On 9 and 10 November 2022, Creative Commons hosted a pair of webinars on artificial intelligence (AI). We assembled two panels of experts at the intersection of AI, art, data, and intellectual property law to look at issues related to AI inputs — works used in training and supplying AI — and another focused on how open works and better sharing intersect with AI outputs — works generated by AI that are, could be, or should be participating in the open commons.

In both webinars, we were looking to explore how the proliferation of AI connects to better sharing: sharing that is inclusive, just and equitable — where everyone has wide opportunity to access content, to contribute their own creativity, and to receive recognition and rewards for their contributions? And how the proliferation of AI connects to a better internet: a public interest vision for an internet that benefits us all?

AI Inputs

Our first panel, AI Inputs and the Public Commons, looked at AI training data. The panel for this discussion included Abeba Birhane, the Senior Fellow in Trustworthy AI at the Mozilla Foundation; Alek Tarkowski, the Co-Founder and Director of Strategy for the Open Future Foundation; Anna Bethke, the Principal Ethical AI Data Scientist for Salesforce; and Florence Chee, Associate Professor in the School of Communication and Director of Center for Digital Ethics and Policy at Loyola University in Chicago. Stephen Wolfson, Associate Director for Research and Copyright Services, School of Law, University of Georgia, moderated the panel.

AI Inputs focused on the potential harms that can come from AI systems when they are trained on problematic data. AI models require massive amounts of training data to function, and in the past, developers had to hand curate AI datasets. Today, however, large scale datasets are widely available thanks to widely available internet content, and these datasets have enabled the existence of incredibly powerful AI models like never before.

But along with the availability of these massive datasets, concerns have arisen over the content they contain and how they are being used. Abeba Birhane, who audits large datasets as part of her research, has found illegal, racist, and/or unethical content in datasets that are used to train common AI models. Using this data in turn embeds biases into AI models, which tends to harm marginalized groups disproportionately. Even if the content contained within these datasets is not illegal, it may have been obtained without affirmative consent from the creators or subjects of those data. People are also rarely able to withdraw their data from these datasets. Indeed, because the datasets contain millions or even billions of data points, it may be practically impossible to remove pieces of content from them.

At the same time, obtaining individualized consent from everyone who has data in one of these datasets would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible. Moreover, requiring consent would likely greatly constrain development of AI because it would be so hard to get consent to use every element in the large datasets that have increased innovation in AI.

Unfortunately, there is no clear solution to the problems associated with AI inputs. Our panel agreed that some legal regulation over AI training data can be useful to improve the quality and ethics of AI inputs. But regulation alone is unlikely to solve the many problems that arise. We also need guidelines for researchers who are using data, including openly licensed data, for AI training purposes. For instance, guidelines may discourage the use of openly licensed content as AI inputs where such a use could lead to problematic outcomes, even if the use does not violate the license, such as with facial recognition technology. Public discussions like this are essential to developing a consensus among stakeholders about how to use AI inputs ethically, to raise awareness of these issues, and try to improve AI models going forward.

Links shared by panelists and participants

• Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
• The New Legal Landscape for Text Mining and Machine Learning by Matthew Sag
• OSI’s Deep Dive is an essential discussion on the future of AI and open source
• Podcast Archive – Deep Dive: AI

AI Outputs

We continued our conversation about AI the following day with our second panel, AI Outputs and the Public Commons. For this panel, we brought together a group of experts that included artists, AI researchers, and intellectual property and communications scholars to discuss generative AI. This panel included Andreas Guadamuz, a reader in intellectual property law at the University of Sussex; Daniel Ambrosi, an artist who uses AI technology to help him produce original, creative works; Mark Riedl, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Interactive computing; and Meera Nair, a copyright specialist at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. Kat Walsh, General Counsel for Creative Commons, moderated the panel.

While our second panel touched on many topics, the issue that ran through most of the conversation on AI outputs was whether works produced by artificial intelligence are somehow different from works produced by humans. Right away, the panel questioned whether this distinction between human-created works and AI-generated content makes sense. Generative AI tools exist along a spectrum from those that require the least amount of human interaction required to to those that require the most, and, at least with modern AI systems, humans are involved at every step of AI content creation. Humans both develop the AI models as well as use the systems to produce content.

