Who better than those snarky peeps at Woot to call them on the implications of such a scheme?

So, The AP, here we are. Just to be fair about this, we’ve used your very own pricing scheme to calculate how much you owe us. By looking through the link above, and comparing your post with our original letter, we’ve figured you owe us roughly $17.50 for the content you borrowed from our blog post, which, by the way, we worked very very hard to create.

via Woot® : One Day, One Deal™.

One might argue, I suppose, that somehow the material produced by “the media” is different from what the rest of us produce. While certainly such a scheme could be implemented, it hardly seems fair. More importantly at the moment, of course, copyright law makes no such distinction (even if some have attempted to embrace/extend the so-called “hot news” doctrine to create the potential basis for such a distinction).

Related articles by Zemanta

• Woot Asks AP To Pay Up For Quoting Woot Blog Post Without Paying (techdirt.com)

But with intellectual property, even more than with traditional goods, one encounters dissimilar products that are not substitutable. Shubha Ghosh, in The Fable of the Commons: Exclusivity and the Construction of Intellectual Property Markets, uses songs to illustrate this: one song is both the same as and different from another song, but they are not perfectly interchangeable. The same may be said for some chemical and industrial processes. As a result, the intellectual property market cannot allocate goods based on price alone, but also on other characteristics (like quality or type of product). This does not lead to efficient trades or distributional balance.

In addition, intellectual property markets are deeply concerned with the licensing of rights, such as royalties and similar pricing arrangements. The complexity — with dimensions going beyond simple price — means often there is an asymmetry in information and strategic behavior by creators and users. The result is inefficient and undesirable distribution.

As a final example, most analyses of ideal markets suggest that buyers and sellers will reach agreement, but such analyses typically ignore situations in which a customer’s life is at stake — leading to a tendency to pay any price to get a product. There is, notes Ghosh, “something troubling” about this situation. But it is not necessarily easy to select a better alternative to these market-oriented models — somehow justice needs to factor into the model, but how?

I don’t believe there are any bad intentions at work, but I do think it’s not always clear to people what their obligations are when using Creative Commons licensed images in their blog. (My focus is on the attribution aspect of the licenses, not those pertaining to commercial use, sharing, etc. I am also relying on version 3.0 of the license, but this discussion should be applicable to all the versions.)

So how can we do better?

We can do better by making sure the images we use are properly licensed. For Creative Commons licensed images, this means putting in proper attribution that meets the standards of the license. I plan to do this going forward, and I also plan to spend time going back over images in my old posts to make sure they meet licensing requirements as well.

The Key Provisions in the Creative Commons Licenses

There are two key provisions of all the Creative Commons licenses that are critical for proper use of images in a blog. First, section 4(a) requires that a copy of the license or a link to the license be included with the work. Second, section 4(b) requires that you provide the name of the owner (or who they designate), the title of the image, and a link to the work (but make sure you don’t suggest they are endorsing you).

So What Does this Mean for Bloggers?

As a blogger you should provide the following information along with the image you are using in your article:

• the name (or screen name) of the creator (or who they designate);
• the title of the image, if there is one;
• the specific Creative Commons license and version under which the image is licensed;
• alternatively, if the creator of the work requests you attribute it in a specific way, you should do as they ask.

Ideally, you should link as many of these items to either the original source, or to their canonical location online. While section 4(b) implies that you must provide the URI of the CC license, in practical terms naming the license should be enough (the Creative Commons FAQ says, “it is nice if the license citation links to the license on the CC website”). This is, I think, especially true if you link to the location where the image originates and where the original copyright and license terms are explained (for example, linking to the Flickr page for a CC licensed photo stored on Flickr  —  actually, this is mandatory for Flickr images if the image is hosted by Flickr).

In practical terms, I think the following example is the kind of attribution that is appropriate under the license:  ”Agatha on the porch” by Flickr user Kristopher Nelson, used under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 license. This citation includes (1) the title of the picture, (2) where it comes from, (3) who created it, and (4) what license applies.

Captions with WordPress

In WordPress, you can put this information in as a caption in the popup image add/modify box.

Because the WordPress caption is styled with CSS (via the “wp-caption” class that WordPress puts in), you may make it appear in a variety of creative ways. You can even “filter” the code produced by WordPress if you want the HTML to appear differently.

