Slashdot Mirror
British Groups Launch Creative Archive License
icerunner wrote in to mention that several British institutions have banded together to create the Creative Archive License. From the announcement: "BBC, Channel 4, British Film Institute and OU (Open University) issue call to action for Creative Archive Licence. Media and arts organisations, universities and libraries have today been urged to join an innovative new scheme designed to give the public access to footage and sound from some of the largest film, television and radio archives in the UK, as well as specially commissioned material." We've previously covered this as The BBC Creative Archive.
Isn't this how copyrights in the US are supposed to work? Won't the same thing happen in the UK that happens over here, some large corportation (read Disney) keeps on spending and spending on lawyers to have the laws changed so their mascot can't be used in explicit material
The Creative Archive is a product of this exciting era of digital media and the internet. It's possible because of innovations in technology and content licensing, along with editorial vision. However, it remains a challenging and complex project with many unknowns. To help us understand the best way to deliver the Creative Archive, we have decided to start with a pilot project.
And that in English means?
I wonder how long before the IFPI gets into the show.
Iran captures three CIA agents
When will you ever learn that copyrights and patents are the way forward?
This service is only intended for people who have IPs in the UK. Finally, a reason to be proud to be a British geek...
Creative Archive = (Creative Commons) - (Derivate Works) + (UK Only) + (No Endorsement)
João Pinheiro
It's not Your-hive, silly. It's Arhive!
The next step is to license the archives under the Creative Commons license so that the footage in the archive could be altered by anyone and then recirculated.
This is my last post.
[6th Estate]
Does this mean that I can get access to TV shows without paying a TV license? How does this actually work?
There is nothing more practical than a good abstract theory.
This really plays into The Long Tail scenario that is so often spoken of these days. I wonder how long before the major portals starts making deals with these owners of massive amounts of content. When a revenue model is established around this release of content we will see things really pick up. I am betting on instream advertising as the way they do it.
It's fine for licensing an archive that is unlikely to change.
But if the intention is to create a living culture, restrictions on use are counter-productive.
What the license says is "you can use our stuff". What a really far-sighted license says is "here are a set of rules for creating stuff. Oh, and our stuff falls under these rules too."
For instance, why ban commercial use? To prevent competition? Sure... but competition is what makes the living culture.
It'd be far more valuable to allow commercial use of - e.g. old BBC broadcasts - so long as the vendors also made their derived products freely available under the same conditions.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Gee, Creative has their hands full lately...first Creative Commons, now Creative Archive. It used to be tradition to stick with a brand name for a while, like Live! or Audigy...
;)
I still remember waiting in line to buy a SoundBlaster 16! Boy, those were the days!
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
My hope is that this will free up some Led Zeppelin footage, but I don't think the ghost of Peter Grant would let that happen.
"The chief enemy of creativity is 'good taste'" -Pablo Picasso
This can only be good, although I await the actual content - it will be interesting to see what is released.
This is clearly down to the philosophy of Open Source (or however you like to phrase it, depends if you are RMS or not) - people outside of IT are starting to see everyone being able to contribute to improving things as a good idea, using the power of the internet to form communities.
Maybe it will spread to real Engineering too - not just the software variety? Or is there a point at which commercial methods are always going to be the way? It will be interesting to see....
[put your name here] Creative License
The Creative Archive content is provided to allow you to get creative with content, not for campaigning, soapboxing or to defame others! So don't use it to promote political, charitable, or other campaigning purposes and remember to treat others and their work in the way that you'd expect them to treat you and your work...with respect!
But if I want to satirise a piece covered by this license the original author could get all huffy and claim that I am defaming them.
Let the lawyers arguments begin...
Yeah, I'm so proud to be British at seeing this news.
Also proud to be paying my fee to the BBC. The quality and integrity of our media is improved and upheld over and over again because of their unique position and charter.
I wonder what formats will be used to distribute it though - will it be Mpeg or perhaps the new system the BBC have been devloping? So long as it's not WMV or RealMedia like the BBC currently seem to offer then I'll be happy!
What a low user ID.
