A while back, I had an email conversation with Kevin McArthur (on this
group) about what it would take to turn his project, mycelium:
http://mycelium.chanterelle.ca/ into a site like metavid: http://metavid.org,
with searchable transcripts.
He said that while the technical challenges were not so terrible, the
real issue was the crown copyright on the source video from parlvu:
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/UpcomingEvents.aspx. Recently, I was
reminded [1] that a group in the UK called the PublicWhip managed to
negotiate a click-use liscense for using the hansard transcript,
enabling them to re-package it as XML. I wonder if a similar deal is
possible with parlvu.
I'll do a bit of research on the public whip liscense this week, and
try sending an email to the parlvu contact email, and see if they
reply. In the meantime, please let me know if you have knowledge/
suggestions/ideas on how to free our parliamentary video.
Let me know what you find out. I've tried to run the site on the conservative side of fair dealing, and I know a bunch of MPs are aware of the site and no one has complained yet. That said, the HoC has pulled stuff from youtube and appear to defend their copyright when its abused (see http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1989/125/ ).
So its clearly a very thin line between what they find acceptable use, and what they find to be abuse of copyright.
I'm not interested in 'poking the bear' to find out exactly where that line is, but if you guys want to, I'll be happy to pass along my work and let you run it.
Jennifer Bell wrote: > A while back, I had an email conversation with Kevin McArthur (on this > group) about what it would take to turn his project, mycelium: > http://mycelium.chanterelle.ca/ into a site like metavid: http://metavid.org, > with searchable transcripts.
> He said that while the technical challenges were not so terrible, the > real issue was the crown copyright on the source video from parlvu: > http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/UpcomingEvents.aspx. Recently, I was > reminded [1] that a group in the UK called the PublicWhip managed to > negotiate a click-use liscense for using the hansard transcript, > enabling them to re-package it as XML. I wonder if a similar deal is > possible with parlvu.
> I'll do a bit of research on the public whip liscense this week, and > try sending an email to the parlvu contact email, and see if they > reply. In the meantime, please let me know if you have knowledge/ > suggestions/ideas on how to free our parliamentary video.
> Jennifer > [1] when re-reading this: http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/more-architecture/ > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VisibleGovernment Discuss" group. > To post to this group, send email to visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to visiblegovernment-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/visiblegovernment-discuss?hl=en > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--
Kevin McArthur
StormTide Digital Studios Inc. Author of the recently published book, "Pro PHP" http://www.stormtide.ca
One of the sites that got me interested in the whole idea of building online tools for government transparency and accessibility was MySociety's video matching game:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/video/
So MyCelium is a very interesting project to me, and I'd hate to see Crown Copyright get in the way of a truly useful and valuable public interest project like this.
It is of course always best to have an explicit licence to use the works (both the video and the transcript in this case). So I do think it would be worth exploring whether such a licence could be negotiated for little to no cost for a project that is clearly in the public interest.
But I also think such a use of parlvu video would likely be fair dealing in Canada. The boundaries of fair dealing are hard to identify, so there is some inherent risk in relying on fair dealing as the grounds on which you use a work. But the fact remains that there *is* a fair dealing exemption, and *something* falls within it. If unmodified, freely available parliamentary video and transcripts, improved by indexing with hansard transcripts is not fair dealing, then what is? And while it's true that the HoC has claimed infringement of copyright in the past, in at least the case of that one parody video on YouTube, the video in that particular case was much, much farther from the definition of fair dealing identified in the case CCH v. LSUC:
The hilarious parody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlD9hu7y8bU CCH v. LSUC: http://is.gd/hXS1
Watch that video, look at MyCelium and Metavid.org, and then read through the six factors that the Supreme Court of Canada outlined to define fair dealing, starting from paragraph 54 of the Court's decision. I think it is pretty clear how the parody video would differ on each factor from the supposed metavid.CA. Especially the "purpose", "character", "nature" and "effect" factors.
We would obviously need a legal opinion before pushing ahead on this path, but it is hard for me to imagine how a Metavid.CA type of site would fall outside of what the Court defined as fair dealing.
I am a lawyer, but this email is not that legal advice! However, I think we could get advice to that effect without too much trouble :-)
On a different but related note, it was suggested to me that a major expense in some government departments is the purchase of licences to use other departments' works that are under Crown Copyright. Like, Environment Canada writes a report, which is protected under Crown Copyright, and then in order for Industry Canada to use that report in their work, IC buys a licence from EC. Can anybody shed any light on these sorts of licensing arrangements?
> Let me know what you find out. I've tried to run the site on the > conservative side of fair dealing, and I know a bunch of MPs are aware > of the site and no one has complained yet. That said, the HoC has pulled > stuff from youtube and appear to defend their copyright when its abused > (see http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1989/125/ ).
> So its clearly a very thin line between what they find acceptable use, > and what they find to be abuse of copyright.
> I'm not interested in 'poking the bear' to find out exactly where that > line is, but if you guys want to, I'll be happy to pass along my work > and let you run it.
> Let me know,
> Kevin
> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>> A while back, I had an email conversation with Kevin McArthur (on this
>> group) about what it would take to turn his project, mycelium:
>> http://mycelium.chanterelle.ca/ into a site like metavid: >> http://metavid.org,
>> with searchable transcripts.
>> He said that while the technical challenges were not so terrible, the
>> real issue was the crown copyright on the source video from parlvu:
>> http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/UpcomingEvents.aspx. Recently, I was
>> reminded [1] that a group in the UK called the PublicWhip managed to
>> negotiate a click-use liscense for using the hansard transcript,
>> enabling them to re-package it as XML. I wonder if a similar deal is
>> possible with parlvu.
>> I'll do a bit of research on the public whip liscense this week, and
>> try sending an email to the parlvu contact email, and see if they
>> reply. In the meantime, please let me know if you have knowledge/
>> suggestions/ideas on how to free our parliamentary video.
As an update on this: I wasn't able to find much of a record of the
liscense that the PublicWhip group is using. I've emailed them my
questions directly.
In the meantime, I came accross this reccomendation in the Power of
Information Task Force's most recent report:
"When the public sector publishes information people should understand
that it is intended for re-use. Action is required to improve
understanding of Crown Copyright, which the Taskforce found to be mis-
understood by creators and re-users of data. Crown Copyright, despite
its historic name, is designed to encourage re-use in the majority of
cases yet the taskforce found little appreciation of this. There were
even suggestions that it was deterring potential re-users. OPSI
should begin a communications campaign to re-present and improve
understanding of the permissive aspects of Crown Copyright along the
lines of creative commons by end June 2009."
Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? Can anyone
comment on whether the UK version has evolved differently than the
Canadian one?
I've been sick with a cold for almost a week, so have been offline for
long stretches.
Jennifer
On Jan 31, 11:27 pm, Andy Kaplan-Myrth <a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
> One of the sites that got me interested in the whole idea of building
> online tools for government transparency and accessibility was
> MySociety's video matching game:
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/video/
> So MyCelium is a very interesting project to me, and I'd hate to see
> Crown Copyright get in the way of a truly useful and valuable public
> interest project like this.
> It is of course always best to have an explicit licence to use the works
> (both the video and the transcript in this case). So I do think it would
> be worth exploring whether such a licence could be negotiated for little
> to no cost for a project that is clearly in the public interest.
> But I also think such a use of parlvu video would likely be fair dealing
> in Canada. The boundaries of fair dealing are hard to identify, so there
> is some inherent risk in relying on fair dealing as the grounds on which
> you use a work. But the fact remains that there *is* a fair dealing
> exemption, and *something* falls within it. If unmodified, freely
> available parliamentary video and transcripts, improved by indexing with
> hansard transcripts is not fair dealing, then what is? And while it's
> true that the HoC has claimed infringement of copyright in the past, in
> at least the case of that one parody video on YouTube, the video in that
> particular case was much, much farther from the definition of fair
> dealing identified in the case CCH v. LSUC:
> The hilarious parody:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlD9hu7y8bU > CCH v. LSUC:http://is.gd/hXS1
> Watch that video, look at MyCelium and Metavid.org, and then read
> through the six factors that the Supreme Court of Canada outlined to
> define fair dealing, starting from paragraph 54 of the Court's decision.
> I think it is pretty clear how the parody video would differ on each
> factor from the supposed metavid.CA. Especially the "purpose",
> "character", "nature" and "effect" factors.
> We would obviously need a legal opinion before pushing ahead on this
> path, but it is hard for me to imagine how a Metavid.CA type of site
> would fall outside of what the Court defined as fair dealing.
> I am a lawyer, but this email is not that legal advice! However, I think
> we could get advice to that effect without too much trouble :-)
> On a different but related note, it was suggested to me that a major
> expense in some government departments is the purchase of licences to
> use other departments' works that are under Crown Copyright. Like,
> Environment Canada writes a report, which is protected under Crown
> Copyright, and then in order for Industry Canada to use that report in
> their work, IC buys a licence from EC. Can anybody shed any light on
> these sorts of licensing arrangements?
> Cheers,
> Andy
> Kevin McArthur wrote:
> > Hi Jennifer, et al...
> > Let me know what you find out. I've tried to run the site on the
> > conservative side of fair dealing, and I know a bunch of MPs are aware
> > of the site and no one has complained yet. That said, the HoC has pulled
> > stuff from youtube and appear to defend their copyright when its abused
> > (seehttp://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1989/125/).
> > So its clearly a very thin line between what they find acceptable use,
> > and what they find to be abuse of copyright.
> > I'm not interested in 'poking the bear' to find out exactly where that
> > line is, but if you guys want to, I'll be happy to pass along my work
> > and let you run it.
> > Let me know,
> > Kevin
> > Jennifer Bell wrote:
> >> A while back, I had an email conversation with Kevin McArthur (on this
> >> group) about what it would take to turn his project, mycelium:
> >>http://mycelium.chanterelle.ca/into a site like metavid:
> >>http://metavid.org,
> >> with searchable transcripts.
> >> He said that while the technical challenges were not so terrible, the
> >> real issue was the crown copyright on the source video from parlvu:
> >>http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/UpcomingEvents.aspx. Recently, I was
> >> reminded [1] that a group in the UK called the PublicWhip managed to
> >> negotiate a click-use liscense for using the hansard transcript,
> >> enabling them to re-package it as XML. I wonder if a similar deal is
> >> possible with parlvu.
> >> I'll do a bit of research on the public whip liscense this week, and
> >> try sending an email to the parlvu contact email, and see if they
> >> reply. In the meantime, please let me know if you have knowledge/
> >> suggestions/ideas on how to free our parliamentary video.
That's very interesting indeed. In Canada, the gloss that various governments put on Crown Copyright is that it allows some degree of control for the accuracy of reproductions of government documents. The federal government has an official policy permitting reproduction of legislation and court decisions.
But my understanding from other sources is that of the organizations that pay for licences under Crown Copyright, the one that by far pays the most is the government itself. That is, one department actually buys reproduction rights to a document published under Crown Copyright by another department.
In fact, a friend of mine heard about Visible Government and asked if we'd be interested in a project that looked into an accounting of spending for Crown Copyright licences...
Jennifer Bell wrote:
> As an update on this: I wasn't able to find much of a record of the
> liscense that the PublicWhip group is using. I've emailed them my
> questions directly.
> In the meantime, I came accross this reccomendation in the Power of
> Information Task Force's most recent report:
> "When the public sector publishes information people should understand
> that it is intended for re-use. Action is required to improve
> understanding of Crown Copyright, which the Taskforce found to be mis-
> understood by creators and re-users of data. Crown Copyright, despite
> its historic name, is designed to encourage re-use in the majority of
> cases yet the taskforce found little appreciation of this. There were
> even suggestions that it was deterring potential re-users. OPSI
> should begin a communications campaign to re-present and improve
> understanding of the permissive aspects of Crown Copyright along the
> lines of creative commons by end June 2009."
> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? Can anyone
> comment on whether the UK version has evolved differently than the
> Canadian one?
> I've been sick with a cold for almost a week, so have been offline for
> long stretches.
> Jennifer
> On Jan 31, 11:27 pm, Andy Kaplan-Myrth <a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> One of the sites that got me interested in the whole idea of building
>> online tools for government transparency and accessibility was
>> MySociety's video matching game:
>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/video/
>> So MyCelium is a very interesting project to me, and I'd hate to see
>> Crown Copyright get in the way of a truly useful and valuable public
>> interest project like this.
>> It is of course always best to have an explicit licence to use the works
>> (both the video and the transcript in this case). So I do think it would
>> be worth exploring whether such a licence could be negotiated for little
>> to no cost for a project that is clearly in the public interest.
>> But I also think such a use of parlvu video would likely be fair dealing
>> in Canada. The boundaries of fair dealing are hard to identify, so there
>> is some inherent risk in relying on fair dealing as the grounds on which
>> you use a work. But the fact remains that there *is* a fair dealing
>> exemption, and *something* falls within it. If unmodified, freely
>> available parliamentary video and transcripts, improved by indexing with
>> hansard transcripts is not fair dealing, then what is? And while it's
>> true that the HoC has claimed infringement of copyright in the past, in
>> at least the case of that one parody video on YouTube, the video in that
>> particular case was much, much farther from the definition of fair
>> dealing identified in the case CCH v. LSUC:
>> The hilarious parody:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlD9hu7y8bU >> CCH v. LSUC:http://is.gd/hXS1
>> Watch that video, look at MyCelium and Metavid.org, and then read
>> through the six factors that the Supreme Court of Canada outlined to
>> define fair dealing, starting from paragraph 54 of the Court's decision.
>> I think it is pretty clear how the parody video would differ on each
>> factor from the supposed metavid.CA. Especially the "purpose",
>> "character", "nature" and "effect" factors.
>> We would obviously need a legal opinion before pushing ahead on this
>> path, but it is hard for me to imagine how a Metavid.CA type of site
>> would fall outside of what the Court defined as fair dealing.
>> I am a lawyer, but this email is not that legal advice! However, I think
>> we could get advice to that effect without too much trouble :-)
>> On a different but related note, it was suggested to me that a major
>> expense in some government departments is the purchase of licences to
>> use other departments' works that are under Crown Copyright. Like,
>> Environment Canada writes a report, which is protected under Crown
>> Copyright, and then in order for Industry Canada to use that report in
>> their work, IC buys a licence from EC. Can anybody shed any light on
>> these sorts of licensing arrangements?
>> Cheers,
>> Andy
>> Kevin McArthur wrote:
>>> Hi Jennifer, et al...
>>> Let me know what you find out. I've tried to run the site on the
>>> conservative side of fair dealing, and I know a bunch of MPs are aware
>>> of the site and no one has complained yet. That said, the HoC has pulled
>>> stuff from youtube and appear to defend their copyright when its abused
>>> (seehttp://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1989/125/).
>>> So its clearly a very thin line between what they find acceptable use,
>>> and what they find to be abuse of copyright.
>>> I'm not interested in 'poking the bear' to find out exactly where that
>>> line is, but if you guys want to, I'll be happy to pass along my work
>>> and let you run it.
>>> Let me know,
>>> Kevin
>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>>>> A while back, I had an email conversation with Kevin McArthur (on this
>>>> group) about what it would take to turn his project, mycelium:
>>>> http://mycelium.chanterelle.ca/into a site like metavid:
>>>> http://metavid.org,
>>>> with searchable transcripts.
