Creative Commons: Beware the backlash

Potentially damaging rumblings threaten to dent the progress of the Creative Commons movement. First up was the foray over Virgin’s use of a CC-licensed Flickr image in a major poster ad campaign, where the subject objected to the company’s legitimate use of the image. Then the Register reported that science-fiction writer Ursula Le Guin had objected after BoingBoing’s Cory Doctorow uploaded a short piece of hers, under the erroneous impression that it was CC-licensed. The tone of the article, while consistent with The Reg’s irreverent style, makes some ridiculously uninformed and accusatory statements about both the CC movement (“the autistic person’s answer to a problem that doesn’t really bother anyone”) and Doctorow himself (accusing him of a “Trotskyist-style takeover” of BoingBoing), presumably in an attempt at bitchy humour. The problem comes when this stuff starts cropping up in searches and being repeated unchecked by mainstream media. If people fear CC licences, they will simply not use them – and popular sites like Flickr will be less likely to encourage their use.

While of course traditional copyright still has a place, in many instances it was stifling the growth of creativity and online ventures (both commercial and non-commercial). CC licenses were a brilliant and necessary ‘bottom-up’ response to an outdated legal framework, and have helped immeasurably in boosting creativity and creative collaboration across the globe. Although he’s now turned his attention to political corruption (and his introductory lecture on the subject is well worth a watch), free culture champion and instigator of the CC movement Lawrence Lessig was prompted to write a blog post in response to the Virgin/Flickr affair last month. “This case does demonstrate that there is work to be done beyond the scope of what CC has tried to do so far. The CC licenses, for example, don’t purport to deal with rights of privacy,” says Lessig. But, as he also points out, if CC licenses can be made to work better, they will.

[EDIT: Just learnt about ORG’s new Creative Business initiative, which is just the sort of thing that’s needed to counter this potential backlash.]

Twitter tracking: your very own, cuddly Echelon system

I’ll blog more about FOWA shortly. I was struggling with a fluey baby and toddler last week, so didn’t get a chance to finish wriiting about what was one of the most interesting conferences I’ve attended for some years. In the meantime, I wanted to mention Twitter’s new tracking feature, which is a blast. Send ‘Track [keyword]’ and you’ll start receiving any public tweets which contain that keyword. It’s a bit like having your own personal, take-anywhere Echelon system (except without the sinister, Orwellian overtones). Among other things, I’ve been tracking ‘FOWA’, ‘rumours’ and a certain four-letter obscenity beginning with C. Not many interesting rumours, but perhaps tracking the US spelling too would throw up more tweets (d’oh! – only just thought of that). FOWA is certainly cropping up a fair bit, especially since organiser Carsonified started putting up MP3s of the presentations. And tracking the C-word has yielded at least one tweet that begs to become the title of a short story: “My twin is a C***!”

FOWA: ORG-anic chemistry

Good to see UK digital liberty champions the Open Rights Group (ORG) in a prominient position at this week’s FOWA Expo – near the door of the main auditorium – and to meet (at last) some of the folks behind the scenes (hi Becky and Glyn!). As one of the original few hundred people to pledge a fiver a month to set the group up, I’ve been really pleased at the profile ORG has built up in its first two years. Chatting with ORG’s Glyn Wintle at FOWA (who did a great job of luring people to the stand with a box of Maltesers – see pic), it seems the group’s activities at this year’s political conferences have been going well, too, with the focus firmly on the problems of current e-voting systems. Apparently, Tory mayoral candidate Boris Johnson was particularly wowed by ORG’s pitch – but maybe he’s just looking to hack the systems slated for use in next year’s London mayoral elections. 🙂

FOWA: Will Huddle corner the market for enterprise social networking?

FOWA exhibitor Huddle, the enterprise social networking service, has made a timely entrance into the marketplace – at the precise moment many CIOs are beginning to ask: “How can we simultaneously satisfy our staff’s desire to use social networking tools, improve our business efficiency and ensure the security of sensitive company and customer information?”

Huddle’s answer is to host secure online spaces where companies and extended networks of partners and customers can come together to collaborate on projects, documents and ideas. However, there are still some key features missing – such as voice conferencing and real-time, collaborative freehand whiteboarding – although the company told me features such as these are in the pipeline and they will always aim to respond to users’ demands for additional functionality.

But with several others eyeing this potentially lucrative market (quite possibly set to be the first ‘killer enterprise app’ for software-as-a-service) I suspect Huddle will need to beef up their offering sooner rather than later if they want to capture a good slice of the action.

My own niggle with Huddle as it stands is that the interface currently has the slightly clunky, tabbed look-and-feel of LinkedIn. I suspect, certainly in the UK, the eventual winner in this market is going to look and feel much more like Facebook or iGoogle, and will ideally give workers a similar ability to customise their pages and add the applications/widgets they need to perform their tasks, collaborative or otherwise, in the way that best suits them.

