IFLA 2008 (part 3): Standing Committee meeting no. 1

[From Part 2]

9 Aug, 2008. 11.30am:

Attended the first Standing Committee (SC) meeting this morning.

There was the usual greetings of colleagues, who only get to meet once a year. Some would give out tokens, collaterals of their library's reading initiatives, printed copies of their country reports.

Or a box of chocolates or sweets. Out of love :)

Very informal. But the agenda is serious stuff, at least this is what our SC is well-known for in IFLA circles.

My usual part was to provide updates as the Section's Information Officer (i.e. updates to the Section's website in the past work year, highlights of the newsletters, mailing list).

I managed to explain more about the proposal for a "Youth Expression" project.

The other proposal was from Viviana, for a "Sister Library" project (i.e. a scheme to pair up libraries, to facilitate professional knowledge exchange and mentorship).


The "Youth Expression" proposal
I've blogged about the proposal at this post.

It was first mooted last year at the Durban conference. After a year, we're one step closer towards implementing it (that's the pace of how things work, when most SC members get to meet once a year and all are doing this on top of our regular work).

I was given some air-time to elaborate what the project was about. I explained that it was essentially about three things:

• A project where libraries, libraries and youth volunteers can play a central role
• About Youth Expressions
• Global Connectedness (i.e. library to library, youths to youths -- on an international scale)

After my explanation, Ingrid asked the billion-dollar question (with a smile): "So what's next?"

"Well, it's for us to discuss if we will do this, or maybe no."

We certainly had a solid discussion, in my opinion.

There were comments that the inclusion of ages 13 to 25 was too broad and had to be narrower. But others felt it was fine and that's how it would for their libraries. Final consensus: To provide two separate age groups.

One SC member questioned the philosophy of the proposal. The question was whether a professional body like our IFLA Section should play a role in proposing a "direct service project" Vs. guidelines and policies.

In response, a few other SC members felt that the proposal was a tangible showcase of the sort of work done by the Section. The role of the Section would be to convince other libraries to take up this initiative (if the proposal is approved).

[I know I'm biased in saying this -- but I totally agree! The Scope Statement in the Section's mission statement is to "promote international cooperation in the fields of library services to children and young adults". I see this proposal as a way to extend IFLA's mandate, where our Section would play a facilitator's role in creating an opportunity for libraries all over the world to take part].

Other comments were that the scope (of "Youth Expression") may need to be refined and made more specific. One SC member asked if there were any specific example of how this proposal could be implemented.

In response, there was consensus that the proposal was a framework. Once agreed, we would work on details. Perhaps a project to produce a "How To" manual or some practical guide. For instance, how much time for a library to carry this out, the equipment needed, the typical costs, how to deal with time zone differences, the issue of language translation of works contributed by youths whose first language might not be English.

Sister-Library
Viviana Quinones (she's from Paris) proposed a "Sister-library" programme. Where libraries on a lower development scale would be matched with one that can provide expertise, mentorship, perhaps funding to the "sister-library". It was a model that has been successful between African and French libraries.

This proposal was also viewed favourably by the SC members.

I voiced that the Sister-Library proposal could answer the question of "WHO can I partner with", and the youth expression proposal would be "WHAT do I do with my sister-library".

We ran out of time and would be continuing the discussion at the second SC meeting this coming Friday.


Looking Ahead
I'm happy that both projects were viewed favourably.

I like the Sister-Library proposal. But I'm more keen to try out the Global Youth Expression idea. Not simply because it's a proposal from me.

On the contrary, I see that it's no longer my proposal, but the Section's.

I'm more keen because I feel the activities and practices for the Teens segment has been a relatively neglected area. My sense is that there are more papers and sharing of best practices on Children's Services, and much fewer on those for young adults. Partly because services to teens/ young adults are much more challenging compared to implementing those for Children.

