[Dialogue] Copyright

Wed May 19 12:24:44 CDT 2010

You're right, George. Unless you're willing and able [$$$$] to fight infringement in court, your copyright really don't mean s***. And if there's no evidence that you have contested any infringement, you may be seen to have abandoned your rights. That's why copyright law is for the big boys like Disney, who don't want Mickey Inc. in the public domain.
So while in practice there may be no legal recourse for the little guy, the ethical standard is not to 'steal', plagiarize, or make money off somebody else's work.
My two cents.
Marshall
I confess I did spend years and years typesetting and reproducing articles for our courses -- without permission of the authors.

________________________________
From: George Holcombe <geowanda at earthlink.net>
To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 8:41:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Archives Work and Open Source

My experience with the legal system here and abroad is that it really doesn't matter what you have protected, etc., though it may give you somewhat of a way to bring a case, but until the thing is legated through a court and somewhere along the line there appears to be some kind of precedent, only then will your copyright or other forms of protection make that much of a difference.  They are really there to make a person think twice, maybe.  I refer recently to a parishioner who wrote a script, had it copyrighted, etc. and allowed a film company to review it.  The script was turned down.  Two years later he saw his movie, title and scene by scene, precise dialogue, there was very little tweaking done.  He took it to a lawyer in the field and they went through a 2 year expensive battle and lost plus court cost.  The company had a battery of lawyers and they used all the legal tricks of the trade, and broke him in the process.  If you'd like to get more
 info, he wrote a book called The Reel Truth, which has become required reading for independent film makers.  Intellectual property can be a tough cookie, in which money wins.

George Holcombe
14900 Yellowleaf Tr.
Austin, TX 78728
Home: 512/252-2756
Mobile 512/294-5952
geowanda at earthlink.net

On May 19, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Wayne Nelson wrote:

