Sounds great-- perhaps talk to SFLC about this? On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 04:41, Rufus Pollock <[email protected]> wrote:
> May be of interest to members of the list (those based near NYC!). > > Rufus > > ----- > > From: Karl Fogel <[email protected]> > To: <a bunch of people> > Subject: "Free Culture Conservancy" exploratory meeting in NY, April 12th. > Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 17:40:57 -0500 > > This mail is written so you can easily respond with just "Yes" :-). > Feel free to forward it within your organization. > > It's about an experiment we want to try -- and we want to be able to > say that your organization agrees the experiment is worth making. Can > we say that? Read on. > > (We're not asking for material help. We'll do a Kickstarter campaign for > that.) > > Also, you are welcome to come to our meeting about this in New York > City on Thursday, April 12th at 2pm, at 1995 Broadway, 17th floor. > This is short notice, so if you can't make it, don't worry -- there > will be other chances with longer notice. But we'd love to see you > there. > > So: > > We're considering forming a Free Culture Conservancy, a long-term > non-profit that would perform several interrelated functions: > > * A repository for copyright estates. > > We've heard from some artists (including one very well-known > one, who has asked to remain anonymous) that they'd be > interested in having their works released under free licenses > [1] after their death, and that the mechanism they feel most > comfortable with is to will the copyrights to an organization > that commits to such release. There various reasons why > artists might prefer that mechanism; for one thing, an actual > transfer of the "property" can avoid certain kinds of > resistance from heirs. > > * A liberation facilitator. > > Some time ago, we had an idea that government copyright > offices could serve as a registry of liberation prices [2]: a > copyright holder could record publicly the amount they would > accept to liberate a given work either into the public domain > or into free licensing. (There are a couple of more steps to > it, but that's the basic idea.) > > Then we realized that a private foundation could serve as > such a registry too -- there's no need to wait for > governments to do it. Furthermore, doing it in the private > sector makes an interesting model possible: > > On one side, the Conservancy approaches publishers and other > groups that have large, unprofitable backlists, and > negotiates liberation prices in binding contracts (i.e., "You > agree that if we bring you the specified amount of money, > you'll liberate this specific work. If we don't bring the > money, nothing happens.") It also approaches individual > authors with the same message, when the author has the > necessary rights. > > On the other side, the Conservancy solicits confidential > requests from anyone (say, a cause-driven group with an > interest in a particular work being publicly available); it > also encourages such requests where it can. When such a > request is received, the Conservancy keeps it confidential, > but makes sure to include the requested work among the works > discussed in some larger negotiation with the relevant > current rights holder. > > The Conservancy is explicit about the fact that this is going > on; it just doesn't reveal the exact works, in order to avoid > affecting a rights holder's assessment of backlist market > value. (Another way to say it is, the Conservancy plays an > information asymmetry game, but is open about the fact that > it is doing so.) > > For some works, the stars will line up, and there will now be > a credible way for people to fundraise (e.g., on Kickstarter) > to liberate that work -- because the target price has been > set and won't suddenly go up as soon as the buyers get near > their fundraising goal. The Conservancy may stay in the > middle, enabling it both to take a small percentage on top of > the actual liberation price in order to fund its operations, > and to enable contributions toward liberation to be > tax-deductible for U.S. citizens. > > * Institutional backing for takedown counterclaims. > > There are many instances of videos or music being taken off > of sites (e.g. YouTube) due to incorrect infringement claims. > It's tough for an individual author to handle these, but an > organization might be able to provide some economies of > scale. > > * Training and instruction on how to free works, distribute, etc. > > Question Copyright has already been doing a little of this, > but fundamentally we're an advocacy organization that > concentrates on reframing public debate -- which is different > from a service organization that works with artists and > distributors. > > Nina Paley has held "How To Free Your Work" workshops. We've > also helped several artists negotiate free (or "free-er") > licenses with their publishers, and see an increasing need > for that -- e.g., for template contract language, guidelines > for authors on how to negotiate time-delayed free licensing > into their contracts, etc. > > But all this would be more appropriate for a separate Free > Culture Conservancy to do it, with a mission & program > profile better suited to such services, and without a > provocative name like "Question Copyright" making it hard for > organizations such as the Authors Guild to even sit down and > talk. > > Our next step, assuming the idea survives the NYC meeting :-), is a > Kickstarter campaign to raise enough money to start it. I think its > prospects are good; the idea is explainable, and there are a lot of > people out there who would be willing to try this experiment. > Kickstarter funding will probably be decisive: major initiatives need > funding, and if we don't raise enough, then this one will have to > wait. There's a certain value to just having the idea circulating > anyway -- but we'd like to do more than just have the idea circulate, > and being able to claim your support for this experiment would make > our Kickstarter pitch that much stronger. > > In the long term, this won't be a program of Question Copyright; it > should be an independent organization (hopefully with your > involvement). We may start it off as a QCO program, to take advantage > of our existing 501(c)(3) infrastructure, bookkeeping, etc, in the > early stages. > > We would appreciate your feedback, and feedback from others in your > organizations. If you can make it to the meeting in New York next > week, that would be great. > > Thanks, > -Karl Fogel > > [1] "Free licensing" in this context is shorthand for any license that > meets the Freedom Defined terms -- so CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC0, for > example, though not -ND and -NC. > > [2] http://questioncopyright.org/declared_value > > > > -- > Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation > Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age > http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > -- ☮ ♥ Ⓐ .danny This email is: [ ] bloggable [ x ] shareable with consent [ ] lethal if repeated or forwarded [𝄽#] The Silent Number - http://thesilentnumber.me/ µBlog: http://identi.ca/dpic -------------------------------------------- Q: Why is this email five sentences or less? A: http://five.sentenc.es
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