It doesn't surprise me the Youth Expression proposal had a lot more questions and concerns (it seems to be true for the proposals I come up with even in NLB, heh). Maybe it's because it's never been done before, on that scale.

Let me tell you -- it's SCARY putting up a proposal to an international audience!

It's hard enough getting buy-in with my own colleagues in NLB. I had clueless how my international colleagues would react.

I was mentally prepared for the proposal to be thrown out. I wasn't surprised by the concerns raised. I was glad they were raised. If those concerns can be adequately addressed, the project would be stronger for those differing views.

Oh, now that I've experienced it, I can share that having your idea supported by another professional and practioner from another country -- it's just priceless.

But as I said, it's no longer my proposal, but the Section's.

The idea's been put on the table. Nothing's confirmed. We'll have to see how the committee feels should be the way to go.

[Aside: All the IFLA technical committees (e.g. sections and divisions) would have their business meetings one to two days before and after the actual conference.

Most meetings, other than the IFLA governing board, are open to observers. Observers are conference delegates who aren't necessarily part of the section or in any committee. Some observers end up joining the respective section, 'cos they like what's being discussed and feel they can contribute as well.

Typical meeting agenda: report of the Section's activities for the year, update on projects, review of conference activities, financial reports. The minutes of meeting are published on the respective section webpage, like this one from my section.]

Next: Part 4

IFLA 2008 (part 2): Arrived in Quebec City

It's a gray rainy morning in Quebec City.

Woke at seven. Had a quick breakfast. Back to the room to clear emails and stuff.

Took a break to write this quick post.

I had a chance to use my extremely limited French vocabulary last night, when I took the taxi from the airport to the hotel.

The cab driver spoke in French and must have been asked me where I wanted to go. I said the hotel name. And gave him the address I'd written (good to be prepared, non?)

"Est-ce que vous parlez anglais?" I asked.

"Ah, a lee-tle bit," he replied.

We attempted some small talk during the 15 minutes to the hotel. Where did I come from. First time here?

He looked like he was in his mid-50s. He was munching on a sandwich as he drove. I asked what was his work hours was like.

Until eleven, he said.

Reached the hotel. Smooth and uneventful ride. Paid and tipped him.

"Merci."

We both smiled.

I'd like to believe the first person I meet (including the customs and immigration officers) would set the tone for the rest of my stay in a foreign land.

I'm looking out my hotel room now. The sky is still gray. It's still raining.

But I believe I would enjoy my stay in Quebec City.

[From Part 1; See Part 3]

IFLA 2008 (part 1): Off to Quebec City, Canada

By the time this is published, my plane should have taken off.

Looking forward to the conference.

And dreading it at the same time.

Plus-side: I'll be meeting my Section's Standing Committee colleagues again.

Down-side: I'll feel so... helpless. When traveling in a foreign city, I sometimes have to learn the basics from scratch.

Like taking the bus.

I remember in Vienna, passengers have to press a button on the outside of the bus to open the bus door. The driver won't open the door for you unless they see you really need assistance.

So there I was, standing outside the door looking at the driver, expecting the door to to be opened for me.

The driver looking at me, probably thinking, "What's wrong with this fella?"

I'm thinking, "What's wrong with the driver? Why won't he open the door for me?"

In the end, he opened the door. And gave me a funny look.

Sheesh.

I've been checking out these websites (after I did my preliminary research using a travel guide borrowed from the library). I tend to seek these information:

• Safety
• Getting around
• Local customs & etiquette (e.g. tipping, greetings)

Found these quite useful:

• RTCquebec.ca - bus routes | new customers |
• Telegraphe.com - Transportation in Quebec
• WorldTravelGuide.com - getting around in Quebec City
• TripAdvisor.com - Before you go
• LanguageHelpers.com - French basics | MP3 (thanks to Vanessa for this one)

[Next: Part 2]

Post-workshop reflections: "Your Library and New Media: Collaboration through Social Networking"

Yesterday I conducted this 2.5-hour workshop for 16 participants. About 12 were MOE teachers while the rest were in education-related jobs.



