Definitions matter. If you want to see why, compare the worlds of open source and open access. The very specific definition of what is open source - having an OSI-approved licence - means that it is relatively easy to police. Open access, by contrast, does not have anything like a tight, "official" definition, with the result that less scrupulous publishers try to pass off their wares as open access if it's vaguely open or vaguely accessible. (That, BTW, seems to me a very strong argument for something to be set up along the lines of the OSI, to give its stamp of approval to open access resources. Are you listening, Peter?)
For this reason, trying to define open media is an excellent move:
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).
I think this is really important work: let's hope it can be built on. Open Media Initiative, anyone? (Via P2P Foundation.)
Posts
