According to Uruguayan copyright law 9.739, all copying of works under copyright—even if there is no profit-seeking motive—are criminal offenses. Therefore, anyone who makes copies for study or to access culture can be indicted with a single complaint.

Following the copy shop raid in 2013, the Uruguayan Student Federation presented a draft bill on educational and library exceptions to copyright. The proposed text would remove the criminal penalties for infringements that are not commercial in nature. The bill has been preliminary approved by the Parliament, but still needs to be finalized. As expected, collecting societies and the Uruguay Publishers Association oppose the bill, arguing that copyright exceptions will destroy creators.

Creative Commons Uruguay, along with a large group of social organizations, are urging legislators to give early approval to the copyright reform bill, before more people like students, librarians, and internet users are convicted of making non-commercial copies of educational resources.

Jorge Gemetto is co-director of Ártica and team member of Creative Commons Uruguay. 

The post In Uruguay, 14 people convicted for making copies of educational resources appeared first on Creative Commons.

Copyright policy should benefit everyone, not just legacy rightsholders

Today the European Commission released its legislative proposal for changes to EU copyright law. The proposal has been introduced as a Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market.

The Directive fails to deliver on the promise for a modern copyright law in Europe.

In an ideal world, the Directive would have provided for progressive policy changes to serve the goals of a unified digital marketplace across Europe. It would have jumpstarted economic activity, championed innovative digital technologies and services, and protected consumers and access to information. It would have expanded opportunities for European businesses, cultural heritage institutions, educators, and the research community.

This is not the world presented to us by the Commission. Instead, the copyright proposal introduces protectionist measures for incumbent rightsholders while providing only lip service to Internet users, teachers, new businesses, and consumers. The proposal contains the same problems we saw in the leaked impact assessment and draft directive, including:

• An ancillary copyright (aka “link tax”) for press publishers to extract fees from search engines for incorporating short snippets of—or even linking to—their content. This would undermine the intention of authors who wish to share without additional strings attached, including Creative Commons licenses.

• A copyright exception for education covering digital content that Member States can ignore if there’s a content licensing option available for the educational materials.

• A limited exception for text and data mining available only to nonprofit research institutions. This will restrict the potential for text and data mining discoveries and innovation because it specifically excludes the private sector.

• A copyright exception for cultural heritage institutions to digitize their collections, but not put them online.

• A mechanism that would require Internet platforms to proactively monitor user uploaded content in order to identify and remove copyright infringing content.

The Commission’s proposal does not represent the interests of the public or the recommendations from tens of thousands of internet users, consumers, teachers, startups, and activists. It’s now up to the Parliament and the Council to reshape this flawed copyright proposal in a way that benefits everyone.

Photo by Paul Green via Unsplash, CC0
Copyright symbol by Marek Polakovic, CC BY 3.0 US
European Union stars by anbileru adaleru, CC BY 3.0 US

The post European Commission Copyright Proposal Leaves Users In The Dark appeared first on Creative Commons.

On June 29th, a little over twenty of us met at the Singularity University on NASA’s Ames campus in Mountain View, CA to workshop when attribution, or “view source,” matters in 3D printing, and discussed at length CC’s role in a field rich with data and designs both restricted and not restricted by copyright.

Leading up to the meeting, the original challenge we had conceived of was split into two: while participants were interested in what happened to attribution information (such as author and license) once the design was physically printed into an object, they were also interested (if not more so) in how that information traveled with the digital design file.

Further still, as the discussion progressed, it became apparent that the larger issue was not the physical versus digital attribution of a design, but when attribution/view source actually mattered for designers, and users of those designs, across both physical and digital spaces.

We began with a panel of designers and design community representatives who presented use cases of 3D printed designs for cultural heritage, prosthetics, military, industry, mathematical models, and more. You can check out slides from the panel here, and a video here. Following the panel we discussed and identified four overarching categories where attribution/view source mattered for designers. These are not necessarily categories of needs that CC will or should address, but they were the ones we identified as pressing needs by the 3D design community as represented at this meeting. They were:

1. The ability to track use of the design file, unmodified, including: downloads of the digital design file; the number of times the design file was sent to a printer; and geographic distribution of its uses. The motivations for being able to track use of the original design included curiosity on the part of a designer, the desire for credit, potential future revenue from uses, and compilation of such uses as part of a portfolio for professional or advocacy reasons, eg. in the case of sharing the design file of a public domain sculpture, a designer could point to the number and diversity of uses as part of a case to a cultural heritage institution to make open its 3D public domain artworks. While such tracking can bring benefits, there was also a recognition that tracking has very real costs in terms of privacy and freedom of use for downstream users.