Not one of my better sessions, I'm afraid.

On a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), I'd give the workshop outcome, and myself, a "2".

Several frustrations:

1. The event organiser did not get in touch with me, until I had to contact them just two working days before the session! This left me with only a weekend to work on the content. And I was clueless on number of participants, profile, background
   
2. I'd planned for a workshop format but was informed it would be a talk (so I modified my approach accordingly). To my horror when I reached the venue, it was a computer-lab and obviously the expectation was for a workshop
3. With myself: I was complacent! I still think the organiser was sloppy but I should've chased them earlier. I was aware of the many unknowns yet I went in cold on the day itself. Didn't plan for contingencies. Over-confident, I think.
   

Here's what we managed to cover (outline was worked out on the spot):

• 2pm: An overview of what Web 2.0 was about
• 2.30pm - 3pm: A hands-on exercise on using Posterous.com
  
• 3pm - 3.30pm: Tea-break
  
• 3.30pm - 4pm: Group discussion on ideas and desired outcomes for what they wanted to achieve for their school library, and ideas for using new media (this part was sloppy, and I take the blame). Also made them input their discussion points on to a Wiki
• 4pm - 4.15pm: Review of the wiki activity. Also demo of how to restore pages and deal with vandalism (a bit sloppy, 'cos I temporarily couldn't find the link to restore the pages)
  
• 4.15pm - 4.30pm: Discussion on application, use of new media for collaboration (ended up with me doing most of the talking; I think most of them didn't feel this part was comprehensive enough)
• 4.30pm - 5pm: Explanation of Creative Commons, its relevance to a school library, how to search for CC content, and how to license one's work using CC (this part was me talking, and I can't tell if I convinced them to see themselves as content producers, and how sharing was part of social collaboration)
  

What I did right
I arrived about one hour earlier. Managed to whack out a outline for hands-on activities, worked out the new approach mentally.

Another thing done right: I didn't complain and got to work instead. When I realised the venue was for a workshop and not a talk, I sorely wanted to. But it wouldn't have helped anyone and would certainly have wasted precious time.

When I sensed the participants had a different expectation, I modified my approach rather than bulldoze through the session (but the outcome was partly successful). During the hands-on exercise at 2.30 - 3pm, when I went around checking on the participants. That was when I sensed and got some feedback that the participants didn't really want hands-on. I asked the group what they'd like to focus on, and modified the subsequent approach.


What could've been done better
Before starting the session, I tried to get participants to share what they expected out of this workshop. But I didn't get everyone to share (they did it in groups) and I didn't write down the points so that I could revisit those points. And also use those points to focus the discussions.

I didn't establish that critical rapport with the group. Upon hindsight, I think I could have given more time for each individual to share their thoughts. I realise teachers liked to express themselves and have their thoughts heard. Getting them to share might also clarify their expectations, their skill level, their organisational context.

Next time I'd schedule when each group could edit the wiki pages. The mistake was to allow all groups to edit the wiki. Net-effect: everyone overrode everyone else's work! Next time, I'd assign a scribe for each group, and also give each group a specific time to edit. And warn them not to override.


The participants
When I shared my woes to two other teacher-friends separately (they weren't in the session), they consoled me to say that teachers were a tough bunch to teach!

But to be fair, the teachers were cordial and they patiently went along the discussions and group activities as instructed. I think if they really wanted to be difficult, they could.

Problem was, I didn't manage to engage them in terms of the depth of discussions and the ideas generated. That was the biggest disappointment for them and for me too.

At one point (around the 4pm to 4.30pm segment) I felt as if I'd lost them when the discussions didn't get into the level of sharing and the ideas and sharing from them weren't forthcoming.


Their expectations
I felt most gave very tentative responses when asked to share what they wanted to get out of the workshop.