>>>> He said that while the technical challenges were not so terrible, the
>>>> real issue was the crown copyright on the source video from parlvu:
>>>> http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/UpcomingEvents.aspx. Recently, I was
>>>> reminded [1] that a group in the UK called the PublicWhip managed to
>>>> negotiate a click-use liscense for using the hansard transcript,
>>>> enabling them to re-package it as XML. I wonder if a similar deal is
>>>> possible with parlvu.
>>>> I'll do a bit of research on the public whip liscense this week, and
>>>> try sending an email to the parlvu contact email, and see if they
>>>> reply. In the meantime, please let me know if you have knowledge/
>>>> suggestions/ideas on how to free our parliamentary video.
>>>> Jennifer
>>>> [1] when re-reading this:
>>>> http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/more-architecture/ >> --
>> Andy Kaplan-Myrth, M.A., LL.B.
>> Barrister & Solicitor
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> email: a...@kaplan-myrth.ca
>> web:http://kaplan-myrth.ca >> blog:http://blog.kaplan-myrth.ca >> ------------------------------------------------
I found the following paragraph potentially of interest to this group:
Google.org has made over $100 million in investments in three areas: global health, clean energy and access to information. They include projects like developing renewable energy that is cheaper than coal and preventing the spread of disease.
Jennifer Bell wrote: > As an update on this: I wasn't able to find much of a record of the > liscense that the PublicWhip group is using. I've emailed them my > questions directly.
> In the meantime, I came accross this reccomendation in the Power of > Information Task Force's most recent report:
> "When the public sector publishes information people should understand > that it is intended for re-use. Action is required to improve > understanding of Crown Copyright, which the Taskforce found to be mis- > understood by creators and re-users of data. Crown Copyright, despite > its historic name, is designed to encourage re-use in the majority of > cases yet the taskforce found little appreciation of this. There were > even suggestions that it was deterring potential re-users. OPSI > should begin a communications campaign to re-present and improve > understanding of the permissive aspects of Crown Copyright along the > lines of creative commons by end June 2009."
> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? Can anyone > comment on whether the UK version has evolved differently than the > Canadian one?
> I've been sick with a cold for almost a week, so have been offline for > long stretches.
> Jennifer
> On Jan 31, 11:27 pm, Andy Kaplan-Myrth <a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> One of the sites that got me interested in the whole idea of building >> online tools for government transparency and accessibility was >> MySociety's video matching game: >> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/video/
>> So MyCelium is a very interesting project to me, and I'd hate to see >> Crown Copyright get in the way of a truly useful and valuable public >> interest project like this.
>> It is of course always best to have an explicit licence to use the works >> (both the video and the transcript in this case). So I do think it would >> be worth exploring whether such a licence could be negotiated for little >> to no cost for a project that is clearly in the public interest.
>> But I also think such a use of parlvu video would likely be fair dealing >> in Canada. The boundaries of fair dealing are hard to identify, so there >> is some inherent risk in relying on fair dealing as the grounds on which >> you use a work. But the fact remains that there *is* a fair dealing >> exemption, and *something* falls within it. If unmodified, freely >> available parliamentary video and transcripts, improved by indexing with >> hansard transcripts is not fair dealing, then what is? And while it's >> true that the HoC has claimed infringement of copyright in the past, in >> at least the case of that one parody video on YouTube, the video in that >> particular case was much, much farther from the definition of fair >> dealing identified in the case CCH v. LSUC: >> The hilarious parody:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlD9hu7y8bU >> CCH v. LSUC:http://is.gd/hXS1
>> Watch that video, look at MyCelium and Metavid.org, and then read >> through the six factors that the Supreme Court of Canada outlined to >> define fair dealing, starting from paragraph 54 of the Court's decision. >> I think it is pretty clear how the parody video would differ on each >> factor from the supposed metavid.CA. Especially the "purpose", >> "character", "nature" and "effect" factors.
>> We would obviously need a legal opinion before pushing ahead on this >> path, but it is hard for me to imagine how a Metavid.CA type of site >> would fall outside of what the Court defined as fair dealing.
>> I am a lawyer, but this email is not that legal advice! However, I think >> we could get advice to that effect without too much trouble :-)
>> On a different but related note, it was suggested to me that a major >> expense in some government departments is the purchase of licences to >> use other departments' works that are under Crown Copyright. Like, >> Environment Canada writes a report, which is protected under Crown >> Copyright, and then in order for Industry Canada to use that report in >> their work, IC buys a licence from EC. Can anybody shed any light on >> these sorts of licensing arrangements?
>> Cheers, >> Andy
>> Kevin McArthur wrote:
>>> Hi Jennifer, et al...
>>> Let me know what you find out. I've tried to run the site on the >>> conservative side of fair dealing, and I know a bunch of MPs are aware >>> of the site and no one has complained yet. That said, the HoC has pulled >>> stuff from youtube and appear to defend their copyright when its abused >>> (seehttp://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1989/125/).
>>> So its clearly a very thin line between what they find acceptable use, >>> and what they find to be abuse of copyright.
>>> I'm not interested in 'poking the bear' to find out exactly where that >>> line is, but if you guys want to, I'll be happy to pass along my work >>> and let you run it.
>>> Let me know,
>>> Kevin
>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>>>> A while back, I had an email conversation with Kevin McArthur (on this >>>> group) about what it would take to turn his project, mycelium: >>>> http://mycelium.chanterelle.ca/into a site like metavid: >>>> http://metavid.org, >>>> with searchable transcripts.
>>>> He said that while the technical challenges were not so terrible, the >>>> real issue was the crown copyright on the source video from parlvu: >>>> http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/UpcomingEvents.aspx. Recently, I was >>>> reminded [1] that a group in the UK called the PublicWhip managed to >>>> negotiate a click-use liscense for using the hansard transcript, >>>> enabling them to re-package it as XML. I wonder if a similar deal is >>>> possible with parlvu.
>>>> I'll do a bit of research on the public whip liscense this week, and >>>> try sending an email to the parlvu contact email, and see if they >>>> reply. In the meantime, please let me know if you have knowledge/ >>>> suggestions/ideas on how to free our parliamentary video.
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VisibleGovernment Discuss" group. > To post to this group, send email to visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to visiblegovernment-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/visiblegovernment-discuss?hl=en > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--
Kevin McArthur
StormTide Digital Studios Inc. Author of the recently published book, "Pro PHP" http://www.stormtide.ca
Thanks for the link to the article, Kevin. I like the example of use
for a picture being denied because it was going to be used in a
negative article. Nice!
I finally found a link for the official site of the UK's 'Click-Use'
liscense. It's apparently something invented by the UK government's
Office of Public Sector Information, a division of the naitional
archives. The site states that the liscense enables re-use of crown-
copyright materials (which seems to imply that UK crown copyright is
not so re-useable, after all).
Also noteable is the Office of Public Sector Information unlocking
service, which seems to be collecting votes for unlocking public data
sets. Strangely, it doesn't seem that well used.
From Andy:
> In fact, a friend of mine heard about Visible Government and asked if
> we'd be interested in a project that looked into an accounting of
> spending for Crown Copyright licences...
Here's an interesting comment about where Crown copyright prevented re-
use of information in Australia. I'm not well educated on this topic,
but it seems worth exploring.
"The massive forest fire that continues to ravage Australia's mainland
became a struggle for the freedom of information. While geographical
data about the fires was readily available from the Country Fire
Authority, when Google tried to get information on fires that were on
public lands the company hit a dead end.
Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment would not
share its data, which was deemed private due to the Crown copyright
provisions, a set of rules that limits government information from
being shared with the public or private companies. Google Australia
instead went with satellite imagery from NASA for use on its special
maps layer that's tracking the spread and control of fires.
This satellite imagery of the quake was provided by NASA when the
Australian government would not provide geodata on where the fires
were."
So, let me get this straight - NASA info = open, A state department
funded with public money = closed. I blame bureaucracy.
On Feb 24, 12:30 pm, Kevin McArthur <ke...@stormtide.ca> wrote:
> Jennifer Bell wrote:
> > As an update on this: I wasn't able to find much of a record of the
> > liscense that the PublicWhip group is using. I've emailed them my
> > questions directly.
> > In the meantime, I came accross this reccomendation in the Power of
> > Information Task Force's most recent report:
> > "When the public sector publishes information people should understand
> > that it is intended for re-use. Action is required to improve
> > understanding of Crown Copyright, which the Taskforce found to be mis-
> > understood by creators and re-users of data. Crown Copyright, despite
> > its historic name, is designed to encourage re-use in the majority of
> > cases yet the taskforce found little appreciation of this. There were
> > even suggestions that it was deterring potential re-users. OPSI
> > should begin a communications campaign to re-present and improve
> > understanding of the permissive aspects of Crown Copyright along the
> > lines of creative commons by end June 2009."
> > Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? Can anyone
> > comment on whether the UK version has evolved differently than the
> > Canadian one?
> > I've been sick with a cold for almost a week, so have been offline for
> > long stretches.
> > Jennifer
> > On Jan 31, 11:27 pm, Andy Kaplan-Myrth <a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >> One of the sites that got me interested in the whole idea of building
> >> online tools for government transparency and accessibility was
> >> MySociety's video matching game:
> >> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/video/
> >> So MyCelium is a very interesting project to me, and I'd hate to see
> >> Crown Copyright get in the way of a truly useful and valuable public
> >> interest project like this.
> >> It is of course always best to have an explicit licence to use the works
> >> (both the video and the transcript in this case). So I do think it would
> >> be worth exploring whether such a licence could be negotiated for little
> >> to no cost for a project that is clearly in the public interest.
> >> But I also think such a use of parlvu video would likely be fair dealing
> >> in Canada. The boundaries of fair dealing are hard to identify, so there
> >> is some inherent risk in relying on fair dealing as the grounds on which
> >> you use a work. But the fact remains that there *is* a fair dealing
> >> exemption, and *something* falls within it. If unmodified, freely
> >> available parliamentary video and transcripts, improved by indexing with
> >> hansard transcripts is not fair dealing, then what is? And while it's
> >> true that the HoC has claimed infringement of copyright in the past, in
> >> at least the case of that one parody video on YouTube, the video in that
> >> particular case was much, much farther from the definition of fair
> >> dealing identified in the case CCH v. LSUC:
> >> The hilarious parody:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlD9hu7y8bU > >> CCH v. LSUC:http://is.gd/hXS1
> >> Watch that video, look at MyCelium and Metavid.org, and then read
> >> through the six factors that the Supreme Court of Canada outlined to
> >> define fair dealing, starting from paragraph 54 of the Court's decision.
> >> I think it is pretty clear how the parody video would differ on each
> >> factor from the supposed metavid.CA. Especially the "purpose",
> >> "character", "nature" and "effect" factors.
> >> We would obviously need a legal opinion before pushing ahead on this
> >> path, but it is hard for me to imagine how a Metavid.CA type of site
> >> would fall outside of what the Court defined as fair dealing.
> >> I am a lawyer, but this email is not that legal advice! However, I think
> >> we could get advice to that effect without too much trouble :-)
> >> On a different but related note, it was suggested to me that a major
> >> expense in some government departments is the purchase of licences to
> >> use other departments' works that are under Crown Copyright. Like,
> >> Environment Canada writes a report, which is protected under Crown
> >> Copyright, and then in order for Industry Canada to use that report in
> >> their work, IC buys a licence from EC. Can anybody shed any light on
> >> these sorts of licensing arrangements?
> >> Cheers,
> >> Andy
> >> Kevin McArthur wrote:
> >>> Hi Jennifer, et al...
> >>> Let me know what you find out. I've tried to run the site on the
> >>> conservative side of fair dealing, and I know a bunch of MPs are aware
> >>> of the site and no one has complained yet. That said, the HoC has pulled
> >>> stuff from youtube and appear to defend their copyright when its abused
> >>> (seehttp://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1989/125/).
> >>> So its clearly a very thin line between what they find acceptable use,
> >>> and what they find to be abuse of copyright.
> >>> I'm not interested in 'poking the bear' to find out exactly where that
> >>> line is, but if you guys want to, I'll be happy to pass along my work
> >>> and let you run it.
> >>> Let me know,
> >>> Kevin
> >>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
> >>>> A while back, I had an email conversation with Kevin McArthur (on this
> >>>> group) about what it would take to turn his project, mycelium:
> >>>>http://mycelium.chanterelle.ca/intoa site like metavid:
> >>>>http://metavid.org,
> >>>> with searchable transcripts.
> >>>> He said that while the technical challenges were not so terrible, the
> >>>> real issue was the crown copyright on the source video from parlvu:
> >>>>http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/UpcomingEvents.aspx. Recently, I was
> >>>> reminded [1] that a group in the UK called the PublicWhip managed to
> >>>> negotiate a click-use liscense for using the hansard transcript,
> >>>> enabling them to re-package it as XML. I wonder if a similar deal is
> >>>> possible with parlvu.
> >>>> I'll do a bit of research on the public whip liscense this week, and
> >>>> try sending an email to the parlvu contact email, and see if they
> >>>> reply. In the meantime, please let me know if you have knowledge/
> >>>> suggestions/ideas on how to free our parliamentary video.
I had another conversation recently that reminded me of this neat
thread. I never heard back from parlvu [1] when I enquired to their
contact email about the possiblity for a click-use liscense[2], like
the one offered by the Office of the Public Sector in the UK, to free
up content for re-use. (This is the liscense that the Public Whip
uses to re-distribute the Hansard in the UK.)
It was recently suggested to me that the Government of Canada Library
of Parliament would be a good resource and potential ally. It's
quite possible that this department might be very good as a first
contact for talking about redistribution liscenses. If anyone knows
someone in the Library of Parliament, please let me know. Sometimes
personal contacts help get things rolling.
Are there other groups who are actively working on this?
> Here's an interesting comment about where Crown copyright prevented re-
> use of information in Australia. I'm not well educated on this topic,
> but it seems worth exploring.
> "The massive forest fire that continues to ravage Australia's mainland
> became a struggle for the freedom of information. While geographical
> data about the fires was readily available from the Country Fire
> Authority, when Google tried to get information on fires that were on
> public lands the company hit a dead end.
> Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment would not
> share its data, which was deemed private due to the Crown copyright
> provisions, a set of rules that limits government information from
> being shared with the public or private companies. Google Australia
> instead went with satellite imagery from NASA for use on its special
> maps layer that's tracking the spread and control of fires.
> This satellite imagery of the quake was provided by NASA when the
> Australian government would not provide geodata on where the fires
> were."
> So, let me get this straight - NASA info = open, A state department
> funded with public money = closed. I blame bureaucracy.
> On Feb 24, 12:30 pm, Kevin McArthur <ke...@stormtide.ca> wrote:
> > > Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really?
> > Jennifer Bell wrote:
> > > As an update on this: I wasn't able to find much of a record of the
> > > liscense that the PublicWhip group is using. I've emailed them my
> > > questions directly.
