Non-Technical Difficulties: Unions Block Online Stream of Live Theater Performance

The "boys" of PICT's "The History Boys."  Photo courtesy of PICT.

In 2006 Stephanie Riso, Operations Director of the Pittsburgh Irish and Classical Theater (PICT), recognized the limitations that performance space imposed on ticket sales for her popular Cabaret Pittsburgh project. She considered ways to expand the audience of the musical revue without finding a new location or having to take the show on the road, and landed on the possibilites afforded by internet streaming.

Riso discovered that, with the exception of the Kennedy Center's free online performances of Millennium Stage musical acts, there was no precedent for streaming live performance online. With fellow Carnegie Mellon alumnus Alex Geis, and his company 21 Productions, Riso developed a live stream for Pittsburgh Cabaret.   Upon seeing that "the (sound and video) quality was amazing, "  she determined that she could use this technology to live stream PICT's theater productions.

“PICT’s long-term goal is to create a new revenue stream that will help to sustain the organization and live theatre into the future," explains Riso. Like so many theaters, PICT is small, limited by region and budget, and cannot tour under the Actors Equity SPT contract. So Riso conceived LIPLO™ (for "Live In Person and Live Online"), a hub where tickets could be sold to online streams of live performances and watched in real time.  What was once just a dream of live theatrical streaming is -- almost -- a reality.

"Online presents great promise to theatres, but only if there is something worth watching; no one goes to a theatre website to ‘hang out’ and read about the upcoming shows. They go to the website simply to get the necessary information so they can attend a performance if they happen to live in that city. But, if there is a place online where a person can go and be entertained with a high quality experience – that changes the conversation and opens up potential ad revenue and customers/patrons,” explains Riso.

Last Saturday was to be PICT's inaugural, open-to-the-public, free  LIPLO™ test stream (of PICT's production of Alan Bennett's "The History Boys").  Unfortunately, with less than a week to go, AEA and AFTRA could not agree on contract terms, and Riso had to pull the plug on the stream.   "[W]e had secured the rights from Alan Bennett (the author) plus Fox, who owns the film, new media and broadcast rights – which was a very big deal. . . .Knowing that Actors Equity would be the biggest obstacle, I approached them in February 2009 to start the conversation.  Their initial email response was that at the time they were not giving permission for actors to participate in live streaming.  However, upon further conversations with their filming and taping department they encouraged me to talk with AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) and were completely open to the possibility – although Actors Equity kept stating they would likely expect 2 weeks contractual salary for the actors plus rehearsal which seemed out of sorts with the proposed free trial project.  When AFTRA finally negotiated a favorable conclusion and all actors agreed, Actors Equity backed off and was not willing to move forward."

Riso is now caught in a Catch-22 in which she cannot have a bargaining conversation with the unions about money without data collected from test runs--which cannot proceed until the unions agree to allow the stream.

Provided the unions agree to allow LIPLO™ to proceed, theaters around the world may be able to implement this technology to expand their audiences. This may prove a popular method for watching theater, and precisely the tool that performing arts need to find new ways to make money and raise awareness of the art. Once the unions can get on the same page, "the only thing that stands in the way from any organization using LIPLO™ is whether or not the organization has the permission or right from the author, actor, designer, etc to live stream the work."  If organizations are interested in implementing LIPLO™, the LIPLO™ team would "adjudicate the organizations and their work prior to acceptance within LIPLO™ to ensure there is a level of expertise and quality for the LIPLO™ audience."  Following that, LIPLO™ has an all-inclusive team that would work with the organizations to put their work online.

Though Riso is confident that the technical components of the stream are dependable (it has undergone at least 15 trials without a hitch, and Geis will be online for every stream to troubleshoot viewers' problems via messenger), additional details rely on feedback from viewers of what were to have been three practice streams (including "The History Boys," PICT has streams planned for each of their season's final productions).  For example, would viewers prefer a single or multiple camera feed?  Is Paypal the best way to sell tickets to online streaming?  Would the tickets be priced lower than in-life tickets?  How will advertisers most effectively be placed during the stream? Will advertisers be local or could they be national and international?  And most importantly, will this truly reach a new viewing demographic?