2. The ability to compare modified versions of the design file for safety, efficacy, provenance, and productization. Safety means ensuring that printed works perform safely as expected; efficacy means ensuring that works print well in different media and perform effectively as expected; provenance means being able to track different versions of the file, including versions with different instructions for printing and also with different processes for application; and productization means being able to track when a design is productized commercially for industry.

3. The ability to indicate original intent for use of the design file, in order to prevent or preempt unwanted, unethical, or commercial uses if applicable. A strong motivation is to ensure the free use of any released design files by preventing their commercial enclosure. Unethical uses relate to safety and efficacy motivations cited in 2.

4. And last, but not least, the ability to provide credit or attribution as a normative practice, because credit provides a sort of gratification for those credited, and accountability for those who credit. Several reasons were cited for providing credit for its own sake, including: building a credible portfolio; reputation; attribution as generative for the commons (incentive for more design contributions); also as generative for growing a robust, collaborative community; for organizing multiple contributions under a single project; a source to find additional designs by the same designer; and to teach about the normative practice of attribution, eg. giving credit where credit is due, in the first place.

Keeping these four categories in mind, we moved on to the legal presentation of the applicability of copyright to 3D designs, which distinguished between functional and creative designs, and the gray space between. We discussed the lack of copyright protection for many functional designs and design files in the 3D printing space, and what that meant for CC’s role, since CC licenses and the obligation to provide attribution and source information generally apply where copyright and similar rights exist. We termed those design files that are sufficiently creative to be covered by copyright as “born closed” and those that are not as “born open.” For “born closed” design files, CC licenses enable permissions as they do for any other copyrighted work. For “born open” design files, CC licenses don’t properly apply because copyright doesn’t apply; in these cases, use of such design files is not encumbered by copyright, even if they may be controlled by other means, eg. patents, contracts or use licenses. We also discussed the lack of awareness of this distinction by most 3D designers and users and the difficulty of enabling average users to reliably draw the distinction on a case-by-case basis. And we considered the implications for designers, design communities, and CC itself of the inevitable misapplication of CC licenses to non-copyrightable designs.

We lit upon an issue that is relevant not just to 3D designers, but all kinds of creators of content generally. The group recognized that CC licenses are sometimes misapplied to works that are not restricted by copyright or similar rights. This misapplication is one that CC seeks to avoid even though their use with all types of content can result in raising awareness about CC licenses and educating users about the importance of a shared commons. One question the group explored was, how might CC be more intentional about these imperfect applications, improving awareness around how and where CC licenses should be used? Furthermore, can CC play a greater role by automating ways to give credit and enabling expressions of gratitude for contributions? Should these features be enabled just for the subset of the copyrightable 3D commons or for all 3D works where an attribution norm (as opposed to attribution as a legal requirement) is desired?

Note: CC is exploring the development of an open ledger, aggregating data from publicly available repositories of open content, possibly starting with 3D printed works. One could imagine a public listing of 3D printed works containing provenance and other relevant metadata that gets edited and curated over time, by both verified institutions and a community of users. All participating platforms could add new data, and draw on data from other projects using the ledger.  

Setting these questions aside for a moment, we moved into the technical session after lunch, which included presentations on current ways attribution/view source is being included in the physical objects; potential technical solutions and the benefits/drawbacks of each; and current file standard formats that allow for attribution metadata to be included in the digital design file. You can check out these presentations here.

Due to the variety of function, size, and design of physical objects, it seems less likely that a physical standard for attribution would be universally adopted. That said, such a standard would not be impossible, at least for a subset of objects within a given field, for example, sculptural public domain art works. More likely is the adoption of a digital metadata standard to be included with the design file that would express attribution information, such as author and license. Such standard metadata could be tied to its physical expression later on, and also feed into the open ledger.

