Open Data Commons; new draft attribution licence for data/databases

This item was posted on Peter Suber’s blog a couple of weeks back requesting futher circulation.  It points to draft text for a “Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-By)”

The draft licence is still open for comments. http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/

According to the Peter Suber blog the work on this licence is addressing the need for:

“.. an open license for data/databases that provides for attribution but does not impose share-alike requirements. …”

The Open Data Commons website has some FAQs about why data licences are important.  They say:

“…licensing and definitions are important even though they are only a small part of the overall picture. If we get them wrong they will keep on getting in the way of everything else. If we get them right we can stop worrying about them and focus our full energies on other things.”

Nicely put!  Further on they explain:

“…you do need this legal stuff. Whether one likes it or not there are a whole bunch of jurisdictions in the world where there are IP rights in data(bases). Thus if you want your data to be open, even if that means public domain, you need to apply a license (or something very like a license).”

For licence text already available visit http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/

Vanishing online content; a copyright issue?

A recent post on “Techdirt” opens an interesting discussion.  The article reminds us yet again that internet is challenging the way copyright operates.  There can be a struggle dealing with literary works contained in a static medium such as a newspaper when that same material is available online — and this can be at odds with capitalising on the power of the internet when disseminating and retaining information.

The techdirt article uses the example of a page on The Guardian website where under the title of a historical item the following words appear:

“this article has been removed as our copyright has expired.”

The beauty of the web is that unlike a traditional medium you don’t have to rely only on today’s headline to bring in readers.  The archives can receive traffic as easily as the day’s headline.  And its bad form to post something, circulate the link and then remove that content.  This can lead future recipients of the link to find the content no longer exists. 

In fact, a useful method to adopt when quoting a web link in a publication is to include “last viewed on [insert date]” to cover this eventuality.  (This practice also has other uses such as ensuring that one could refer to the terms of use at the date of access should a dispute arise about this issue. This is because one copyright work could be subjected to different licensing terms by the owner of that work. )

As content providers we need to be sure of what we have before posting.  In a public sector environment such as ours we are encouraged to share and make all materials available to all.  Whilst law suits are an unlikely for us there are other responsibilities to consider, such as confidentiality, attribution, timing or simply common courtesy.  Far better to double check an author is happy for their work to be shared, than to post without permission and risk causing offence – whatever the copyright situation.  WARNING: Bad IP practice can lead to bad public relations!

(Thanks to Guat Hong Teh for her input to this post)

IP issues in the launch of MASA – The Malawi Seed Alliance

Peter Bloch, consultant to CAS-IP, is on the road in Africa working on several ICRISAT projects.  He sent the following update:

On behalf of CAS I’ve been working with ICRISAT over the last year on the Irish Aid funded Malawi Seed Industry Development project, and we decided to launch a stakeholder alliance to support the work – making certified legume seed more widely available.

While small holder farmers in Malawi now purchase maize seed every year, most legumes are still grown from farm-saved seed (grain).  Experience suggests that trust in the source is a major factor in the adoption of new varieties and new crops.  In order to support small new seed companies and new seed retailers (mostly agrodealers), we proposed the development of an umbrella brand which could be used by all stakeholders in the supply and distribution chains.  ICRISAT agreed, and this plan will be supported by a marketing campaign to let farmers know about the benefit of buying certified seed and where they can buy it.

The issue I am very focused on right now is a practical application of my response to Ethiopia’s G.I. legislation (http://casipblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/ethiopia’s-gi-bill/) as follows:

It would be highly desirable to allow agrodealers who have passed through one of ICRISAT’s Seed Production and Marketing programs to display the MASA logo with a caption such as “MASA certified seed dealer”.  But as this branding exercise is all about trust and reliability, how can we ensure that a dealer does not pass grain off as certified seed by using one of the MASA branded seed bags we plan to distribute?  A few days ago I went out to Kasungu and discussed this with a group of five agrodealers who had participated in the first training.

Standing, from left : Elias Mpumila, Noel J. Sambo, Mathews Malata. Seated, from left : Mary Kazombo, Goodwin Kasale.

When I asked them about the “trust” issue, they made these observations:

• the success of our businesses depends on our relationships with the farming community;
• if we sell our customers a product which does not perform we risk losing business;
• it is very much in our interests to make sure customers are satisfied with the products and services they buy from us.

