Julianna Yau’s blog

I received the following email from Schmap.com today:

You’ve been sent a Flickr Mail from Emma J. Williams:

————————————————————

:: Schmap: Paris Photo Shortlist

Hi Julianna,

I am writing to let you know that three of your photos have been short-listed for inclusion in the eighth edition of our Schmap Paris Guide, to be published at the end of this month.

http://www.schmap.com/shortlist/[code removed]

Clicking this link will take you to a page where you can:
i) See which of your photos have been short-listed.
ii) Submit or withdraw your photos from our final selection phase.
iii) Learn how we credit photos in our Schmap Guides.
iv) Browse online or download the seventh edition of our Schmap Paris Guide.

While we offer no payment for publication, many photographers are pleased to submit their photos, as Schmap Guides give their work recognition and wide exposure, and are free of charge to readers. Photos are published at a maximum width of 150 pixels, are clearly attributed, and link to high-resolution originals at Flickr.

Our submission deadline is Friday, July 17. If you happen to be reading this message after this date, please still click on the link above (our Schmap Guides are updated frequently - photos submitted after this deadline will be considered for later releases).

Best regards,

Emma Williams,
Managing Editor, Schmap Guides
www.schmap.me/ewilliams

I wasn't very interested in the offer to begin with, but thought I'd at least take a look to see what the terms are, and which pictures they were interested in.

I don't consider those to be any of my better pictures from Paris, so I'm a bit surprised they made it onto a shortlist. The TOS are pretty standard, but notably has some good wording about the images not being sublicensed and the photographer being credited for the photo.

TERMS OF SUBMISSION

THESE TERMS OF SUBMISSION (THE “TERMS”) REPRESENT A LEGAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU, EITHER AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON OR A SINGLE LEGAL ENTITY (“YOU”), AND SCHMAP, INC. (“SCHMAP”). BY CLICKING THE “SUBMIT” BUTTON, YOU CONFIRM YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS.

1. PHOTOS
The term "Photos" refers to one or more photographs and/or images licensed by You to Schmap pursuant to the Terms.

2. LICENSE GRANT
Subject to the terms and conditions herein, You hereby grant Schmap a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual license to include the Photos in the current and/or subsequent releases of Schmap's destination/local guides.

3. FAIR USE RIGHTS
Nothing in these Terms is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.

4. LIMITATIONS
The license granted in Section 2 above is made subject to and limited by the following express limitations:

(a) Schmap may only distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, and/or publicly perform the Photos pursuant to the Terms.

(b) Schmap shall be required to keep intact all copyright notices for the Photos and provide, reasonable to the medium or means of utilization, the name of the original author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, and a credit (implemented in any reasonable manner) identifying the use of the Photos in any derivative Photos created by Schmap.

(c) Schmap shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, provide Internet link(s) to your Photos.

(d) Schmap shall not sublicense the Photos.

(e) Schmap shall indicate to the public that You reserve all rights with respect to use of the Photos.

(f) Schmap shall continue to make its destination/local guides available at no cost to end users.

(g) Schmap shall display the Photos at a maximum width of 150 pixels.

5. RIGHTS
You confirm that You own or otherwise control all of the rights to the Photos and that use of the Photos by Schmap will not infringe or violate the rights of any third parties.

6. NO OBLIGATION
Schmap shall have no obligation whatsoever to reproduce, distribute, broadcast, or otherwise make use of the Photos licensed by You to Schmap hereunder.

7. NO AFFILIATION
While the Flickr website and/or Flickr API have been used to short-list your Photos, Schmap claims no affiliation or partnership with Flickr.

8. MISCELLANEOUS
If any provision of the Terms is ruled unenforceable, such provision shall be enforced to the extent permissible, and the remainder of the Terms shall remain in effect. The Terms constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Photos licensed hereunder. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Photos not specified hereunder. If there is any dispute about or involving the Terms or the license granted hereunder, You agree that such dispute shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to its conflict-of-law provisions. You agree to personal jurisdiction by and venue in the state and federal courts of the State of California, City of San Francisco. The license granted in the Terms may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of You and Schmap.

I don't understand how my images were selected for this project, because most of my Flickr photos, including those shortlisted, are still traditionally licenced; only a small selection of them have a Creative Commons license.

Although a few people have told me that they've also received these invites from Schmap and have allowed them to use their images, I have withdrawn my photos from their shortlist. I totally agree with this post on Thought Bubbles about Schmap, and can't help but allow my history with copyright to inform my decision. This business model (particularly considering that they didn't filter for photos that people have licenced with Creative Commons) uses photos without payment to enhance profit for their company -- not cool. Of course, Google's business model is also in that murky grey area, but a little differently. I'd argue that their image search doesn't use photos in the same way because I've never noticed any ads [yet] on their image search results.