In our last hour, we revisited the question about CC’s role in the 3D commons, as related to and not related to copyright. Our renewed vision and strategy focuses on increasing discovery and enabling collaboration around the commons. Do we limit ourselves to just CC licenseable content when it comes to the commons? Or does increasing discovery and collaboration of CC licensed content necessitate increasing discovery and collaboration of all content generally? If by increasing discovery and collaboration, we want to enable automatic attribution and ways to express gratitude for contributions, how do we distinguish between contribution credit (to recognize work put into creation, but not necessarily copyright ownership) versus authorship credit (copyright ownership)? What are the dangers for encouraging attribution norms for content that is not copyrightable in the first place? Eg. do we risk expanding copyright or copyright-like restrictions to areas that were never governed by copyright in the first place? Could we navigate this space as we do other spaces, by, as a policy matter, insisting that CC licenses only apply where copyright applies, and increasing efforts to educate users about the black, white, and gray areas?

We didn’t come to any hard and fast conclusions, but we did manage to outline some next steps. They are:

1. Solicit feedback from additional stakeholders, including you, our community.

2. Pilot test a few ideas with a platform and related partners, starting with a standard attribution metadata format for the digital design file. Also identify education needs and create resources for users on when CC licensing applies to 3D designs as pertains to a specific platform, eg. Thingiverse.

3. Explore additional convenings focusing on solving for one specific challenge identified above, eg. a technical standard for metadata file formats.

4. Start talking to potential funders to see if there is an interest in these issues, especially in an open ledger, specifically for the 3D commons or more broadly for all CC licenseable works.

5. Explore the development of another tool or expression that is not a copyright license but that addresses the four categories of designer needs identified above.

We look forward to hearing your thoughts:

• When and where does attribution/view source matter to you in the 3D design space (if at all)? Do the four categories of designer needs around attribution/view source capture your own particular needs as a designer and user?
• What’s more important — being able to view the source on a printed 3D physical object or find the source information on the digital design file?
• Given copyright does not apply to many types of 3D designs, the attribution requirement of the CC licenses does not apply in those instances. CC has historically been focused primarily on copyright-related tools. Does CC still have a role to play in this space around enabling automatic types of attribution, credit, or gratitude for contributions as a community norm through the development of a specialized tool(s) or otherwise?

Lastly, what other organizations or projects should we be aware of and work with when exploring possibilities for developing collaboration mechanisms? Please provide any feedback in this form.

The post Meeting debrief and next steps: The Challenge of Attribution, or “View Source,” in 3D Printing appeared first on Creative Commons.

In a reminder that “free license” is not the same as “public domain,” Ars Technica and Wikipedia report the CC license upheld in Italy.

Last year, Festival delle Resistenze 2016 in Trentino-Alto Adige misused a photo of the journalist Niccolò Rampini that had been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a CC-by-SA-4.0 license by a professional photographer named Federico Caranti. The festival neither attributed Caranti, nor released the image under the same license, which is stipulated in the conditions of the license 

Together with his lawyer, Simone Aliprandi, Caranti and the festival organizers came to an agreement in which Caranti’s legal costs were covered and the festival released a statement of apology.

In Caranti’s words, “I’m happy to see my photos spread around, but I demand proper attribution. It’s not much for a free photo.”

Attribution is a key component of the Creative Commons licenses. We have historically encouraged license holders to amicably resolve their concerns around attribution and reuse and applaud the work of both Caranti and Aliprandi.

As Wikipedia writes, “By giving creators the attribution they deserve, you can fill voids on your websites as well.” For more on how to correctly attribute Creative Commons photos, check this guide on our Wiki.

The post Big win for CC in Italy appeared first on Creative Commons.

Prince performing in Brussels during the Hit N Run Tour in 1986, CC-by-2.0

Today at Copyright On!, Britton Payne discussed the unique copyright situation surrounding Prince’s estate. This potentially long and bitter battle could shape the future of music copyright to come. Prince fought a number of legendary copyright battles, which makes this current fight over the ownership of his works particularly interesting.
As Payne writes, “Prince was a tireless advocate of his rights as an artist, using copyright law to control and protect his artistic footprint, even when it seemed like it would cost him more than it would gain. For different reasons, it appears that more contentious exploration of copyright law will continue to be part of his legacy.”

The tl;dr of Payne’s post:
I Feel for You (I think I want my copyright back): The termination of transfer law

After 35 years, artists can reclaim copyright from the copyright holder, which essentially gives them another “bite at the apple” to control their own work. While this law was created to protect artists in 1978 (coincidentally the year Prince’s first album was released), there has been little guidance on the execution of this law.