This makes a lot of sense but does not rule out the odd scofflaw who decides to profit by selling grain in a seed bag marked with the MASA logo as certified seed.  One of the Alliance partners – NASFAM – proposed that we trade mark the MASA logo and name;  we had planned to do this, but – as in the case of Ethiopia – we will not have any enforcement mechanisms, so the risk factor needs further consideration.

Several days after writing the above, I met with another group in Dwangwa who had formed an agrodealer association.  They had invited two tribal chiefs to join the discussion and it soon became evident that the association viewed entry into the seed market as a significant development for the local economy.  When I raised our concern about possible misuse of the MASA branded seed bags, the two chiefs responded by telling me that this would not happen – they would raise the issue at community meetings.  After further discussion it became evident that informal “self-policing” would take place in this area and that we could encourage similar activity in other regional markets.

As the benefits so far outweigh the risks, we are moving ahead to trade mark the MASA brand, develop a license agreement and signage for the agrodealers, and ensure that appropriate MASA-branded seed bags are ordered prior to the harvest.

Post written by Peter Bloch, consultant to CAS-IP

IPRs & research for the public good

As I have quoted in the past; Victoria Henson-Apollonio once said:

“think of IP as a tool, like a hammer you can use it to knock a nail into a piece of wood, or you can smash a window..!”

I was reminded of these words reading a piece printed in the Guardian entitled “The Shackling of Science: ownership rights pose real danger to scientific progress for public good”.

The final paragraph of the article points to:

“The Manchester Manifesto, produced by an interdisciplinary and international group of experts … explores these problems and points the way to future solutions that will more effectively protect science, innovation and the public good. It calls on all interested parties to find better ways of delivering the fruits of science where they are most needed.”

The commercial gains cited as a large part of the problem are probably evidence enough IPRs aren’t going away anytime soon.  Therefore a prudent action would be to make sure public sector institutions become more savvy when managing their own intellectual property, especially when dealing with the private sector.  That way efforts can be made to ensure public sector research outputs remain available.  There are examples of positive application of the IP tool, but they aren’t going to make headlines in the same way as the negative ones…

The adaptation of innovation

In the development arena, these days we hear a lot about “innovation” but not as much about adaption and how this can be a key to success.  According to an article in Monday’s (25Jan) Wall Street Journal, the authors report that with innovations in the area of IT –on-line auctions, book sellers, word processing, –being a follower has its advantages.   

According to the article it’s “easier to imitate” and followers can develop a long-term vision, for example using a “staircase” strategy to ensure a market niche.  (The staircase strategy apparently involves an analysis of how to link existing products as well as planning for future scenarios –e.g. making it easy to “upgrade” to newer versions.)   It seems that few “first-movers” are able to sustain and capitalize on their initial successes.

Thanks to “The Intangible Economy” blog, where I first saw the link to the WSJ item.

Post written by Victoria Henson-Apollonio, Manager of CAS-IP

Does a declaration of “cultural heritage” constitute protection?

SciDevNet ran a story today outlining how “the Peruvian government has declared the knowhow associated with growing a variety of large-eared white maize to be ‘cultural heritage’”.  The item included some discussion about whether there was any legal effect to this move, and that of the earlier ‘designation of origin’ granted to the crop in 2005.

There are no specific details on the item – but its important to remember this is not an end in itself.  What we can say is that it doesn’t matter that it might not hold water in a legal sense, if that’s not the purpose.  Protection can be expansive as well as restrictive.  Such a move could for example serve to ensure the knowledge is officially documented and hence in the public domain.  Once in the public domain misappropriation is more difficult.

However, further probing might lead to questions such as: What would the community be expecting to get from this?  How has this been explained to them?  Then one would need to consider the legalities further to determine whether or not cultural heritage declaration or designation of origin are appropriate tools to meet the expectations.

Some practical steps on how to “detect, fight and report the unlicensed republication of your content”

An interesting article on Robin Good’s media blog today provides some practical steps to deal with online plagiarism.

The item collates links to relevant articles and sites to help deal with this growing problem.  From free tools to detect plagiarism to how to report unauthorised re-use of your content.  It’s a great selection of resources – thanks Robin Good!

Ethiopia’s GI Bill

Ethiopia is in the process of ratifying a Geographical Indication Bill to protect indigenous products.  According to Addis Fortune: 

“Among these location-branded products are Tigray and Masha white honey, Harar senga (bulls fattened to be butchered), Dendi garlic, Limu coffee, Assosa mangos, Ankober sunflowers, and Debre Brehan brandy.” 