Since truly autonomously generated works do not exist at present — that is, art produced entirely by AI without any human intervention at all — our panelists suggested that perhaps it is better to think about AI systems as a type of art tool that artists can use, rather than something entirely new. From the paintbrush, to the camera, to generative AI, humans have used technology to produce art throughout history, and these technologies always raise questions about the nature of art and creativity.

Still, there are some important differences between AI and human creations. For example, AI systems can create new works at a scale and speed that humans cannot match. AI is not bound by human limitations when creating content. AI doesn’t need to sleep, eat, or do the other things that slow down human artistic creation. AI can produce all the time, without distraction or pause.

Because of the possibility for the production of vast amounts of AI-generated content, our panelists discussed whether AI-generated content belongs in the public domain or whether it should receive copyright protection. Andres Gaudamuz raised an interesting point that is front and center for us at Creative Commons — should AI-generated works be in the public domain by default or is copyright protection, in fact, a better option. He encouraged the community to consider whether it is desirable to put AI-generated content in the public domain, if that could result in harm to human artists or chill human creativity. If copyright exists to encourage the creation of new works, could a public domain that is filled with AI-generated content discourage human creation by making too much art available for free? Would an abundance of AI-generated content put human artists out of work?

At the same time, the panel also recognized that the public domain is necessary for the creation of art. Artists, human and AI alike, do not create in a vacuum. Instead, they build upon what has come before them to produce new works. AI systems create by mixing and matching parts they learn from their training data; similarly, humans experience art and use what has come before them to produce their own works.

CC has addressed AI outputs and creativity a few times in the past. In general, we believe that AI-generated content should not qualify for copyright protection without direct and significant human input. We have been skeptical that AI creations should be considered “creative” in the same way that human works are. And, importantly, we believe that human creativity is fundamental to copyright protection. As such, copyright is incompatible with AI outputs generated by AI alone.

Ultimately, like our panel on AI inputs, this panel on AI outputs could not, and was not designed to solve the many issues our panelists discussed. With AI becoming an increasingly integral part of our lives, conversations like these are essential to figuring out how we can safeguard against harms produced by AI, promote creativity, and ultimately use AI to benefit us all. Creative Commons plans to be in the middle of the conversation about the intersection of AI policy and intellectual property rights. In the upcoming months, we will continue these discussions through an on-going series of conversations with experts as we try to better understand how we should make sense of AI policy and IP rights.

Links shared by panelists and participants

• The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World: Eagleman, David, Brandt, Anthony
• Dreamscapes – Daniel Ambrosi
• Neural Style Transfer: Using Deep Learning to Generate Art
• Artificially intelligent painters invent new styles of art | New Scientist
• An interview with David Holz, CEO of AI image-generator Midjourney: it’s ‘an engine for the imagination’ – The Verge
• Fine Art and the Unseen Hand. Reconsidering the role of technology in… | by Daniel Ambrosi | Medium
• @FairDuty Tweet: CIPO appears to have ignored the requirement of originality in terms of what qualifies for (c) protection — an exercise of skill and judgement that is more than trivial – so said by our Supreme Court in 2004 (CCH). Fascinating thread of discussion about AI output and copyright.
• List of tools for creating prompts for text-to-image AI generators
• Ed Sheeran Awarded Over $1.1 Million in Legal Fees in ‘Shape of You’ Copyright Case
• Selling Wine Without Bottles: The Economy of Mind on the Global Net | Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Caspar David Friedrich
• You Can’t Copyright Style — THE [LEGAL] ARTIST
• Part 1: Is it copyright infringement or not? – Arts Law Centre of Australia
• This artist is dominating AI-generated art. And he’s not happy about it. | MIT Technology Review
• The Hard Drive With 68 Billion Melodies

The post Experts Weigh In: AI Inputs, AI Outputs and the Public Commons appeared first on Creative Commons.

Recently, we provided an update on Creative Common’s engagement on the European Union’s draft Artificial Intelligence Act. We’ve also worked with policymakers and other stakeholders on another flagship EU legislative file — the draft Data Act.

