Cc-europe mailing list

[Timothy Vollmer <tvol AT creativecommons.org>]

Hey all:

Thanks Jonas for the ping on this thread--it’s been an extremely interesting and useful discussion. RE: Teresa’s question: From what I can ascertain CC doesn’t have official positions on 1) being against government interference with the Internet and 2) in favour of broader exceptions to copyright. Of course sometimes board members or staff might discuss such matters, but they do so in an individual capacity.

As for supporting/opposing policy issues, Diane Cabell already noted that this may sometimes include making statements on specific legislation/regulation/policy (as opposed to broad, blanket assertions) when such things interfere with the mission of the organization or how the CC licenses and tools work. And for sure this could include positive interventions too (and not simply in just pointing out when bad policies come up). There is a process set up for this, which involves the CEO, staff, and board (where appropriate). We are also currently discussing how to improve communication and be more inclusive of affiliate opinions and feedback with regard to policy issues.

Regarding affiliate activities, CC does not discourage you from taking positions on various policy issues, so long as it is clear that they are individual positions and not those of the organization. The ability of our affiliates to engage in policy discussions -- and sometimes advocacy work in situations and places where CC cannot -- is one of the many great values that affiliates bring to CC. Each situation might be a bit different, judgement calls will sometimes have to be made, and the MOU serves as the baseline. But in simple form, it might be broken down into something like:

- if you purport to speak on behalf of CC (as opposed to a particular affiliate), you should get CC HQ's approval first. You can send such requests through to your Regional Project Manager, Jessica as the Affiliate Network Coordinator, or myself as the Policy Manager;
- if you purport to speak on behalf of the local affiliate, you are free to make your own statements, as long as they align with CC’s vision and mission, and we'd appreciate it if you kept CC HQ informed so we properly understand the issues;
- if you are commenting in your private capacity or on behalf of a separate legal entity, you are clearly free to say what you will

Sorry for the long winded response. Of course HQ is happy to discuss this more should other questions arise. 

timothy

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Paul Keller <paul AT creativecommons.org> wrote:

On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:35, Alek Tarkowski wrote:

> Dear Gisle (and everyone else),
>
> It seems that our discussion boils down to this: does promotion and
> stewardship of CC licenses is a form of advocacy done differently? If
> so, then CC should for example support, at least to some extent, legal
> reform that makes our voluntary mechanisms part of the law itself. And
> if it's not, CC should be agnostic towards any copyright reform.
>
> I personally believe that since I am promoting voluntary mechanisms
> within a copyright system and suggesting this system is flawed without
> them, I should also be in favour of a reform of this system in this
> direction. I am willing to accept that this is only my personal belief
> and that CC's approach is more "agnostic". But at the same time I feel
> that 10th anniversary is maybe a good moment to go back to basics and
> ask "why are we doing this?". Especially that many of the affiliates, by
> virtue of doing other projects than just CC (and probably the HQ is the
> only org in our network focusing *solely* on CC licensing) are involved
> in different forms of advocacy.

Hi Alek and all,
i fully agree with pretty much alek says here. However i find the idea that CC is currently not involved in advocacy quite puzzling. As far as i can tell CC-HQ has regularly been involved in advocacy. Examples that come to mind are the recent protests against SOPA/PIPA but also the work that has been undertaken by COMMUNIA. CC is one of the initial signatories of the Public Domain Manifest produced by COMMUNIA <http://www.publicdomainmanifesto.org/> and as far as i am concerned that advocates policy changes that go well beyond issues that directly affect the ability to use CC-licenses and other tools.

> And the sociologist in me thinks that this would be a perfect subject
> for a research study about the users of our licenses: I don't think we
> have any source of knowledge beyond the anecdotal that could tell us,
> are CC licenses being used in a "political" or "utilitarian" way (to
> describe things very broadly).
>
> Gisle, when you suggest that we should oppose any activities that make
> CC licenses redundant - I must admit I find such an approach shocking.
> But again, this all depends on the answer to the question: why do we
> promote CC licenses?

in line with the public domain manifesto i would argue because we believe that the public domain needs to be expanded and one (but not the only) way to do so is the 'voluntary relinquishment of rights'…
/paul

> All the best, and thanks for this really interesting exchange of viewpoints!
>
> Alek
>
> --
> dr Alek Tarkowski
> koordynator / public lead
> Creative Commons Polska / Poland
> www: http://creativecommons.pl
> identica: http://identi.ca/alek
> twitter: http://twitter.com/atarkowski
>
> _______________________________________________
> CC-Europe mailing list
> CC-Europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe

_______________________________________________
CC-Europe mailing list
CC-Europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe

--
Timothy Vollmer

http://creativecommons.org/about/people/#timothyvollmer

phone = +016086982403 | skype = timothyvollmer | tw = @tvol