Fair use and the very idea of a public library

I think Lessig has it right. What Google is doing, when spelled out so clearly, as Lessig does in his href="http://www2.cali.org/screencasts/lessig-google/lessig-google.html">30-min multimedia presentation, seems very much like "fair use". Pverall his analysis is very illuminating. And very alarming. The phrase "IP extremism" (Intellectual Property, not Internet Protocol) is a sobering one. This suggestion that what is going on is a kind of intellectual property "land grab" for control over our cultural heritage is frightening. But it fits all too well with so many other trends of the times.

It occurred to me that what libraries do and have always done is not so different from what Google is doing in a virtual environment. "You mean they actually let people use books without paying for them, including the ideas inside?" Luckily there is a strong counter movement, if you will (not to be too partisan, "us" vs. "them" about it...). Open source and the like.

And for authors of content on and off the web interested in protecting their work without as Lessig says "stifling creativity" there is something called a Creative Commons License -- actually several different kinds. What they say about it:

We have built upon the "all rights reserved" concept of traditional copyright to offer a voluntary "some rights reserved" approach. We're a nonprofit organization. All of our tools are free.

Pretty cool, eh?

As I was beginning this class, I was wondering about the images people put up on Flickr, the image-sharing social-networking site which uses tags and comments for organizing, sharing, and searching photos: Can anyone download them? What protections are available?

It's basically the same question which comes with every increase of convenience and accessibility offered by technology: Is it secure? As for Flickr, you can control the degree of access to the photos you put up, making them public or only available to those you've invited. (There may be still more subtleties; I haven;t really used it -- yet...) And they make clear that in order to use a photo found on Flickr, you have to ask permission of the person who uploaded or took it. If you have an account (it's all free), you can easily send a message to whoever posted the image you're interested in. (By the way here's an interview with Flickr I found on the Creative Commons website, from July 2004)



The Creative Commons licenses are a great compromise for authors who want to protect themselves and encourage others to engage with their work in a creative way. There's some quote about the best form of flattery I can't remember precisely, but it's usually applied to jazz musicians. Copying (was it?) is the best form of flattery. Anyhow, as I understand it these licenses are real legal entities, though I can't say that I understand the legal side of it very well myself.

OH yeah -- one other thing. I'm working on a poster session for the upcoming NYLA conference on Library 2.0, and I summarize the applications of the "2.0" concept (social computing if you want the 2-word summary) as follows:

Social Networking
Community Building
Grass Roots Organization
Marketing
Surveillance

That last one gives you a double-take, right? Well, technology is a double-edged sword, as they say, and for me, the "2.0" thing is all about the technology, and let's face it: if you can network more easily, they can watch you more easily. Not that I plan to do anything differently because of it. I think the new tools are great. But just as you don't leave your car unlocked in a gigantic parking lot -- just in case! -- don't broadcast personal info on the web. Watch your back...and have fun!