Technology Tour 4/11 - 4/17

• Live from Google: Time for Philanthropy 3.0? - Google puts some of its technological muscle to aid a worthy nonprofit. This is noteworthy for two reasons: 1) the usage of Web 2.0 (via mashups) in the aid of social causes and fundraising and 2) the Internet titans are publically partnering with nonprofits to improve the world in which we live. There has not been enough of this cooperation between the new tech. sector giants and the nonprofit sector.
  
  
• Museum Mashups - A worthwhile presentation from the Museums and the Web Conference, Jim Spadaccini explores mashups including emerging best practices, design challenges and inherent usability issues for this upcoming staple of web content.
  
  
• Repairing the Guggenheim - The New York Times has an interesting info-graphic on the deterioration of the Guggenheim.
  
  
• Best of the Web 2007 - Museums - Every year, the MW-community nominates sites to be considered for the Best of the Web awards. Congratulations to the winners, but every year I am disappointed with how few major museums are on this list. This is to say nothing of the list, rather every about the institutions.
  

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.

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.

Google Drive: Cure for Social Network Fatigue

In recent years, it seems social networking sites arise and fall in ever-shortening intervals. Perhaps for the newest crop of teens and tweens, this frenetic pace of technology migration makes sense - MySpace has become old news, passé or too mainstream. These users are able to flitter (with their offline social networks) to whichever service or platform is a la mode.

But then there are the rest of us. Jon Udell wrote a great piece yesterday on social network fatigue. It is clear that advertisers and technology venture capitalists may bend over backwards to find the next big thing, the next killer social platform, for the majority of technology users and practitioners it is increasingly difficult to navigate and discern what these sites can offer in terms of either connection or investment (whether personal or institutional). In the non-profit and cultural sectors, more times than not, this quandary has translated into a certain level of paralysis when considering social networks. Yet, the sheer size of these networks make them impossible to ignore (as does the general trajectory of Web 2.0 adoption in the last two years).

What is missing, as Mr. Udell points out, is the convergence across networks. Each user can only manage a finite number of profiles, bookmarks, sites and blogs. And, given the distribution and varying layers of log-in and personally identifiable information that exist for each site, the onus for managing the varying social networks falls on the user. Not a particularly user-friendly scene. There is no unified credential or login management resource to make using the various platforms easier. And while some writers have called for greater interoperability between sites - all signs point to a more to monolithic rather than distributed solution.

The rumors of the Google Drive reflect a possible form and structure for what the next (perhaps final?) step may be in integrating social networks. More information Google already has Blogger and YouTube under its belt - the leveraged acquisition of Facebook, Friendster or LinkedIn (or some other social content site - Del.icio.us? Digg?) when paired with a personal storage drive, would represent a wholly trinity of Web 2.0 resources. Not to mention the economic enginge already represented by Google's search services.

Currently, users, technology nor law seem quite prepared for a Google drive. There are still too many privacy and copyright/licensing considerations that need to be defined before this endeavor could be successful. If and when this does happen though, I believe it ultimately will help purveyors of cultural content to better exist and serve in the digital world. Finally, there would be a single place and standard to apply in making culture available to as many individuals as possible. Resource deployment, platform interoperability and content management would have a single umbrella standard for which to aim, and thereby hit the mark with a greater number of users.

Information users (and managers) of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your social network fatigue!

Smithsonian Deal (II) - Long Tail Ideals

Reviewing the Smithsonian deal with Corbis - initially, my thinking centered mostly on the nature of Museums as stewards of public trust and culture.

But clearly, there are even broader social ramifications to this deal.

Recently there's been a good deal of buzz surrounding Chris Anderson's book The Long Tail. The immediate ramifications of which relate to the creation, distribution and consumption of digital products and content. His examples are numerous but consider Amazon's impact on books, iTunes' on music, NetFlix's on movie distribution... These platforms have unleashed consumers from the tyranny of the Top 10 and allowed for the aggregation and distribution of a larger swath of cultural content (both high and low). The long tail makes previously obscure content accessible to a wider audience than ever possible. Anderson makes clear that the economics of scarcity no longer apply when the cost of storing and distributing products approaches zero.

Yet, in this Smithsonian situation, the promise of the long tail web paradigm is being ignored. And while no one suffers because of Corbis, no one truly gains either (at least not in any broader social sense). Can you imagine how irrelevant iTunes would be if it served only as a platform for insiders in the music industry? Or, if Amazon were only a tool for editors and publishers? Yet, this is essentially the closed content distribution model the institute is leveraging.

As Anderson points out, for long tail systems to succeed, they also require trust.

How appropriate.