I won't have to shell out 150USD to get the Monty Python's Flying Circus DVD set? Or does Creative Archive License mean that someone can't use the footage for commercial purposes (at least legally), but can make plenty of student films with the footage?
Note that all the files will be restricted by IP. Meaning that outside the UK, we won't be able to download anything (without a UK based proxy)
from the faq: The Creative Archive will not be using DRM around the content. The BBC's pilot site will be using a technology called GEOIP filtering to ensure that content sourced directly from the BBC will only be available to UK citizens.
Perhaps the idea is to encourage independent documentary style work, but I still shudder at the idea of hundreds of avant-garde like film stuttering remixes of old stuff. Call me old fashioned but I just want to see good stories told in film and video. I hate "Reality TV" and now I may have to suffer through the advent of "Rip It Mix It TV"
Hopefully people will limit them selves to intermittent flashes of things like train-wrecks and other visual punctuation marks with this stuff, but it is unclear to me where this is all going.
One thing does seem certain -- production costs for creating quality content should continue to drop for independents. At some point big budget TV and Hollywood will have a problem keeping up, and this I am for.
Letter To Iran
Will I be able to get old Dr Who episodes?
_ the_creative_archive/project_faqs/index.html#drwho
http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/archives/what_is
Since Slashdot is visited mostly by Americans, I shall supply some reference articles discussing the BBC Creative Archive (which was basically an idea presented by BBC's ex-director general Greg Dike suggesting to regroup and distribute all of BBC's past, present and future media under the Creative Commons licence).
A whole bunch of other articles are available.
4. No Endorsement and No derogatory use
The Creative Archive content is provided to allow you to get creative with content, not for campaigning, soapboxing or to defame others! So don't use it to promote political, charitable, or other campaigning purposes and remember to treat others and their work in the way that you'd expect them to treat you and your work...with respect!
This license seems pretty decent except for this part. Who gets to decide what is derogatory or an endorsement?
For instance, lets say I am trying to raise money for a nonprofit program to get health care workers to poor women in rural Africa. As part of my fund-raising campaigning I do a screening of some BBC documentary from the archive on health care in rural Africa and ask people for donations. This seems like a pretty legitimate use of the material, but may prohibited by section #4.
Now, what if I had a link to this supposed documentary from my example organizations website. Would that be endorsement? I view it as public education of the plight of a certain people that I wish to help. It would aid my position for getting donations though.
"When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
Secondly, it's a step towards the BBC making their programming available for download. The BBC produce a huge amount of programming and, while they make a fair amount of money out of selling DVDs, videos (stuff like Blackadder and Doctor Who) and tapes/CDs (e.g. the HHGTTG radio series), there's a heck of a lot of other stuff that it doesn't make commercial sense to publish in that manner - e.g. programmes like Horizon and Top Gear ).
I bet the biggest problem with putting programmes like those on the Archive will be the licencing terms for stuff like incidental music and events rights (like for sports and so on), which are presumably all currently based on the concept of broadcast, with extra payments for repeats. I wonder if they'll have to strip out anything that's not the original, complete creation of the contributing organisations.
D.
Really. They were really weak. Bad sound, bad manufacture quality, and in Windows era, really bad drivers.
If you waited in line for SB16 you were a mindless sheep. Gravis Ultrasound was about a hundred times better card, and less prone to pick up humm from mobo/power supply/hard drives.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
Since this will only available to us Brits how long will it be before a whole host of proxies spring up to supply this content to the rest of the world?
Imagine using Squid to download The Blue Planet.
One thing doesn't make sense at all :
Why can't I use material from the Creative Archive overseas?
The Creative Archive is currently funded only for use within the UK. The BBC's pilot site will be using a technology called GEOIP filtering to ensure that content sourced directly from the BBC will only be available to UK citizens.
Still, they plan to use P2P. Come on where's the GEOIP feature in BitTorrent ?
True, they would the get less in the way of funds for other projects, but then the entity that would have otherwise have bought the material then has more in the way of funds to do the same themselves. A greater plurality of creators makes for greater creativity: just look at channel four!