I had my share of participants who didn't read the workshop blurb!

I felt most of them weren't that sure what they wanted from the session. They had a general sense of wanting to learn something practical, but generally just came to see what they could get out of it. But when they didn't get the sort of specific ideas and discussions, they were disappointed.


Final thoughts
I'm not sure how they collectively rated the session (don't think the organisers would be sending the collated feedback my way).

I won't say this was a disaster.

There were signs that some participants learned something. For instance, they maintained eye contact throughout, showed non-verbal responses, they actively took notes at certain points.

Also, when we ended the session, I told them the workshop won't have to end there. I gave them my email. Said I'd be happy to share more individualised responses, if they have specific questions after the workshop. Quite a few wrote down the email. That should mean something. :)

Still, I didn't feel that sort of satisfaction I've experienced with some other workshops.

In the final analysis, I can only say as a trainer, I've got ways to go.

I feel a trainer of excellence would always manage to make participants feel the session was worth attending. Regardless of the situation.



At one point while reflecting on this workshop, I wondered if I should decline future training invitations from this particular organiser. Or of such a scope (e.g. teachers, new media). Quite likely they wouldn't want to ask me back, heh.

I didn't even feel like blogging this. A part of me didn't want to share the less-than-positive aspect of the workshops I conduct.

But I posted it anyway. To clarify my thoughts, if nothing else. If faced with the same situation again, I'd know what to do without being overconfident.

Well, if any of the workshop participant manage to find your way to this post, as I mentioned in the closing remarks of the workshop, be as honest as you want to be.

Let me know what could've been done better for you.

The Creative Commons Connection (Part 3): Should I allow my work to be exploited?

[From Part 2]

Prior to Molly's talk, I'd read her earlier post on The Psychology of Creative Commons.

Where she shared her thoughts about this other blogger (Paul Courant) who changed his blog's Creative Commons license -- from Attribution-NonCommercial (BY-NC) to simply Attribution (BY) only.

NOTE: When you adopt a Creative Commons license with a NonCommercial (NC) label, if someone wants to use it for commercial purposes, they'd have to seek your explicit permission. If they intend to use it for non-commercial purposes, they don't have to contact you for permission because you've already given permission in advance. And in both cases, they'd have to attribute your work, i.e. acknowledge you as the creator/ owner.

Basically, Paul Courant is saying to the Whole Wide World that so long you attribute him as the creator, you can share/ make copies/ amend his original work/ sell his work without paying him any royalties.

Let me repeat that for you: he's giving advanced permission to you to make money from using his work, without paying him a cent.

I bet you're asking, "Why would anyone want to do that?"

It's mind-boggling, isn't it?

Why would you allow your work to be exploited?

Look up "Exploit" in any dictionary and they'd all agree that using someone's work without compensating them qualifies as exploitation.

Unthinkable!

But is it?

Reading Paul's explanation and Molly's thoughts (plus what she elaborated in her talk), my interpretation is this:

1. You expect a very low chance that anyone would ever pay you for your work
   
2. Your main aim is for your work (and hence your name and reputation) to be spread as far and as wide as possible. This aim is more important than you actually earning money from your work
   
3. So you only ask to be credited as the author of the work
4. It's possible some people may make money from your work and NOT even give you credit in name
   
5. But you accept this fact
6. Plus, the very act of allowing others to benefit commercially from your work, without having to pay you, increases the chance of your work (plus your name and reputation) being cast wider
7. There's even a chance that someone will decide to pay you in the end!

So it's not so crazy after all.

We see the equivalent of this happening all the time. By retailers.

• "Use first, pay later".
• "Buy now, and if you're not satisfied, full money-back with no questions asked".

Granted their motivations may be different (i.e. reduce perceived risk of purchase) but I'd argue the net effect is the same (i.e. increase use).

In fact, anyone who adopts a "Attribution" only CC license (i.e. automatically allow commercial use) is acting like an entrepreneur.