> > > In the meantime, I came accross this reccomendation in the Power of
> > > Information Task Force's most recent report:
> > > "When the public sector publishes information people should understand
> > > that it is intended for re-use. Action is required to improve
> > > understanding of Crown Copyright, which the Taskforce found to be mis-
> > > understood by creators and re-users of data. Crown Copyright, despite
> > > its historic name, is designed to encourage re-use in the majority of
> > > cases yet the taskforce found little appreciation of this. There were
> > > even suggestions that it was deterring potential re-users. OPSI
> > > should begin a communications campaign to re-present and improve
> > > understanding of the permissive aspects of Crown Copyright along the
> > > lines of creative commons by end June 2009."
> > > Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? Can anyone
> > > comment on whether the UK version has evolved differently than the
> > > Canadian one?
> > > I've been sick with a cold for almost a week, so have been offline for
> > > long stretches.
> > > Jennifer
> > > On Jan 31, 11:27 pm, Andy Kaplan-Myrth <a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
> > >> Hi everyone,
> > >> One of the sites that got me interested in the whole idea of building
> > >> online tools for government transparency and accessibility was
> > >> MySociety's video matching game:
> > >> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/video/
> > >> SoMyCeliumis a very interesting project to me, and I'd hate to see
> > >> Crown Copyright get in the way of a truly useful and valuable public
> > >> interest project like this.
> > >> It is of course always best to have an explicit licence to use the works
> > >> (both the video and the transcript in this case). So I do think it would
> > >> be worth exploring whether such a licence could be negotiated for little
> > >> to no cost for a project that is clearly in the public interest.
> > >> But I also think such a use of parlvu video would likely be fair dealing
> > >> in Canada. The boundaries of fair dealing are hard to identify, so there
> > >> is some inherent risk in relying on fair dealing as the grounds on which
> > >> you use a work. But the fact remains that there *is* a fair dealing
> > >> exemption, and *something* falls within it. If unmodified, freely
> > >> available parliamentary video and transcripts, improved by indexing with
> > >> hansard transcripts is not fair dealing, then what is? And while it's
> > >> true that the HoC has claimed infringement of copyright in the past, in
> > >> at least the case of that one parody video on YouTube, the video in that
> > >> particular case was much, much farther from the definition of fair
> > >> dealing identified in the case CCH v. LSUC:
> > >> The hilarious parody:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlD9hu7y8bU > > >> CCH v. LSUC:http://is.gd/hXS1
> > >> Watch that video, look atMyCeliumand Metavid.org, and then read
> > >> through the six factors that the Supreme Court of Canada outlined to
> > >> define fair dealing, starting from paragraph 54 of the Court's decision.
> > >> I think it is pretty clear how the parody video would differ on each
> > >> factor from the supposed metavid.CA. Especially the "purpose",
> > >> "character", "nature" and "effect" factors.
> > >> We would obviously need a legal opinion before pushing ahead on this
> > >> path, but it is hard for me to imagine how a Metavid.CA type of site
> > >> would fall outside of what the Court defined as fair dealing.
> > >> I am a lawyer, but this email is not that legal advice! However, I think
> > >> we could get advice to that effect without too much trouble :-)
> > >> On a different but related note, it was suggested to me that a major
> > >> expense in some government departments is the purchase of licences to
> > >> use other departments' works that are under Crown Copyright. Like,
> > >> Environment Canada writes a report, which is protected under Crown
> > >> Copyright, and then in order for Industry Canada to use that report in
> > >> their work, IC buys a licence from EC. Can anybody shed any light on
> > >> these sorts of licensing arrangements?
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Andy
> > >> Kevin McArthur wrote:
> > >>> Hi Jennifer, et al...
> > >>> Let me know what you find out. I've tried to run the site on the
> > >>> conservative side of fair dealing, and I know a bunch of MPs are aware
> > >>> of the site and no one has complained yet. That said, the HoC has pulled
> > >>> stuff from youtube and appear to defend their copyright when its abused
> > >>> (seehttp://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1989/125/).
> > >>> So its clearly a very thin line between what they find acceptable use,
> > >>> and what they find to be abuse of copyright.
> > >>> I'm not interested in 'poking the bear' to find out exactly where that
> > >>> line is, but if you guys want to, I'll be happy to pass along my work
> > >>> and let you run it.
> > >>> Let me know,
> > >>> Kevin
> > >>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
> > >>>> A while back, I had an email conversation with Kevin McArthur (on this
> > >>>> group) about what it would take to turn his project,mycelium:
> > >>>>http://mycelium.chanterelle.ca/intoasite like metavid:
> > >>>>http://metavid.org,
> > >>>> with searchable transcripts.
> > >>>> He said that while the technical challenges were not so terrible, the
> > >>>> real issue was the crown copyright on the source video from parlvu:
> > >>>>http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/UpcomingEvents.aspx. Recently, I was
> > >>>> reminded [1] that a group in the UK called the PublicWhip managed to
> > >>>> negotiate a click-use liscense for using the hansard transcript,
> > >>>> enabling them to re-package it as XML. I wonder if a similar deal is
> > >>>> possible with parlvu.
> > >>>> I'll do a bit of research on the public whip liscense this week, and
> > >>>> try sending an email to the parlvu contact email, and see if they
> > >>>> reply. In the meantime, please let me know if you have knowledge/
> > >>>> suggestions/ideas on how to free our parliamentary video.
Jennifer Bell wrote: > I had another conversation recently that reminded me of this neat > thread. I never heard back from parlvu [1] when I enquired to their > contact email about the possiblity for a click-use liscense[2], like > the one offered by the Office of the Public Sector in the UK, to free > up content for re-use. (This is the liscense that the Public Whip > uses to re-distribute the Hansard in the UK.)
> It was recently suggested to me that the Government of Canada Library > of Parliament would be a good resource and potential ally. It's > quite possible that this department might be very good as a first > contact for talking about redistribution liscenses. If anyone knows > someone in the Library of Parliament, please let me know. Sometimes > personal contacts help get things rolling.
> Are there other groups who are actively working on this?
> On Feb 25, 11:11 am, Laura <lmwes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Here's an interesting comment about where Crown copyright prevented re- >> use of information in Australia. I'm not well educated on this topic, >> but it seems worth exploring.
>> "The massive forest fire that continues to ravage Australia's mainland >> became a struggle for the freedom of information. While geographical >> data about the fires was readily available from the Country Fire >> Authority, when Google tried to get information on fires that were on >> public lands the company hit a dead end.
>> Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment would not >> share its data, which was deemed private due to the Crown copyright >> provisions, a set of rules that limits government information from >> being shared with the public or private companies. Google Australia >> instead went with satellite imagery from NASA for use on its special >> maps layer that's tracking the spread and control of fires.
>> This satellite imagery of the quake was provided by NASA when the >> Australian government would not provide geodata on where the fires >> were."
>> So, let me get this straight - NASA info = open, A state department >> funded with public money = closed. I blame bureaucracy.
>> On Feb 24, 12:30 pm, Kevin McArthur <ke...@stormtide.ca> wrote:
>>>> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really?
>>>> As an update on this: I wasn't able to find much of a record of the >>>> liscense that the PublicWhip group is using. I've emailed them my >>>> questions directly.
>>>> In the meantime, I came accross this reccomendation in the Power of >>>> Information Task Force's most recent report:
>>>> "When the public sector publishes information people should understand >>>> that it is intended for re-use. Action is required to improve >>>> understanding of Crown Copyright, which the Taskforce found to be mis- >>>> understood by creators and re-users of data. Crown Copyright, despite >>>> its historic name, is designed to encourage re-use in the majority of >>>> cases yet the taskforce found little appreciation of this. There were >>>> even suggestions that it was deterring potential re-users. OPSI >>>> should begin a communications campaign to re-present and improve >>>> understanding of the permissive aspects of Crown Copyright along the >>>> lines of creative commons by end June 2009."
>>>> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? Can anyone >>>> comment on whether the UK version has evolved differently than the >>>> Canadian one?
>>>> I've been sick with a cold for almost a week, so have been offline for >>>> long stretches.
>>>> Jennifer
>>>> On Jan 31, 11:27 pm, Andy Kaplan-Myrth <a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> One of the sites that got me interested in the whole idea of building >>>>> online tools for government transparency and accessibility was >>>>> MySociety's video matching game: >>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/video/
>>>>> SoMyCeliumis a very interesting project to me, and I'd hate to see >>>>> Crown Copyright get in the way of a truly useful and valuable public >>>>> interest project like this.
>>>>> It is of course always best to have an explicit licence to use the works >>>>> (both the video and the transcript in this case). So I do think it would >>>>> be worth exploring whether such a licence could be negotiated for little >>>>> to no cost for a project that is clearly in the public interest.
>>>>> But I also think such a use of parlvu video would likely be fair dealing >>>>> in Canada. The boundaries of fair dealing are hard to identify, so there >>>>> is some inherent risk in relying on fair dealing as the grounds on which >>>>> you use a work. But the fact remains that there *is* a fair dealing >>>>> exemption, and *something* falls within it. If unmodified, freely >>>>> available parliamentary video and transcripts, improved by indexing with >>>>> hansard transcripts is not fair dealing, then what is? And while it's >>>>> true that the HoC has claimed infringement of copyright in the past, in >>>>> at least the case of that one parody video on YouTube, the video in that >>>>> particular case was much, much farther from the definition of fair >>>>> dealing identified in the case CCH v. LSUC: >>>>> The hilarious parody:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlD9hu7y8bU >>>>> CCH v. LSUC:http://is.gd/hXS1
>>>>> Watch that video, look atMyCeliumand Metavid.org, and then read >>>>> through the six factors that the Supreme Court of Canada outlined to >>>>> define fair dealing, starting from paragraph 54 of the Court's decision. >>>>> I think it is pretty clear how the parody video would differ on each >>>>> factor from the supposed metavid.CA. Especially the "purpose", >>>>> "character", "nature" and "effect" factors.
>>>>> We would obviously need a legal opinion before pushing ahead on this >>>>> path, but it is hard for me to imagine how a Metavid.CA type of site >>>>> would fall outside of what the Court defined as fair dealing.
>>>>> I am a lawyer, but this email is not that legal advice! However, I think >>>>> we could get advice to that effect without too much trouble :-)
>>>>> On a different but related note, it was suggested to me that a major >>>>> expense in some government departments is the purchase of licences to >>>>> use other departments' works that are under Crown Copyright. Like, >>>>> Environment Canada writes a report, which is protected under Crown >>>>> Copyright, and then in order for Industry Canada to use that report in >>>>> their work, IC buys a licence from EC. Can anybody shed any light on >>>>> these sorts of licensing arrangements?
>>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Andy
>>>>> Kevin McArthur wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jennifer, et al...
>>>>>> Let me know what you find out. I've tried to run the site on the >>>>>> conservative side of fair dealing, and I know a bunch of MPs are aware >>>>>> of the site and no one has complained yet. That said, the HoC has pulled >>>>>> stuff from youtube and appear to defend their copyright when its abused >>>>>> (seehttp://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1989/125/).
>>>>>> So its clearly a very thin line between what they find acceptable use, >>>>>> and what they find to be abuse of copyright.
>>>>>> I'm not interested in 'poking the bear' to find out exactly where that >>>>>> line is, but if you guys want to, I'll be happy to pass along my work >>>>>> and let you run it.
>>>>>> Let me know,
>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>>>>>>> A while back, I had an email conversation with Kevin McArthur (on this >>>>>>> group) about what it would take to turn his project,mycelium: >>>>>>> http://mycelium.chanterelle.ca/intoasite like metavid: >>>>>>> http://metavid.org, >>>>>>> with searchable transcripts.
>>>>>>> He said that while the technical challenges were not so terrible, the >>>>>>> real issue was the crown copyright on the source video from parlvu: >>>>>>> http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/UpcomingEvents.aspx. Recently, I was >>>>>>> reminded [1] that a group in the UK called the PublicWhip managed to >>>>>>> negotiate a click-use liscense for using the hansard transcript, >>>>>>> enabling them to re-package it as XML. I wonder if a similar deal is >>>>>>> possible with parlvu.
>>>>>>> I'll do a bit of research on the public whip liscense this week, and >>>>>>> try sending an email to the parlvu contact email, and see if they >>>>>>> reply. In the meantime, please let me know if you have knowledge/ >>>>>>> suggestions/ideas on how to free our parliamentary video.
> I was reading in the Globe and Mail today about a government site > that publishes statistics on schools. Teachers' unions (big > surprise) are complaining that this is a "ranking site" -- if you've > seen Bill Gates' TED presentation, you'll know how resistant > teachers are to public scrutiny and transparency.
> It seems like this is a case of the government trying to do the > right thing, and getting scolded. We should be encouraging this > initiative, IMHO, otherwise the teachers will have their way.
> "This is absolutely not about ranking schools. This is about > transparency and providing the information to parents," said a > spokeswoman for Minister of Education Kathleen Wynne, "Parents have > expressed that they want to know more about their schools. What > we've done through this site is bring a variety of information > together in one place."
I had a contact in the Speakers office who I was trying to engage on
this, but our email exchange died. I could try to start that up again
if you want.
--
Andy Kaplan-Myrth, LL.B., M.A.
Barrister & Solicitor
------------------------------------------------
email: a...@kaplan-myrth.ca
web: http://kaplan-myrth.ca ------------------------------------------------
PGP Key ID 0xE9349025
------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Kevin McArthur <ke...@stormtide.ca> wrote:
> Jennifer,
> Have you tried the Office of the Speaker... might be more helpful than the
> ParlVU crew.
> Kevin
> Jennifer Bell wrote:
> I had another conversation recently that reminded me of this neat
> thread. I never heard back from parlvu [1] when I enquired to their
> contact email about the possiblity for a click-use liscense[2], like
> the one offered by the Office of the Public Sector in the UK, to free
> up content for re-use. (This is the liscense that the Public Whip
> uses to re-distribute the Hansard in the UK.)
> It was recently suggested to me that the Government of Canada Library
> of Parliament would be a good resource and potential ally. It's
> quite possible that this department might be very good as a first
> contact for talking about redistribution liscenses. If anyone knows
> someone in the Library of Parliament, please let me know. Sometimes
> personal contacts help get things rolling.
> Are there other groups who are actively working on this?
> On Feb 25, 11:11 am, Laura <lmwes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here's an interesting comment about where Crown copyright prevented re-
> use of information in Australia. I'm not well educated on this topic,
> but it seems worth exploring.
> "The massive forest fire that continues to ravage Australia's mainland
> became a struggle for the freedom of information. While geographical
> data about the fires was readily available from the Country Fire
> Authority, when Google tried to get information on fires that were on
> public lands the company hit a dead end.
> Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment would not
> share its data, which was deemed private due to the Crown copyright
> provisions, a set of rules that limits government information from
> being shared with the public or private companies. Google Australia
> instead went with satellite imagery from NASA for use on its special
> maps layer that's tracking the spread and control of fires.
> This satellite imagery of the quake was provided by NASA when the
> Australian government would not provide geodata on where the fires
> were."
> So, let me get this straight - NASA info = open, A state department
> funded with public money = closed. I blame bureaucracy.
> On Feb 24, 12:30 pm, Kevin McArthur <ke...@stormtide.ca> wrote:
> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really?
> As an update on this: I wasn't able to find much of a record of the
> liscense that the PublicWhip group is using. I've emailed them my
> questions directly.
