Technology Tour - 3/8/2007 - 3/14/2007

This week's tour offers current news items that overlap with some topics I have covered in the past: license-free access to museum images for students and scholars, RFID's ability to enhance visitor experience (and commerce) and the increased stress of multiple profiles, communication mediums and contact information that have arisen.

• On the licensing front, The Metropolitan Museum of Art this week announced that it has formed a partnership with ArtSTOR to serve license-free images to the scholarly and academic community. This was the very crux of my criticism of the Smithsonian and Corbis deal. It did not make any allowance for fair use. Bravo to the Met for its foresight and advocacy of cultural capital in the service of public good.


• In international news, the City of Amsterdam has become the first municipality on the globe to create an RFID infrastructure for tourists. Once purchased, the RFID-enabled I Amsterdam Card enables users to receive free admission to museums and unlimited access to public transportation. The expansion of this technology reminds me of my post this week on Web 2.0 and social good. For whatever reason, Web 2.0 services are most successful when they closely mirror an offline activity. For museums looking to build RFID-enabled collection portals that bridge offline and online visits, a more robust emergence of RFID with personal experience represents a strong step forward. Via RFID, first comes the management solution for access control and ticketing, next comes curatorial opportunities for accessing content. I hope to see similar programs here in the United States.


• Social network fatigue comes to phone. This article from the New York Times (subscription required) points to user communication fatigue across communication channels. Not only are people being swamped by their online social networking profiles, but the communication devices of real-world social networks (personal and work email, personal/home/work/IM/skype phone numbers) are becoming increasingly difficult to manage. The arrival of services to merge phone numbers into one should come as no surprise. Next is the question of how communication network fatigue can be solved online.


• Given their revenue problems (current and future), why isn't big media designing online radio and streaming services? Another NYT article, this time discussing the emergence of a new online radio site catering to a no-hassle model for the young and on-the-go technology users. This new service, called slacker, builds greater personalization and recommendation features beyond what is currently offered by sites like pandora. Funny, the record, media and broadcasting industries seem content to let new developers and syndicators create online services, build user bases and then complain about losing revenue. Hardly a proactive stance, no?


• Finally, I've tried to highlight an interest website now and then. I got word of the Museum of Lost Interactions from 24 Hour Museum. This mini-museum site is a competently design effort that features old and obscure technologies that have helped define the experience of content and media. Enjoy!

User-Generated Content and Artist Copyright

After my numerous posts on copyright issues tangentially related to Museums (Viacom, Google), I decided to contact the Artist Right Society for a better insight into digital copyright as it relates directly to artists, Museums and user-generated content sites. I spoke with the associate counsel for ARS in the New York Office, Ms. Adrienne_Fields, who gave me a great perspective on how copyright holders (and their representatives) view the trends of the information age.

Below are some snippets from our conversation:

• NM: What is the ARS’ position in relation to artist copyright material propagating on the Internet (especially user-generated content sites like YouTube, Flickr and MySpace)?
  
• Answer: Our response depends on the situation. We look for the uses that offend our members. We target specific types of [image] use rather than specific websites.
  
• NM: When you say specific types of use, what does this usually entail?
  
• Answer: Commercial uses mostly. Merchandise. Products. Sometimes a band will have an image of a licensed work on its cover or in its video and one of our members finds offense in its use. Sometimes a book cover will appropriate an image without contacting us first.
  
• NM: It sounds like there is a lot of investigation and analysis for every specific use.
  
• Answer: And, not all uses are infringing uses… we certainly have to be sensitive to fair use whenever we explore a member’s complaint.
  
• NM: With the different ways content is distributed on new user-generated websites, I imagine that makes the process even more complex. How can you measure the interests of private fair use, like education or research, when it is performed on for-profit platforms? Do you feel like the law is keeping pace?
  
• Answer: The law is fine. It is the facts that are always changing. Actually, most uses are covered by existing regulations and precedents, though we do monitor case law for new applications and extensions of these regulations.

So initially, it sounds like user-generated reproduction of artist material is a relatively minor issue for the society. From my conversation, I understood that they track and investigate complaints on an as-needed basis when prompted to do so by a member (i.e. an artist or estate). Mostly, these complaints seem to center on outright commercial uses rather than incidental reproduction - a la video phone Museum tour - and they have little interest in getting wrapped up in blanket cease-and-desist orders for entire websites.

This made me wonder about the recent case of Google and Agence France Press that has recently been in the media. Out of curiosity, I forwarded Ms. Fields a copy of the New York Times article discussing the case. As she explained it, the issue at stake was more a protection of private individual's "right to display" or "right to publicity", not the search engine's somehow inherent freedom to link.

