[Dialogue] Can I get arrested for doing an art form conversation?

[Jack Gilles]

Doug,

What a great context.  But I've got a question about your math.  If it  
takes 150 years to scan everything, but you have reduced the scanning  
rate from 20 minutes to 1 minute then we only need 7 1/2 years of  
work!  Now what we might need is some of those 24 hour marathons of  
duty like we used to do at the Summer program.  I believe it was  
Summer 70 when we occupied the office downtown during the night to  
produce the documents.  Hmm, seems a bunch of us need to put Chicago  
on our "to visit" list this summer and fall.

Thanks for sharing!

Jack
On May 20, 2010, at 12:17 PM, M. George Walters wrote:

> Wow Doug.
> Thanks!
>
> With kindest regards.
>
> M. George Walters
> Resurgence Publishing Corporation
> 4240 Sandy Shores Dr
> Lutz, FL 33558
> USA
> Tel: +1 (813) 948-7267
> Fax: +1 (813) 333-1787
> Mob: +1 (813) 505-9041
>
> URL: www.ResurgencePublishing.com
> Professional Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mgwalters
>
>
>
>
> From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net 
> ] On Behalf Of Doug Druckenmiller
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:42
> To: dialogue at wedgeblade.net
> Subject: [Dialogue] Can I get arrested for doing an artform  
> conversation?
>
> I’ve read with interest the discussion about the archives and the  
> related comments on intellectual property rights, copyright and  
> licensing.  I think it is important to clearly separate the issues  
> so that clear discussion can be made and we can see where our  
> consensus lies.  I think a bit of context is necessary for my  
> comments, so I apologize for what will likely be a longer post than  
> is recommended for email listserves, but my personal story and  
> experience in this is maybe not well known and potentially useful to  
> the discussion.
>
> I got reengaged with ICA in the spring of 2007 (having been  
> separated since 1982, a 25 year long journey!) when I attended  an  
> ICA-USA think tank in Chicago.  I was interested in getting access  
> to archival material for my university research into collaboration  
> engineering.  I am an Associate Professor at Western Illinois  
> University with a PhD in Business Administration.  My major interest  
> is in Strategic Information Systems, especially knowledge management  
> and collaborative systems.  Collaboration engineering is a newly  
> emerging field that seeks to understand the basic patterns of group  
> interaction: Brainstorming, organizing (gestalt), evaluating,  
> consensus building, convergence etc.  The field has evolved from a  
> focus on electronic meeting systems to a broader focus on  
> facilitation methods, facilitation design, and how facilitation  
> systems can be embedded in organizations.  Most recently I’ve been  
> working with Jon Jenkins on redesigning the IAF methods database for  
> easier access.  The Town Meeting 76 documents represent a research  
> treasure in my field as it is an example of large scale  
> collaboration engineering.  We (ICA) designed a collaboration event  
> and then trained practitioners to deliver it.  The TM76 documents  
> are empirical evidence of successful collaboration engineering on a  
> large scale.
>
> This was just after the now-famous firing of all the staff by the  
> board of ICA-USA.  I proposed to then board chair, Carolyn Antenen,  
> that we digitize the archive to improve its accessibility, not just  
> mine, but others interested in utilizing the archives as a resource.  
> Digitization is an obvious solution with the necessity of moving the  
> archive to a physical location where they can be catalogued and  
> digitized.  Funding would be needed to accomplish this, and there  
> are issues of storage and quality control in the digitization  
> process.  At the time I saw several possibilities for doing this:
>
> 1.       If the ICA is willing to give up copyright to the archival  
> data (here I am not talking about the JWM files that I understand  
> his family has control over) and donate the collection to the  
> University (WIU), the University would store it, digitize it and  
> make it electronically available online.
>
> 2.       The ICA funds the digitization on its own using the  
> University's digitization capability and services.
>
> 3.       The ICA does the digitization on its own with its own  
> resources.
>
> In any case, quality control of the process would require that  
> someone familiar with the data monitor results.
>
> The ICA was mainly pursuing housing the archives at a university, as  
> there was no internal capability for true care and maintenance of  
> archival material.  The first option was not realistic because ICA  
> was not interested in giving up its copyright, although it would  
> only be on the digital copy not the original material.  The second  
> is quite expensive, $100,000+ and the third is also expensive and  
> nearly impossible given limited staff resources and time.  As we  
> subsequently began to see, option 2 can’t be done without doing  
> option 3.  University partnership is still an ongoing discussion.   
> Our emerging partnership with Oklahoma City University is an example.
>
> Discussions with the Mathews family were underway at this time,  