> In the meantime, I came accross this reccomendation in the Power of
> Information Task Force's most recent report:
> "When the public sector publishes information people should understand
> that it is intended for re-use. Action is required to improve
> understanding of Crown Copyright, which the Taskforce found to be mis-
> understood by creators and re-users of data. Crown Copyright, despite
> its historic name, is designed to encourage re-use in the majority of
> cases yet the taskforce found little appreciation of this. There were
> even suggestions that it was deterring potential re-users. OPSI
> should begin a communications campaign to re-present and improve
> understanding of the permissive aspects of Crown Copyright along the
> lines of creative commons by end June 2009."
> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? Can anyone
> comment on whether the UK version has evolved differently than the
> Canadian one?
> I've been sick with a cold for almost a week, so have been offline for
> long stretches.
> Jennifer
> On Jan 31, 11:27 pm, Andy Kaplan-Myrth <a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> One of the sites that got me interested in the whole idea of building
> online tools for government transparency and accessibility was
> MySociety's video matching game:
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/video/
> SoMyCeliumis a very interesting project to me, and I'd hate to see
> Crown Copyright get in the way of a truly useful and valuable public
> interest project like this.
> It is of course always best to have an explicit licence to use the works
> (both the video and the transcript in this case). So I do think it would
> be worth exploring whether such a licence could be negotiated for little
> to no cost for a project that is clearly in the public interest.
> But I also think such a use of parlvu video would likely be fair dealing
> in Canada. The boundaries of fair dealing are hard to identify, so there
> is some inherent risk in relying on fair dealing as the grounds on which
> you use a work. But the fact remains that there *is* a fair dealing
> exemption, and *something* falls within it. If unmodified, freely
> available parliamentary video and transcripts, improved by indexing with
> hansard transcripts is not fair dealing, then what is? And while it's
> true that the HoC has claimed infringement of copyright in the past, in
> at least the case of that one parody video on YouTube, the video in that
> particular case was much, much farther from the definition of fair
> dealing identified in the case CCH v. LSUC:
> The hilarious parody:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlD9hu7y8bU > CCH v. LSUC:http://is.gd/hXS1
> Watch that video, look atMyCeliumand Metavid.org, and then read
> through the six factors that the Supreme Court of Canada outlined to
> define fair dealing, starting from paragraph 54 of the Court's decision.
> I think it is pretty clear how the parody video would differ on each
> factor from the supposed metavid.CA. Especially the "purpose",
> "character", "nature" and "effect" factors.
> We would obviously need a legal opinion before pushing ahead on this
> path, but it is hard for me to imagine how a Metavid.CA type of site
> would fall outside of what the Court defined as fair dealing.
> I am a lawyer, but this email is not that legal advice! However, I think
> we could get advice to that effect without too much trouble :-)
> On a different but related note, it was suggested to me that a major
> expense in some government departments is the purchase of licences to
> use other departments' works that are under Crown Copyright. Like,
> Environment Canada writes a report, which is protected under Crown
> Copyright, and then in order for Industry Canada to use that report in
> their work, IC buys a licence from EC. Can anybody shed any light on
> these sorts of licensing arrangements?
> Cheers,
> Andy
> Kevin McArthur wrote:
> Hi Jennifer, et al...
> Let me know what you find out. I've tried to run the site on the
> conservative side of fair dealing, and I know a bunch of MPs are aware
> of the site and no one has complained yet. That said, the HoC has pulled
> stuff from youtube and appear to defend their copyright when its abused
> (seehttp://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1989/125/).
> So its clearly a very thin line between what they find acceptable use,
> and what they find to be abuse of copyright.
> I'm not interested in 'poking the bear' to find out exactly where that
> line is, but if you guys want to, I'll be happy to pass along my work
> and let you run it.
> Let me know,
> Kevin
> Jennifer Bell wrote:
> A while back, I had an email conversation with Kevin McArthur (on this
> group) about what it would take to turn his project,mycelium:
> http://mycelium.chanterelle.ca/intoasite like metavid:
> http://metavid.org,
> with searchable transcripts.
> He said that while the technical challenges were not so terrible, the
> real issue was the crown copyright on the source video from parlvu:
> http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/UpcomingEvents.aspx. Recently, I was
> reminded [1] that a group in the UK called the PublicWhip managed to
> negotiate a click-use liscense for using the hansard transcript,
> enabling them to re-package it as XML. I wonder if a similar deal is
> possible with parlvu.
> I'll do a bit of research on the public whip liscense this week, and
> try sending an email to the parlvu contact email, and see if they
> reply. In the meantime, please let me know if you have knowledge/
> suggestions/ideas on how to free our parliamentary video.
about a story in the Globe and Mail on how Ontario's education
ministry was criticized for publishing statistics on scools, which
teachers called a 'ranking site'. Controversially, one stat published
was ethnicity of students. I've found a re-print of the story here:
I agree with Alistair that the province should be commended for being
more transparent, not criticized. While I was initially uneasy about
the ethnicity stats, I think it is relevant. Speaking from personal
experience: last year, I had a great experience in a Montreal French
language class which was racially mixed, but a much worse experience
in the next class where the class was entirely one racial group, and I
was unique. 'Fitting in', or not, has a big impact on your comfort
level, even when you're an adult.
In my view, publishing, rather than hiding, this information is better
because:
- it allows people looking for 'diverse' background schools to choose
what they want
- it allows people who are looking for a school that includes a
particular ethnic group to make that choice (why is that bad?)
- it allows for self-correction on the part of the school or
community if there is an imbalance
Racial controversy aside, I agree that the board of education was
doing, in principle, the right thing. This behavior should be re-
inforced, not punished.
IMHO the racial stuff, while controversial, was a red herring: Vested
interests don't want transparency. In this case, the government was
actually forced to kill a bunch of the functionality because of the
pressure from a vocal minority.
> about a story in the Globe and Mail on how Ontario's education
> ministry was criticized for publishing statistics on scools, which
> teachers called a 'ranking site'. Controversially, one stat published
> was ethnicity of students. I've found a re-print of the story here:
> I agree with Alistair that the province should be commended for being
> more transparent, not criticized. While I was initially uneasy about
> the ethnicity stats, I think it is relevant. Speaking from personal
> experience: last year, I had a great experience in a Montreal French
> language class which was racially mixed, but a much worse experience
> in the next class where the class was entirely one racial group, and I
> was unique. 'Fitting in', or not, has a big impact on your comfort
> level, even when you're an adult.
> In my view, publishing, rather than hiding, this information is better
> because:
> - it allows people looking for 'diverse' background schools to choose
> what they want
> - it allows people who are looking for a school that includes a
> particular ethnic group to make that choice (why is that bad?)
> - it allows for self-correction on the part of the school or
> community if there is an imbalance
> Racial controversy aside, I agree that the board of education was
> doing, in principle, the right thing. This behavior should be re-
> inforced, not punished.
This is worth an op-ed. Much of the controversial information is from the
EQAO standardized test results still available online at
https://eqaoweb.eqao.com/pbs/Listing.aspx
> IMHO the racial stuff, while controversial, was a red herring: Vested
> interests don't want transparency. In this case, the government was
> actually forced to kill a bunch of the functionality because of the
> pressure from a vocal minority.
> A.
> On 15-Apr-09, at 2:32 PM, Jennifer Bell wrote:
>> Alistair brought up a good point last week (mixed in with this thread
>> here):
>> about a story in the Globe and Mail on how Ontario's education
>> ministry was criticized for publishing statistics on scools, which
>> teachers called a 'ranking site'. Controversially, one stat published
>> was ethnicity of students. I've found a re-print of the story here:
>> I agree with Alistair that the province should be commended for being
>> more transparent, not criticized. While I was initially uneasy about
>> the ethnicity stats, I think it is relevant. Speaking from personal
>> experience: last year, I had a great experience in a Montreal French
>> language class which was racially mixed, but a much worse experience
>> in the next class where the class was entirely one racial group, and I
>> was unique. 'Fitting in', or not, has a big impact on your comfort
>> level, even when you're an adult.
>> In my view, publishing, rather than hiding, this information is better
>> because:
>> - it allows people looking for 'diverse' background schools to choose
>> what they want
>> - it allows people who are looking for a school that includes a
>> particular ethnic group to make that choice (why is that bad?)
>> - it allows for self-correction on the part of the school or
>> community if there is an imbalance
>> Racial controversy aside, I agree that the board of education was
>> doing, in principle, the right thing. This behavior should be re-
>> inforced, not punished.
On the topic of click-use liscensing -- it turns out there are
potential ways in to both the Office of the Speaker and the Library of
Parliamentary for pushing this.
A question that should be investigated before-hand, though:
> I had a contact in the Speakers office who I was trying to engage on
> this, but our email exchange died. I could try to start that up again
> if you want.
> --
> Andy Kaplan-Myrth, LL.B., M.A.
> Barrister & Solicitor
> ------------------------------------------------
> email: a...@kaplan-myrth.ca
> web:http://kaplan-myrth.ca > ------------------------------------------------
> PGP Key ID 0xE9349025
> ------------------------------------------------
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Kevin McArthur <ke...@stormtide.ca> wrote:
> > Jennifer,
> > Have you tried the Office of the Speaker... might be more helpful than the
> > ParlVU crew.
> > Kevin
> > Jennifer Bell wrote:
> > I had another conversation recently that reminded me of this neat
> > thread. I never heard back from parlvu [1] when I enquired to their
> > contact email about the possiblity for a click-use liscense[2], like
> > the one offered by the Office of the Public Sector in the UK, to free
> > up content for re-use. (This is the liscense that the Public Whip
> > uses to re-distribute the Hansard in the UK.)
> > It was recently suggested to me that the Government of Canada Library
> > of Parliament would be a good resource and potential ally. It's
> > quite possible that this department might be very good as a first
> > contact for talking about redistribution liscenses. If anyone knows
> > someone in the Library of Parliament, please let me know. Sometimes
> > personal contacts help get things rolling.
> > Are there other groups who are actively working on this?
> > On Feb 25, 11:11 am, Laura <lmwes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Here's an interesting comment about where Crown copyright prevented re-
> > use of information in Australia. I'm not well educated on this topic,
> > but it seems worth exploring.
> > "The massive forest fire that continues to ravage Australia's mainland
> > became a struggle for the freedom of information. While geographical
> > data about the fires was readily available from the Country Fire
> > Authority, when Google tried to get information on fires that were on
> > public lands the company hit a dead end.
> > Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment would not
> > share its data, which was deemed private due to the Crown copyright
> > provisions, a set of rules that limits government information from
> > being shared with the public or private companies. Google Australia
> > instead went with satellite imagery from NASA for use on its special
> > maps layer that's tracking the spread and control of fires.
> > This satellite imagery of the quake was provided by NASA when the
> > Australian government would not provide geodata on where the fires
> > were."
> > So, let me get this straight - NASA info = open, A state department
> > funded with public money = closed. I blame bureaucracy.
> > On Feb 24, 12:30 pm, Kevin McArthur <ke...@stormtide.ca> wrote:
> > Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really?
> > As an update on this: I wasn't able to find much of a record of the
> > liscense that the PublicWhip group is using. I've emailed them my
> > questions directly.
> > In the meantime, I came accross this reccomendation in the Power of
> > Information Task Force's most recent report:
> > "When the public sector publishes information people should understand
> > that it is intended for re-use. Action is required to improve
> > understanding of Crown Copyright, which the Taskforce found to be mis-
> > understood by creators and re-users of data. Crown Copyright, despite
> > its historic name, is designed to encourage re-use in the majority of
> > cases yet the taskforce found little appreciation of this. There were
> > even suggestions that it was deterring potential re-users. OPSI
> > should begin a communications campaign to re-present and improve
> > understanding of the permissive aspects of Crown Copyright along the
> > lines of creative commons by end June 2009."
> > Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? Can anyone
> > comment on whether the UK version has evolved differently than the
> > Canadian one?
> > I've been sick with a cold for almost a week, so have been offline for
> > long stretches.
> > Jennifer
> > On Jan 31, 11:27 pm, Andy Kaplan-Myrth <a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > One of the sites that got me interested in the whole idea of building
> > online tools for government transparency and accessibility was
> > MySociety's video matching game:
> > http://www.theyworkforyou.com/video/
> > SoMyCeliumis a very interesting project to me, and I'd hate to see
> > Crown Copyright get in the way of a truly useful and valuable public
> > interest project like this.
> > It is of course always best to have an explicit licence to use the works
> > (both the video and the transcript in this case). So I do think it would
> > be worth exploring whether such a licence could be negotiated for little
> > to no cost for a project that is clearly in the public interest.
> > But I also think such a use of parlvu video would likely be fair dealing
> > in Canada. The boundaries of fair dealing are hard to identify, so there
> > is some inherent risk in relying on fair dealing as the grounds on which
> > you use a work. But the fact remains that there *is* a fair dealing
> > exemption, and *something* falls within it. If unmodified, freely
> > available parliamentary video and transcripts, improved by indexing with
> > hansard transcripts is not fair dealing, then what is? And while it's
> > true that the HoC has claimed infringement of copyright in the past, in
> > at least the case of that one parody video on YouTube, the video in that
> > particular case was much, much farther from the definition of fair
> > dealing identified in the case CCH v. LSUC:
> > The hilarious parody:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlD9hu7y8bU > > CCH v. LSUC:http://is.gd/hXS1
> > Watch that video, look atMyCeliumand Metavid.org, and then read
> > through the six factors that the Supreme Court of Canada outlined to
> > define fair dealing, starting from paragraph 54 of the Court's decision.
> > I think it is pretty clear how the parody video would differ on each
> > factor from the supposed metavid.CA. Especially the "purpose",
> > "character", "nature" and "effect" factors.
> > We would obviously need a legal opinion before pushing ahead on this
> > path, but it is hard for me to imagine how a Metavid.CA type of site
> > would fall outside of what the Court defined as fair dealing.
> > I am a lawyer, but this email is not that legal advice! However, I think
> > we could get advice to that effect without too much trouble :-)
> > On a different but related note, it was suggested to me that a major
> > expense in some government departments is the purchase of licences to
> > use other departments' works that are under Crown Copyright. Like,
> > Environment Canada writes a report, which is protected under Crown
> > Copyright, and then in order for Industry Canada to use that report in
> > their work, IC buys a licence from EC. Can anybody shed any light on
> > these sorts of licensing arrangements?
> > Cheers,
> > Andy
> > Kevin McArthur wrote:
> > Hi Jennifer, et al...
> > Let me know what you find out. I've tried to run the site on the
> > conservative side of fair dealing, and I know a bunch of MPs are aware
> > of the site and no one has complained yet. That said, the HoC has pulled
> > stuff from youtube and appear to defend their copyright when its abused
> > (seehttp://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1989/125/).
> > So its clearly a very thin line between what they find acceptable use,
> > and what they find to be abuse of copyright.
> > I'm not interested in 'poking the bear' to find out exactly where that
> > line is, but if you guys want to, I'll be happy to pass along my work
> > and let you run it.
> > Let me know,
> > Kevin
> > Jennifer Bell wrote:
> > A while back, I had an email conversation with Kevin McArthur (on this
> > group) about what it would take to turn his project,mycelium:
> >http://mycelium.chanterelle.ca/intoasitelike metavid:
> >http://metavid.org,
> > with searchable transcripts.