And while it seems possible that an artist could file an ARS complaint for links from Google or images on MySpace, the stakes and damages seem incredibly small when compared to those of outright reproductions of a work.

Museum-Generated Video

This week, I read some great analysis on the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico. In their presentation of photographic works by John Collier Jr., the Museum created an online tool for creating "patriotic films" up to 40 seconds in length. As Ideum pointed out, the technology behind this project is exceedingly complex, but for the user, exceedingly usable. A good example of the end result, a user-generate film, can be found on bavatuesdays.

I cannot commend this work more highly. As I have previously written, this approach represents the future of online content delivery - especially given the rash of litigation related to content delivery. We have seen copyright news of Google in Europe and YouTube receiving its weekly cease-and-desist. The problems with these cases, is not the delivery mechanism (Web 2.0 tools) generally but rather disagreements of the source materials and content specifically.

Archives and Museums, as the maintainers of public domain images and cultural content, stand at the nexus between the content and distribution/public disbursement. Once these rich information sources are opened and the tools of creation have been turned over to the people to propagate and distribute as they like (via blogs, email, personal websites) the content itself is freed from the hegemony of the platform, the institution and the limitations of the geographically-determined audience. Think the long tail writ large...

But, to make this happen, technology professionals need to change the terms of the discussion. A recent article in Artful Manager makes clear the disdain that persists amongst Museum executives. Andrew Taylor makes the following point, "Computer and communications technology is extraordinarily cool and often powerfully effective. But if it's easier, cheaper, faster, and more effective to use a pencil...use a pencil." Though framed amusingly, the reality is that important Web 2.0 tools face an ever-increasing challenges: budgets shrink, technologies increase in complexity and the power of individual perspective is seen as threatening instead of liberating.

This is a barrier to adoption that must be overcome. In conversations with senior leadership, technology professionals need to move beyond discussions of specific technologies. We must engage a fuller, more professional dialogue on what these technologies mean to the experience of cultural content and the execution of institutional mission. It is only when directors and curators are informed of the true reach of Web 2.0 (In September 2006, YouTube had 34 million monthly visitors) and how this represents a watershed moment for Museums and cultural institutions. At this moment, we can exponentially expand audience while also making previously obscure content accessible. Amongst technologists, once we can get over our love for the technologies (the cool factor) and treat these services as the strategic outreach they are, only then will the adoption rates for these tools truly blossom.

As Queequegs pointed out, "technology changes everything." Given the opportunity at hand, we certainly hope so. But first, we the early adopters, must change a little as well.

What is a link?

"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed." - William Shakespeare

In the information age, one could just as well which is a link? Is it the purse or the good name? Can it be both?

The question is especially pertinent given the most recent round of Internet copyright news. Google is facing a lawsuit in Europe, initiated by Agence France-Presse, that alleges that links to copyrighted material equate to infringement. Does a copyright holder own the initial work, the license to reproduce that work and also an inherent license to any HTML reference to said work. Are we, as a society, approaching an age in which the publication of a URL can be construed as theft? As this trend matures, will all usage of HTML links be monitored and regulated - forcing artists, private collectors and Museums to rethink their own websites and thus further restricting public access to art and performance? This would create an even greater chilling effect on culture in the information age.

This question strikes at the heart of intellectual freedom and has even greater ramifications for the future direction of the information age. The claim of intellectual property to the reference of a link (linkage, hyperlink, anchors, etc...) represents a push by private interests - here in the name of copyright enforcement - to control a vertical layer of the Internet. This is a greater issue than just one article, journalist or image. Tim Berners-Lee, a web pioneer and the leader of the World Wide Web Consortium, explicitly avoided ownership of any layer of the technology that makes the Internet possible. That is why the W3C exists and why Internet standards are developed by the community. They are the property of all. The result of this anti-proprietary model has resulted in unforeseen innovation, economic expansion and communication distribution across the globe. Yet, by creating a framework of legal control over the reference of a link, the court is effectively handing control of an essential part of the HTML standard to copyright holders.

(Bloggers, students, artists and scholars, create linkage at your own risk!)

It is easy to understand how this has come about. Social networks and content creation are throwing massive losses to industries that specialize in content creation. The profit motive will continue to push the publishing industry to fracture and close down publically available information on the Internet. Yet, it is ultimately the state of online public discourse that suffers. The dark internet grows and open access and public discourse are eroded.