It is this writer's hope that the unions recognize the need to update contracts to open the possibility of alternative methods of viewing live theater.  It increases exposure for all the artists involved in a show, and greater exposure could lead to greater demand for the artists.  The  tools are in place to expand audiences beyond the Baby Boomers, and hits the Millennials, and even Gen-Xers, where they live--online.  In theory LIPLO™ is the perfect marriage of technology and art, and could do what simply expanding or altering marketing approaches may not: it could get new people watching live theater.

To view Riso's Quicktime community address, and to read additional information, including her request for supporters to contact these unions, visit the LIPLO™ website and follow the simple log-in procedure.

Update: AEA refused to discuss the matter with me.  Spokesperson Maria Somma replied, "As you may have read in the media, Actors' Equity Association will not comment on the situation in question."

Perform a Digital Identity Self-Exam

Photo by Fazen.

Digital Identity is a topic that, like Digital Identity itself, cycles through period of seeming quite important (take the Twitter hack) and others when it seems like something toward which a person can take a very hands-off approach. It is easy to fall into the false sense of security offered by social media's seeming self-management; it can appear harmless to just allow it to so do. As individuals and representatives of organizations, it is valuable to periodically take stock of what the organization and its employees are doing to represent themselves online. One of the first posts I wrote for this blog was about the blurry line between professional and personal identities--and that gets even blurrier across the online/offline divide. Additional posts covered social media handbooks that urge organizations to come up with an identifiable plan; these handbooks touch on the importance of digital identity, but none exclusively addresses the matter as Nancy White does in her "This is Me" Digital Identity workbook.

As social media handbooks encourage dialogue (including being open to negative comments and interactions), White urges users to consider that an overly-groomed online identity may be just as detrimental as one left to morph, unfettered, into an amalgamation of unflattering photos, inappropriate comments, and obvious political affiliations. There is a balance, and the first order of business to achieve this is considering what your offline identity is, and what you want to convey via social media.

Ultimately, for both organizations and individuals, I think that social media--and any web presence--needs to take into consideration this post on the Social Media Today blog: know yourself before you start reflecting it online. Just as you do when you get dressed in the morning, or attend a public event, or a private house party, rent office space or write a grant proposal, you must stop and consider with great care what it is that you will be saying with your clothes, conduct, conversations, location, shared information and goals. Figure out who is looking for you online, and what it is they will find--try searching for yourself, your organization's name, and see what "just anyone" can find out about you. Remember--you may not be leaving a "paper" trail, but often the items that you post to the web have an even longer shelf-life, and the fingerprint that you develop digitally grows more comprehensive over time.

Just because you have begun to move your organization firmly into the world of social media doesn't mean that you can step back and let it run itself. Do regular searches for yourself and your organization, perform routine maintenance on your personal and organization's profiles, and don't get lulled into the sense that, simply because you've built it, it's good enough. Your online identity will grow, but remember that its growing pains may be as accessible as those photos of you when you were thirteen that your parents insist on keeping framed on their mantel. Proceed with honesty and integrity, and consider the long-term impact that your choices may have. Approach your Digital Identity with a critical eye, and imagine how it may be perceived and received.

Remember: if you put your name on it, you must be willing to own it, even if it's "only online."

One Route, Two Guides — Part 2: Marc van Bree's "Orchestras and New Media"

Marc van Bree has published an impressive and free forty-five page (plus bibliography and succinct glossary) ebook called "Orchestras and New Media: A Complete Guide".  I emphatically encourage anyone working with arts and non-profits to read his ebook. Though van Bree's experience is specifically with classical music and orchestras, his ebook is not for that audience alone. Rather, is the most comprehensive and interesting social media guide that I have read. Van Bree does not claim to be a social media expert, despite his long-time successful use of it, and his recommendations and guidelines for social media are supported by research and commentary from others in the field. He does not merely tell you what to do, he writes things like "How has social networking changed our communication?" and then answers this question with evidence from independent studies.