The European Commission published the Data Act proposal earlier this year, as a continuation of its EU’s overall data strategy. The goal of the Act is to ensure the vast array of data created today — and often held by private entities — is shared in ways that serve societal interests, while respecting and protecting privacy. Of particular interest to us at CC are provisions that:

• empower consumers with greater ability to move data from certain “connected devices” (like voice-activated personal assistants, smart thermostats, and other Internet of Things appliances), so that they are not locked in to a given vendor;
• support businesses in similarly accessing data from each other and switching between different cloud service providers;
• facilitate greater sharing of privately held data between organizations through common “data spaces”;
• and require private entities to share data with the public sector in specifically prescribed circumstances (like public emergencies).

In general, we welcome the Commission’s draft text, which we believe is an important step towards better access to and sharing of data. CC has long advocated for open data; now, we believe that additional forms of data sharing can help build a better data commons for all, that empowers individuals with control, respects privacy, encourages collaboration between business, governments, and individuals, and otherwise services the public interest. To this end, we commend the Commission and urge the EU legislators to actively support better sharing and the benefits it can bring for EU citizens, businesses and society at large, throughout the negotiations of this legislation.

There is an important balance to strike between incentivizing firms to collect and use data in productive ways and ensuring that they do not amass data in ways that become a barrier to entry for businesses, nonprofits, and others. It’s important to ensure that access to data does not harm the public interest by constraining competition and innovation.

Better sharing of data can yield significant benefits in a wide variety of areas, including ones that are fundamental to critical challenges for society. For instance, as we are exploring in our Open Climate campaign, sharing climate research data can help researchers find solutions to address this global challenge. Too often there are barriers to data access, particularly when data is not in standardized, interoperable formats, or when it is locked up behind undue copyright or other legal barriers.

That said, we believe there are areas where the Data Act might be further strengthened and improved. Our engagement has focused in particular on the following elements:

• Clearly limit the application of sui generis database rights: Europe provides for intellectual property rights over databases in certain circumstances. We believe this law should be phased out altogether, as it has impeded the public’s interest in access to facts without providing any concrete benefit. Helpfully, the Data Act attempts to clarify that the data created by “connected devices” are not subject to this database right, but the language can and should be clearer to ensure no elements of the Data Act can be used to justify constraining access to data.
• Ensure all consumers who receive a covered product have rights: The initial text makes clear that consumers who buy, rent, or lease a product should have rights to access and move their data. But what about people who simply receive a product, perhaps as a gift, or someone who purchases a service and receives a connected device product as an ancillary benefit? And what about products used by multiple different users? Additional clarification is needed to ensure a scope that broadly covers and empowers all consumers using such products.
• Strengthen interoperability requirements: While the ability for consumers and businesses to ‘port’ their data to another service is important, interoperability is also key to making portability useful. Data can exist in many formats that are not necessarily compatible across services or devices; sharing may be impossible or impracticable because of differing data standards. In fact, data holders may have incentives to impede re-use of the data, in order to continue to maximize their ability to control and profit from its use. We strongly support the Data Act’s focus on interoperability.
• Clarify and strengthen “data spaces”: One of the more intriguing parts of the Act and the EU’s overall strategy is the creation of common “data spaces” that will facilitate sharing of data among different parties in areas that are critical to public purposes, such as energy, health, and mobility. Unfortunately, while the original draft of the Data Act made reference to these spaces and supported interoperability in them, they did not provide clear definitions of what they are and how they would work. We support efforts to continue to clarify and strengthen this fundamental concept.

More generally, we are hopeful that the Act can help to form the basis for a broader movement towards better sharing of data for public-interest purposes. While the Data Act has requirements for business-to-government sharing in certain limited public policy circumstances, it’s also worth thinking about how to support public service entities in building and stewarding a broader data commons. Groups like Open Future and others have elaborated on this concept, and, for our part, CC’s Copyright Platform Working Group focused on “Digital Sharing Spaces” will be publishing a comparative mapping of the legal landscape for data sharing for research purposes across the US and EU. The European Commission has signaled that progress on health and mobility data spaces is a priority, and we look forward to contributing to these and other efforts.

Ultimately, we believe that the Data Act is a great first step toward providing for better data sharing. While it certainly can be improved and refined, we are encouraged by the EU’s interest in protecting consumers and facilitating data sharing to serve the public interest. We will continue to actively engage with EU policymakers as the legislative debates and negotiations evolve.

