CopyFair/CultureBanking®

Implications for Creative Commons (enclosure of CC licenses and false promise of 'rights retention) of Flickr merger with 'Smug Mug': https://www.loomio.org/d/VMaUlpsi/culturebanks-research/8

Liam, I'm still puzzling about what is common in your culture banking initiative, and what kind of stuff it is that might be banked.'Cultural' production is extremely diverse. So, seeking understanding . . .

It looks to me like what you want to enable is the collecting of rent on intellectual property - and thus, you need to invent a property registry which can make claims to ownership stick, and a rent-collection agency? Something like the Performing Rights Society, or the work that a literary agent does in licensing movie rights to a play? Is your 'culture bank' any more than this, applied to forms of art and craft production other than music or literary works? Is it perhaps a kind of patent?

Could you describe . . . what kinds of stuff is it (pottery? paintings or prints? household knick-knacks and decor items? furniture? play-scripts? novels? performance art? installations? landscape art? community drama? etc) that are being produced for and placed in a commons? In this video Michel Bauwens points out that just 'sharing' stuff that you happen to like and have made, doesn't amount to creating a commons. What kinds of commoned use - peer-to-peer mutualised production - are anticipated for the cultural products that you want to bank? Is it possible to cover all kinds of 'cultural' product by the same process or licence, regardless of their material form? I kind-of doubt that.

What are the commercial uses that for-profit or corporate enterprises might want to make, of your kinds of stuff? Is CultureBanking just a market? If cultural products are really made for a commons as distinct from a generic market - actual collaborating communities of persons in places - doesn't this make it rather difficult to spin profit-making merchandise off the back of it? Or - is merchandising (the T-shirt of the rock concert, the mug of the art exhibition) exactly the kind of thing you're thinking of?

Sorry Liam - as you can see, I'm just not getting it yet, as a 'commons' initiative or a concrete practice.

Perhaps the way into it this is . . . in Norwich right now, with the crisis your local arts community is facing, what help would CultureBanking provide to that community, if it were available as a service? How would this service impact the wider communities in the city who are beneficiaries of the maker-community's local presence?

Intellectual Property doesn't exist without the collection of 'rent'. If you wont make it available to a market place, you wont have 'protection' of the law. That's why Kleiner pointed out we are just using a faulty system to best serve the commons... I don't want to collect 'rent'. I am offering a platform for people to rent out their own IP on a peer to peer basis. What is collected, is collected by them. I call that community licensing or Community Collective Rights Management... But yes, there is a 'rent' payable to the common platform and to sustain 5% to costs and 5% (minimum) into a shared common fund. Rent can be charged by the commons and should be... for things we all need to 'produce'. I wouldn't get hung up on the broad 'cultural' production angle - yes, its all CP! Not all of it can be licensed as IP tho - that is the critical definition. This model would work equally well in the pharmaceutical trade where we might see the commons buying back enclosed patents for drugs etc... Hope this clears up your understanding Mike. if not, I can email you the business plan, which is in 1st draft state, so would greatly welcome feedback.... (not for sharing just yet tho). all best, Liam

You could have just stopped at ...

Intellectual Property doesn't exist

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html

If you wont make it available to a market place, you wont have 'protection' of the law.

What won't? The details of copyright law vary from country to country, but in the US and UK and many other jurisdictions, if you publish a work, the copyright is automatically reserved. Patents, on the other hand, have to be applied for, but you can do that before you publicly reveal the invention you want to patent. You just have to hope there's no 'prior art' that will invalidate your claim.

This model would work equally well in the pharmaceutical trade where we might see the commons buying back enclosed patents for drugs etc...

