off things to each other makes for a smoother experience all around, especially facilitating during the event itself. Frank and I need to bring a third co-organiser on board I think to be able to set the pace of doing two events next year, and avoid that most of the work falls to just one of us. Again, not because it can’t be done, or was an issue, it really wasn’t, but it is a continuity risk, and it’s more fun together.

Frank during his demoFrank on-screen doing a remote demo of his work today

On my way to Amsterdam for day two of IndieWebCamp, that I’m co-hosting with Frank. Today’s focus will be on doing, based on the conversations and ideas we had yesterday. I’ve published a few pics on Flickr.

IndieWebCamp Lunch
The IndieWebCamp Amsterdam bunch at lunch

I have three ideas I might work on

  • Writing some Dutch language intro’s and explainers about IndieWeb, following up on the session about making it easier for people to engage with IndieWeb options
  • Figuring out how to flip the presentation of a quote/snippet and my remarks in my RSS feed (in a posting it is [my remarks] [snippet I’m discussing], in the feed it is [snippet] [my remarks]. This makes my content disappear from e.g. Micro.blog that presents my feed
  • Enable Webmention and Brid.gy on my company’s website, so we can directly tweet from posting something on the site, as well as receive interaction back to the site.

The first is I think the most important. The second is about figuring out how WordPress creates my RSS feed, and which plugins influence it. Likely takes a lot of time and frustration outside the scope of a day. The third seems the easiest, given my experience doing the same on other WordPress installs. So I’ll start with the first, and use the third as fall back plan.