> resulting in the eventual move of the JWM files to Wesleyan Seminary  
> in Washington DC.  Digitization and open access were part of the  
> reason that educational institutions interested in the content of  
> the archives were involved.  Based on the reception this past  
> December and the establishment of the JWM archive at Wesleyan, this  
> is an excellent partnership and collaboration toward that end.   
> Betty Pesak and Marge Philbrook prepared the material for transfer  
> to Wesleyan to insure that wherever there were multiple copies of  
> documents, they were retained in the archive in Chicago.
>
> In October of that year I attended the Living Legacy event and began  
> discussing with Board Member Judy Lindblad an archive digitization  
> project.  Several alarming conversations with people at the event  
> made me wonder what had happened to the ICA in the 25 years since I  
> was involved.  Several people insisted that if you used any ICA  
> methods that you had to pay a royalty to the ICA.  It seemed that a  
> simple artform conversation was “private property” and especially if  
> you called what you were doing “ORID.”  This seemed exceedingly  
> strange to me, and I remain curious as to where this idea had come  
> from.  I wondered if the ICA police would arrest me for having  
> ignorantly been using the artform conversation for the past 25 years  
> in my teaching.  At least I didn’t call it ORID, so maybe I would be  
> forgiven. But what about charting?  I was in deep trouble.
>
> I then did a stupid thing, I volunteered to join the board of  
> directors, since it was the only way I could see to insure access to  
> the archives, and maybe I could get time off for good behavior and  
> service rendered.  The archives were at that point under lock and  
> key in the basement and not accessible in any real sense.  They also  
> were at risk of flood and the environment was not conducive to work  
> or long term preservation.  I was elected to the BOD in November and  
> began a three year term in January of 2008.  As a board member I  
> continued to push for a focus on the archives, but it was not a  
> concern and discussions about intellectual property were not  
> encouraged.  “We’ve already talked about that.”  In January 2009 I  
> became board chair and remain currently in that position. Work on  
> the Global Archives remains for me a key objective.  Obviously I’ve  
> not completed my sentence yet.
>
> Enough context, fast forward to May 2010.  Last week Pat and I  
> attended the archive sojourn event.  What a wonderful time we had  
> digging deep into the spirit resources of the archive and continuing  
> the work begun the week before on processing the archive for  
> eventual digitization.  Slowly the file cabinets are coming out of  
> the basement to bright available space on the 6th floor.   In order  
> to digitize the archive (make a digital copy) we must have a “gold”  
> set of unduplicated material.  As Marge Philbrook has pointed out  
> many times, the files in the basement contain lots of copies.  By  
> way of example, Pat and I processed a stack of files about 15” high  
> containing constructs for “fast, feast and watch.”  This was mainly  
> material from summer ‘72 research assembly.  I remember the 7 day  
> fast, the wonderful feast and the watch that we did that summer.   
> Anyway, after removing all the duplicated material and keeping 2  
> copies of everything where possible, we reduced the stack by about  
> 2/3.  So 5” of material remain, quite a bit of that is file folders,  
> and if you figure half of what is left is what would need to be  
> digitized, you are left with about 2 inches of paper that represents  
> the “gold” set.  This is what is going on in Chicago this month.  We  
> will have a fairly good picture by the end of May of the size of the  
> mountain, but we will not have climbed it.
>
> In the midst of this event I had a revelation of sorts about the  
> process we are now engaged in.  95% of the work to digitize the  
> archive is this kind of manual sorting and sifting of the material.   
> Without doing this, we cannot digitize anything.  It also requires  
> people familiar with the material.  It is not something that can be  
> “outsourced” to someone else.  The smallest part (and least  
> expensive) is the actual making of a digital copy.  This involves  
> scanning the documents into a PDF format and can be time consuming  
> if you are thinking of your own personal scanner which is a one page  
> at a time process.  For example, two of us scanned the 110 page  
> summer 72 spirit methods manual in about 20 minutes.  At that rate  
> it would take 150 years to scan the archive!  What we really need is  
> a scanner that has a copy machine-like document feeder.  This could  
> do the same job in less than a minute.  I then realized that most  
> copy machines made these days are document servers.  This means they  
> are connected to your computer network and you can print to them  
> from your PC, and you can also use them as a scanner.  Mon Dieu! We  
> have a copier! I wonder if it is also a document scanner?  Turns out  
> we have two in the building.  They can be set to scan documents at  
> high speed to our server and made available.  We tested this system  