The post CC’s Engagement on the EU Data Act appeared first on Creative Commons.

To celebrate the 20th anniversary of Creative Commons and our licenses, we partnered with Fine Acts to commission the “Better Sharing” collection. We are excited to share the collection with the world, which was unveiled last week at CC’s 20th Anniversary Celebration. The artworks are available on TheGreats.co to be enjoyed, used and adapted, and then shared again, by anyone, forever.

In developing this collection of artworks, we posed this question to 12 prominent global open advocates:

What does better sharing for a brighter future look like to you? 

Fine Acts selected 12 well-known international artists who have embraced openness to create a series of visual pieces under an open license, which are inspired by the theme, as well as the responses from the advocates. View the full collection >>

Our Theme: Better Sharing 

The unifying idea behind this collection is “Better Sharing,” which comes from Creative Commons’ strategic goal to accelerate Better Sharing — a cooperative effort that delivers open access to technology, education, science, culture and resources, and advances knowledge to solve problems and promote the public good. Beyond just sharing, better sharing includes:

• Sharing that is inclusive, just and equitable — where everyone has wide opportunity to access content, contribute their own creativity, and receive recognition and rewards for their contributions.
• Sharing that is reciprocal — where we rebalance the skewed world we live in now, in which a few produce and profit from works that the many consume.
• Sharing that is sustainable — where open participation in the public commons is the default, rather than the exception. 

The Better Sharing collection and our advocate & artist pairings

 

“Open Palms, Not Clutching Fists” by Burcu Köleli for Creative Commons & Fine Acts is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Inspired by a quote from Maria Popova Writer, The Marginalian (formerly Brain Pickings)

“Never forget that an open palm is a greater platform of power than a clutching fist.” 

 

 

“Sharing Brightens The Future” by Teo Georgiev for Creative Commons & Fine Acts is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Inspired by a quote from Biyanto Rebin, Chair (2016–2021), Wikimedia Indonesia

“Sedikit demi sedikit, lama-lama menjadi bukit (meaning: many a mickle makes a muckle).

An Indonesian proverb with the meaning of collaboration spirit, when we do a continuous effort little by little, it will eventually become bigger in the future. This is what happens when we share our resources, our works to the public, they will have a greater impact, since sharing can empower other people, sometimes the ones who are left behind, the underprivileged.”

 

“Better Sharing, Brighter Future” by David Espinosa for Creative Commons & Fine Acts is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Inspired by a quote from Catherine Stihler, Creative Commons CEO

 “Better Sharing Brighter Future is happy and joyous open sharing where creativity, knowledge and innovation can prosper.”

 

 

“The More We Share, The More We Have” by Pietro Soldi for Creative Commons & Fine Acts is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Inspired by a quote from Cory Doctorow, Science Fiction Author, Journalist and Tech Activist

“In my utopia, we figure out how to create and keep separate rules that regulate the relationships between creators and their industry

(e.g. writers and publishers, musicians and labels, etc); and rules that regulate the relationships between creators and their *audiences*. The things an audience does with a work — and the way that they relate to its creator — shouldn’t be a free-for-all; nor should the way that creators relate to those audiences. But whatever those rules should be, they will necessarily be very different from the way that the creative industries regulate interactions among their constituent actors.”

 

“The Future Is Open” by Preeti Singh for Creative Commons & Fine Acts is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Inspired by a quote from Ebenezar Wikina, Founder, Policy Shapers, and Advocacy Coordinator, Foundation for Partnerships Initiatives in the Niger Delta (PIND Foundation)

“Better Sharing, Brighter Future means that as we continue to find better ways to share ideas, products and solutions on the internet, we’d directly be working towards a brighter future for ourselves and generations to come.”

 

“Share Freely, Openly, Like We Share Air” by Hust Wilson for Creative Commons & Fine Acts is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Inspired by a quote from David Moinina Sengeh, Education Minister and Chief Innovation Officer of Sierra Leone; TED Senior Fellow

“To share anything freely and openly, much like we share air, is to be alive.”