Or we could just coordinate open source research into plant medicines, bio-phyisical therapies, drugs whose patents have expired, and other forms of healing that are not subject to patent control? Share the research in open access journal papers under CC licenses? Maybe set up cooperatively owned health care practices that use patented drugs and equipment only when they are unquestionably superior treating for a patient with a serious illness?
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/interview_an_open_source_approach_to_medical_research

The only way corporations would sell drug patents, is if they could get the same amount of money they could earn through the patent, in one lump sum. What's the advantage to us of helping them with that?

the critical word is 'could' - CC makes a living for very few people. No film yet etc.. I'll resist the temptation to 'react'. As I said Strypey - I was tired - same as you. I'm not going to defend myself. No need. Help would be appreciated. I offered Mike a Business Plan... anyone else who's interested is welcome - for constructive comments etc. @asimong I've taken on many of the comments on here about taking commons principles forward. It's about sharing. I've shared a business idea with you all. It involves creating common stock by using peer production licenses. I've got a first draft of a business plan. Maybe I will share that and maybe somebody will enjoy seeing if it 'takes commons principles forward'. It'll have to pay the rent first tho - so Simon, on that, we agree! All Best..

Sorry Mike, am on a deadline so can’t answer in detail. Fully understand ‘sharing’ and ‘commoning’ differences - Uber etc… The MVP (i use business terms) is to place digital image files of IP owners work into a 'kite-marked' form of common ownership under peer production licenses.
Essentially it’s a DAO using an independent stewardship of rights to allow common causes to be funded at will by users. A Platform for cooperation. Particularly useful for local communities of ‘creative independents’ (their definition not mine) who are otherwise separated by private property and private interests and have no common management framework (after loss of nearly all local authority arts support).

It can be used in Norwich right now to raise funds to buy the land on which their workshops stand as a community land trust would… (Went for one eight market value at 7.5Mn.) Sadly, I don’t think the stage of development will allow that. Instead, they are using the ‘controversy’ to raise funds for their own competing interests (even though they, as individual arts orgs are variously organised around some kind of commons). What is lacking is an over-arching common framework which can act in all of their interests and be constituted by them…. A Commons management Agreement - which I am also working on locally…. These are big holes to fill.

One thing I think you may differ with me on is that for ‘commons transition’ business models, it’s not always possible to ‘share only with sharers’. CB licenses have, a bit like Creative Commons, 3 types: Open, Restricted and Closed. Closed licenses will indeed present the kind of enclosed rights needed by license users in the market for things like ‘merch’. There must be income. It’s not perfect. But it does use peer production internally - as Kleiner suggested. It is not extractive and where income accrues, it accrues in a mutual account for the benefit of the common (after private needs have been satisfied). Without giving all away, an Ap and Web platform allows single issue peer production licenses to be immediately downloaded. There is no central registry needed.

I’m 29 pages into the full plan which is due on Tuesday for a ‘Pitch’ (social investors from my university for set up costs).
I’m in no doubt that CultureBanking® is a committed commons initiative - I’m just so busy getting it moving right now, i may be failing to explain why. But that’s why I set up the Loomio - so thanks for engaging with it. Will upload the plan to Loomio once I am satisfied with it for your scrutiny!

(Very hurried response)

Al best,

Liam

I'm inclined to agree with @strypey here. Liam @liammurphy I do think you're doing something interesting and worthwhile, though maybe you might also enjoy taking on more comments from others about other ways that the commons principles could be taken forward. If you have a workable idea, stick with it, as not all ideas are workable! Then also, perhaps when it is working, consider development along ever more commons lines?

License proliferation is an excellent thing - if the licenses put power in the hands of peer producers. Everyone is entitled to license their own work.., are the licenses demanding of/ conducive to a commons/ p2p environment is the question... Creative Commons is great if u want to give stuff away. Not a privilege most can afford tho

@liammurphy

CC makes a living for very few people. No film yet etc.

Lots of films have been released under CC licenses. See:
* Vodo.net
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_films

Very few people make a living out of independent film, period. What makes you think the problem is CC license(s) ? How would using a different license lead to different results?