"Although the number and variety of arts organizations has increased, the percentage of adults participating in the arts has remained flat," writes van Bree.  The first 11 pages of this guide are a fascinating and well-researched analysis of the arts and the arts' representation in printed media, and the struggle that the arts face in generating new audiences.  With excerpts from a variety of studies, publications, others in the field, and projects, he establishes a context in which to place non-profit social media. "If blogs are an alternative to print media, podcasts are the alternative to radio and television."

Van Bree not only discusses the various forms that social media can take, his guide is part history lesson, part handbook, and completely engaging. He examines all of the major American players, from Facebook to Flickr, and suggests others that might be of use on an international platform. Van Bree also illustrates their use with true anecdotes that are at times cautionary, encouraging, amusing, and most of all show what is possible by NPO arts organizations using social media.

If you are new to social media, you may want a very basic, "Step One: Do This" approach--but I strongly recommend you take the time to read van Bree's guide. He does not neglect to explain the principles and common practices that users of the social media tools follow, and even discusses how you can measure the results of your efforts.

This guide has it all, is a pleasure to read, and paints a broader picture of what it is, exactly, that NPOs may accomplish with social media.

Where There's Hope, There's Profit

We got pretty excited over here today about the launch of the new Facebook Actions Application by Grassroots Enterprises. Just think! An application for your cause that does the following: -Your visitors can instantly email Legislators from your FB page -You can promote a fast way to "Take Action" on your page or in other emails and status updates -Your visitors can quickly pass the word on to their friends -And more.

This application could be invaluable to organizations (like all those here in PA waiting, with bated breath, to find out whether or not Arts funding will be completely eradicated from the state budget) to urge their followers to quickly and easily contact their legislators.

As you can imagine, I was disappointed to learn (via other Twitterers sad lamentations of it being "sadly out of our range") that an organization wishing to add this exciting innovation to their Facebook page would pay $3000 to start, with a monthly charge of $250.*

As you know, I am all for people profiting from their hard work. In earlier posts I have railed against organizations expecting work for free, companies wanting art at no charge, and the pressure to enter into that trading system. BUT--that's a LOT of money to most of us. Especially when you consider this is AIMED at non-profits and organizations, most of whom are using Facebook precisely to try to cut some of our online operating costs.

I was really looking forward to talking up a great new low-cost addition to getting the word out about non-profits arts causes. Sorry 'bout that.

*Caveat: I have contacted Grassroots Enterprises and perhaps they will inform me that there are different pricing structures for various sized organizations. I look forward to bringing you further news about this.

Hey, Choir, Listen Up!

Talking to Myself by FALHakaFalLin and Mlle Franny

I read a lot of blogs. Blogs about arts, marketing, non-profits, arts management, arts education, technology, and so forth. I read great posts on a weekly basis about selling tickets, working within the new economy, raising interest, and strategizing an online presence.

There is a glut of online advice, musings, guidelines, reflections, and discussions about organizations hopping onto the social media bandwagon and embracing Web 2.0. And I can't help but wonder: are we just preaching to the choir?

If you are on here reading this, I suspect that you are already, in some way, connected to this issue. You already browse the web, you probably already have a profile on at least one social media site. Your organization likely has a website, and, I venture to guess, you are already diligent about trying to keep that website presentable, navigable, and current.

You probably frequent the same sites that I do. Your RSS reader might even have a roundup of many similar resources. You are aware of the possibilities that Web 2.0 offers for the new connectivity of organizations. You want to engage people online AND in the real-world, and believe that by strengthening your online position you will experience a positive correlation in the strength of your real-world operations.

I recently read a post from a for-profit marketing perspective, iterating that when we establish our online presence what we want are a small group of strong, loyal supporters, rather than a large number of filler fans. The principle is that these informed, dedicated followers will spread the word personally to their friends, increasing the likelihood that their friends will take their recommendations seriously, and be more likely to check us out as a result.

But it seems to me that in this niche of arts organizations and technology, we are all following, and being followed by, each other. We talk to each other, echo one another's concerns, make suggestions, offer encouragement. We are the ones listening, we are the ones talking, and ultimately it begins to get a little schizophrenic.