 

 

“Better Sharing For Brighter Future” by Janice Chang for Creative Commons & Fine Acts is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Inspired by a quote from Tyler Green, Author, Historian, Art Critic and Producer/Host, The Modern Art Notes Podcast

“It means understanding that sharing and open content is a means, not an end.

For me, it means understanding that sharing and open content is a means, not an end, that open content and open access policies aren’t an end in and of themselves. Although within the context of an individual project, it’s an excellent end. But what we get, we the community of scholars, we the broader community of people, what we get is an opportunity to understand how this material fits within the worlds around us, allowing new and different ideas to more fully inform us. My favorite example is always going to be the more art and visual material, whether it’s photographs or engravings in 19th century magazines. The more we understand how images have worked across histories, the more we will understand how impactful artists and visual makers, engravers, whomever have been. And so I think that open access is probably the primary and most important means through which we will understand how artists have impacted the world.”

 

“Sharing Is Growing” by Olga Mrozek for Creative Commons & Fine Acts is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Inspired by a quote from Medhavi Gandhi, Founder of The Heritage Lab

“To me, with better (open) sharing, comes the promise of equality.

 In every culture around the world, there exist traditions that promote generosity/sharing — and so, it is only natural that the value of sharing becomes part of our ‘digital culture’ as well. To me, better sharing means enhanced relationships, collaborations between people, and an opportunity to build a world free of barriers/boundaries. South Asian history is revealing of what happened in a world where knowledge was ‘owned’ by a select few; with better sharing, there comes a possibility for building equal access to knowledge and participating in conversations that help heal a fractured world. In the end, positive sharing & contributing to others’ knowledge/experiences helps make us better people, not to mention the multifold benefits that come when you start a sharing circle.”

 

“Open Is Beautiful” by Tetiana Korniichuk for Creative Commons & Fine Acts is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Inspired by a quote from Cecília Oliveira, Executive Director, Fogo Cruzado

“The powerful hide important data to prevent us from demanding change. This is true with armed violence in Brazil, but is also true where you live on issues that you care about. Find a way to use open data to make changes in your society.

To me, Better Sharing Brighter Future means… a city where people aren’t afraid of being shot. I created Fogo Cruzado because the authorities were not sharing important data, and they did it to prevent accountability. And, unfortunately, there were no institutions out there who were ready to fill in the gap. So I decided to do it myself. We had offers to make money off of selling our data, and we had others who were taking our data and using it poorly, but we knew that the ONLY way to make this situation better was to make our work open and free and easy to access for everyone. Our focus is armed violence, but really our mission is about fighting secrecy.”

 

“Better Sharing, Better Future” by Maria Picassó i Piquer, Spain for Creative Commons & Fine Acts is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Inspired by a quote from Kyle Smith, CC Canada member & member of LexDAO and Fellow in Gitcoin’s KERNEL incubator

“Better Sharing, Brighter Future means continuing Jobs’s “bicycle of the mind” dream with modern “IoT” general purpose machines like Raspberry Pi…

so we can unleash the latent power of humanity and innovate ourselves out of this fossil-fuel-driven climate crisis.”

 

“Shared Knowledge, Shared Future” by Luisa Brando, Colombia for Creative Commons & Fine Acts is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Inspired by a quote from Molly Van Houweling, Chair, Board of Directors, Creative Commons

“Better sharing for a brighter future means that the world is wrapped in a living connective tissue of shared knowledge, culture, and insights that spread joy and alleviate suffering.”

 

“Blessed Is The Hand That Gives” by Sakina Saïdi for Creative Commons & Fine Acts is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Inspired by a quote from Liz Lenjo, Entertainment & IP Lawyer and Founder and Managing Consultant, MYIP Legal Studio

“Blessed is the hand that gives.

The CC license gives opportunities to creators to share their work with the world and to show off their prowess, their skills, and to announce to the world that they are here and that they are present. My tip for a brighter future for African artists and creators; let’s be generous with our creations. Let us aim to share one or two works through a CC license. The world has barely experienced what Africa has to offer. Let us share it, and it will without a doubt open up opportunities for very lucrative collaborations. Let us use the CC license also to better our societies, let the works created have a social conscience and a social cause. We can use the CC licenses to give back to our communities. These efforts seldom go unnoticed or unappreciated.”