There are tons of people who will give you "free" exposure online and offline. But most of the time, it's not worth what you're being "paid".

Incidentally, I went through my pictures and found a handful which I consider to be much better than the ones they selected:

I’ve been fairly quiet in the past few weeks because I’ve been switching to another server, but the DNS settings have been taking a ridiculously long time to resolve. Keeping the files and databases synced on two servers is a lot more work than I’m prepared to handle right now, with some of the other things I’ve got on my plate. This means I’ve missed the whole Facebook TOS media storm, and haven’t been keeping up with the various Net Neutrality issues in Canada or the “guilty on accusation law” being proposed in New Zealand.

What I couldn’t resist blogging about is something as frivolous as a meme. Only it’s not so frivolous because it hits my pet topic: copyright.

This is the original version of the rock band meme instructions sent to me on Facebook:

This project requires following the instructions below and maybe reading them carefully to understand.

1 – Go to “wikipedia.” Hit “random”
or click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The first random wikipedia article you get is the name of your band.

2 – Go to “Random quotations”
or click http://www.quotationspage.com/random.php3
The last four or five words of the very last quote of the page is the title of your first album.

3 – Go to flickr and click on “explore the last seven days”
or click http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days
Third picture, no matter what it is, will be your album cover.

4 – Use photoshop, picasa, or similar to put it all together.

5 – Post it with this text in the “caption” and TAG the friends you want to join in.

Of course, instruction #3 is where I have major concerns. Not all content on Flickr is licensed for use in this kind of meme. So here is my resulting album cover and revised instructions for step 3:

3 – Go to flickr and click on “explore the last seven days”
or click http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days
The first image which has a Creative Commons licence which allows remixing will be your album cover.

Explorornis

Photo by aftab

A few days ago, a friend pointed me to Social Innovation Generation (SiG) and its first event, Studio|Earth. I, of course, signed up for the event and somewhat precariously selected the Social Technology/#waterskool workshop. I was a bit concerned it would be tedious for someone who is already engaged in social media, but Joseph Dee, Sam Ladner, Lisa Torjman, Billie Mintz and Susanna Kislenko did a fantastic job with making the workshop closer to a Barcamp and having the participants actually work on a problem.

They talked about needing to think about an actionable step following the use of social technology, not just a click-to-join or click-to-donate model. I was very happy to hear that I was not the only person struggling to bridge click-activism with “real”/offline activism. This is something which has bothered me since the explosion of consumer advocates using e-petitions during the release of the last copyright bills.

What’s difficult is actually working on the issue, rather than preachers of the anti—social-technology and pro—social-technology groups yelling at each other.

In telling people about #hohoto, many were blown away by how the organizers were able to raise $25,000 for Food Banks Toronto in two weeks. A few (and one in particular) lashed out at me about how exclusive and un-social the event was because only people on Twitter knew about it. I’ve learnt that, in these situations, I should just let these people rant because they are mostly angry and not interested in an open dialogue.

This opinion of social technology being exclusive and un-social was again mentioned at the Social Technology/#waterskool session at Studio|Earth (and kudos to Lisa handling the criticism so well!). Here, coupled with the #hohoto complaint, it felt like people are angry and feeling left out and left behind because they choose not to participate in social technology. Its frustrating to me that they are simply disengaging, rather than changing how social technology relates to those who don’t have access to it or choose not to access it.

The (in)accessibility of social technology isn’t something noticed only by people who don’t use it. Amrita Chandra reflected on this on Twitter exactly a week ago today, which triggered an interesting conversation between her and Duarte Da Silva

The presenters at the Social Technology/#waterskool workshop recast this as a goal to use awareness to change behaviour, and to use social technology to enrichen, not replace, current methods of advocacy and action. Through the work of the breakout sessions, we found that some of the things we need to work on now are:

• connecting the different people who are involved with the same issue (e.g. the water crisis)
• reducing the noise and focusing the activity; avoiding multiple, simultaneous, converging stresses
• getting the attention of the natural leaders, online and offline

One of my contacts pointed me to Getting To First Base, which is an introductory book to online marketing via social networking. It has a less evangelical feel than The Cluetrain Manifesto where rethinking business is concerned, and provides a good overview of the social sphere and guidelines for how to start wading in that pool. It’s also an extremely easy read—I was able to get through it in less than an hour, despite Acrobat Reader’s refusal to scroll through the pages smoothly.