I have come across some great bloggers (who are transparent in their affiliation with arts organizations) writing insightful, informative posts--but don't link to their organization's website and aren't linked from there. If an audience member does get online with the hope of learning more about an organization via its website, wouldn't the blog of its communications manager, or artistic director, or someone else on staff, be of interest to them?

If our audiences continue to be people who are unlikely to go online to seek out their arts information, who are comfortable with the ever-smaller blurbs in the papers and the mailings sent to their homes, why are we doing all of this work online? And if we are doing all this work online to find new audiences, but it isn't transferring to our organization's presence in the real world, something needs to change.

We are not going to bridge the chasm between the online and offline supporters if we keep telling people who are already doing what we think they should be doing (because it's what we are doing!) to do what we recommend everyone do.

I love that Project Audience exists precisely to address the best way for arts organizations to attract online media users who may be new to the arts, and to brainstorm ways to stop doing the same things repeatedly simply because it's what is comfortable, or understood, or widely accepted. Additionally, Joe Solomon guest-blogs on Beth's blog, asking the very important question: "How can your online community also support events in the real world?"

I hope that this daunting chasm is a misconception on my part, and that all of what we are saying to ourselves here is really making the leap to the real world, to ticket and art sales, to increased donations and support. I hope that people from outside are plugging in to get more information, and that dialogues are happening among artists and organizations and audiences as never before, facilitated, enabled, by Web 2.0.

But if it isn't a misconception, we need to be open to change and aggressively seek innovation to this model of organization/web interaction.

Survey Says...?

Just a quick update: a lot of you have asked for more information regarding what the Anderson Analytics survey actually included. I have contacted a couple of people who should know, but have yet to receive a reply. When I hear anything I will post it!

Tech + Art + Mobile + Money = A New Hope for Artists and NPOs?

START Mobile offers 18 Mobile Art Galleries

Wouldn't it be great if you could spend a small amount of money to get something cool, and at the same time both support an artist AND the non-profit that supports them?

For example, you could hop on iTunes and look up your favorite museum, your alma mater, your child’s school, your favorite ballet company, and download a gallery of images relating to or by the organization. You could purchase it for less than a buck, and pat yourself on the back for making a donation (when really you were just buying something for yourself).

Thanks to START Mobile, that possibility is rapidly becoming a reality.

Started in 2005, START Mobile’s mission, as described by founder and CEO John Doffing, is to bring “NEW ART to the mobile medium. From the beginning, our vision was one of 'Art for Everyone & Art for Everywhere.’” At the moment, START Mobile is "a bootstrapped startup" that has launched 18 mobile galleries for the iPhone, including one which contains Shepard Fairey's now-controversial Obama image, and promises to launch applications for other platforms in the next few months.

“Technology can facilitate a lot of outside the box thinking relative to the marketing, ownership and appreciation of fine art, and this is a significant part of what START Mobile is trying to accomplish," says Doffing. "[I]t introduces a decidedly egalitarian ethos into an art world that has become inaccessible to the vast majority of potential art lovers.”

A longtime advocate of the arts, Doffing also founded San Francisco's START SOMA Gallery and the Painted Rooms at the Hotel des Artes. He is fierce in his conviction that artists retain the rights to the work that START Mobile licenses, and that they be paid for their work. "There is no charge to the artists that we work with to 'mobilize' their content," explains Doffing. "ALL our artists receive the same commission (and this goes for ALL our art projects): 50% of our net. Or about 10 times what is typically paid to artists to license their work. How much can they make? Depends entirely on how many are sold!"

Apple charges 99¢ for an individual to download one of START Mobile’s artist galleries (a gallery contains multiple images) onto an individual’s iPhone. Apple makes 29¢ off the sale, and the remaining 70¢ is equally split between START Mobile and the artist. Thus, the artist is paid every time anyone, anywhere, downloads the gallery.

Doffing again stepped "outside the box" when he approached Kathy Hanlon Sampon, art teacher at his alma mater, Wisconsin’s Catholic Memorial High School, whose art department was struggling for funds. “During our talks, we discussed [the CMHS art] department’s progress in digital media,” explains Hanlon Sampon. “Since [Doffing] was already developing the program for the app, it would be easy (relatively speaking) to drop our students' work into one of his programs and make it available to the general public – worldwide.”