 

Better Sharing is essential for creating a more just, equitable, and thriving world!  

As we look toward the next 20 years of Creative Commons, we are committed to building a world where everyone, everywhere, has access to free and open knowledge. Will you join us? Donate to Creative Commons today! 

The post Introducing the “Better Sharing” Illustrations — A Creative Commons & Fine Acts Collaboration appeared first on Creative Commons.

TBD

The post 20CC appeared first on Creative Commons.

Launched in 2018, the Creative Commons Certificate program has trained and graduated 1255 people from 65 countries to date.  We celebrate the incredible projects in open knowledge and culture led by the graduates of our program. CC Certificate alumni have used the Certificate course knowledge in a number of ways—read about how alumni have worked on an open access policy for a cultural heritage institution working with digitized art works, or developed open licensed content for a bachelor of business program in Bangladesh and Masters courses in the US. Or read about alumni testimonials here. 

In this interview, we were delighted to speak with Jennifer Miller, a graduate of the CC Certificate for Educators with over 10 years experience teaching and doing research in public policy and public management. She is a civic technologist and open knowledge advocate. Here is the Q&A:

Thank you for joining us today. Starting off with a personal question, what’s one thing people might be surprised to learn about you?

I’ve lived in states on four of the five U.S. coasts.

So, you’re quad or tetra-coastal – that’s fun! Alright, switching gears: I know you presented “Open Syllabus: UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science” Lightning Talk for the CC Open Education Platform earlier this year. Tell us a bit more about the Open Syllabus project and how it supports the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. 

The Open Syllabus for Open Science provides a complete but flexible way for early career researchers to learn about open science. Compared to many of the other materials being developed around open science recently, the course takes an educational approach to thinking about principles rather than focusing on specific tools. It also grounds the whole course in the principle of a human right to science, something that tends to be neglected in our STEM education.

In addition to the UNESCO Recommendation, we were heartened to see the White House Open Access Mandate, requiring that all federally funded research and data in the US be available for the public to freely access and re-use in agency-designated repositories without any embargo or delay after publication. ¹ Seems like this is the right time to be focused on Open Science for a number of reasons. What do you expect to see in the field of open science in the future? 

It is exciting to see this momentum! I think it’s important for this message to get to educators, and from there to students. In the past, students often learned to use statistical software, data, and peer-reviewed research as part of their studies, but found that these were not accessible to them after graduation. Students could take a “never going to use that after graduation” attitude, and they weren’t entirely wrong. Now, though, software, data, and research publications are widely available for free and under open licenses. With all of the open science resources available now, graduates can’t afford to ignore it; whatever their field, the information is available to their competitors as well.

“With all of the open science resources available now, graduates can’t afford to ignore it; whatever their field, the information is available to their competitors as well.”

In terms of publications, the way some policies use the term open access doesn’t always mean openly licensed, though. One area where this difference is especially important for open science is translation of scientific publications. An article under copyright made available to access for free still requires permission to create derivatives or adaptations, including plain language summaries or translations.

What got you into open education and open access in general?

My first experiences with open education and open access were with openly licensed materials for teaching economics and public policy. I was especially impressed with the CORE Economics curriculum, which eliminated textbook costs for my students and presented the material in a way that felt more humane and helped more of my students see their lived experience in the material.

What inspired you to take the CC Certificate for Educators, and was the training useful to you? 

I saw a presentation about it at the 2019 Open Education conference. The timing to take the course in early 2020 worked out perfectly!

Has the CC Certificate training been useful to you? If so, in what ways? 

Yes, definitely! It has allowed me to confidently share open licensed work in my civic technology activities and advocacy in open science and open education. It also opened my eyes to the wealth of open information available. Resources like the Directory of Open Access Books really open up the world.

Any advice for people who want to get involved in open education or open science?

If you are a scientist or educator who was part of the so-called “Great Resignation,” or wave of retirements associated with the pandemic, consider how open knowledge movements can help you contribute what you’ve learned to a global knowledge commons. The Creative Commons Certificate program can be a great place to start that journey!

Notes

1. While the mandate does not require open licensing, both policies support better sharing of the knowledge we collectively produce and use.

The post CC Certificate: Alumni interview with Jennifer Miller appeared first on Creative Commons.