You're weighing the risk of not being attributed at all against the potential increase of (using Molly's term) "maximising influence".

That's taking power into your hands.

Far from being exploited, you're empowering yourself.

Risk of exploitation is already there
Each time I publish my text or music online, I'm prepared for it to be used or modified without permission. Or attribution even.

Who's to say someone hasn't already taken advantage of my words or music, profiting from it (monetary or otherwise) without benefiting or attributing to me?

The reality is that once I've publish my work online (words, pictures, videos) I don't have 100% control over it anymore.

Most individuals like you and I won't have the means or access to sophisticated digital content/ rights management systems, and even those aren't 100% future-proof against copyright violation.

Am I ready for it?
This is the million-dollar question, isn't it?

Here's my answer; this is the license I'd be adopting from now on:

This work by Ivan Chew is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. You are free to share, copy, modify, sell this work. You don't have to pay me (although you might want to make a donation to a charitable organisation of your choice!) I only ask that you credit and link to "Ivan Chew, RamblingLibrarian.blogspot.com". You don't necessarily have to notify me but I'd always appreciate a friendly email.

I'll also be modifying the license to Attribution-only, for my music. The new ones will definitely use the above license.

For my particular license, I've added additional text ("You don't have to pay me... You are free to share... friendly email"). I feel the current CC license could be improved, to make it clearer on the terms of use and how people can attribute.

This doesn't mean I have to stick to this particular CC license. It'll depend on the situation. But most times, I'd use this.

My motivations
I'm doing this because I've long decided that I'm not going to make money out of this blog (hence, no ads in my blog).

If you make money from using my work, good for you!

I hope you'll make a donation to a charity, in lieu of paying me. We both get to earn positive karma this way.

It feels good to give. My words away, I mean.

(Whether it'll be taken is another matter!)

I'm prepared for not being credited at all, even in name.

That's OK by me too.

'Cos that's your karma.

I'm perfectly happy with mine.

p.s. Thanks to Molly, for her talk. She was the tipping point!

The Creative Commons Connection (Part 2): My grouse with Copyright

[From Part 1]

This is a rant.

My rants aren't eloquent. They generalise. And would be full of holes (so feel free to criticise).

Still, I want to get this off my chest.

My grouse with Copyright.

Often, the "safe" way to deal with copyrighted materials is to adopt a conservative position.

For instance, not to use the content unless explicit permission has been obtained.

My grouse is with how we librarians suffer from a lack of confidence in dealing with copyright. Few librarians can specialise in copyright law.

That lack of confidence stems from our inadequate understanding of copyright law.

I'm frustrated at how librarians -- being non-lawyers -- have to defer our decisions about the use of copyrighted materials, or the publishing of our materials, to lawyers.

Those legal positions are often a matter of interpretation by individual lawyers.

Because there might not be legal precedents.

And they probably do not want to stick their necks out.

I just hate outsourcing my decision-making on intellectual property issues to lawyers. I'd rather be clear on how and what to do.

In the digital age, everyone is a potential content producer (you take pictures with your digital camera, don't you?).

And potentially a online publisher (do you post photos online?).

My grouse with Copyright is that in the digital age, it's going to put librarians at a disadvantage.

We'd end up not being able to use much of the material published by individuals. Or we're not able to publish much of our materials online because we're advised to take conservative positions.

I believe that in the digital age, some librarians must become content producers as well.

We should not just limit libraries to be intermediaries, portals or mere repositories.

We have the capacity to create and share content, relevant for our users.

That's why I believe Creative Commons is important for libraries.

My colleagues and I were talking about how Molly did a great job with her talk on Creative Commons :)

She spoke with certainty and clarity, especially when handling the Q&A.

She spoke about Copyright and Creative Commons in terms that was easily understood.

"Certainty" and "Clarity".

To me, that's what copyright legislation ought to provide.