Captions with HTML & CSS

If you do not use WordPress, you could use HTML and CSS similar to the following (courtesy of the W3C site):

[sourcecode language="html"]
<div class=”figure”>
<p><img src=”eiffel.jpg” width=”136″ height=”200″ alt=”Eiffel tower”></p>
<p>Scale model of the Eiffel tower in Parc Mini-France</p>
</div>
[/sourcecode]

And some CSS:

[sourcecode language="css"]
div.figure {
float: right;
width: 25%;
border: thin silver solid;
margin: 0.5em;
padding: 0.5em;
}
div.figure p {
text-align: center;
font-style: italic;
font-size: smaller;
text-indent: 0;
}
[/sourcecode]

(For more about this, including additional discussion and examples, see Figures & Captions at the W3C site.)

Rollover Image Captions with jQuery

Another approach would be to use jQuery and a plugin such as jCaption or Captify, which will automatically generate sophisticated rollover captions. These look very nice and keep your site design clean, while providing all the required information.

Using the Title Attribute of the Image Tag

If you choose, you may instead put all the information into the title attribute of the <img> tag, along with linking the image to the source page, like this:

[sourcecode lang="html"]
<a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/krisnelson/4213915751/”><img title=”&quot;Agatha on the porch&quot; by Flickr user Kristopher Nelson, used under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 license.” src=”http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2677/4213915751_050a74b704_s.jpg” /></a>
[/sourcecode]

Like jQuery-based approaches, this has the benefit of making the information fully available (although you cannot insert links, so make sure the image itself links to the source page). It also keeps your page design uncluttered. It doesn’t look as nice as the rollover approach, but it is simple to implement on any site.

Use Zemanta

Zemanta allows you to easily select and insert images into your posts (along with related links and more). It takes care of adding appropriate captions and links so you don’t have to. It’s image selection is good, but I like to pick my own images generally, and to style them my way. Nonetheless, it’s an excellent tool that I recommend highly.

Or Just Put it at the End

Finally, you could also add a simple attributional note to the bottom of your posts. This is a straightforward and easy approach, allows complete information and full links.

Conclusions

Creative Commons licensed images are a wonderful resource for bloggers. Use of such images is free and easy  —  provided you follow a few requirements that primarily serve to acknowledge the creator of the work. If you, like me, didn’t always do the best job of this, take some time to go back over your posts and make sure everything is in order. And remember, whether you use CC licensed images, pay for stock photos, use your own, or rely on the public domain, photographers and authors will always like to hear from you if you like their work, so let them know.

So just remember to check to make sure the images you want to use are licensed properly, and that you’re meeting the terms of the license, and enjoy!

More Resources

• Five sources of free images for your blog
• How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work? – from Creative Commons
• Best Practices for Creative Commons attributions – how to attribute works you reuse under a Creative Commons license
• Creative Commons Search – easily find CC licensed images

An add-on that Microsoft silently slipped into Mozilla’s Firefox last February leaves that browser open to attack, Microsoft’s security engineers acknowledged earlier this week.

via Sneaky Microsoft plug-in puts Firefox users at risk ( – Internet – Software – Security ).

I suppose somewhere in Microsoft’s licensing language there is an acknowledgment and release of liability for actions like this. Even so, I certainly don’t think most Microsoft customers expect updates to so directly compromise 3rd-party programs like Firefox  —  and I wonder what Microsoft’s legal responsibility would be, even with their licensing language, should this kind of action truly result in a major loss?

IBM’s Lotus Symphony is a free-of-charge alternative to the ubiquitous Microsoft Office suite, based on Sun’s open source OpenOffice software. It purports to remain compatible with Microsoft’s “.doc” format (and newer incarnations), while removing licensing costs (but, not of course, support costs, since people still need training, technical support still costs money, etc.). Now they’ve decided to walk the walk:

360.000 IBM workers have been told to stop using Microsoft Office and switch to the Open Office-based software Symphony.

via IBM Throws Out Microsoft Office – Linux Magazine Online .

In legal circles, standards change slowly  —  some courts still require WordPerfect documents, years after Microsoft Word eclipsed the former dominant word processor in other fields. Theoretically, of course, Symphony (or OpenOffice) still supports older formats  —  but I’m sure I’m not the only one to have suffered minor or major incompatibilities  —  even between different versions of Microsoft Word itself!

So could you make the switch? Would the cost savings be worth the potential hassles?

I mostly have switched away from Word. Unfortunately, I’ve had to keep one licensed copy of Word around to deal with strange issues that may crop up. Usually, these involve collaborative editing projects (“track changes”), or tightly formatted documents, like resumes (which just don’t perfectly translate).