Of course, they’re still going to have Facebook open all day in another browser window…

FOWA: From Moo cards to Blurb books

Despite not having a stand at FOWA, innovative personal web printing service Moo (based in the UK) certainly made its presence felt. Everywhere, people were exchanging the company’s cool mini-cards, which it prints on demand in batches of 100 with a picture (or funky text) on the reverse of each, all of which can be different if you want. You can upload images from your computer, or allow Moo to link to your Flickr account, social network, blog, etc. I had a batch delivered on Wednesday, handed out about 15 on Thursday and came back from FOWA with as many new ones. They’re wonderful, visually interesting, tactile objects and such a refreshing change from the clunky white cards favoured by the corporate set.

Another innovative on-demand web printing company (this time from the US) did have a stand at the EXPO, however – Blurb. For a very reasonable sum, the company will print single copies and short runs of beautiful ‘coffee table friendly’ hardcover or softcover books with full-colour photos and/or text. Like Moo, Blurb will link into your Flickr account or blog if you want. It also offers pre-designed templates to ensure a professional finish even if you wouldn’t know a block of white space when it hit you round the head.

More interesting still, the site also features a social network for those making Blurb books – ‘Blurbarians’ – and offers their works (from photography to poetry to cookery to cartoons) for sale at a price set by the author, with the option for potential buyers to preview online. Sold books are then printed on demand and dispatched, with Blurb taking only the first $25 of the author’s profits plus a $5 processing fee.

Some have compared the venture to vanity publishing, but while the service can certainly be used in that way by the terminally deluded, I think Blurb is more accurately described as the first true ‘long-tail’ publisher. The quality of some of the books on the site (although admittedly not all) is testament to the fact that there are plenty of talented people out there whose appeal may not be wide enough to interest a traditional publisher, but who certainly deserve a niche audience. And under Blurb’s model, they can find it.

FOWA: Facebook fails to reassure over openness and user data “rights grab”

[FOWA Expo – London]

Presenting at FOWA this afternoon (Thursday), Facebook’s senior platform manager Dave Morin did a good job of wooing developers with promises of rapid, viral growth and potentially vast audiences for their Facebook applications. However, he failed to quell my fears that Facebook wants to ‘own’ both the social graph (i.e. the data about its users’ relationships to one another) and, indeed, their actual data – photos, videos, artwork, writing and anything else they post on Facebook and permit the site to host.

Although Morin said Facebook was becoming more open (which in some ways it is) , he tellingly evaded the chance to endorse the idea that social graph data should be the property of users, according to the principles laid out by Brad Fitzpatrick. And he also dodged my other question about whether Facebook’s sign-up terms amounted to a ‘rights grab’*, waffling on instead about how user privacy was of the utmost importance to the company.

Don’t get me wrong, I use and like Facebook, and I don’t begrudge the company its success. It stole a march on competitors with the Facebook platform/API, and it is deservedly reaping the rewards. But I don’t trust it with my data in the same way I do, say, Google or Flickr. Why? Because it seems to be exhibiting a backwards-thinking, proprietorial, anti-user attitude (I feel a similar dismay at Apple’s refusal to allow third-party apps on the iPhone, incidentally). As well as the ‘rights grab’ issue, there’s the disturbing reports of the company silencing users who dare level even the most mundane criticisms at it.

My guess is that the company’s reluctance to endorse the principles of an open social web, where users own their own data and the data about their relationships, has much to do with the fact it is in in big-money talks with potential investors. Some may believe Facebook’s ‘ownership’ of social graph and user data are trump cards in the bid to maximise its valuation. But if anyone really believes the company can own that data, and force everyone to use its platform, I think they are sorely mistaken. As Fitzpatrick’s post goes on to note, there are ways to slurp data from even uncooperative sites. And any attempt by Facebook to exert its rights over user data to the letter of its audacious terms is, I believe, highly unlikely. It would doubtless be met by a huge wave of oppropbrium across the media and blogosphere – as well as, quite possibly, a successful legal challenge.

My belief is that eventually, Facebook will have to bow to the inevitable: open up and start having real conversations with its users, listening to them and taking on board what they say – like so many other great companies I saw at FOWA (about which more later). If it did so sooner rather than later – by rewriting its sign-up terms and commiting to the open social web – I believe it would gain more credibility, more stability and ultimately more growth.

* When you sign up for Facebook, you agree to their terms, which state in part: “By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.” link

FOWA hopes and fears

So, it’s off to the sprawling Excel centre in Docklands tomorrow for the Future of Web Apps expo and conference (FOWA), a grand gathering of the geeks of the Web 2.0 world. While I’m excited by the buzz and by much of what’s happening at the moment, there’s a side of me that feels it’s all horribly reminiscent of the ‘scene’ just prior to the dotcom crash of 2000-1. There’s far too much talk of ‘monetization’, and too many hyperinflated egos and valuations. I’m certainly all for people making money from their ideas and creative endeavours, but I believe if we are all to truly benefit from the momentous advances that the semantic web is only just starting to bring, then we must do so in the same spirit of co-operation, openness and respect that built the web in the first place – not in the spirit of greed, self-aggrandisement and mendacity that caused the first dotcom crash. I’ll be particularly interested to hear what some of the movers and shakers have to say about Brad Fitzpatrick’s recent post on opening the social graph and the subsequent call for a Bill of Rights for an Open Social Web.