Just before hitting the half-way mark in the book, I started to really wonder how many companies are well-managed enough to know how to properly use the advice given. With all sizes of companies and not-for-profits, there seems to me that the separation between those who know how to engage and those who don’t is vast. It doesn’t feel like the basic concepts of brand management and public relations has really changed. What has changed isn’t even who is talking about you, but how much more the “public” and “consumers” are able to be heard by each other.

Perhaps most people haven’t realized it, or maybe they just don’t want to talk about it, but the strength of the consumers’ voice means that PR can no longer be a simple whitewashing of a company. Although mistakes happen and the public can be forgiving, a company now really needs to be well-managed, self-aware, honest and transparent to not become a company people love to hate.

The problem? The perception is that many companies were not built on principles of good management, self-awareness, honesty and transparency. In most cases, that’s true. And changing the culture of a company is extremely difficult, and increasingly so with the age of the company. Smaller companies fall victim to being managed by people who may not necessarily have an innate skillset for things in and around the world of marketing.

More than ever, it really does matter whether you’re providing quality products and quality customer service. People feel empowered by being able to speak honestly about a product or service, and they like it. If your printer sucks, word will get around. Boasting about its great features won’t do much, because people know your job is to make your printer look good. But offering to fix the problem, or engaging the consumer on possible improvements, works. The problem again is that most companies don’t have an organizational structure or mandate which allows this to happen.

The section Should You Build Your Own Social Network? cover what I think is the biggest symptom of a company’s disconnect with what to do with social networking. In an attempt to maintain some sort of control and not wanting to play with others, some companies try to start their own social network. And waste a ton of time and money.

Overall, the book provides good advice to its target audience, but I’m still skeptical about whether it can be used by its target audience.

And I’m glad they follow their own advice. The Friends reference had me sold.

On September 15, Facebook was dotted with profiles, sans profile pictures. This was done in protest of the recent arts funding cuts which were discovered, without warning, consultation or announcement, to show how the loss of arts & culture would mean a loss of cultural identity for Canadians.

I participated in this protest, and will join those who are remaining faceless until the election, such as Chris Foley. Being faceless for a day was very difficult for me, because I use the profile to showcase my recent sculptures, and my sculptures are part of who I am. Instead of seeing one of my creations, having to look at the ghostly silhouette of a nameless person was more than unsettling.

What was most telling of how intimitately connected our identity is with art & culture is the variety of Facless For the Arts profile pictures created by users so they can show they are faceless specificially in support of art & culture.

So as part of my work to raise awareness about the impacts and implications of the arts funding cuts, I will be faceless not merely in Facebook, but in all my online social networks.

Some exciting (for me, anyway) not-directly-related-to-art-but-still-kind-of-related opportunities arrived in my email today:

Social Technologies Summit: Call For Submissions — Deadline 5pm, 13 October 2008
13-16 May 2009
Manchester UK

Futuresonic’s acclaimed international conference, the Social Technologies Summit brings 500 opinion formers, futurologists, artists, researchers, technologists and scientists from the digital culture, technology and art communities together around shared issues to do with social media, society, art and the city.

Digital culture burns bright with social connectivity

Inviting proposals for talks, presentations, workshops and session themes. Submissions of innovative formats for social interaction and experimentation are encouraged.

Call For Submissions — Deadline 5pm, 13 October 2008

Download an application form / guidelines here:
downloads.futuresonic.com/social2009.zip

For further information contact
Lisa Roberts
Social Technologies Summit Programme Manager
FutureEverything
+44 161 237 9000
social09@futuresonic.com

See also — A GBP 5000 commission plus many other opportunities are available in the Futuresonic 2008 Art & EVNTS calls for submissions.
www.futuresonic.com/getinvolved

Stanford Law School Announces Center for Internet and Society and Stanford Constitutional Law Center Joint Fellowship

The Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society (CIS) and The Stanford Constitutional Law Center (CLC) announce a new joint fellowship for the study of the intersection of copyright and constitutional law. We are looking for an inaugural fellow to work with faculty and staff from both Centers on range of research and litigation projects addressing the relationship between the Constitution’s Copyright Clause, the First Amendment and the Fair Use
Doctrine.

The primary responsibility for the fellow will be to work on current CIS Fair Use Project litigation. In addition, the Fellow will also be an active part of the CIS and CLC communities, attending lectures and symposia, assisting with Center activities and working with students on related projects. The Fellowship will provide significant opportunity for the pursuit of individual research and scholarship in preparation to enter the academic teaching market. The fellowship position is offered for one year with the opportunity for renewal.