Hanlon Sampon chose the work that would be included in the CMHS Gallery, digitized the pieces, sent them to Doffing, and START Mobile did the rest--including donating all revenue to the CMHS art department (CMHS is a Catholic non-profit organization). But Hanlon Sampon appreciates more than financial benefits, and says her students now "understand much more about marketing of artwork, the prospect of global visibility, PR, and how technology can be used to not only create art but also to share it.”

START Mobile subsequently released the Pride Gallery by artist Samala (START Mobile Creative Director Christina Samala), who donated her work to raise money to NPO The Courage Campaign. As with CMHS, START Mobile gives 100% of revenue to the Courage Campaign. Though in neither case do the artists directly profit from their work being used, the implications of START Mobile undertaking a project like this are huge.

At this time START Mobile would not be able to sustain itself if every gallery operated like the CMHS and Pride mobile galleries. But perhaps there are artists that would collaborate with non-profits for an equal share of the traditional revenue of 35¢ (after START Mobile takes its cut). START Mobile could become the go-to company for arts organizations wishing to make some money for themselves, the artists, and increase exposure. Galleries could have mobile shows, private schools around the world could have a program like CMHS’s (perhaps public schools could get in on the action if the profits went toward the Booster Club, or were differently packaged). Doffing's long-term goal is "to get our business stable enough that we can do a few dozen apps each month for non-profits that our team supports."

Doffing is optimistic about the potential for artists and organizations to really profit from the galleries, though START Mobile doesn't release sales figures. "If we can manage to crack the top 100 apps in our category on iTunes, sales numbers increase by an order of magnitude. . .There are currently quite a few iPhone wallpaper applications available via iTunes that are selling several thousand units globally per day at 99¢ each - generating several thousand dollars a day in revenue."

"When the CMHS iphone app started getting some press, we received inquiries from around the world wanting to do something similar, representing everything from art museums to non-profits to high school and college art departments. We don't have the resources to do them all, and I have been talking to some folks about automating the process so we can just launch as many of these things as possible [in the future]."

His enthusiasm is contagious, and his positive outlook gives me hope for all of us who have been lamenting the sacrifices that both artists and non-profits make daily. When I told him that I believe many people, like myself "would love the opportunity to support favorite organizations AND get nice wallpaper AND support artists," his reply made me smile:

"Mobile + small-dollar transactions + application model for content delivery enables this for the first time EVER. Pretty exciting."

Yes, it is.

Make Thee a Social Media Handbook, Organization!

Photo by Sarah G.

The American Red Cross has issued a comprehensive Social Media Strategy Handbook, which Beth Kanter rightly lauds as excellent.

The ARC's slideshow notes that the Handbook "is not just for communicators and marketers it's for anyone who: spends online and is a Red Crosser." To make that transition, the Red Cross encourages its associates to play around with social media personally, and then make the leap to representing the ARC online. It's telling that the ARC social media page says, "The Red Cross belongs to the American people. You fund it, you donate your blood, you prepare for and respond to disasters, you take and instruct first aid classes. You make the Red Cross what it is today, and you hold the keys to its future."

So for the ARC, an organization that defines itself as being BY and FOR you, it makes sense that social media would be the same. Is this a practice that more non-profits should adopt? An 87-slide presentation (with additional links), the Handbook contains a complete outline of the who, how, what, and why of the ARC's social media presence. It strongly emphasizes serious contemplation and hard work developing a solid, organization-wide social media strategy. It then goes on to outline how the most popular tools can best be employed, and what interacting with (on? through?) them looks like. It also, very explicitly, gives "fundamental principles" and states in no uncertain terms that, "we’re a 501(c)(3) organization, so you must not join any political or religious advocacy groups."

I think that what the ARC's Handbook does so well is that it combines the practical advice that newbies might need as they venture forth into the world of social media while still including solid, program-specific information that more advanced users will need when creating sites that conform to the ARC standards. I think it very clearly addresses issues that I raised before about the fuzzy area between a personal and professional online presence, and the importance that a person managing social media to be invested in the NPO's mission. It leaves very little wiggle room on the basics, but encourages individuals to find ways to be creative within the ARC's expectations.