> > He said that while the technical challenges were not so terrible, the
> > real issue was the crown copyright on the source video from parlvu:
> >http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/UpcomingEvents.aspx. Recently, I was
> > reminded [1] that a group in the UK called the PublicWhip managed to
> > negotiate a click-use liscense for using the hansard transcript,
> > enabling them to re-package it as XML. I wonder if a similar deal is
> > possible with parlvu.
Having taken only a quick look through the Click-Use licensing program and one of the actual licences, it looks like this kind of re-use and re-licensing under CC is not allowed, but I'm sure PublicWhip has looked at this in detail. Should I try to follow up with them and get back to the list with more information about how they arranged licensing?
It will likely be informative and may give us some ideas, but I'm not sure how directly relevant it will be to us since we don't have that Click-Use regime for works under Crown Copyright. And it's not even clear that parliamentary video is under Crown Copyright, frankly.
But I can gather info from PublicWhip if people think that would be useful.
Jennifer Bell wrote:
> On the topic of click-use liscensing -- it turns out there are
> potential ways in to both the Office of the Speaker and the Library of
> Parliamentary for pushing this.
> A question that should be investigated before-hand, though:
> On Apr 9, 8:37 am, Andy Kaplan-Myrth<a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
>> I had a contact in the Speakers office who I was trying to engage on
>> this, but our email exchange died. I could try to start that up again
>> if you want.
>> --
>> Andy Kaplan-Myrth, LL.B., M.A.
>> Barrister& Solicitor
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> email: a...@kaplan-myrth.ca
>> web:http://kaplan-myrth.ca >> ------------------------------------------------
>> PGP Key ID 0xE9349025
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Kevin McArthur<ke...@stormtide.ca> wrote:
>>> Jennifer,
>>> Have you tried the Office of the Speaker... might be more helpful than the
>>> ParlVU crew.
>>> Kevin
>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>>> I had another conversation recently that reminded me of this neat
>>> thread. I never heard back from parlvu [1] when I enquired to their
>>> contact email about the possiblity for a click-use liscense[2], like
>>> the one offered by the Office of the Public Sector in the UK, to free
>>> up content for re-use. (This is the liscense that the Public Whip
>>> uses to re-distribute the Hansard in the UK.)
>>> It was recently suggested to me that the Government of Canada Library
>>> of Parliament would be a good resource and potential ally. It's
>>> quite possible that this department might be very good as a first
>>> contact for talking about redistribution liscenses. If anyone knows
>>> someone in the Library of Parliament, please let me know. Sometimes
>>> personal contacts help get things rolling.
>>> Are there other groups who are actively working on this?
>>> Jennifer
>>> [1]http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ >>> [2]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ >>> On Feb 25, 11:11 am, Laura<lmwes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Here's an interesting comment about where Crown copyright prevented re-
>>> use of information in Australia. I'm not well educated on this topic,
>>> but it seems worth exploring.
>>> From:http://content.techrepublic.com.com/2346-1035_11-270469-5.html >>> "The massive forest fire that continues to ravage Australia's mainland
>>> became a struggle for the freedom of information. While geographical
>>> data about the fires was readily available from the Country Fire
>>> Authority, when Google tried to get information on fires that were on
>>> public lands the company hit a dead end.
>>> Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment would not
>>> share its data, which was deemed private due to the Crown copyright
>>> provisions, a set of rules that limits government information from
>>> being shared with the public or private companies. Google Australia
>>> instead went with satellite imagery from NASA for use on its special
>>> maps layer that's tracking the spread and control of fires.
>>> This satellite imagery of the quake was provided by NASA when the
>>> Australian government would not provide geodata on where the fires
>>> were."
>>> So, let me get this straight - NASA info = open, A state department
>>> funded with public money = closed. I blame bureaucracy.
>>> On Feb 24, 12:30 pm, Kevin McArthur<ke...@stormtide.ca> wrote:
>>> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really?
>>> http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/02/24/FOIWarnings/ >>> Food for thought.
>>> K
>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>>> As an update on this: I wasn't able to find much of a record of the
>>> liscense that the PublicWhip group is using. I've emailed them my
>>> questions directly.
>>> In the meantime, I came accross this reccomendation in the Power of
>>> Information Task Force's most recent report:
>>> "When the public sector publishes information people should understand
>>> that it is intended for re-use. Action is required to improve
>>> understanding of Crown Copyright, which the Taskforce found to be mis-
>>> understood by creators and re-users of data. Crown Copyright, despite
>>> its historic name, is designed to encourage re-use in the majority of
>>> cases yet the taskforce found little appreciation of this. There were
>>> even suggestions that it was deterring potential re-users. OPSI
>>> should begin a communications campaign to re-present and improve
>>> understanding of the permissive aspects of Crown Copyright along the
>>> lines of creative commons by end June 2009."
>>> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? Can anyone
>>> comment on whether the UK version has evolved differently than the
>>> Canadian one?
>>> I've been sick with a cold for almost a week, so have been offline for
>>> long stretches.
>>> Jennifer
>>> On Jan 31, 11:27 pm, Andy Kaplan-Myrth<a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> One of the sites that got me interested in the whole idea of building
>>> online tools for government transparency and accessibility was
>>> MySociety's video matching game:
>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/video/ >>> SoMyCeliumis a very interesting project to me, and I'd hate to see
>>> Crown Copyright get in the way of a truly useful and valuable public
>>> interest project like this.
>>> It is of course always best to have an explicit licence to use the works
>>> (both the video and the transcript in this case). So I do think it would
>>> be worth exploring whether such a licence could be negotiated for little
>>> to no cost for a project that is clearly in the public interest.
>>> But I also think such a use of parlvu video would likely be fair dealing
>>> in Canada. The boundaries of fair dealing are hard to identify, so there
>>> is some inherent risk in relying on fair dealing as the grounds on which
>>> you use a work. But the fact remains that there *is* a fair dealing
>>> exemption, and *something* falls within it. If unmodified, freely
>>> available parliamentary video and transcripts, improved by indexing with
>>> hansard transcripts is not fair dealing, then what is? And while it's
>>> true that the HoC has claimed infringement of copyright in the past, in
>>> at least the case of that one parody video on YouTube, the video in that
>>> particular case was much, much farther from the definition of fair
>>> dealing identified in the case CCH v. LSUC:
>>> The hilarious parody:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlD9hu7y8bU >>> CCH v. LSUC:http://is.gd/hXS1 >>> Watch that video, look atMyCeliumand Metavid.org, and then read
>>> through the six factors that the Supreme Court of Canada outlined to
>>> define fair dealing, starting from paragraph 54 of the Court's decision.
>>> I think it is pretty clear how the parody video would differ on each
>>> factor from the supposed metavid.CA. Especially the "purpose",
>>> "character", "nature" and "effect" factors.
>>> We would obviously need a legal opinion before pushing ahead on this
>>> path, but it is hard for me to imagine how a Metavid.CA type of site
>>> would fall outside of what the Court defined as fair dealing.
>>> I am a lawyer, but this email is not that legal advice! However, I think
>>> we could get advice to that effect without too much trouble :-)
>>> On a different but related note, it was suggested to me that a major
>>> expense in some government departments is the purchase of licences to
>>> use other departments' works that are under Crown Copyright. Like,
>>> Environment Canada writes a report, which is protected under Crown
>>> Copyright, and then in order for Industry Canada to use that report in
>>> their work, IC buys a licence from EC. Can anybody shed any light on
>>> these sorts of licensing arrangements?
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andy
>>> Kevin McArthur wrote:
>>> Hi Jennifer, et al...
>>> Let me know what you find out. I've tried to run the site on the
>>> conservative side of fair dealing, and I know a bunch of MPs are aware
>>> of the site and no one has complained yet. That said, the HoC has pulled
>>> stuff from youtube and appear to defend their copyright when its abused
>>> (seehttp://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1989/125/).
>>> So its clearly a very thin line between what they find acceptable use,
>>> and what they find to be abuse of copyright.
>>> I'm not interested in 'poking the bear' to find out exactly where that
>>> line is, but if you guys want to, I'll be happy to pass along my work
>>> and let you run it.
>>> Let me know,
>>> Kevin
>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>>> A while back, I had an email conversation with Kevin McArthur (on this
>>> group) about what it would take to
> -----Original Message-----
> From: visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andy
> Kaplan-Myrth
> Sent: April 17, 2009 9:46 AM
> To: visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [VG-Discuss] Re: MyCelium and Parliamentary Video Liscensing
> Having taken only a quick look through the Click-Use licensing program
> and one of the actual licences, it looks like this kind of re-use and
> re-licensing under CC is not allowed, but I'm sure PublicWhip has
> looked at this in detail. Should I try to follow up with them and get
> back to the list with more information about how they arranged
> licensing?
> It will likely be informative and may give us some ideas, but I'm not
> sure how directly relevant it will be to us since we don't have that
> Click-Use regime for works under Crown Copyright. And it's not even
> clear that parliamentary video is under Crown Copyright, frankly.
> But I can gather info from PublicWhip if people think that would be
> useful.
> Cheers,
> Andy
> Jennifer Bell wrote:
> > On the topic of click-use liscensing -- it turns out there are
> > potential ways in to both the Office of the Speaker and the Library of
> > Parliamentary for pushing this.
> > A question that should be investigated before-hand, though:
> > On Apr 9, 8:37 am, Andy Kaplan-Myrth<a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
> >> I had a contact in the Speakers office who I was trying to engage on
> >> this, but our email exchange died. I could try to start that up again
> >> if you want.
> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Kevin McArthur<ke...@stormtide.ca>
> wrote:
> >>> Jennifer,
> >>> Have you tried the Office of the Speaker... might be more helpful
> than the
> >>> ParlVU crew.
> >>> Kevin
> >>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
> >>> I had another conversation recently that reminded me of this neat
> >>> thread. I never heard back from parlvu [1] when I enquired to their
> >>> contact email about the possiblity for a click-use liscense[2], like
> >>> the one offered by the Office of the Public Sector in the UK, to
> free
> >>> up content for re-use. (This is the liscense that the Public Whip
> >>> uses to re-distribute the Hansard in the UK.)
> >>> It was recently suggested to me that the Government of Canada
> Library
> >>> of Parliament would be a good resource and potential ally. It's
> >>> quite possible that this department might be very good as a first
> >>> contact for talking about redistribution liscenses. If anyone knows
> >>> someone in the Library of Parliament, please let me know. Sometimes
> >>> personal contacts help get things rolling.
> >>> Are there other groups who are actively working on this?
> >>> Jennifer
> >>> [1]http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ > >>> [2]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ > >>> On Feb 25, 11:11 am, Laura<lmwes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Here's an interesting comment about where Crown copyright prevented
> re-
> >>> use of information in Australia. I'm not well educated on this
> topic,
> >>> but it seems worth exploring.
> >>> From:http://content.techrepublic.com.com/2346-1035_11-270469-5.html > >>> "The massive forest fire that continues to ravage Australia's
> mainland
> >>> became a struggle for the freedom of information. While geographical
> >>> data about the fires was readily available from the Country Fire
> >>> Authority, when Google tried to get information on fires that were
> on
> >>> public lands the company hit a dead end.
> >>> Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment would not
> >>> share its data, which was deemed private due to the Crown copyright
> >>> provisions, a set of rules that limits government information from
> >>> being shared with the public or private companies. Google Australia
> >>> instead went with satellite imagery from NASA for use on its special
> >>> maps layer that's tracking the spread and control of fires.
> >>> This satellite imagery of the quake was provided by NASA when the
> >>> Australian government would not provide geodata on where the fires
> >>> were."
> >>> So, let me get this straight - NASA info = open, A state department
> >>> funded with public money = closed. I blame bureaucracy.
> >>> On Feb 24, 12:30 pm, Kevin McArthur<ke...@stormtide.ca> wrote:
> >>> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really?
> >>> http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/02/24/FOIWarnings/ > >>> Food for thought.
> >>> K
> >>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
> >>> As an update on this: I wasn't able to find much of a record of the
> >>> liscense that the PublicWhip group is using. I've emailed them my
> >>> questions directly.
> >>> In the meantime, I came accross this reccomendation in the Power of
> >>> Information Task Force's most recent report:
> >>> "When the public sector publishes information people should
> understand
> >>> that it is intended for re-use. Action is required to improve
> >>> understanding of Crown Copyright, which the Taskforce found to be
> mis-
> >>> understood by creators and re-users of data. Crown Copyright,
> despite
> >>> its historic name, is designed to encourage re-use in the majority
> of
> >>> cases yet the taskforce found little appreciation of this. There
> were
> >>> even suggestions that it was deterring potential re-users. OPSI
> >>> should begin a communications campaign to re-present and improve
> >>> understanding of the permissive aspects of Crown Copyright along the
> >>> lines of creative commons by end June 2009."
> >>> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? Can
> anyone
> >>> comment on whether the UK version has evolved differently than the
> >>> Canadian one?
> >>> I've been sick with a cold for almost a week, so have been offline
> for
> >>> long stretches.
> >>> Jennifer
> >>> On Jan 31, 11:27 pm, Andy Kaplan-Myrth<a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>> One of the sites that got me interested in the whole idea of
> building
> >>> online tools for government transparency and accessibility was
> >>> MySociety's video matching game:
> >>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/video/ > >>> SoMyCeliumis a very interesting project to me, and I'd hate to see
> >>> Crown Copyright get in the way of a truly useful and valuable public
> >>> interest project like this.
> >>> It is of course always best to have an explicit licence to use the
> works
> >>> (both the video and the transcript in this case). So I do think it
> would
> >>> be worth exploring whether such a licence could be negotiated for
> little
> >>> to no cost for a project that is clearly in the public interest.
> >>> But I also think such a use of parlvu video would likely be fair
> dealing
> >>> in Canada. The boundaries of fair dealing are hard to identify, so
> there
> >>> is some inherent risk in relying on fair dealing as the grounds on
> which
> >>> you use a work. But the fact remains that there *is* a fair
> dealing
> >>> exemption, and *something* falls within it. If unmodified, freely
> >>> available parliamentary video and transcripts, improved by indexing
> with
> >>> hansard transcripts is not fair dealing, then what is? And while
> it's
> >>> true that the HoC has claimed infringement of copyright in the past,
> in
> >>> at least the case of that one parody video on YouTube, the video in
> that
> >>> particular case was much, much farther from the definition of fair
> >>> dealing identified in the case CCH v. LSUC:
> >>> The hilarious parody:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlD9hu7y8bU > >>> CCH v. LSUC:http://is.gd/hXS1 > >>> Watch that video, look atMyCeliumand Metavid.org, and then read
> >>> through the six factors that the Supreme Court of Canada outlined to
> >>> define fair dealing, starting from paragraph 54 of the Court's
> decision.
> >>> I think it is pretty clear how the parody video would differ on each
> >>> factor from the supposed metavid.CA. Especially the "purpose",
> >>> "character", "nature" and "effect" factors.
> >>> We would obviously need a legal opinion before pushing ahead on this
> >>> path, but it is hard for me to imagine how a Metavid.CA type of site
> >>> would fall outside of what the Court defined as fair dealing.