>>The operating protocol, developed at the 1996 ICA meetings in Cairo says that anything created prior to 1988 is the intellectual “property” of all ICA organizations and anything created after that is the “property” of the ICA that created it. 
>
>>There is a group in North America that has been mandated to work on this very concern.  It arose out of a meeting in Chicago about a year ago – maybe a little more. The major suggestion under consideration is, I believe, some form of “Creative Commons” copyright / licensing.  I haven’t heard anything from that group, but the conversation has been launched. That group has sort of gone quiet, but the team has been created.
>
>>“Open source” is a movement that is gaining ground in several fields. It began with the software development field and has spread.  It’s an intriguing concept and forces us to examine the paradigm of proprietary material. The idea of “Creative Commons” has gained some traction.  Very briefly, there are several forms of licensing under this scheme. This summary comes from 
>http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/
>
>
>Attribution
>>
>>>>This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered, in terms of what others can do with your works licensed under Attribution.
>>
>>>>Attribution Share Alike
>>
>>>>This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use.
>>
>>>>Attribution No Derivatives
>>
>>>>This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you.
>>
>>>>Attribution Non-Commercial
>>
>>>>This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
>>
>>>>Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
>>
>>>>This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. Others can download and redistribute your work just like the by-nc-nd license, but they can also translate, make remixes, and produce new stories based on your work. All new work based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also be non-commercial in nature.
>>
>>>>Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives
>>
>>>>This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, allowing redistribution. This license is often called the “free advertising” license because it allows others to download your works and share them with others as long as they mention you and link back to you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.
>>
>
>>As I see it, the toughest issue to tackle is our current training manuals. In Canada, our operating policy is to attribute anything that is substantially someone else’s work. We have several examples that fall along a spectrum.  For example, we use some work done by John and Ann Epps and published in their newsletter. We added a category to it and it always carries printed attribution of the original source. We also use a paper John wrote – no changes – and it carries his name. I created something based on the work of another person and we attribute the original source, because the similarity is very obvious.  
>
>>We share pretty freely with other ICA’s, because they use these materials as references to create their own materials.  We’ve offered 3 of our foundational course manuals along with the trainers manual to any ICA who asks and several have taken us up on the offer. If people ask, we respond. When something is used with no change or very little change, we ask for attribution and we ask that that attribution be noted on the piece itself.  If our materials are used as a reference only, we say ,”God bless you, do your best to create the best stuff you can for your situation.
>
>>In relation to the public, our licensing / copyright needs to be a bit tighter- if that’s the right word.  In the worst case scenario, there are people out there who will cross the boundaries simply because they think this is good stuff and they want to use it themselves. There are many people who take our courses and go back to their organizations and share what they have learned with their colleagues. We know and encourage that.  There are others who use it as a part of their own fee for service training work with out attribution or payment of royalties. We believe that is unethical and we need to be able to protect this work.  If ToP methodology is to be taught, we believe it needs to be done with superior quality.  We have a pretty solid process for preparing people to teach our courses. We work with them and take them through a journey through which they are accredited to teach our courses. 
>
>>Our situation is a little unique in that we have to ICA Organizations.  Anything we create – manuals, books and articles etc are copyrighted by the Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs – ICA Canada.  ICA Associates Inc. pays ICA Canada royalties for the use of these materials and for the sale of books.  These royalties provide ICA Canada with core funding for their work.  Currently, we have established an annual minimum amount of royalties to be paid. If revenues go over that minimum, ICA Associates pays more than the minimum. It’s a structural solution that has worked since 1999.  
>
>>Our ToP Facilitator Certification Program was born out of a similar set of concerns. We want people operating in our name and using 
>>ToP methodology to be the very best.  We actually found people calling themselves Certified ToP facilitators before we even had a certification process in place.  We publish the list of Certified ToP Facilitators and accredited trainers on our website; so it is clear to the public who is who.
>
>>These are fair concerns. I believe we need to address them. I believe we need to educate ourselves in order to take the conversation to an appropriate resolution.
>
>\\/
>
>>"Bill Parker"  wrote:
>
>
>The issue Evelyn has raised is very important for all of us. Since our methods have always been open access, until TOP, there is no reason for us to desire anything else but open access. TOP needed to do what it did in order to create a business model that had market credibility. But, while we know there are unlimited gems in our archives, we are not about creating a business or any proprietary product. I find it more helpful to think about the archives and all the gems buried there from a historical view of a group of people in the 20th century who did all of this in order to respond faithfully to the times in which they lived. The notion of resurrecting any of it programmatically misses the value of what that body of work is. The question then, as it is today, is "How do we respond faithfully to the times in which we live?" It is not the past that has value but the future..And the future is open. Any serious consideration of making any part of our
 past proprietary is out of place for our future.   I share Evelyn's concern.
>>
>>
>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>>> 
>>>From:  Evelyn Kurihara  Philbrook <mailto:joyful52 at gmail.com>  
>>>>>> 
>>>To: Colleague Dialogue <mailto:dialogue at wedgeblade.net>  
>>>>>> 
>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:25 AM
>>>>>> 
>>>Subject: [Dialogue] Archives Work and  Open Source
>>>>>> 
>>>
>>>>>>Dear Colleagues, 
>>>
>>>>>>I was very happy to work voluntarily  to prepare the archives of the Town Meetings from the EI/ICA basement the  first week of May with my many colleagues from the past and new ones from the  present. I realize now that these documents do represent a baseline of data  that research would find very helpful from our past work in making gold all  the counties in many states and in many countries we conducted Town Meetings,  though we only focused on the USA counties. The work began to reveal the huge  amount of time it would take to finish the whole task. We just scratched the  surface and it was exciting and overwhelming to realize how much has been done  and how much more needs to be done. However, at some level I assumed that all  this information of the movement which we are all working on together  voluntarily, would become open source material so that  those who helped create the materials and worked jointly on these many  projects could use
 them in the future to build ICA movements in the future  around the world. 
>>>
>>>>>>However, I am not so sure this is a true statement.  I do want to acknowledge the new current work of colleagues that bring new  forms into being of old models we used in the past. I am clear that in each  unique situation, adjustments must be made to adapt to customize a specific  method to meet the needs of each client and each culture and that work is the  brain power of the individuals who work on the model to bring it into being.  However, the spirit belongs to us all. The original models created in the  Academy, RS-I and on Imaginal Education, or in Town Meetings or any other  methods, Social Process Triangles, etc... are we saying now that any model  adapted individually are now owned by ICA USA or ICA Canada?
>>>
>>>>>>If any of  us shares its models freely with other organizations with the proviso that  they receive acknowledgment so that the methods may be used by anyone and not  copyrighted to prevent others from using them, that seems on target. However  to have methods copyrighted to prevent others from using a method which is  based on a common understanding of our whole body, like RS I, CS I, or any of  our other courses, does not make sense to me either. I understand if a method  is being used without acknowledgment or without permission to make a profit is  not correct, but to prevent anyone else from using a method at all who cannot  pay for it, but is need of that method does not seem right either. We need to  work this through so there is no misunderstanding. 
>>>
>>>>>>Anyone who has been  working to transpose RS I into a secular course and would like to continue to  share their work with people in Asia, please feel free to contact me.  
>>>
>>>>>>I am currently in USA right now and on skype: joyfuleakp  or  Evelyn Philbrook.  My landline for the next two weeks is 559-875-4007 and  ask for Evelyn.
>>>
>>>>>>Those who come to work on the archives, how is this  material to be made available to colleagues that helped create it, or will we  have to pay to have access to the materials once they are digitized? Will this  mean only those who can afford to access them will have the right to read and  use the material, or only students at a specific university, what does it  mean? Is this what will happen to Joe's work because it is technically owned  by the family?
>>>
>>>>>>I had hoped we can grow and share together for the  future of the planet and those who care.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>Evelyn Kurihara  Philbrook
>>>>>>ICA Certified Facilitator
>>>>>>ICA International Director, VP of  Asia and the Pacific
>>>>>>ICA Taiwan Office:
>>>>>>3 fl.,#12, Lane 5, Tien Mou W.  Rd, 
>>>>>>Taipei, 11156, Taiwan ROC
>>>>>>Tel: (886) 2-2871-3150
>>>>>>Email: joyful52 at gmail.com, joyful at icatw.com
>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>________________________________

>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>Dialogue mailing  list
>>>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>>>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>>>
>>>________________________________
_______________________________________________
>>>>Dialogue mailing list
>>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>>
>< >  < >  < >  < >  < > 
>Wayne Nelson - ICA Associates Inc
>>ICA - 416-691-2316 - - - Cell – 647-229-6910
>http://ica-associates.ca/
>
> 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dialogue mailing list
>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20100519/4c066d5d/attachment-0001.html>