Prince reworked his contract with Warner Brothers in 2014 to regain access to his early back catalog, which resets the clock on this law. However, every year more of Prince’s back catalog will be up for termination of transfer law, which means that his estate can gain ownership of an increasing number of works, and by extension, control the money that continues to pour in from his most popular titles.

How come U don’t call (a lawyer) anymore: Prince didn’t leave a will
Prince’s will has yet to be found, which means that several conflicting laws surrounding his unpublished back catalog are coming into effect. Because he also left no living heirs, his estate and copyright is now in the hands of his sister, Tyka Nelson, and his five recognized half siblings. (More than 700 people have claimed to be Prince’s half-siblings, but none are recognized by the courts.)

However, siblings cannot execute termination of transfer unless they are the “administrator” of the estate. The title of “administrator” is currently in the hands of a “court appointed ‘special administrator’” called the Bremer Trust. In six months, a more permanent administrator will be found (possibly Tyka, Prince’s sister.)

My name is Prince, but also Joey Coco, Alexander Nevermind, and Jamie Starr
Prince collaborated with many artists and also wrote music under a series of pseudonyms including Alexander Nevermind, Joey Coco, and Jamie Starr. These collaborations as well as his “works made for hire” are covered by different copyright statutes than his solo composed music. There are several issues complicating these works:

• Many of his co-authors are deceased
• Pseudonymous works have a longer copyright statute than works written under Prince’s own name
• Prince’s “works made for hire” are covered by different copyright law than his other work

In short, Prince wrote thousands of songs, many of them unpublished, jointly published, written for other artists, or written for hire, and hundreds of them are potentially affected by different copyright laws.

The Beautiful One(s): The PRINCE act and post mortem rights of publicity
A new act in Minnesota may protect Prince’s likeness for the next 50 years. This act, called “Personal Rights in Names Can Endure”(PRINCE) will keep Prince’s likeness in the hands of his estate. This precedent will be the first to protect deceased celebrities to limit commercial rights to his likeness, so be sure to hang on to your vintage Purple Rain t-shirt. (It’s worth noting that Prince never endorsed merchandising in his lifetime, so most of the apparel floating around the Web is bootleg.)

Tonight we’re gonna party like it’s 2086
In 2086, most of Prince’s works will enter the public domain. Copyright law has been progressively expanded to protect the rights of artists, so any changes to the law will likely benefit his heirs.

Prince’s music in the public domain seems like a long way off, but imagine the next generation discovering this video, and it all seems pretty worth it.

Read more at Copyright On!

The post Controversy: A Recap of the copyright issues surrounding Prince’s estate appeared first on Creative Commons.

Front of California State Capitol, by David Fulmer, CC BY 2.0

Unencumbered access to public sector information is central to a well-functioning democratic system. And if our government entities believe that transparency, collaboration, and public participation are civic goals worth supporting, then the public should be able to enjoy free and open access to taxpayer-funded government resources.

In February, California introduced a bill that would permit state and local government agencies “to own, license, and, if it deems it appropriate, formally register intellectual property it creates or otherwise acquires.” The law would control access to public sector information developed in California. The bill, called AB 2880, is currently moving through the state assembly. Its origin rests partly in a trademark dispute between the U.S. federal government and a third-party contractor at Yosemite National Park. AB 2880 was introduced to clarify the intellectual property rights held by the state of California.

Most of the intellectual property developed as a result of public funding in the state of California is in the public domain due to the state’s progressive copyright policy. This means that anyone may share and re-use the work of government agencies without having to ask permission or worry about infringing anyone’s copyright.

In its policy analysis of the proposed law, the state attempts to dismiss criticism by pointing out that AB 2880 wouldn’t interfere with individuals accessing information through a California Public Records Act request. While freedom of information requests are an important mechanism to ensure the public’s right to access government records, it’s not a viable or efficient technique for sharing a vast majority of the information the public should have access to by default. And, according to EFF, asking citizens to rely on records requests for access to publicly sector information is not a solution because California would still be able to regulate downstream uses of those materials:

“by explicitly reserving all of the exclusive rights given to a copyright holder, the state and local governments keeps extraordinary powers to restrain the ability for a citizen to distribute documents they obtain through a CPRA request.”