> >>> I am a lawyer, but this email is not that legal advice! However, I
> think
> >>> we could get advice to that effect without too much trouble :-)
> >>> On a different but related note, it was suggested to me that a major
> >>> expense in some government departments is the purchase of licences
> to
> >>> use other departments' works that are under Crown Copyright. Like,
> >>> Environment Canada writes a report, which is protected under Crown
> >>> Copyright, and then in order for Industry Canada to use that report
> in
> >>> their work, IC buys a licence from EC. Can anybody shed any light on
> >>> these sorts of licensing arrangements?
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Andy
> >>> Kevin McArthur wrote:
> >>> Hi Jennifer,
To keep this going: I've emailed the Public Whip before, with no
response... but perhaps if you try, Andy, with a targeted question on
the liscense, they'll answer.
Really, I got excited about this because it seemed like an example of
a cut-and-dried way of redistribuing gov data without Crown Copyright
headaches. If this isn't it, then maybe a new one can be invented.
On that note, some open-data'ers in Ottawa are gearing up for a
meeting with the Library of Parliament, which is cool.
JB
On Apr 17, 11:38 am, "Joe Murray" <joe.mur...@jmaconsulting.biz>
wrote:
> I believe there are also minor differences in copyright law between UK and
> Canada.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andy
> > Kaplan-Myrth
> > Sent: April 17, 2009 9:46 AM
> > To: visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: [VG-Discuss] Re: MyCelium and Parliamentary Video Liscensing
> > Having taken only a quick look through the Click-Use licensing program
> > and one of the actual licences, it looks like this kind of re-use and
> > re-licensing under CC is not allowed, but I'm sure PublicWhip has
> > looked at this in detail. Should I try to follow up with them and get
> > back to the list with more information about how they arranged
> > licensing?
> > It will likely be informative and may give us some ideas, but I'm not
> > sure how directly relevant it will be to us since we don't have that
> > Click-Use regime for works under Crown Copyright. And it's not even
> > clear that parliamentary video is under Crown Copyright, frankly.
> > But I can gather info from PublicWhip if people think that would be
> > useful.
> > Cheers,
> > Andy
> > Jennifer Bell wrote:
> > > On the topic of click-use liscensing -- it turns out there are
> > > potential ways in to both the Office of the Speaker and the Library of
> > > Parliamentary for pushing this.
> > > A question that should be investigated before-hand, though:
> > > On Apr 9, 8:37 am, Andy Kaplan-Myrth<a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
> > >> I had a contact in the Speakers office who I was trying to engage on
> > >> this, but our email exchange died. I could try to start that up again
> > >> if you want.
> > >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Kevin McArthur<ke...@stormtide.ca>
> > wrote:
> > >>> Jennifer,
> > >>> Have you tried the Office of the Speaker... might be more helpful
> > than the
> > >>>ParlVUcrew.
> > >>> Kevin
> > >>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
> > >>> I had another conversation recently that reminded me of this neat
> > >>> thread. I never heard back fromparlvu[1] when I enquired to their
> > >>> contact email about the possiblity for a click-use liscense[2], like
> > >>> the one offered by the Office of the Public Sector in the UK, to
> > free
> > >>> up content for re-use. (This is the liscense that the Public Whip
> > >>> uses to re-distribute the Hansard in the UK.)
> > >>> It was recently suggested to me that the Government of Canada
> > Library
> > >>> of Parliament would be a good resource and potential ally. It's
> > >>> quite possible that this department might be very good as a first
> > >>> contact for talking about redistribution liscenses. If anyone knows
> > >>> someone in the Library of Parliament, please let me know. Sometimes
> > >>> personal contacts help get things rolling.
> > >>> Are there other groups who are actively working on this?
> > >>> Jennifer
> > >>> [1]http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ > > >>> [2]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ > > >>> On Feb 25, 11:11 am, Laura<lmwes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> Here's an interesting comment about where Crown copyright prevented
> > re-
> > >>> use of information in Australia. I'm not well educated on this
> > topic,
> > >>> but it seems worth exploring.
> > >>> From:http://content.techrepublic.com.com/2346-1035_11-270469-5.html > > >>> "The massive forest fire that continues to ravage Australia's
> > mainland
> > >>> became a struggle for the freedom of information. While geographical
> > >>> data about the fires was readily available from the Country Fire
> > >>> Authority, when Google tried to get information on fires that were
> > on
> > >>> public lands the company hit a dead end.
> > >>> Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment would not
> > >>> share its data, which was deemed private due to the Crown copyright
> > >>> provisions, a set of rules that limits government information from
> > >>> being shared with the public or private companies. Google Australia
> > >>> instead went with satellite imagery from NASA for use on its special
> > >>> maps layer that's tracking the spread and control of fires.
> > >>> This satellite imagery of the quake was provided by NASA when the
> > >>> Australian government would not provide geodata on where the fires
> > >>> were."
> > >>> So, let me get this straight - NASA info = open, A state department
> > >>> funded with public money = closed. I blame bureaucracy.
> > >>> On Feb 24, 12:30 pm, Kevin McArthur<ke...@stormtide.ca> wrote:
> > >>> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really?
> > >>>http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/02/24/FOIWarnings/ > > >>> Food for thought.
> > >>> K
> > >>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
> > >>> As an update on this: I wasn't able to find much of a record of the
> > >>> liscense that the PublicWhip group is using. I've emailed them my
> > >>> questions directly.
> > >>> In the meantime, I came accross this reccomendation in the Power of
> > >>> Information Task Force's most recent report:
> > >>> "When the public sector publishes information people should
> > understand
> > >>> that it is intended for re-use. Action is required to improve
> > >>> understanding of Crown Copyright, which the Taskforce found to be
> > mis-
> > >>> understood by creators and re-users of data. Crown Copyright,
> > despite
> > >>> its historic name, is designed to encourage re-use in the majority
> > of
> > >>> cases yet the taskforce found little appreciation of this. There
> > were
> > >>> even suggestions that it was deterring potential re-users. OPSI
> > >>> should begin a communications campaign to re-present and improve
> > >>> understanding of the permissive aspects of Crown Copyright along the
> > >>> lines of creative commons by end June 2009."
> > >>> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? Can
> > anyone
> > >>> comment on whether the UK version has evolved differently than the
> > >>> Canadian one?
> > >>> I've been sick with a cold for almost a week, so have been offline
> > for
> > >>> long stretches.
> > >>> Jennifer
> > >>> On Jan 31, 11:27 pm, Andy Kaplan-Myrth<a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
> > >>> Hi everyone,
> > >>> One of the sites that got me interested in the whole idea of
> > building
> > >>> online tools for government transparency and accessibility was
> > >>> MySociety's video matching game:
> > >>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/video/ > > >>> SoMyCeliumis a very interesting project to me, and I'd hate to see
> > >>> Crown Copyright get in the way of a truly useful and valuable public
> > >>> interest project like this.
> > >>> It is of course always best to have an explicit licence to use the
> > works
> > >>> (both the video and the transcript in this case). So I do think it
> > would
> > >>> be worth exploring whether such a licence could be negotiated for
> > little
> > >>> to no cost for a project that is clearly in the public interest.
> > >>> But I also think such a use ofparlvuvideo would likely be fair
> > dealing
> > >>> in Canada. The boundaries of fair dealing are hard to identify, so
> > there
> > >>> is some inherent risk in relying on fair dealing as the grounds on
> > which
> > >>> you use a work. But the fact remains that there *is* a fair
> > dealing
> > >>> exemption, and *something* falls within it. If unmodified, freely
> > >>> available parliamentary video and transcripts, improved by indexing
> > with
> > >>> hansard transcripts is not fair dealing, then what is? And while
> > it's
> > >>> true that the HoC has claimed infringement of copyright in the past,
> > in
> > >>> at least the case of that one parody video on YouTube, the video in
> > that
> > >>> particular case was much, much farther from the definition of fair
> > >>> dealing identified in the case CCH v. LSUC:
> > >>> The hilarious parody:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlD9hu7y8bU > > >>> CCH v. LSUC:http://is.gd/hXS1 > > >>> Watch that video, look atMyCeliumand Metavid.org, and then read
> > >>> through the six factors that the Supreme Court of Canada outlined to
> > >>> define fair dealing, starting from paragraph 54 of the Court's
> > decision.
> > >>> I think it is pretty
I could try to meet with the Public Whip about it. Could you send me contact info you've used off-list?
I met the stimuluswatch gang the other day at the social media breakfast in Ottawa and in a few minutes speaking with them I mentioned dealing with Crown Copyright for their purposes. I'm hoping to go to their next meeting so I can keep plugging away at that issue.
Jennifer Bell wrote:
> To keep this going: I've emailed the Public Whip before, with no
> response... but perhaps if you try, Andy, with a targeted question on
> the liscense, they'll answer.
> Really, I got excited about this because it seemed like an example of
> a cut-and-dried way of redistribuing gov data without Crown Copyright
> headaches. If this isn't it, then maybe a new one can be invented.
> On that note, some open-data'ers in Ottawa are gearing up for a
> meeting with the Library of Parliament, which is cool.
> JB
> On Apr 17, 11:38 am, "Joe Murray"<joe.mur...@jmaconsulting.biz>
> wrote:
>> I believe there are also minor differences in copyright law between UK and
>> Canada.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com
>>> [mailto:visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andy
>>> Kaplan-Myrth
>>> Sent: April 17, 2009 9:46 AM
>>> To: visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com
>>> Subject: [VG-Discuss] Re: MyCelium and Parliamentary Video Liscensing
>>> Having taken only a quick look through the Click-Use licensing program
>>> and one of the actual licences, it looks like this kind of re-use and
>>> re-licensing under CC is not allowed, but I'm sure PublicWhip has
>>> looked at this in detail. Should I try to follow up with them and get
>>> back to the list with more information about how they arranged
>>> licensing?
>>> It will likely be informative and may give us some ideas, but I'm not
>>> sure how directly relevant it will be to us since we don't have that
>>> Click-Use regime for works under Crown Copyright. And it's not even
>>> clear that parliamentary video is under Crown Copyright, frankly.
>>> But I can gather info from PublicWhip if people think that would be
>>> useful.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andy
>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>>>> On the topic of click-use liscensing -- it turns out there are
>>>> potential ways in to both the Office of the Speaker and the Library of
>>>> Parliamentary for pushing this.
>>>> A question that should be investigated before-hand, though:
>>>> The group the Public-Whip, in the UK, uses the click-use lisence[1] to
>>>> re-distribute scraped information under creative-commons, as described
>>>> here:
>>>> http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/more-architecture/ >>>> Is this really allowed by click-use, or is this just what PublicWhip
>>>> is doing, and no-one's stopped them? To investigate...
>>>> Jennifer
>>>> [1]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ >>>> On Apr 9, 8:37 am, Andy Kaplan-Myrth<a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
>>>>> I had a contact in the Speakers office who I was trying to engage on
>>>>> this, but our email exchange died. I could try to start that up again
>>>>> if you want.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andy Kaplan-Myrth, LL.B., M.A.
>>>>> Barrister& Solicitor
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>> email: a...@kaplan-myrth.ca
>>>>> web:http://kaplan-myrth.ca >>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>> PGP Key ID 0xE9349025
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Kevin McArthur<ke...@stormtide.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Jennifer,
>>>>>> Have you tried the Office of the Speaker... might be more helpful
>>> than the
>>>>>> ParlVUcrew.
>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>>>>>> I had another conversation recently that reminded me of this neat
>>>>>> thread. I never heard back fromparlvu[1] when I enquired to their
>>>>>> contact email about the possiblity for a click-use liscense[2], like
>>>>>> the one offered by the Office of the Public Sector in the UK, to
>>> free
>>>>>> up content for re-use. (This is the liscense that the Public Whip
>>>>>> uses to re-distribute the Hansard in the UK.)
>>>>>> It was recently suggested to me that the Government of Canada
>>> Library
>>>>>> of Parliament would be a good resource and potential ally. It's
>>>>>> quite possible that this department might be very good as a first
>>>>>> contact for talking about redistribution liscenses. If anyone knows
>>>>>> someone in the Library of Parliament, please let me know. Sometimes
>>>>>> personal contacts help get things rolling.
>>>>>> Are there other groups who are actively working on this?
>>>>>> Jennifer
>>>>>> [1]http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ >>>>>> [2]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ >>>>>> On Feb 25, 11:11 am, Laura<lmwes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Here's an interesting comment about where Crown copyright prevented
>>> re-
>>>>>> use of information in Australia. I'm not well educated on this
>>> topic,
>>>>>> but it seems worth exploring.
>>>>>> From:http://content.techrepublic.com.com/2346-1035_11-270469-5.html >>>>>> "The massive forest fire that continues to ravage Australia's
>>> mainland
>>>>>> became a struggle for the freedom of information. While geographical
>>>>>> data about the fires was readily available from the Country Fire
>>>>>> Authority, when Google tried to get information on fires that were
>>> on
>>>>>> public lands the company hit a dead end.
>>>>>> Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment would not
>>>>>> share its data, which was deemed private due to the Crown copyright
>>>>>> provisions, a set of rules that limits government information from
>>>>>> being shared with the public or private companies. Google Australia
>>>>>> instead went with satellite imagery from NASA for use on its special
>>>>>> maps layer that's tracking the spread and control of fires.
>>>>>> This satellite imagery of the quake was provided by NASA when the
>>>>>> Australian government would not provide geodata on where the fires
>>>>>> were."
>>>>>> So, let me get this straight - NASA info = open, A state department
>>>>>> funded with public money = closed. I blame bureaucracy.
>>>>>> On Feb 24, 12:30 pm, Kevin McArthur<ke...@stormtide.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really?
>>>>>> http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/02/24/FOIWarnings/ >>>>>> Food for thought.
>>>>>> K
>>>>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>>>>>> As an update on this: I wasn't able to find much of a record of the
>>>>>> liscense that the PublicWhip group is using. I've emailed them my
>>>>>> questions directly.
>>>>>> In the meantime, I came accross this reccomendation in the Power of
>>>>>> Information Task Force's most recent report:
>>>>>> "When the public sector publishes information people should
>>> understand
>>>>>> that it is intended for re-use. Action is required to improve
>>>>>> understanding of Crown Copyright, which the Taskforce found to be
>>> mis-
>>>>>> understood by creators and re-users of data. Crown Copyright,
>>> despite
>>>>>> its historic name, is designed to encourage re-use in the majority
>>> of
>>>>>> cases yet the taskforce found little appreciation of this. There
>>> were
>>>>>> even suggestions that it was deterring potential re-users. OPSI
>>>>>> should begin a communications campaign to re-present and improve
>>>>>> understanding of the permissive aspects of Crown Copyright along the
>>>>>> lines of creative commons by end June 2009."
>>>>>> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? Can
>>> anyone
>>>>>> comment on whether the UK version has evolved differently than the
>>>>>> Canadian one?
>>>>>> I've been sick with a cold for almost a week, so have been offline
>>> for
>>>>>> long stretches.
>>>>>> Jennifer
>>>>>> On Jan 31, 11:27 pm, Andy Kaplan-Myrth<a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>> One of the sites that got me interested in the whole idea of
>>> building
>>>>>> online tools for government transparency and accessibility was
>>>>>> MySociety's video matching game:
>>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/video/ >>>>>> SoMyCeliumis a very interesting project to me, and I'd hate to see
>>>>>> Crown Copyright get in the way of a truly useful and valuable public
>>>>>> interest project like this.