Wikileaks, no DNS
If a user violates the rules of this license, what are the penalties for violation?
Is it revocation of the license and denial of future media or more or less; and who would be enforcing these rules and penalties? Does this have teeth?
Paid my licence fee for years and then moved to the US.
:)
Fortunately i've got no less than 3 shell accounts in the UK
The European Union had a copyright term extension years before the United States had the Bono Act. In fact, the EU term extension directive re-copyrighted works that had already entered the public domain, unlike the Bono Act.
it's perfectly possible to live in Britain and not have a TV licence - as long as you don't watch TV.
Not once most large computer monitors start coming with a DTV tuner built in.
I'm living in England, but my IP addresses always seem to come from the German address space.
You'd probably be able to sign up for a name and password based on some other sort of UK government-issued identification. (Do TV licences have numbers?) Using ID is rawther common among services with geographical limitations.
This BBC licence would be equivalent to a hypothetical Creative Commons "by-nc-nd-ukonly" license, which currently doesn't exist to my knowledge. (Ironically, the GNU GPL allows the author of a covered program to add geographic restrictions.)
Prior to learning about the no endorsement section, I would have agreed with you. Now, I'm not so fast to conclude as you do. A good deal of the speech I make is political. I'd be disappointed to learn I had been paying BBC license fees ultimately to be told that I couldn't build on these works "to promote political, charitable, or other campaigning purposes".
On the other hand, I've gained a newfound respect for the public domain and the importance of the preservation and growth of the public domain.
Digital Citizen
That's the public domain for you. As soon as you move something into a political arena it's no local public but it's propergander. Lets say we have a slip of a duck quacking and Labour use it as a slogan for their campaign. Every time we hear that duck it'll be "labour's duck" and then you can no longer claim it's public and free because to prevent others doing the same thing they would try and own the duck...
well thats a fucked up post..
I like muppets.
Don't get me started on the stupid Endorsement clause...
I am aware that the BBC feel that they have a financial need to restict derivative works, for they resell much of their programming. But the money that isn't made isn't lost; it makes other channels more viable; indeed, it might push up the rest of the quality of their programming: a real service to the licence-payer! The UK restiction is probably justified for commercial ventures: few licence-payers live outside the UK, so it is reasonable to seek revenues upon those ventures. Non-commercial use beyond our shores has to be good, though: mixing our cultural output with that of others must be of great and mutual benefit.
Wikileaks, no DNS
The license explicitly does not allow DRM on derivative works.
hmm i hope so or else!
his universe! dammit, i want a universe all to myself (and the films that my fans make there).
copyright © 2005 Flamsmsmark the ravings of a melancholly i
who, oh why did they choose real-player. could they have made a more foolish decision?
copyright © 2005 Flamsmsmark the ravings of a melancholly i
and iTunes. we had to wait ages for it. and then we had to pay twice as many pounds as you do dollars (£1$2). the US is by no means an open web service.
copyright © 2005 Flamsmsmark the ravings of a melancholly i
I've already made comments to the BBC about this: the UK only portion of the licence simply will not work.
There is nowhere in the licence that says that only the BBC or other members of the Creative Archive Licence Group can host content. There is nowhere in the licence which says that IP filtering technologies like GEOIP have to be used on download servers.
It would be quite possible for works to be downloaded from the BBC's servers by someone in the UK, and then uploaded to a public internet server in the UK which does not have IP address filtering technology. Provided that a copy of the licence is provided on the server, and people are forced to read it before downloading, then there is nothing physically to stop people from outside the UK getting hold of the material.
It also says that no DRM can be placed on the copies, which also rules out a lot of potential blocking routes for non-UK use.
For someone outside of the UK to download it would be breaking the terms of the copyright licence. However, there is no practical way to stop that happening. It is an unenforceable part of the licence.
with the emergance of cable tv in britain the bbc sold loads of its own content to ukgold who replay classic old tv - in some cases an entire season of a programme for 1 pound.
- although co-owned by the bbc isn't that essentially giving your content to the competition?
This UID is 7651 digits too high to subjectively infer IQ from.