With changes in law and funding requirements, public sector bodies are switching the default from closed to open. Efforts such as Project Open Data, the agency-wide U.S. Department of Labor open licensing policy, the EU’s Horizon 2020 research program, and national level open licensing frameworks for public sector information in Australia and New Zealand are only a few examples.

In its own summary of the bill, the state specifically acknowledged the concern that “allowing state ownership of intellectual property might restrict the dissemination of information.” California should remove this bill from the legislative docket, or amend it in such a way that guarantees that the public is granted free and open access to government funded works.

If you’re a California resident, act now! Send a message to your state representatives telling them to uphold free, open access to California government works. 

The post Don’t let California lock down public access to government works appeared first on Creative Commons.

Today we commemorate Fair Use Week, a week-long celebration of the doctrines of fair use and fair dealing.

Creative Commons is proud of how its licenses respect fair use and other exceptions and limitations to copyright. CC licenses end where copyright ends, which means you don’t need to comply with a CC license if you don’t need permission under copyright. You will hear us repeat this fundamental design principle about our licenses often because it is important in practice, but even more so as policy. Anything that claims to grant “permission” to do things allowed under fair use is problematic because it promotes “permission culture” and increases FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about fair use. This maxim goes for open licensing just as it does anything else, which is what makes the treatment of fair use in our licenses so important.

Even so, there remains some potential tension between open licensing and fair use. There are a few reasons for this. The first is that relying on fair use to include content in an otherwise openly-licensed work can make it difficult for people around the globe to reuse your work. While most countries have some form of fair-use-like rights, those rights are not harmonized internationally. That means it is possible that the portion of your work used under fair use would have to be carved out before it is reused in some jurisdictions. Proper marking of what content falls outside the scope of the license can help minimize this problem.

The other potential tension results from the gray area around where fair use begins and ends. Thanks in no small part to the work of Peter Jaszi and Patricia Aufderheide, the public has a much better idea of how fair use plays out in practice than it used to. But inevitably, some challenging fair use questions remain. When reusers are faced with those close cases, some opt to use CC-licensed work instead of relying on fair use of an all rights reserved work. By providing a licensed alternative, CC licenses provide a nice cushion for fair use in those situations. But in other contexts, reusers have to decide whether to rely on fair use when reusing a CC-licensed work. While it is common practice to give attribution when using something under fair use, complying with other CC license restrictions is often impossible when relying on fair use. This is exactly how it should be. As we know, using a work under fair use means the CC license is irrelevant and the license terms do not apply.

Creative Commons never discourages reusers from relying on fair use or other exceptions or limitations to copyright, even when that means not complying with a CC license. Respect for fair use was written into the code of our licenses from the start, and that has not changed. We recognize that fair use is a muscle, and it needs to be exercised. Now go workout.

The post Creative Commons celebrates Fair Use Week appeared first on Creative Commons.

OpenMedia.ca just released Our Digital Future: A Crowdsourced Agenda for Free Expression. OpenMedia developed the publication through consultations and surveys with many organizations that care about free expression on the internet. It’s organized around three principles: Respect Creators, Prioritize Free Expression, and Embrace Democratic Processes.

OpenMedia’s report makes a clear and compelling case for a better copyright framework – one that is authored by all of us, developed in the open, and for the benefit of everyone. Too often, monied interests and secret negotiations work against the commons, and we all lose out as a result. We look forward to working alongside OpenMedia to make its thoughtful recommendations a reality, and we hope that this report inspires many more to join us.

The post Our Digital Future: New report and agenda for copyright reform appeared first on Creative Commons.

Last month, I had the honour of providing a keynote address and two workshops at a teacher conference at Northcote College¹, on the North Shore of Auckland, New Zealand.

Like many schools, Northcote is in the process of developing an overarching digital citizenship policy for staff, students, and the wider community. This policy is likely to include – alongside other issues like safety, privacy, research and integrity – a commitment to Creative Commons licensing.

If Northcote College does adopt a Creative Commons policy, they will join between fifty and one hundred New Zealand schools that have decided to formally give permission for teachers to share resources using a Creative Commons licence, with a preference for CC BY and CC BY-SA.

The policy is designed to address the fact that, under Section 21 of the 1994 Copyright Act, the first owner of copyright works made by New Zealand teachers in the course of their employment is their employer – namely, the schools governance board, known as the ‘Board of Trustees’ (BoT).