One thing that could be emphasized at greater length, however, is the time commitment that such a project can be, and what this might mean for someone who already has a full plate. (Slide 85: have someone dedicated to checking your photos once/day.)

As anyone who spends a portion of their workday dealing in social media knows, social media can be fun, engaging, and has an uncanny ability to sucks hours out of a day. It is both constantly, easily accessible (on your phone, iPod touch, laptop, home computer, work computer...) and, sometimes, frighteningly inescapable. It becomes easy for things to slip through the cracks (an email checked on the fly, a couple of days working on the road, a misplaced note-to-self to update a page and approve new fans), and, conversely, easy to get pulled into in such a way that suddenly half the workday has gone by and your non-social-media responsibilities have suffered. I found this out firsthand, when I took a self-imposed four-day Independence Day Holiday from my technological tether, and felt both refreshed and vaguely alarmed that there were discussions, tweets, articles, emails and so forth that I wasn't getting to. Just because I took a break didn't mean that there wasn't someone, somewhere, expecting a response.

Thus, I would recommend that any organization pursuing a guide like the ARC's consider what I feel to be the two most fundamental components to social media presence: WHY (see slides in the 30s) and WHO. Who is going to do this? And what are the time commitments and expectations are of those developing their presence? If you are going to build it, you need to maintain it, and you must have a clear idea of what that maintenance looks like. I find few things as frustrating as outdated NPO sites, or unmonitored NPO-associated accounts. It can be difficult to separate your personal social media activity from your professional, and a person's social media presence can become inextricably connected to their professional work, meaning that s/he can no longer just "pop on Facebook" for a minute to check in on friends without getting caught up in page maintenance. How many people are going to contribute to the online presence, and how much communication will they have with one another?

As the Handbook cautions, there is a lot that is out of your control, but what is within your control is something you must be willing to keep up with. Creating a clear, written-out guideline can be a great help for getting everyone on the same page and enabling constructive social media growth.

And Now for Something Completely Different

I thought I'd share some of the interesting, and hopefully heartening, things that I have come across recently and wanted to share. (Please note, I am not endorsing any of the services or products herein.) Talenthouse, an online networking tool for artists from many disciplines, encouraging exposure, collaboration, and audience engagement globally. (Thanks to Dana Oshiro at ReadWriteWeb for the tip)

Start Mobile whose Art for Everyone iPhone wallpaper art has been used to benefit non-profit organizations. (A more in-depth story to come)

Tele_Trust, a piece by artistic duo Lancelmaat (with the technical development of V2_ Institute for the Unstable Media), uses technology to analyze real-life socialization (instead of moving socializing onto a virtual platform). Though authorities have been alarmed by the full-body cloak, filled with sensors and circuitry, it's a neat reminder of how "in our changing social eco-system we increasingly demand transparency; while at the same time we increasingly cover our vulnerable bodies with personal communication-technology."

And much thanks to NTEN for highlighting this: iWith's third annual photo competition, "Documenting the Digital Divide."

Protected? Online Content, and its Abuse

photo by Brittney Bush Bollay

Years ago, while editing a free-press magazine, I found that the closely-guarded text of a mediocre article that the Publisher himself had submitted as his own (and rejected my suggestions to improve) was a verbatim reproduction of a local business' website copy. I confronted the Publisher, who told me I was overreacting, and that the site owner "would never know."

I resigned that month. (The magazine closed its doors shortly thereafter, due to mismanagement.)

So imagine my reaction when I read Waldo Jacquith's Virginia Quarterly Review blog post demonstrating that Wired editor Chris Anderson's latest book, Free, is full of paragraphs that appear to be lifted, verbatim and without attribution, from Wikipedia. [Though Jacquith is careful not to accuse Anderson explicitly of plagiarism, Edward Champion has no such scruples.] While the actions of my previous employer were inexcusable, this much more extreme indiscretion by a well-respected editor of a major magazine, whose book is being published by Hyperion, is far more alarming.