>>>>>> It is of course always best to have an explicit licence to use the
>>> works
>>>>>> (both the video and the transcript in this case). So I do think it
>>> would
>>>>>> be worth exploring whether such a licence could be negotiated for
>>> little
>>>>>> to no cost for a project that is clearly in the public interest.
>>>>>> But I also think such a use ofparlvuvideo would likely be fair
>>> dealing
>>>>>> in Canada. The boundaries of fair dealing are hard to identify, so
>>> there
>>>>>> is some inherent risk in relying on fair dealing as the grounds on
>>> which
>>>>>> you use a work. But the fact remains that there *is* a fair
>>> dealing
>>>>>> exemption, and *something* falls within it. If unmodified, freely
>>>>>> available parliamentary video and transcripts, improved by indexing
>>> with
>>>>>> hansard transcripts is not fair dealing, then what is? And while
>>> it's
>>>>>> true that the HoC has claimed infringement of copyright in the past,
>>> in
>>>>>> at least the case of that one parody video on YouTube, the video in
>>> that
>>>>>> particular case was much, much farther from the definition of fair
>>>>>> dealing identified in the case CCH v. LSUC:
>>>>>> The hilarious parody:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlD9hu7y8bU >>>>>> CCH v.
1) Are there any features for mycelium that need to be worked on/added. I've been reluctant in the past to do much for fear of triggering the type of copyright complaint that this other group did. That said... looks like the permissions ended up being more than I would have expected, and are well in-line with the type of video clip service I've been trying to run. 2) I have an archive of recorded question period videos going back 10-16-2007. Is there any interest on publication of these archives? Should they be open for excerpting? 3) Can anyone suggest how to best add metadata as a cross-reference search for video content. I'm thinking searches from hansard and finding associated days videos... but, I don't see any good/easy way to really get a good timecode.
Andy Kaplan-Myrth wrote: > I could try to meet with the Public Whip about it. Could you send me > contact info you've used off-list?
> I met the stimuluswatch gang the other day at the social media > breakfast in Ottawa and in a few minutes speaking with them I > mentioned dealing with Crown Copyright for their purposes. I'm hoping > to go to their next meeting so I can keep plugging away at that issue.
> Cheers, > Andy
> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>> To keep this going: I've emailed the Public Whip before, with no >> response... but perhaps if you try, Andy, with a targeted question on >> the liscense, they'll answer.
>> Really, I got excited about this because it seemed like an example of >> a cut-and-dried way of redistribuing gov data without Crown Copyright >> headaches. If this isn't it, then maybe a new one can be invented.
>> On that note, some open-data'ers in Ottawa are gearing up for a >> meeting with the Library of Parliament, which is cool.
>> JB
>> On Apr 17, 11:38 am, "Joe Murray"<joe.mur...@jmaconsulting.biz> >> wrote:
>>> I believe there are also minor differences in copyright law between UK and >>> Canada.
>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com >>>> [mailto:visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andy >>>> Kaplan-Myrth >>>> Sent: April 17, 2009 9:46 AM >>>> To: visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com >>>> Subject: [VG-Discuss] Re: MyCelium and Parliamentary Video Liscensing >>>> Having taken only a quick look through the Click-Use licensing program >>>> and one of the actual licences, it looks like this kind of re-use and >>>> re-licensing under CC is not allowed, but I'm sure PublicWhip has >>>> looked at this in detail. Should I try to follow up with them and get >>>> back to the list with more information about how they arranged >>>> licensing? >>>> It will likely be informative and may give us some ideas, but I'm not >>>> sure how directly relevant it will be to us since we don't have that >>>> Click-Use regime for works under Crown Copyright. And it's not even >>>> clear that parliamentary video is under Crown Copyright, frankly. >>>> But I can gather info from PublicWhip if people think that would be >>>> useful. >>>> Cheers, >>>> Andy >>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>>>>> On the topic of click-use liscensing -- it turns out there are >>>>> potential ways in to both the Office of the Speaker and the Library of >>>>> Parliamentary for pushing this. >>>>> A question that should be investigated before-hand, though: >>>>> The group the Public-Whip, in the UK, uses the click-use lisence[1] to >>>>> re-distribute scraped information under creative-commons, as described >>>>> here: >>>>> http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/more-architecture/ >>>>> Is this really allowed by click-use, or is this just what PublicWhip >>>>> is doing, and no-one's stopped them? To investigate... >>>>> Jennifer >>>>> [1]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ >>>>> On Apr 9, 8:37 am, Andy Kaplan-Myrth<a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> I had a contact in the Speakers office who I was trying to engage on >>>>>> this, but our email exchange died. I could try to start that up again >>>>>> if you want. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Andy Kaplan-Myrth, LL.B., M.A. >>>>>> Barrister& Solicitor >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> email: a...@kaplan-myrth.ca >>>>>> web:http://kaplan-myrth.ca >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> PGP Key ID 0xE9349025 >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Kevin McArthur<ke...@stormtide.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Jennifer, >>>>>>> Have you tried the Office of the Speaker... might be more helpful
>>>> than the
>>>>>>> ParlVUcrew. >>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>> Jennifer Bell wrote: >>>>>>> I had another conversation recently that reminded me of this neat >>>>>>> thread. I never heard back fromparlvu[1] when I enquired to their >>>>>>> contact email about the possiblity for a click-use liscense[2], like >>>>>>> the one offered by the Office of the Public Sector in the UK, to
>>>> free
>>>>>>> up content for re-use. (This is the liscense that the Public Whip >>>>>>> uses to re-distribute the Hansard in the UK.) >>>>>>> It was recently suggested to me that the Government of Canada
>>>> Library
>>>>>>> of Parliament would be a good resource and potential ally. It's >>>>>>> quite possible that this department might be very good as a first >>>>>>> contact for talking about redistribution liscenses. If anyone knows >>>>>>> someone in the Library of Parliament, please let me know. Sometimes >>>>>>> personal contacts help get things rolling. >>>>>>> Are there other groups who are actively working on this? >>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>> [1]http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ >>>>>>> [2]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ >>>>>>> On Feb 25, 11:11 am, Laura<lmwes...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Here's an interesting comment about where Crown copyright prevented
>>>> re-
>>>>>>> use of information in Australia. I'm not well educated on this
>>>>>>> became a struggle for the freedom of information. While geographical >>>>>>> data about the fires was readily available from the Country Fire >>>>>>> Authority, when Google tried to get information on fires that were
>>>> on
>>>>>>> public lands the company hit a dead end. >>>>>>> Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment would not >>>>>>> share its data, which was deemed private due to the Crown copyright >>>>>>> provisions, a set of rules that limits government information from >>>>>>> being shared with the public or private companies. Google Australia >>>>>>> instead went with satellite imagery from NASA for use on its special >>>>>>> maps layer that's tracking the spread and control of fires. >>>>>>> This satellite imagery of the quake was provided by NASA when the >>>>>>> Australian government would not provide geodata on where the fires >>>>>>> were." >>>>>>> So, let me get this straight - NASA info = open, A state department >>>>>>> funded with public money = closed. I blame bureaucracy. >>>>>>> On Feb 24, 12:30 pm, Kevin McArthur<ke...@stormtide.ca> wrote: >>>>>>> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? >>>>>>> http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/02/24/FOIWarnings/ >>>>>>> Food for thought. >>>>>>> K >>>>>>> Jennifer Bell wrote: >>>>>>> As an update on this: I wasn't able to find much of a record of the >>>>>>> liscense that the PublicWhip group is using. I've emailed them my >>>>>>> questions directly. >>>>>>> In the meantime, I came accross this reccomendation in the Power of >>>>>>> Information Task Force's most recent report: >>>>>>> "When the public sector publishes information people should
>>>> understand
>>>>>>> that it is intended for re-use. Action is required to improve >>>>>>> understanding of Crown Copyright, which the Taskforce found to be
>>>> mis-
>>>>>>> understood by creators and re-users of data. Crown Copyright,
>>>> despite
>>>>>>> its historic name, is designed to encourage re-use in the majority
>>>> of
>>>>>>> cases yet the taskforce found little appreciation of this. There
>>>> were
>>>>>>> even suggestions that it was deterring potential re-users. OPSI >>>>>>> should begin a communications campaign to re-present and improve >>>>>>> understanding of the permissive aspects of Crown Copyright along the >>>>>>> lines of creative commons by end June 2009." >>>>>>> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? Can
>>>> anyone
>>>>>>> comment on whether the UK version has evolved differently than the >>>>>>> Canadian one? >>>>>>> I've been sick with a cold for almost a week, so have been offline
>>>> for
>>>>>>> long stretches. >>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>> On Jan 31, 11:27 pm, Andy Kaplan-Myrth<a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
Mysociety.org in the UK crowdsourced the task of matching up hansard with video using a Flash game, with legendary success. I visit their site from time to time to try it out, but it's so successful that all their timestamping is always complete!
Can we get the code they built that on and set up something similar? Is Canada's population large enough to support the task? Or would others outside Canada help?
> 1) Are there any features for mycelium that need to be worked on/added. > I've been reluctant in the past to do much for fear of triggering the > type of copyright complaint that this other group did. That said... > looks like the permissions ended up being more than I would have > expected, and are well in-line with the type of video clip service I've > been trying to run. > 2) I have an archive of recorded question period videos going back > 10-16-2007. Is there any interest on publication of these archives? > Should they be open for excerpting? > 3) Can anyone suggest how to best add metadata as a cross-reference > search for video content. I'm thinking searches from hansard and finding > associated days videos... but, I don't see any good/easy way to really > get a good timecode.
> Ideas?
> K
> Andy Kaplan-Myrth wrote: >> I could try to meet with the Public Whip about it. Could you send me >> contact info you've used off-list?
>> I met the stimuluswatch gang the other day at the social media >> breakfast in Ottawa and in a few minutes speaking with them I >> mentioned dealing with Crown Copyright for their purposes. I'm hoping >> to go to their next meeting so I can keep plugging away at that issue.
>> Cheers, >> Andy
>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>>> To keep this going: I've emailed the Public Whip before, with no >>> response... but perhaps if you try, Andy, with a targeted question on >>> the liscense, they'll answer.
>>> Really, I got excited about this because it seemed like an example of >>> a cut-and-dried way of redistribuing gov data without Crown Copyright >>> headaches. If this isn't it, then maybe a new one can be invented.
>>> On that note, some open-data'ers in Ottawa are gearing up for a >>> meeting with the Library of Parliament, which is cool.
>>> JB
>>> On Apr 17, 11:38 am, "Joe Murray"<joe.mur...@jmaconsulting.biz> >>> wrote:
>>>> I believe there are also minor differences in copyright law between UK and >>>> Canada.
>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From:visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com >>>>> [mailto:visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andy >>>>> Kaplan-Myrth >>>>> Sent: April 17, 2009 9:46 AM >>>>> To:visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com >>>>> Subject: [VG-Discuss] Re: MyCelium and Parliamentary Video Liscensing >>>>> Having taken only a quick look through the Click-Use licensing program >>>>> and one of the actual licences, it looks like this kind of re-use and >>>>> re-licensing under CC is not allowed, but I'm sure PublicWhip has >>>>> looked at this in detail. Should I try to follow up with them and get >>>>> back to the list with more information about how they arranged >>>>> licensing? >>>>> It will likely be informative and may give us some ideas, but I'm not >>>>> sure how directly relevant it will be to us since we don't have that >>>>> Click-Use regime for works under Crown Copyright. And it's not even >>>>> clear that parliamentary video is under Crown Copyright, frankly. >>>>> But I can gather info from PublicWhip if people think that would be >>>>> useful. >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Andy >>>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>>>>>> On the topic of click-use liscensing -- it turns out there are >>>>>> potential ways in to both the Office of the Speaker and the Library of >>>>>> Parliamentary for pushing this. >>>>>> A question that should be investigated before-hand, though: >>>>>> The group the Public-Whip, in the UK, uses the click-use lisence[1] to >>>>>> re-distribute scraped information under creative-commons, as described >>>>>> here: >>>>>> http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/more-architecture/ >>>>>> Is this really allowed by click-use, or is this just what PublicWhip >>>>>> is doing, and no-one's stopped them? To investigate... >>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>> [1]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ >>>>>> On Apr 9, 8:37 am, Andy Kaplan-Myrth<a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> I had a contact in the Speakers office who I was trying to engage on >>>>>>> this, but our email exchange died. I could try to start that up again >>>>>>> if you want. >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Andy Kaplan-Myrth, LL.B., M.A. >>>>>>> Barrister& Solicitor >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> email:a...@kaplan-myrth.ca >>>>>>> web:http://kaplan-myrth.ca >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> PGP Key ID 0xE9349025 >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Kevin McArthur<ke...@stormtide.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jennifer, >>>>>>>> Have you tried the Office of the Speaker... might be more helpful
>>>>> than the
>>>>>>>> ParlVUcrew. >>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>> Jennifer Bell wrote: >>>>>>>> I had another conversation recently that reminded me of this neat >>>>>>>> thread. I never heard back fromparlvu[1] when I enquired to their >>>>>>>> contact email about the possiblity for a click-use liscense[2], like >>>>>>>> the one offered by the Office of the Public Sector in the UK, to
>>>>> free
>>>>>>>> up content for re-use. (This is the liscense that the Public Whip >>>>>>>> uses to re-distribute the Hansard in the UK.) >>>>>>>> It was recently suggested to me that the Government of Canada
>>>>> Library
>>>>>>>> of Parliament would be a good resource and potential ally. It's >>>>>>>> quite possible that this department might be very good as a first >>>>>>>> contact for talking about redistribution liscenses. If anyone knows >>>>>>>> someone in the Library of Parliament, please let me know. Sometimes >>>>>>>> personal contacts help get things rolling. >>>>>>>> Are there other groups who are actively working on this? >>>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>>> [1]http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ >>>>>>>> [2]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ >>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 11:11 am, Laura<lmwes...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Here's an interesting comment about where Crown copyright prevented
>>>>> re-
>>>>>>>> use of information in Australia. I'm not well educated on this
>>>>>>>> became a struggle for the freedom of information. While geographical >>>>>>>> data about the fires was readily available from the Country Fire >>>>>>>> Authority, when Google tried to get information on fires that were
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> public lands the company hit a dead end. >>>>>>>> Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment would not >>>>>>>> share its data, which was deemed private due to the Crown copyright >>>>>>>> provisions, a set of rules that limits government information from >>>>>>>> being shared with the public or private companies. Google Australia >>>>>>>> instead went with satellite imagery from NASA for use on its special >>>>>>>> maps layer that's tracking the spread and control of fires. >>>>>>>> This satellite imagery of the quake was provided by NASA when the >>>>>>>> Australian government would not provide geodata on where the fires >>>>>>>> were." >>>>>>>> So, let me get this straight - NASA info = open, A state department >>>>>>>> funded with public money = closed. I blame bureaucracy. >>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 12:30 pm, Kevin McArthur<ke...@stormtide.ca> wrote: >>>>>>>> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? >>>>>>>> http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/02/24/FOIWarnings/ >>>>>>>> Food for thought. >>>>>>>> K >>>>>>>> Jennifer Bell wrote: >>>>>>>> As an update on this: I wasn't able to find much of a record of the >>>>>>>> liscense that the PublicWhip group is using. I've emailed them my >>>>>>>> questions directly. >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I came accross this reccomendation in the Power of >>>>>>>> Information Task Force's most recent report: >>>>>>>> "When the public sector publishes information people should
>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>> that it is intended for re-use. Action is required to improve >>>>>>>> understanding of Crown Copyright, which the Taskforce found to be
>>>>> mis-
>>>>>>>> understood by creators and re-users of data. Crown Copyright,
>>>>> despite
>>>>>>>> its historic name, is designed to encourage re-use in the majority
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> cases yet the taskforce found little appreciation of this. There
>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> even suggestions that it was deterring potential re-users. OPSI >>>>>>>> should begin a communications campaign to re-present and improve >>>>>>>> understanding of the permissive aspects of Crown Copyright along the >>>>>>>> lines of creative commons by end June 2009." >>>>>>>> Crown Copyright is designed to encourage re-use? Really? Can
"Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its
Committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, is hereby permitted
provided that the reproduction is accurate and is not presented as
official. This permission does not extend to reproduction,
distribution or use for commercial purpose of financial gain."