For commoners to be clear and certain of what to do, to protect their rights. Or share their works in ways which they are comfortable.

[Next: Part 3] Should I allow my work to be exploited?

The Creative Commons Connection (Part 1): Molly Kleinman, on Creative Commons and Copyright

Molly the Librarian gave a talk at the National Library this afternoon.

Not this Molly but this one (this joke is kinda stale by now... Sorry, Molly K!)

She spoke to 70-plus participants. Excellent turn out! And a very engaged and interested crowd.

Not surprising.

Mention "copyright" and librarians inevitably perk their ears.

It's so timely that Molly's personal visit to Singapore was right on the heels of this announcement. She's in Singapore for a week, after giving a Creative Commons talk and a workshop at a conference in Kuala Lumpur.

My main take-away from Molly's talk was this:
If libraries want to have their works (like subject guides and publications) shared with a wider audience, they should adopt CC licenses and embed it online. Doing so makes it easier for people to find your works, using servies like Google. That is, if your objective is for your works to be found and used.

But I'm getting ahead of myself here...


The Creative Commons Connection
I was connected to Molly (right) via Jude (left). He's one of the guys in the Media-Socialists group (his wife, in the middle, says it's more accurate to call ourselves "Social Media-ists", and I agree!)


And from today's Q&A during Molly's one-hour talk, what she had to say made strong connections with the 70-plus librarians from NLB and LAS members.

I enjoyed Molly's talk. There's a nice logical flow to her presentation, backed by her solid practitioner's know-how. She was able to explain copyright concepts in clear and concise terms. And she gave practical advice for libraries and librarians.

Here's a almost blow-by-blow account of Molly's talk:

Copyright/ Creative Commons: A problem and a complementary solution
Molly spoke about Copyright and US law, and problems with current the copyright system. In some cases it was difficult or impossible to contact copyright holders. The copyright status of some older works were uncertain (especially for works published between periods where copyright law has changed).

She explained how copyright law is complicated and skewed in favour of big corporations. Individuals are often at a disadvantage in terms of trying to use copyrighted works or understanding their own rights.

Ah, this is where Creative Commons (CC) comes in.

[Aside - here's a quote from CreativeCommons.org's About page:]

"... Balance, compromise, and moderation — once the driving forces of a copyright system that valued innovation and protection equally — have become endangered species. Creative Commons is working to revive them. We use private rights to create public goods: creative works set free for certain uses. Like the free software and open-source movements, our ends are cooperative and community-minded, but our means are voluntary and libertarian. We work to offer creators a best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works while encouraging certain uses of them — to declare "some rights reserved."

What's Creative Commons? Check this out. Or this, if you prefer a video.

"CC is not going to fix everything", says Molly.

CC is not a government organisation. It's not endorsed by governments.

CC simply makes the "legal language" understandable in terms or language that fits the local context (an immense help if say, English isn't your first language).

Molly went through the four basic elements in CC, what each meant, and how they can be combined: Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike, No-derivative

Basically, CC provides:

1. A "human-readable" code, i.e. expresses the legal terms which us mere non-legalistic mortals can understand (here's one example)
2. A "lawyer-readable" code, i.e. the terms expressed in full legal documentation (here's the code from the same example above)
3. A "computer readable code", which is the HTML code. Basically you obtain a HTML code where you can incorporate in your blog or website. This allows search engines to locate your page identified as CC-licensed. Here's an example:
   
   
   This work by Ivan Chew is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. For permissions beyond the scope of this license, please contact via RamblingLibrarian@gmail.com.
   

Before and After Creative Commons
Before CC, there was no easy way for creators to give away rights. Or for creators to share in limited ways, even if they wanted to.

There was only one way, which was "Contact Me. Ask Permission. I'll Give it. Only then can you Use It."