Jacquith's column sparked a heated debate among its readers, some praising Anderson's "admission of guilt" (essentially, "Oops! I had footnotes but the publishers didn't like how it looked and I didn't know the best way to properly cite in a different way, and then I forgot to change it,"), others leveled harsh criticism against Anderson, who really should know how to cite a source.

But at the heart of the matter, it seems, is the "confusion" that surrounds using content available online to substantiate and support an author's arguments. Some Anderson defenders commented that, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia did not need to be cited (and I urge them to read The Creative Commons Deed--which covers Wikipedia content and states "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor [but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.]") Others, like Zito van Dijk, commented, "If a 'taking over of words' is very long and substantial, wouldn’t that mean that Chris Anderson does not quote, but takes part in the Wiki writing process? According to GFDL, this makes his book to be copyleft, and everyone has the right to copy it freely?"

Ahhh, the GNU Free Documentation License. Like the Creative Commons Attribute, or the Educational Community License, it is a legal guideline to enable public works to retain the original author's integrity. The thing that always worries me about Creative Commons and the like is that, to the layperson, these licenses may seem esoteric (and, consequently, not very important--like the "I have read and Agree to the Terms" checkbox, that minor inconvenience you check so that you can get to the good stuff). Thus arise situations like the now-notorious lawsuit against Virgin and CC, the result of someone online not understanding what it was, exactly, that the license was permitting.

Interestingly, I was just in the midst of playing with a couple of online tools that carry either Creative Commons or Educational Community licenses. The first of these tools is Ficly, the second incarnation of Ficlet, a sort of online writing group. On this site anyone can contribute writing samples, poems, etc., have them read by others, modified, and responded to. The second is Sophie, described by creators as a tool whose "goal is to open up the world of multimedia authoring to a wide range of people, institutions, and publishers. In so doing, Sophie redefines the notion of a book or academic paper to include both rich media and mechanisms for reader feedback and conversation."

Great resources both, each offers participants (or even audiences) the opportunity to receive a lot of information, engage in vibrant discussion or creation, truly collaborate. So who, at the end of the day, gets to walk away with "ownership?" Is there the potential for significantly increased licensing breaches as there are ever-proliferating ways to get the public at large involved in sharing ideas, words, video, photos, etc? And though I believe that anyone involved in publishing anything to the web should arm himself with knowledge about his rights regarding that content, I believe that most people don't really know what their rights are.

I think most of us learned about plagiarism in high school or college. But for those of us who are either older than the internet or who had only limited access to it during our time as students, there appears to be a massive gap in our collective understanding of what governs web content. In schools I hope that curriculums have been updated to address various online licenses that apply to work that they will encounter. For the rest of the populace, I think it's vital that anyone out using the web is able to access a comprehensive source, like CC's fantastic primer, before using sites like YouTube or copying a Flickr picture into a PowerPoint presentation. It's too easy to generate, borrow, modify, and distribute without really knowing the implication of these actions. A person can sign up and start posting content without ever realizing that they may have given permission for anyone to use their work, as long as they are given credit for having generated it. There are no doubt many people using others' work without attribution, blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are technically breaking the law. (Though, of course, there are many who do it knowingly, as this artist's experience attests. This blog has linked to her in the past, in an article about the dangers and benefits of Print-on-Demand.)

We need to hold high-profile individuals (especially, considering that their audience is much broader!) to the same standards that we hold the little people, and not accept a mere apology. Look at Jammie Thomas-Rasset, whose (ignorant or fully-informed) online lawbreaking has been made a serious example. Why shrug off Anderson's disregard for an equally binding law, and accept Hyperion's unwillingness to alter the book release date to correct the "mistakes" in the hard copy?

And for goodness sake--if you are going to use a source like Wikipedia as the foundation for an argument, CHECK YOUR FACTS. Don't do like Anderson, and paraphrase incorrect information. Ouch.

Addendum: Article in the Guardian that both reviews Anderson's book, addresses the phenomenon that allows Google to pay nothing for art, and touches (too lightly, I feel!) on Anderson's liberal unattributed-quoting.