Applicant Requirements:

2-5 years of post-law school civil litigation experience with substantial experience in constitutional law (preferred) and
intellectual property (required) matters;
Excellent writing and analytic skills;
Demonstrated ability to direct litigation of impact cases; and
Demonstrated ability to work in a self-directed and entrepreneurial environment.

The position is for 12 months, with the possibility of renewal for a second twelve months. The start date is September 2008, although this may be flexible depending on the right candidates availability. Salary will be approximately $40,000 per year, with benefits.

Preferred submission deadline is September 8, 2008, however applications will be accepted until the position is filled.

Applicants MUST apply online via the Stanford Jobs website at
http://jobs.stanford.edu/find_a_job.html
Search “Job number 31382″

Applications may also be submitted by email to the following address:
Gelman@stanford.edu.

For more information about the CIS and the FUP, please visit
http://www.cyberlaw.stanford.edu.

For more information about the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, please visit our website at
http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/conlaw/

Not exactly what I was hoping for, but it was to be expected. Now to work on a letter regarding the budget cuts and the copyright bill. So much for keeping away from the politics of it all.

Dear Ms. Yau:

The Honourable Andrew Telegdi, your Member of Parliament, forwarded to me a copy of your e-mail of April 2, 2008, regarding net neutrality and your concern that Bell Canada is engaged in anti-competitive behaviour by controlling or “shaping” the traffic of independent Internet service providers (ISPs) that provide service through wholesale access to Bell’s digital subscriber line (DSL) network.

As Minister of Industry, I am responsible for the Telecommunications Act, which sets out the objectives of Canadian telecommunications policy. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), an independent public authority, is charged with implementing these objectives in its role as regulator of the telecommunications industry.

Canadian consumers can choose their ISP in a competitive marketplace, where prices are not regulated. Indeed, the competition between telephone and cable networks, as well as satellite, wireless and other players, has ensured that Canadians have a variety of choices, in terms of both price and quality, when selecting an ISP. Provisions in the Telecommunications Act and Competition Act ensure that the competitive marketplace operates effectively.

Under section 27 of the Telecommunications Act, the CRTC has the authority to address issues of unjust discrimination or undue preference in order to ensure that the marketplace operates fairly and effectively. If consumers feel that carriers are engaging in unjust discrimination or undue preference, complaints can be brought to the CRTC, where they are subject to a formal process. The recently created Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (www.ccts-cprst.ca) has also strengthened consumer protection with regard to telecommunications, and was established precisely to address consumer complaints on deregulated telecommunications services, such as Internet access.

In addition to the measures available under the Telecommunications Act, the Competition Act carries the power to address anti-competitive behaviour by ISPs, including cases of abuse of dominance and misleading advertising. The Competition Bureau ensures that prices in all sectors of the economy, except those that are regulated, are set by market forces and are not the result of anti-competitive behaviour. Under the abuse of dominance provisions in the Competition Act, it is illegal for a dominant firm to engage in the practice of anti-competitive acts resulting in a substantial lessening of competition, including disciplining or targeting competitors in order to raise prices or reduce customer choice.

As you may know, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) has filed a complaint with the CRTC regarding Bell’s traffic management practices. While I cannot comment on specific matters before the CRTC, please note that the Commission regulates wholesale access by independent ISPs to high-speed Internet access services from both telephone and cable companies. Under the CRTC’s regulatory framework for wholesale services, Bell is required to provide access to its DSL network to independent ISPs at regulated rates and terms of service. If the CRTC finds Bell or any other network operator to be in violation of these terms or otherwise engaging in unjust discrimination or undue preference, the CRTC has the power to address these issues under the Telecommunications Act.

Access to the Internet is a key issue for Canadians. Industry Canada is monitoring domestic and international developments to ensure that our legislative and regulatory frameworks remain effective. Should you believe carriers are engaging in unjust discrimination and undue preference, I encourage you to contact the CRTC at 1-877-249-2782 or by e-mail at info@crtc.gc.ca. Please note that, on May 15, 2008, the CRTC set out a process to address the issues raised in CAIP’s above-noted application. Further details regarding this application and the CRTC’s recently announced process to look into the matter can be found on its website at www.crtc.gc.ca.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write, and I trust that you will find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P.

I was trying to figure out whether the Buffy Summers profile on Plurk is official (she requested to add me as a friend), and came across the non-DRM, webcast version of Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog via Whedonesque, an unofficial blog for Joss Whedon.