> last week and while there are some problems with old paper feeding  
> properly, we have everything we need to do digitization. Option 3  
> increasingly looks like the way to go.
>
> The only thing we are missing is you!  We need more people to  
> volunteer their time to do the sorting and reducing work that  
> prepares the material for scanning.  And then we will need people to  
> do the scanning and to quality check the results.  We have 25 nicely  
> furnished rooms on the 8th floor so you can live onsite, work on the  
> archives and visit the beautiful city of Chicago.  The increasing  
> numbers of people and reunion atmosphere have been a real joy to all  
> who have attended the sojourn.  I really think that with a steady  
> stream of volunteers, we could accomplish the digitization goal much  
> quicker than we think.  Terry is planning another official Archives  
> sojourn in the fall, but I am sure that Marge Philbrook is willing  
> to put anyone to work who wants to volunteer at any time.  Once the  
> archive is fully digital, another task can begin, which is the  
> “tagging” of the content. This essentially is having a  
> collaboratively built rich index to the material that allows for  
> easy access of its contents and can be done from anywhere in the  
> world as long as you have internet access. (Think of the way you use  
> Google to find information – a word or phrase is all you need.)
>
> Now about copyright.  The ICA-USA will have copyright to the digital  
> form of the archive based on the “Cairo protocol” described in  
> Wayne’s post.  This will likely be about 2 terabytes of data.  You  
> can purchase a 2 terabyte drive from your local office products  
> store for about $300.  Last week Bob Hansen asked me, “Will we have  
> to pay for access to the digitized archive?”  Definitely not!  We  
> intend to put the whole archive and the index to it on our server  
> and make it available at no cost for download over the web. If you  
> want a backup copy, go buy a 2 terabyte drive at OfficeMax, come to  
> Chicago and make your own copy.   Of course, you’ll have to wait  
> until its finished.  You could help with that.
>
> I would say that there is a broad consensus that both the original  
> material in the archives and a digital copy should be freely  
> accessed.  (I’m not really aware of anyone who holds the contrary  
> position).  The cost of digital distribution is very small, as we  
> have existing resources to do this, once things are in digital  
> form.  In Creative Commons terms, this is the “Attribution  
> license .”  This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and  
> build upon our work, even commercially, as long as they credit EI/ 
> ICA 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.   I believe this was the original intent  
> for access to this material and should be applied to both the  
> physical and digital versions.Please spend some time at www.creativecommons.org/choose 
> .  Answers to two simple questions determine the License:  “Allow  
> commercial uses of the work?” and “Allow modifications of the work?”
>
> I hope this settles the IP question about our common memory and  
> heritage.  I will request that the board of ICA-USA pass a  
> resolution to this effect at our next meeting.
>
> The more interesting question, though, is what about copyright for  
> works derived from the archive?  (Those works that are owned by the  
> national ICAs or created by individuals, for example PJD, Top  
> Training manuals, etc.)  The “Attribution license lets others  
> distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even  
> commercially, as long as they credit EI/ICA for the original  
> creation.”  PJD is a creation of John Cock and his team; they hold  
> the copyright and clearly attribute the work to EI/ICA.  I think  
> this meets the standard of an attribution license.   It is not a  
> product of ICA-USA or even one of our programs.  It is a tweaked  
> remix built on RS-1.  The license for PJD is a decision to be made  
> by that team.  While the product is under development and testing, a  
> limited distribution seems appropriate.  In the long run, though, I  
> think either “attribution share alike” or “attribution non- 
> commercial share alike” would be appropriate with other national  
> ICAs.  If the product is distributed outside the ICA, say to a  
> church denomination or a business organization, a tighter licensing  
> arrangement might be in order for quality control.  Top Training  
> Manuals are an example of this type of licensed control and  
> protected content.  But this applies only to the training manuals  
> published by ICA-USA, the logo, and trade name.  The reasoning  
> behind this is based in quality control of training and branding for  
> commercial purposes of the training network.  This does not mean  
> that the methods themselves are copyrighted.  Anyone is free to  
> develop any training program they want based on the open source  
> archival material; they would need to attribute the EI/ICA in their  
> copyright, but they could decide how to license their own material.
>
> You can’t get arrested for doing an art-form conversation even if  
> you call it ORID.
>
>
> Doug
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100520/9f55cd04/attachment-0001.html>