But I have not switched to OpenOffice, nor to Lotus Symphony. I increasingly believe OpenOffice and its kin are courting irrelevancy now that Google Docs and other cloud based office suites are gaining ground, and my tools reflect this.

Is the future in the cloud, not the open-source desktop? My work habits say, “Yes.” (But not without a nagging worry about confidentiality in the cloud.)

So where is the future of legal computing going?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Interoperability eludes Office and OpenOfffice (theregister.co.uk)
• Lotus Symphony now reads Office 2007 documents (computerworld.com)

Randy Picker responds by saying:

We should review how the public domain works. The public domain is sold every day. Every time you buy a copy of Hamlet you are paying for a public domain work. I do H.G. Wells’s The War of the Worlds in my copyright class on this starting with Project Gutenberg  —  free, of course  —  and then heading to Barnes & Noble and Amazon, where the prices range from $2.50 to $13.95 see slides 3 to 13. That is precisely the nature of the public domain: anyone can use it for whatever they want, including selling it. The AP is fully within its rights to sell public domain content just as Amazon does every day.

via The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog: The Associated Press: Selling the Public Domain?

To restate: there is absolutely nothing legally wrong with the AP licensing or selling public-domain content. To paraphrase concepts from the open source world, public-domain content is free (as in speech, “libre”) not free as in beer.

As Picker puts it, “Public domain content is outside the copyright system. Again that is its nature.”

You have no right to access of public-domain materials (perhaps unfortunately). You have no right to get them without paying. Instead, such materials are free for anyone to use in any way they wish. The AP can sell the material. You can sell the content. Anyone can do with it what they wish.

(A side note: a license by the AP to such content may be invalid, in the sense that once you have it, you can do with it as you wish  —  although potentially you may still breach a contract you have with the licensor. Picker, for example, writes, “Ordinary rules regarding contracts and licenses should apply to circumstances under which someone is given access to public domain content.” I can envision counterarguments. In other words: it’s complicated. Thus the existence of lawyers.)

Bizarre? Unfair? Strange? Perhaps. But consider that the protections of copyright are a modern addition to the world. Pre-18th century (to grossly simplify things), if you sold your manuscript, you sold the “copyright” as well. All intellectual creations were, in a sense, in the public domain (although the concept didn’t quite exist  —  without modern copyright, there is no concept of “public domain” either  —  there is simply one state, not too).

Modern copyright changed this, and arguably encouraged creation  —  but it also locks up works in various ways as well. Thus the need for a balance, I believe, between the protections of intellectual property (which is not quite like ordinary property, which is why you only “infringe” IP) and the dizzying freedoms of the public domain.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Associated Press will sell you a license to quote the public domain (boingboing.net)
• AP Will Sell You A License To Words It Has No Right To Sell (techdirt.com)

BizOp News asks the question:

Is the Kindle DX: Amazon‘s 9.7″ Wireless Reading Device (Latest Generation) a disruptive device for the textbook market?

via The BizOp News | Due Diligence : Can Kindle Replace Text Books?

His main argument is that “Kindle threatens the established textbook market, because textbooks can be treated as software, and rental items. You only want the text for one course, you rent it.”

He believes, along with others, that Amazon will likely act to push legal textbook authors to publish ebooks – but they will be accompanied with licensing and DRM that will ensure their limited distribution and use and, presumably, undermine the used textbook market as well.

I believe the Kindle – and perhaps other devices like it – may indeed revolutionize the market. I am not convinced that all textbooks are amenable to an electronic model in terms of ease of use, but that may not stop the attempt by Amazon to push it.

To be honest, I suspect the entrenched nature of law and law schools will prevent Amazon’s complete success in any rapid fashion – I suspect a complete changeover to electronic books will simply run into too much resistance.

I also believe that “renting” textbooks stands a decent chance of generating a backlash against the current ebook licensing approach, as students (never ones to enjoy restrictions, especially ones that cost them money) discover they can’t pass on their textbooks to others by selling or giving them away.

Still, Amazon still has a chance to disrupt the market without such a backlash – if the purchase price paid by students for books justifies the more limited rights they will enjoy. If Amazon can pull it off, everyone will benefit – if they give in to publishers and keep prices artificially high – we will see a backlash and disruption of a different sort.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Kindle DRM Kerfuffle: A Case Book Author’s Perspective (professorbainbridge.com)
• Amazon’s Kindle and digital rights management (inpropriapersona.com)
• Electronic texts and rent-seeking publishers (inpropriapersona.com)