A little over a week ago, a friend suggested that I watch Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, pitching it as a pet project of Joss Whedon’s. Deciding to watch it was a struggle for me, with pros and cons all over the place. In retrospect, I probably over-thought the decision:

• Although I’m not a fan of the premise (or particularly interested in the storyline) of Buffy, I must grudgingly admit that I did find the writing to be witty in the few episodes I’ve been made to watch.
• I hate loathe musicals, but Neil Patrick Harris’s insane level of coolness promised to negate that.
• My primary operating system is OpenSUSE, but I kept Windows so I could still access things that aren’t available for Linux.

So, out of curiosity and boredom, I decided to pay the mere $6 for 43 minutes of entertainment, and it was worth it. Harris plays Dr. Horrible wonderfully, and it was nice to be able to enjoy Whedon’s writing without the supernatural (yes, I somewhat hypocritically make allowances for the world of superheros and supervillans).

The only horrible part was that the show is only [currently and legitimately] available in Apple’s DRM-protected m4v format. This means the $6 is more of a long-term rental fee than an outright purchase. Considering the price of a DVD or a rental from a brick-and-mortar store, it’s not a bad rate…but still leaves a bitter aftertaste.

Contrary to what some might think, I’m not a supporter of DRM. Although I support the right to use it as part of a business model, I don’t think it’s a good idea. I have yet to finish reading Wired Shut, but the chapter “Speed Bump” poses a solid argument against using architectural and technological measures to correct for social behaviour.

My personal opinion is that the use of Technical Protection Measures by individual creators in an attempt to protect their work is misguided and will be more detrimental (in terms of cost and promotional opportunities) than they are lead to believe. What is needed aren’t more barriers to the enjoyment of creative works, but educating people on the real cost of production and the value of a work. The situation, although more ignored, is more clear-cut for visual and media artists, who usually work alone or in small groups.

In the traditional model used by many visual artists, they bear the cost of creating their work and generate income from a variety of sources, including (but not limited to) grants (which are, in Canada, taxable income), teaching, exhibition fees (paid by galleries when the work is for display and not sale), second and third jobs, and the occassional sale. When work is sold through a gallery, the gallery typically takes 50% of the sale price to cover their overhead (rent, staff salaries, etc). In Canada, there is no legislated resale right which would help boost the income of artists when their growing careers increase the value of past work in the resale market.

When I run this information past my non-artist friends, they’re often shocked, particularly at the fact that a gallery gets a commission which is much higher than commissions in other industries. Suddenly, being an artist isn’t so glamorous, and “sticking it to the man” isn’t so chic.

Passing through Union Station, you’ll sometimes come across stores offering samples of their goods. The commuters understand that this is something the stores are offering as part of a marketing strategy, giving you a literal or figurative taste of what they have to sell before you commit to a purchase.

This practice has parallels in art, with galleries where you can view work prior to purchase (and some even have loan programs where you can borrow a work for a period of time to ensure that you want to make the full investment) and the dying music store and its listening booths/stations.

In these instances, most reasonable people understand the purpose of the sampling strategy being used, and what is considered an acceptable use of the system. Someone who takes enough bagel segments in one visit to make up a whole bagel is obviously abusing the system. Likewise, someone who serially borrows work from a gallery without any intention of a purchase is abusing the loan program.

When I compare the brick-and-mortar practice of samples with the myriad of ways people are using the internet for marketing and exposure, I notice two things. The first is that when physical samples are provided, the party offering the sample is not reprimanded for trying to protect against the offerings being abused. The second is that with physical samples, both the giver and receiver have a consistent and, typically, matching understanding of what constitutes abuse.

So why do neither of these things happen where the internet is concerned? Somehow, in internet land, artists are framed as either greedy or clueless for trying to prevent their work abusive uses of the work they put online. And now that the idea that “everyone is an artist” is not merely more widespread than the emergence of contemporary art, but it is also being met with mixed reactions.

I think it’s great that so many people are creating work. But the use of “artist” as a label for anyone who has every made anything is diluting the value of the creative, administrative and physical effort required to “make for a living”. Art and artist appreciation is already a problem, with art education continuing to be cut from public education in favour of the three Rs. But the devaluation of the artist is a serious issue which is showing itself in the way people are talking about their entitlements to the use and access to art.

What is more appalling to me is that I’m told that creators create because of reasons other than financial gain, as if that were a justification for creators not being paid for the work they do. Why is this logic not applied to chefs, lawyers, educators, social workers, or anyone else who has chosen a career for reasons other than income generation?