License proliferation is an excellent thing

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But the burden of proof is on you to support this opinion with logic and case studies, and respond to the significant body of work by the pioneers of commons-orientated copyright licensing, arguing that license proliferation fragments and harms the commons. Some examples from a quick web search:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation#Vanity_licenses
* https://opensource.org/proliferation-report
* https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=law_journal_law_policy
* https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Introduction
* http://books.openedition.org/ledizioni/209?lang=en#tocfrom2n5
* https://www.creativecommons.nl/downloads/101220cc_incompatibilityfinal.pdf

Creative Commons is great if u want to give stuff away

The Public Domain dedication is for giving stuff away. The CC licenses are for reserving some of the rights constrained by copyright (eg the right to make commercial use of the work), while releasing other rights (eg the right to distribute verbatim copies).

That you don't seem to know how CC licenses work suggests you aren't following the Kalashnikov principle (named for the inventor of the AK-47). To quote an English translation of his summary of the principle:
"before attempting to create something new, it is vital to have a good appreciation of everything that already exists in this field."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47#Concept

When people don't do this, they end up reinventing the wheel and muddying the waters, which is a waste of their own time and talent.

Not a privilege most can afford tho

Buying stuff constrained by unnecessarily restrictive copyright licenses is a privilege most can't afford. Having your work ignored by both businesses and audience because it uses an obscure and complicated copyright license is a cost creators can't afford.

@strypey

1. 'loads of films':

27 films are listed since 2002. That is less than two a year. Production is not noticeably increasing. This is because, as I said, CC enables 'giving away'. Hardworking people in the industry need options which pay them. CC doesn't enable this. I didn't say CC was the problem and I would encourage people to use CC - for specific purposes. I'm saying CC doesn't address the problem of getting paid. As you say 'very few people make their living from independent film' - you understand there is a problem.. Less than 2 a year is not 'loads' (Can I ask if you have a background in 'the arts'..? Dah-ling! ;-)) The other platform seems to give stuff away,.. again...

'2. But the burden of proof is on you to support this opinion'-

Enabling people to create their own licenses, find platforms which will endorse that and pay them will help them earn a living. Licenses can be as many as you like and should serve each specific purpose - ie, what matters is how they serve people. i wont address your links now (I will look later) but offer some simple logic as a 'burden of 'proof': If peer production licences were to proliferate, how could this possibly harm 'the commons'? Besides that, having a monopoly on licenses is as as bad as having one on products and services... each of us must be entitled to our own terms - whether accepted by others or not. Seems a fair 'p2p' value... Perhaps it could be voted on?

1. Re: 'Buying stuff constrained by unnecessarily restrictive copyright licenses is a privilege most can't afford. Having your work ignored by both businesses and audience because it uses an obscure and complicated copyright license is a cost creators can't afford.'

At last we agree entirely!

These are exactly the two poles most makers find themselves caught between - and why CultureBanking® is needed! Because of this creators ignore the rights they do have and treat IP as an enemy. Knowing how to construct your own terms and conditions - and have them met - (including licensing of your work) is essential for creators. Hence, CultureBanking® is offering workshops and training as well as generic licenses and marks to adapt/attach schedules to etc. (I'm consulting with Sabine Jacques of the UEA on an IP related workshop for Norwich University of the Arts MA students as we speak actually...) Creators knowing what platforms are/will be available to them (few as of now) when they DO assert their rights will also be essential.. It's only the very beginning of P2P in film, art, performance, literature etc - the machinery of 'sharing' is in some ways a long way behind 'online' communities. That said, there are 1000's of examples of commoning in the arts and so I am very encouraged at the prospects... Artists are a decent bunch!

Note: It would be really helpful to the overall project if, when you comment, you could locate your comments under the most appropriate thread.. as you can see I've set the thing up as a collaboration in creating a working plan. It is admittedly, not working well and most of the work Im doing offline now - but will upload the biz plan when it's done. I couldn't wait to gain consent before I act as I need to eat! (case in point) Look forward to more challenges tho prefer to work collaboratively.

It might be worth mentioning that CultureBanking has 3 elements: 1. A platform for sharing, 2. A 'KiteMark' (this is where I think P2P could really help and 3. a Mutual Fund (held in distributed 'commons').

I'll update as and when I can as I think there's some degree of confusion about the scope of the project....

Cheers,

Liam