 (Thanks to Shlomo Bachrach (http://www.eastafricaforum.net/) for the link) 

The article describes an ongoing project intended to identify products which might benefit from GI protected branding.  This looks like a good idea and might result in increased incomes for producers.  But the value of IP protection – whether a trademark or a GI – will eventually be determined by the ability of the owner to enforce the grant of rights. 

Corporate trademark owners such as Volkswagen, Levi Strauss and Starbucks invest in protecting their global brands by employing investigators to ferret out black market products and other infringements of their IP.  One of the best examples of a GI that is backed up by heavyweight enforcement is owned by Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma (association of Parma Ham® producers, CPP).  In a well-known 2003 case, CPP successfully sued ASDA: 

“UK supermarket Asda has lost a battle to sell authentic Parma ham under the Parma brand, when the meat is sliced and pre-packed in Britain.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3043283.stm 

CPP has protected production methodology, origin, packaging AND how the ham is sliced! 

The CPP is a powerful producer group because its members sell large quantities of Parma Ham, generating sufficient revenues to protect the GI.  If indeed Ethiopian producers procure GIs for products such as Ankober sunflowers, will sales volume generate sufficient revenues to adequately police usage of the name?  Even well known global brands such as Kiwi (shoe polish) are not policed in Africa; although Kiwi polish is widely available, it is all counterfeit.  Presumably Sara Lee Corporation (which acquired a number of UK brands from Reckitt and Coleman) cannot justify the cost of enforcement in Africa. 

 The Ethiopian coffee trademarking program was well conceived and generated a high level of attention from the international press.  But there is still little evidence that this initiative resulted in any income gains for producers.  A number of NGOs provide IP training in developing countries, and it might be advisable for them to position IP as one tool of many in the market development toolbox.  Without sustainable marketing plans and enforcement programs, these IP-centric initiatives are unlikely to be successful. 

Post written by Peter Bloch, consultant to CAS-IP

Sustainable agriculture in Bolivia: Coca Colla

Last week  IP Tango drew my attention to some news from the South American continent that made me wonder whether the Bolivian government is being extremely strategic in its use of intellectual property, or not….

According to the item, Bolivia with the support of its president Evo Morales, have decided to start investing in the production of a new soft drink called “Coca-Colla Energy”.  There are of course many discussions to be had around the inevitable accusations of trade mark infringements from Coca-Cola (even though it is difficult to see how Coca-Colla could really damage its better known sister)! 

Whilst encouraging the local industry of a developing country is a good thing; coca is not going to sustain and feed the Bolivian population – and the Government wants to allocate 20,000 hectares to growing it!  It is also highly likely that there will be reactions in relation to the narcotic issue.  The International Narcotics Control Board has tried for years to ban coca leaf chewing, and could claim that the use of coca leaves in a different product should also be banned.  However, it is interesting to see that Bolivia’s new constitution, drafted by the ruling Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party, recognises coca as “cultural heritage, a natural and renewable resource of biodiversity in Bolivia and a factor of social cohesion” and thus not a narcotic in its natural state…

Whatever the merits of this particular product and its obvious stance against a giant of global capitalism, the proposal raises interesting issues about alternative ways of exploiting IP for development; even if it is not quite ‘the real thing’!

Spanish speakers might enjoy the humorous comments from Renzo Colanzi.

Post written by Francesca Re Manning, consultant to CAS-IP

France and Google; plans for alternative to Google Books emerging

According to CNET news, France is planning a possible rival to Google Books.  The plan includes a service initially funded by the government but hoped to be supported by online advertisements after that.

The article reports that Mitterrand (France’s culture minister) had said:

“”Google came to Europe as a conqueror, and many (publishers) have opened the door by signing agreements that I find unacceptable … based on excessive confidentiality, impossible exclusivity, and a casual, even one-sided approach to copyright.”"

“France” and “Google” yield a lot of search engine returns of late.  In December a court ruled against Google in a “lengthy copyright infringement case filed by a French publisher” and more recently the so-called “Google Tax” that was recently proposed by Sarkozy.
On the same issue The Telegraph talked of “a new Gallic run-in with Google” and reported:

“Google France’s general director, Olivier Esper, called on the government to “favour co-operation” rather than “a logic of opposition between the worlds of internet and culture, for example, via the logic of taxation”.”

France’s plans have sprung from the recent government-commissioned survey which you can view here, using translation services from guess who….!