Content is going to become even more open in 2008. But how open is open, when does traditional content masquerade as such? Clever marketing ideas like movie clip remix competitions where the remixer has no right to distribute or permission to use their own endeavours don’t really count as open content. So here’s a start at laying out a framework for what truly constitutes open content and open source media. I’m going to talk in terms of film/video, because that is the context for A Swarm of Angels, but it applies to other media like open music and open books too.
With the change in the media climate and distribution experiments such as Radiohead’s In Rainbows (in music), and Four Eyed Monsters (in film) which have open qualities (temporarily available to watch or listen/download for free, for example) but are not truly open content, it is getting harder to tell what you can and cannot officially do with your media.
These are three proposed states for open media, each building on the next:
Open (O-):
The baseline, concerned with freely consuming and sharing the content (1-3)
Open source (O):
Being able to view and remix the source files (1-5).
Open Plus (O+):
The ability to participate in a transparent, documented process (1-8).
- 1. Freely accessible
Available to stream, or download without a fee. Should be available via direct download and P2P media, so it is not behind a gateway. - 2. Freely available.
Permanently available without DRM, or release windows. The end user able to share the work without restriction. - 3. Freely viewable
Available in multiple formats, and to be converted freely (in the case of video works, for example, as dvd, xvid/divx, mp4, and HD formats).
The above qualities are essential for open content. Open source content adds to the cultural commons by making creation of new content from the work.
- 4. Giving source files
Source media, such as rushes and raw graphics files should be archived and available for other creators to work with. - 5. Allowing remixing
Materials should be licensed explicitly to allow derivative work (eg. other works based on the script, or video mashups, and remix edits) for at least non-commercial/artistic purposes. Creative Commons and other licenses are available for flexible copyrighting.
Open Plus adds more opportunities for participation and involvement in the work whether as a creator, or as part of what used to be called ‘the audience’.
- 6. Reveal the process
Allowing access to not only the final source media, but work-in-progress material and software files, adding another layer of transparency and documentation. - 7. Open contribution
Adding ways to influence and participate in the creation of the original work through various types of community/audience involvement (opportunities such as open crewing, direct feedback or contribution mechanisms).
There are different flavours of open media, and these states can accommodate most Pioneering open movie projects like Blender’s Elephants Dream and Modfilm’s Sanctuary count as open source media because they allow you to access the source files. The recent release of the copyright documentary, Steal This Film, illustrates extreme openness rejecting any copyright and licensing restrictions, but doesn’t provide source media. The same is true for the Creative Commons-licensed machinima feature film Bloodspell.
Next generation projects like the upcoming Peach animated film from Blender team, our own A Swarm of Angels feature film project, and the opensourcecinema.org documentary illustrate the more transparent and flexible end of the open content spectrum.
Open source media is not open source technology. It doesn’t have the same rules but some common properties. It should have some minimum requirements, so it is easier for everyone to immediately figure out how open the media you want to enjoy really is.
You can pre-register for Phase 3 now, and be part of a community at the front line of creating Open Plus content.
Tags: ASOA, asoa community, bittorrent, copyleft, creative commons, digital distribution, open source
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Pingback from 7 rules for open source media « Sampsung @ HiLaws ♨侍孝祥♨
January 7th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Pingback from Tools » Blog Archive » Open Source Media
January 7th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Pingback from More CC Cinema 2.0 - Creative Commons
January 9th, 2008 at 3:15 am
Pingback from Open Source Media at media studio
January 21st, 2008 at 6:59 am
Pingback from Drei Stufen der Offenheit — keimform.de
February 15th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Pingback from A Swarm of Angels « The knowledge behind the actions
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
JP
This approach is interesting as it emphasizes on the availability of data instead of the protection of content. This is what open content should be about. I think it is the first stage to making people responsible for the use of artistic creation.
The problem of using a progressive classification is that it won’t cover all possibilities. For example, coming from the book writing point of view, I am willing to create an (O-) content but I would add “6. Reveal the process” (drafts, maps of places in the book, bios of characters), without the possibility of remixing the story, but I would accept and even welcome crowdsourced translations.
These concepts are a very good starting point. We should manage to develop a classification system that allows total flexibility (like CC does) while remaining relatively simple. The main difference between this and CC is that it focusses on advanced users, who are willing to do something more with the content, therefore we can probably allow ourselves more complexity.
JP
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Brett
Great thinking, Matt. This is really well thought out.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Brett
I agree. It’s nice to have a spectrum, but they shouldn’t be exclusionary and not necessariily progressive. Sometimes one isn’t able to be as open as one would like, with funders, publishers etc. and one wouldn’t want to remove them from this process.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
matt
@JP: thanks for the comments.
“These concepts are a very good starting point. We should manage to develop a classification system that allows total flexibility (like CC does) while remaining relatively simple”
If we add mix and match elements then it gets into a CC-conflicted area. I really just wanted to see what people thought of a more general broad-brush ratings system. I like the fact it is progressive because you know the baseline interactions. If people want to dig deeper then they can see the specific license types… (whether CC or some other…)
January 7th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
matt
@Brett: “Sometimes one isn’t able to be as open as one would like, with funders, publishers etc. and one wouldn’t want to remove them from this process.”
Do you think a more granular approach is needed? Or are you saying 3 ratings isn’t enough and more minimal stuff is required?
January 13th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Brett
Granular, I suppose. so something like, “if your process includes 3 of this 5 elements, we consider it open”. So something like Steal this Film hasn’t released the source footage, but have given the final product away. Inversely, someone might give away the source but choose conventional distribution of the final product. A progressive system precludes that.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Pegaso
Hey, i posted my comments at digg.com but maybe here is more appropriate. I truly like these 7 rules!
Just some thoughts:
1) if the aim of having these 7 rules is letting “people get a feel for how *open* the particular work is” (from digg), i think that the ‘ownership’ aspect is not unimportant.
Unlike software, open source media content is not always immaterial: it often needs expensive resources to be developed (see ASOA) and the way money is collected and the shape of the ownership structure, could be fundamental aspects of openness (from the point of view of the audience). Ex: is it crowd-funded or not?
2)I support Brett’s point: *open* and *open-source* could have different meanings. I think the openness could be declined in different ways, event not aligned in the progressive spectrum form o- to o+. For example somebody could show the process and let people have a say in the production decisions, but keeping the rights of the source files and not allowing any kind of reuse and remixing. It is not open-source, but it is somehow open anyway. If the target is the audience, and if the rating system is supposed to be flexible, maybe we can foresee a 2 steps rating:
- the first one: non-progressive and merely descriptive (”in which ways this project/product/initiative is open”)
- the second one: mapping the first one in a open-source-scoring system, progressive and more severe. ( If we do it, it would be better to make clear why the audience should be interested in such score. Is it possible to link it to a kind of ‘welfare’ or ‘goodness’ factor, such a ‘creative sustainability’ or so no? )
3) if the goal is to get a flexible rating system, maybe we should consider a rating scale for each item - eg from 1 to 3 or 5 - (for example, the participation in the MyMovieMashUp project is open, but only for people from UK) and should be ready to deal with a huge complexity/a lot of nuances. Maybe an open-source-media project/initiative could not have a objective score/rating, but several, depending on the judge. Who’s going to give the rating?
irene