While the introduction talks specifically about webcasts, the above
statement seems to include the hansard itself, which makes hansard
scraping projects like howdtheyvote and ourparliament.ca suddenly
legitamate.
It's fun that this arrangement isn't given a name. 'Crown Copyright
for Parliamentary Proceedings'? Crown Copyright-minus-minus?
... and of course, I shake my head at the commercial restriction.
Heaven forbid anyone in this country should make money.
As for: could Canada support the same thing?... if you look at their
timestamping stats[1], they basically have one really, really
committed person, and a few less committed people who represent the
bulk of the work. People who just breeze through represent ~1/20th of
the effort. So, if a really, really committed Cdn came forward, I'd
say the same thing would be possible here.
> Mysociety.org in the UK crowdsourced the task of matching up hansard
> with video using a Flash game, with legendary success. I visit their
> site from time to time to try it out, but it's so successful that all
> their timestamping is always complete!
> Can we get the code they built that on and set up something similar?
> Is Canada's population large enough to support the task? Or would
> others outside Canada help?
> > So, with that in place, I have a few questions.
> > 1) Are there any features for mycelium that need to be worked on/added.
> > I've been reluctant in the past to do much for fear of triggering the
> > type of copyright complaint that this other group did. That said...
> > looks like the permissions ended up being more than I would have
> > expected, and are well in-line with the type of video clip service I've
> > been trying to run.
> > 2) I have an archive of recorded question period videos going back
> > 10-16-2007. Is there any interest on publication of these archives?
> > Should they be open for excerpting?
> > 3) Can anyone suggest how to best add metadata as a cross-reference
> > search for video content. I'm thinking searches from hansard and finding
> > associated days videos... but, I don't see any good/easy way to really
> > get a good timecode.
> > Ideas?
> > K
> > Andy Kaplan-Myrth wrote:
> >> I could try to meet with the Public Whip about it. Could you send me
> >> contact info you've used off-list?
> >> I met the stimuluswatch gang the other day at the social media
> >> breakfast in Ottawa and in a few minutes speaking with them I
> >> mentioned dealing with Crown Copyright for their purposes. I'm hoping
> >> to go to their next meeting so I can keep plugging away at that issue.
> >> Cheers,
> >> Andy
> >> Jennifer Bell wrote:
> >>> To keep this going: I've emailed the Public Whip before, with no
> >>> response... but perhaps if you try, Andy, with a targeted question on
> >>> the liscense, they'll answer.
> >>> Really, I got excited about this because it seemed like an example of
> >>> a cut-and-dried way of redistribuing gov data without Crown Copyright
> >>> headaches. If this isn't it, then maybe a new one can be invented.
> >>> On that note, some open-data'ers in Ottawa are gearing up for a
> >>> meeting with the Library of Parliament, which is cool.
> >>>> I believe there are also minor differences in copyright law between UK and
> >>>> Canada.
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From:visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com
> >>>>> [mailto:visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andy
> >>>>> Kaplan-Myrth
> >>>>> Sent: April 17, 2009 9:46 AM
> >>>>> To:visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com
> >>>>> Subject: [VG-Discuss] Re: MyCelium and Parliamentary Video Liscensing
> >>>>> Having taken only a quick look through the Click-Use licensing program
> >>>>> and one of the actual licences, it looks like this kind of re-use and
> >>>>> re-licensing under CC is not allowed, but I'm sure PublicWhip has
> >>>>> looked at this in detail. Should I try to follow up with them and get
> >>>>> back to the list with more information about how they arranged
> >>>>> licensing?
> >>>>> It will likely be informative and may give us some ideas, but I'm not
> >>>>> sure how directly relevant it will be to us since we don't have that
> >>>>> Click-Use regime for works under Crown Copyright. And it's not even
> >>>>> clear that parliamentary video is under Crown Copyright, frankly.
> >>>>> But I can gather info from PublicWhip if people think that would be
> >>>>> useful.
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Andy
> >>>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
> >>>>>> On the topic of click-use liscensing -- it turns out there are
> >>>>>> potential ways in to both the Office of the Speaker and the Library of
> >>>>>> Parliamentary for pushing this.
> >>>>>> A question that should be investigated before-hand, though:
> >>>>>> The group the Public-Whip, in the UK, uses the click-use lisence[1] to
> >>>>>> re-distribute scraped information under creative-commons, as described
> >>>>>> here:
> >>>>>>http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/more-architecture/ > >>>>>> Is this really allowed by click-use, or is this just what PublicWhip
> >>>>>> is doing, and no-one's stopped them? To investigate...
> >>>>>> Jennifer
> >>>>>> [1]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ > >>>>>> On Apr 9, 8:37 am, Andy Kaplan-Myrth<a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>> I had a contact in the Speakers office who I was trying to engage on
> >>>>>>> this, but our email exchange died. I could try to start that up again
> >>>>>>> if you want.
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Andy Kaplan-Myrth, LL.B., M.A.
> >>>>>>> Barrister& Solicitor
> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> email:a...@kaplan-myrth.ca
> >>>>>>> web:http://kaplan-myrth.ca > >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> PGP Key ID 0xE9349025
> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Kevin McArthur<ke...@stormtide.ca>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Jennifer,
> >>>>>>>> Have you tried the Office of the Speaker... might be more helpful
> >>>>> than the
> >>>>>>>> ParlVUcrew.
> >>>>>>>> Kevin
> >>>>>>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I had another conversation recently that reminded me of this neat
> >>>>>>>> thread. I never heard back fromparlvu[1] when I enquired to their
> >>>>>>>> contact email about the possiblity for a click-use liscense[2], like
> >>>>>>>> the one offered by the Office of the Public Sector in the UK, to
> >>>>> free
> >>>>>>>> up content for re-use. (This is the liscense that the Public Whip
> >>>>>>>> uses to re-distribute the Hansard in the UK.)
> >>>>>>>> It was recently suggested to me that the Government of Canada
> >>>>> Library
> >>>>>>>> of Parliament would be a good resource and potential ally. It's
> >>>>>>>> quite possible that this department might be very good as a first
> >>>>>>>> contact for talking about redistribution liscenses. If anyone knows
> >>>>>>>> someone in the Library of Parliament, please let me know. Sometimes
> >>>>>>>> personal contacts help get things rolling.
> >>>>>>>> Are there other groups who are actively working on this?
> >>>>>>>> Jennifer
> >>>>>>>> [1]http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ > >>>>>>>> [2]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ > >>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 11:11 am, Laura<lmwes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Here's an interesting comment about where Crown copyright prevented
> >>>>> re-
> >>>>>>>> use of information in Australia. I'm not well educated on this
> >>>>>>>> became a struggle for the freedom of information. While geographical
> >>>>>>>> data about the fires was readily available from the Country Fire
> >>>>>>>> Authority, when Google tried to get information on fires that were
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>>>> public lands the company hit a dead end.
> >>>>>>>> Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment would not
> >>>>>>>> share its data, which was deemed private due to the Crown copyright
> >>>>>>>> provisions, a set of rules that limits government information from
> >>>>>>>> being shared with the public or private companies. Google Australia
> >>>>>>>> instead went with
> So, if a really, really committed Cdn came forward, I'd > say the same thing would be possible here.
Any volunteers :)
I took a quick peruse on the site, but couldn't actually find the flash game -- I think because there's nothing to tag right now. Would it have been just as successful without the matchup game, given that really, its one person doing the tagging?
I'm told there's a closed captioning feed on the parliamentary tv network (the cable system they have in the building) but, I've not seen anyone successfully tap into it. However, if we can get the CC data, plus some sort of algorithm -- maybe a Levenshtein based match -- could be possible to automate the tagging?
Anyone know a sympathetic MP who might be willing to put a Myth-Based PVR on the cable feed and/or know of a way to get it from a parlvu webcast [i dont think the data is in the stream, but could be wrong]...
> While the introduction talks specifically about webcasts, the above > statement seems to include the hansard itself, which makes hansard > scraping projects like howdtheyvote and ourparliament.ca suddenly > legitamate.
> "Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its > Committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, is hereby permitted > provided that the reproduction is accurate and is not presented as > official. This permission does not extend to reproduction, > distribution or use for commercial purpose of financial gain."
> While the introduction talks specifically about webcasts, the above > statement seems to include the hansard itself, which makes hansard > scraping projects like howdtheyvote and ourparliament.ca suddenly > legitamate.
> It's fun that this arrangement isn't given a name. 'Crown Copyright > for Parliamentary Proceedings'? Crown Copyright-minus-minus?
> ... and of course, I shake my head at the commercial restriction. > Heaven forbid anyone in this country should make money.
> As for: could Canada support the same thing?... if you look at their > timestamping stats[1], they basically have one really, really > committed person, and a few less committed people who represent the > bulk of the work. People who just breeze through represent ~1/20th of > the effort. So, if a really, really committed Cdn came forward, I'd > say the same thing would be possible here.
> On May 11, 12:09 pm, Andy Kaplan-Myrth <a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
>> Mysociety.org in the UK crowdsourced the task of matching up hansard >> with video using a Flash game, with legendary success. I visit their >> site from time to time to try it out, but it's so successful that all >> their timestamping is always complete!
>> Can we get the code they built that on and set up something similar? >> Is Canada's population large enough to support the task? Or would >> others outside Canada help?
>>> So, with that in place, I have a few questions.
>>> 1) Are there any features for mycelium that need to be worked on/added. >>> I've been reluctant in the past to do much for fear of triggering the >>> type of copyright complaint that this other group did. That said... >>> looks like the permissions ended up being more than I would have >>> expected, and are well in-line with the type of video clip service I've >>> been trying to run. >>> 2) I have an archive of recorded question period videos going back >>> 10-16-2007. Is there any interest on publication of these archives? >>> Should they be open for excerpting? >>> 3) Can anyone suggest how to best add metadata as a cross-reference >>> search for video content. I'm thinking searches from hansard and finding >>> associated days videos... but, I don't see any good/easy way to really >>> get a good timecode.
>>> Ideas?
>>> K
>>> Andy Kaplan-Myrth wrote:
>>>> I could try to meet with the Public Whip about it. Could you send me >>>> contact info you've used off-list?
>>>> I met the stimuluswatch gang the other day at the social media >>>> breakfast in Ottawa and in a few minutes speaking with them I >>>> mentioned dealing with Crown Copyright for their purposes. I'm hoping >>>> to go to their next meeting so I can keep plugging away at that issue.
>>>> Cheers, >>>> Andy
>>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>>>>> To keep this going: I've emailed the Public Whip before, with no >>>>> response... but perhaps if you try, Andy, with a targeted question on >>>>> the liscense, they'll answer.
>>>>> Really, I got excited about this because it seemed like an example of >>>>> a cut-and-dried way of redistribuing gov data without Crown Copyright >>>>> headaches. If this isn't it, then maybe a new one can be invented.
>>>>> On that note, some open-data'ers in Ottawa are gearing up for a >>>>> meeting with the Library of Parliament, which is cool.
>>>>> JB
>>>>> On Apr 17, 11:38 am, "Joe Murray"<joe.mur...@jmaconsulting.biz> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I believe there are also minor differences in copyright law between UK and >>>>>> Canada.
>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From:visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com >>>>>>> [mailto:visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andy >>>>>>> Kaplan-Myrth >>>>>>> Sent: April 17, 2009 9:46 AM >>>>>>> To:visiblegovernment-discuss@googlegroups.com >>>>>>> Subject: [VG-Discuss] Re: MyCelium and Parliamentary Video Liscensing >>>>>>> Having taken only a quick look through the Click-Use licensing program >>>>>>> and one of the actual licences, it looks like this kind of re-use and >>>>>>> re-licensing under CC is not allowed, but I'm sure PublicWhip has >>>>>>> looked at this in detail. Should I try to follow up with them and get >>>>>>> back to the list with more information about how they arranged >>>>>>> licensing? >>>>>>> It will likely be informative and may give us some ideas, but I'm not >>>>>>> sure how directly relevant it will be to us since we don't have that >>>>>>> Click-Use regime for works under Crown Copyright. And it's not even >>>>>>> clear that parliamentary video is under Crown Copyright, frankly. >>>>>>> But I can gather info from PublicWhip if people think that would be >>>>>>> useful. >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> Jennifer Bell wrote:
>>>>>>>> On the topic of click-use liscensing -- it turns out there are >>>>>>>> potential ways in to both the Office of the Speaker and the Library of >>>>>>>> Parliamentary for pushing this. >>>>>>>> A question that should be investigated before-hand, though: >>>>>>>> The group the Public-Whip, in the UK, uses the click-use lisence[1] to >>>>>>>> re-distribute scraped information under creative-commons, as described >>>>>>>> here: >>>>>>>> http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/more-architecture/ >>>>>>>> Is this really allowed by click-use, or is this just what PublicWhip >>>>>>>> is doing, and no-one's stopped them? To investigate... >>>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>>> [1]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ >>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 8:37 am, Andy Kaplan-Myrth<a...@kaplan-myrth.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I had a contact in the Speakers office who I was trying to engage on >>>>>>>>> this, but our email exchange died. I could try to start that up again >>>>>>>>> if you want. >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Andy Kaplan-Myrth, LL.B., M.A. >>>>>>>>> Barrister& Solicitor >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> email:a...@kaplan-myrth.ca >>>>>>>>> web:http://kaplan-myrth.ca >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> PGP Key ID 0xE9349025 >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Kevin McArthur<ke...@stormtide.ca>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jennifer, >>>>>>>>>> Have you tried the Office of the Speaker... might be more helpful
>>>>>>> than the
>>>>>>>>>> ParlVUcrew. >>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>> Jennifer Bell wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I had another conversation recently that reminded me of this neat >>>>>>>>>> thread. I never heard back fromparlvu[1] when I enquired to their >>>>>>>>>> contact email about the possiblity for a click-use liscense[2], like >>>>>>>>>> the one offered by the Office of the Public Sector in the UK, to
>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>> up content for re-use. (This is the liscense that the Public Whip >>>>>>>>>> uses to re-distribute the Hansard in the UK.) >>>>>>>>>> It was recently suggested to me that the Government of Canada
>>>>>>> Library
>>>>>>>>>> of Parliament would be a good resource and potential ally. It's >>>>>>>>>> quite possible that this department might be very good as a first
|