Molly explained that CC helped solve:

• Ambiguous copyright status ('cos if you adopt a CC license, you're making your copyright status absolutely clear)
  
• A lack of good resources that are free from copyright (Google's Advanced Search options allows you to specify for CC-licensed items, and so does Flickr's)
  
• The difficulty in sharing library-produced content more broadly (see following section)
  

Where does CC and Libraries come together?
"Libraries produce a lot of great stuff", says Molly.

Like subject guides (here's the NLB public library's example).

If your library wants to make your resources used by people outside the library, put it online, apply a CC license, make it easy for people to understand the terms and conditions of use and even distribute your work.

(To me, that's free marketing and publicity, without the library losing their rights).

Molly suggested two ways libraries can use CC to engage our public

1. Collect CC licensed work and teach our users how to find it
2. Adopt CC licenses for subject guides produced by the library, and encourage creators outside the library to use the licenses

[So simple!]

CC resources
Here are the resources she recommends:

• Photos: Flickr.com
• Music: ccmixter.org
• Google Advanced Search (click on the "+" sign that says "Date, usage rights, numeric range, and more").
• MIT open courseware project

How should libraries use CC works
Very important practical advice, as explained by Molly:

1. Make sure your use complies to terms of CC license
2. Include a link back to the original work (URL or hyperlink)
3. Attribute/ mention the original creator
4. Include the CC license also

At one point, someone asked Molly what could be licensed (answer: anything that can be copyrighted, can be licensed).

How to choose a CC license
More practical advice from Molly:

1. Do you hold the copyright?
2. Are you comfortable with people profiting from your work? (it's the internet: you publish what you can afford to lose!)
3. Are you comfortable with people changing your work?
4. Do you want derivatives for your work to carry the CC license?

[You can give this online form a try. Basically, you answer the questions, and CC will generate the relevant codes for you, including the HTML codes for you to embed in your blog].

Another participant asked for the proper way to cite CC works. Basically you credit the author/ creator of the work like how you'd credit a work found online.

There's no hard and fast rule on this.

If you ask me, libraries can take the lead and set the guidelines!

Show the world how to cite Creative Commons works. :)

[Next: Part 2 - My grouse with Copyright]

Press Release: SINGAPORE ANNOUNCES PORTED CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSES

It's official.

Excerpt from the press release, slated for 27 July release:

Press Release - SINGAPORE ANNOUNCES PORTED CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSES

San Francisco, CA, USA and Singapore City, Singapore — July 27, 2008

Today Creative Commons Singapore announces the completion of the locally ported Creative Commons licensing suite. In close collaboration with Centre for Asia Pacific Technology Law & Policy (CAPTEL), the Creative Commons team in Singapore, led by Associate Professor Samtani Anil and Assistant Professor Giorgos Cheliotis, adapted the licenses both linguistically and legally to Singaporean national law.

The Creative Commons licenses, now ported to 47 jurisdictions, enable authors, artists, scientists, and educators the choice of a flexible range of protections and freedoms in efforts to promote a voluntary “some rights reserved” approach to copyright.

The Singaporean Creative Commons licenses, available soon online, will be celebrated today in Singapore City at the International Symposium on Electronic Art.

The event will also feature a panel, organized by CAPTEL and Creative Commons Singapore, to introduce the audience to key copyright issues in the digital age and also share tips for creators and users to avoid common pitfalls in the field of copyright law.

The panel will, in addition, explain the aims and philosophy of the Creative Commons initiative and the specific nature and uses of the Creative Commons licensing suite in Singapore.

Stanford law professor and Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig will address the audience to commemorate the completion of the licenses.

Following the event, the CC Singapore team hopes to initiate a series of educational talks to explain the philosophy of Creative Commons and the practical ways in which users can implement the licenses.

Project Lead Samtani Anil adds, “We also believe the launch of the Singapore CC licenses will lead to a better appreciation of the ambit, contours, and limits of the existing copyright regime in Singapore in relation to the sharing and dissemination of culture and the advancement of innovation.