This means that teachers who share resources they make are legally infringing the school’s copyright – even when they are sharing with other teachers in the New Zealand state education system.

We’re advocating two solutions to this problem. First, we think every school in New Zealand’s pre-tertiary education system – all 2,500 of them – should pass a Creative Commons policy. This policy allows – and encourages – teachers to share their resources with other teachers under a Creative Commons licence.

Second, we think that teachers should adopt practices of finding, adapting, and sharing open content into their workflow. This will give teachers more confidence and flexibility when re-using third-party resources, and provide more resources for other teachers to build on and reuse.

We’ve been working at this for a couple of years now, spreading the word to the many groups working in the sector, including teachers, principals, Boards of Trustees, unions, disciplinary associations, public agencies, and other NGOs.

It’s been a long campaign, but we’re starting to make real progress. We’re giving an average of forty talks and workshops per year to the education sector, and we’re currently looking for ways to scale this work to meet the needs of every school in the country. This will become increasingly important as new resource sharing platforms – such as the crown-owned Network for Learning’s Pond – begin to take off.

The other challenge is to follow the lead of other CC affiliates, such as Poland, and help open up works produced or contracted by the Ministry of Education. There are signs that more of these resources will be openly licensed.

The adoption of open policy in schools coincides with similar moves in the local heritage and research sectors, and follows the continuing integration of CC licensing in central government. While there is still plenty to be done, it appears as if open licensing is on the verge of becoming mainstream across New Zealand’s public institutions – which is definitely good news for the global commons.

The post Creative Commons policies grow in New Zealand schools appeared first on Creative Commons.

EFF / CC BY

Today, Creative Commons and over 35 other organizations published an open letter urging negotiators of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to rescind a proposal to extend copyright terms by another 20 years beyond its current, mandatory term.

This week, 12 Pacific rim countries are meeting in Ottawa, Canada, to continue secret negotiations of the widely criticized TPP trade agreement. Under the current TRIPS agreement, signatories are required to enact legislation granting copyright protection to individuals for the life of the author plus another 50 years. TPP negotiators, under the influence of large rights-holding companies, want to add another 20 years to the minimum copyright term.

If adopted, this extension would work to keep creative works out of the public domain for decades beyond the current term. It’s essentially a double-life sentence for all new works. This would be an incredible loss for the commons.

All creativity and knowledge owes something to what came before it – every creator builds on the ideas of their predecessors. Copyright is a limited right that is given to creators, but it also has a term limit to ensure we all benefit from culture and knowledge. Both the rights granted to creators and rights afforded to the public are necessary for a vibrant culture and the proliferation of knowledge. And the “Commons” in Creative Commons starts with the public domain. It’s the original corpus for remix. It’s why we’ve developed tools to better mark and dedicate content to the public domain. Together with hundreds of millions of works whose creators have chosen to share under generous terms of reuse with CC licenses, the commons is growing richer everyday.

Extending the term of copyright will undermine the potential of the public commons and needlessly limit the potential for new creativity. There is no logical reason to increase the term of copyright – an extension would create a tiny private benefit at a great cost to all of us. Most people agree that the existing term already lasts far past the amount of time required to incentivize creation (the original purpose of copyright) by granting creators a limited monopoly over a creative work. Copyright should strike a balance, giving an incentive to create while also giving the public permission to use and build on that creativity. In 2002, CC co-founder Lawrence Lessig argued against an additional 20 years of copyright protection in Eldred v. Ashcroft. Even Milton Friedman opposed the copyright term extension, calling it a “no-brainer.” Nearly all contemporary economists agree.

Increasing the term of copyright protection harms the commons. Any public policy that will further delay their entry into the public domain is contrary to the values we support – realizing the full potential of the Internet through universal access to the creativity that promotes active participation in culture and society.

Participating countries should should reject any measure in the Trans-Pacific Partnership introduced to increase the term of copyright protection. And TPP negotiations should be held in public and with the input of a broad set of stakeholders that include civil society and public interest representatives.

Although the letter has been presented to TPP negotiators today, they will remain open for further signatories to express their support. Interested organizations can endorse the letter here. Everyone can speak out by signing the petition at ourfairdeal.org.

The post An Open Letter to TPP Negotiators: Copyright Term Extension Makes No Sense appeared first on Creative Commons.