This, we believe, will sensitize various stakeholders to the avenues that are open to them to share their works in accordance with their wishes and needs.”

The CC Singapore team is supported by team members Assistant Professor Warren Chik, Vinod Sabnani, Tham Kok Leong, Lam Chung Nian, Harish Pillay and Ankit Guglani.

The full announcement is at the Creative Commons press release page. Thanks to Associate Professor Anil Samtani for the heads-up.

(BTW, Molly Kleinman, Copyright Specialist and Special Projects Librarian at University of Michigan, was also nice enough to email me about the press release. We've been in touch, 'cos she'll be giving a talk on Creative Commons. Sort of her personal-working visit).

I'm interested in the part where it says after the conference, "... the CC Singapore team hopes to initiate a series of educational talks to explain the philosophy of Creative Commons and the practical ways in which users can implement the licenses."

I'd be happy to link up the CC Singapore team with the NLB for the talks (if they've not done so already). I'll check with Prof Anil.

And I'll certainly organise the next GarageBand Meetup Singapore with Creative Commons in mind. This was something the five of us discussed at our very first meetup.

Apart from trading tips on how to do stuff with GarageBand, we intend to create works from the meetups and license it under Creative Commons (e.g. you create a loop, I create a loop, and we try to make a song out of it).

Kinda like CCmixter meets Songcraft. Heh.

Hmm... maybe organise this at the library venue even.

[see also: What does it mean by "porting Creative Commons to Singapore"?]

June 2008 issue of SCL News

Latest issue of the Libraries for Children and Young Adults Section is out. The PDF file (1.9MB) can be downloaded, here.

I feel there are a few articles worth reading.

Two articles from Denmark, on the library service's future, and new competencies and staff roles.

An article about an English Children's library in Xiamen, People's Republic of China (the first-ever article featuring a library from the PRC, if I'm not mistaken).

Oh yeah, do read the one about the Teen Chat event between teens in Singapore and Germany.

Countries featured in this issue:

• DENMARK (p.3 - The library service’s future in Denmark)
• PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (p.4 - "... first English Children’s library in Mainland China").
• SINGAPORE (p.6 - Teen Online Chat: Singapore & Germany)
• NETHERLANDS (p.9 - "The Library of 100 Talents")
• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (p.11 - Summer Reading Programme & Mascot)

Other content:

• The Chair Speaks
• Editor's Note
• New Competencies, Roles, and Staff for Children’s Libraries: Denmark
• Reading aloud in VMBO: Netherlands
• Website Reviews
  
• Highlights of Minutes: Mid-year meeting

What does it mean by "porting Creative Commons to Singapore"?

As a follow-up from this post, I asked via the CC-sg list: What does it mean when CC is ported over?

Associate Professor Anil Samtani (Deputy Director of CAPTEL and Associate Professor of Law at NTU) answered my question and gave permission to publish his response in full:

Here's my take on your query. The porting process involves both linguistically translating the licenses (where applicable) and legally adapting them to particular jurisdictions.

So whilst CC does not and is unable to warrant that the localized licences will be enforceable, the idea is that the adaptation process will make it more likely that a local court will enforce the ported licence given the fact that the licence has been adapted to take into account the nuances of the local laws in the country concerned.

Having said that, though, the unported licences have also been couched using terms consistent with international intellectual property conventions and treaties so they are also crafted with a view to ensuring that courts are likely to enforce those licences.

Nevertheless, because of the differences in place in various copyright legislations the world over, it is hoped that the porting process will bring about greater certainty to creators and users in understanding their rights and obligations as the ported licences will take into account these legislative differences.

It is also probably worthwhile to note that the CC licences contain "severability" clauses -- meaning that, if a certain provision is found to be unenforeceable in a certain place, that provision and only that provision drops out of the license, leaving the rest of the agreement intact.

Thanks, Prof Anil.