Skip to content

NZGOAL training videos

Have you ever wondered what NZGOAL is and how it applies to you or how it can benefit you?

Do you work for a government agency and want to enable appropriate re-use of your agency’s material by licensing its copyright works or releasing non-copyright material for re-use? Or are you a New Zealander who would like to know more about NZGOAL and how it all works?

This training explains and addresses the questions you may have about NZGOAL, its policy principles and its Review and Release Process, the application of appropriate Creative Commons licences and a range of other topics.

It also provides background information about NZGOAL and sets out the differences between versions 1 and 2 of NZGOAL.

Here is the link to the Youtube playlist of 13 training videos on NZGOAL: YouTube Playlist of all 13 videos (no transcripts).

Below are the links to the transcripts of each of the 13 videos.

1. Overview of video sessions (video)

2. Development of NZGOAL (video)

3. Quick overview for government agencies (video)

4. Quick overview of NZGOAL for New Zealanders (video)

5. Copyright basics, NZGOAL and Creative Commons (video)

6. Policy principles and review and release process (video)

7. Applying the licences and no known rights statements (video)

8. CC0 and CC0 versus CC BY (video)

9. Open licensing and procuring copyright works (video)

10. Copyright, licensing and government websites (video)

Copyright, licensing and government websites (transcript)

11. NZGOAL, Creative Commons and data (video)

12. NZGOAL and data.govt.nz (video)

13. NZGOAL from version 1 to 2: What’s changed (video)

 

Transcripts

Video 1: Overview of video sessions

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: Welcome to the NZGOAL training video sessions recorded in April 2015. I'm Richard Best, and I will be the one doing the talking throughout the training.

As I've said on the blackboard here, it's a pleasure to have a talk to you about NZGOAL, as I've lived and breathed it for many years. If you're not yet familiar with NZGOAL, you might ask what it is. In essence, and as I'll explain in more detail in later videos, NZGOAL is government guidance for agencies to follow when releasing copyright works and non-copyright material for reuse by others and it seeks to standardise the licencing of government copyright works for reuse using Creative Commons licences. And it also recommends the use of no-known rights statements for non-copyright material.

Now, in this short introductory overview, I'll just provide a quick snapshot of the topics I'll be discussing in the video sessions. So as you can see here, the first video is this one now, in which I'm giving you an overview of the video sessions. After that, I'll talk briefly about the development of NZGOAL so you can understand where NZGOAL has come from.

After that, if you're after a quick overview and you act for an agency, then video 3 is for you. Similarly, if you're a New Zealander, and you're interested in understanding how NZGOAL can help you, then video 4 is for you. I'll give a quick overview of NZGOAL for New Zealanders in that video. In video 5, I'm going to give something of a copyright 101, as well as discuss, in essence, what NZGOAL and Creative Commons licences are. And I think this is a necessary video for people to watch if they are to fully understand the videos that follow it.

In number 6, I'll be going through the policy principles, which really lie at the heart of NZGOAL, as well as going through its review and release process. After that, in video 7, I'll talk about how you go about applying the Creative Commons licences and the no-known rights statements to copyright works and non-copyright material.

In video 8, we're going to talk about CC0, as well as CC BY versus CC0. Now, CC0 is essentially a tool that some agencies have expressed interest in. It's not supported by NZGOAL. I'm going to explain why. And then I'll just talk about the distinction between using CC BY which is the Creative Commons attribution licence versus using something like CC0.

In video number nine, I'm going to talk about open licencing and procuring copyright works. Now, this is essentially taking you through the essence of one of the NZGOAL guidance notes. In number 10, I'm going to talk through another NZGOAL guidance note, which is on copyright licencing and government websites.

In number 11, there will be discussion of a guidance note that was specifically written about data. So as you see here, it's all about NZGOAL, Creative Commons, and data. I'll then talk briefly in video 12 about NZGOAL and data.gov.nz. And then I'll wrap things up in video 13 just with a brief explanation of what's changed from Version 1 to Version 2 of NZGOAL.

So sit back, relax and, I hope, enjoy the show.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

 

Video 2: Development of NZGOAL

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: Welcome to the second part of the NZGOAL training sessions. In this video, I'm going to jump back into recent history for a few moments to help you understand the origins of NZGOAL. I'm going to touch briefly on the drivers behind the State Services Commission's development of NZGOAL and then on the stages of NZGOAL's development.

I should perhaps pause on my mention just now of the State Services Commission's development of NZGOAL. Now, NZGOAL was originally conceived within the State Services Commission. It was developed by Commission staff in consultation with a wide range of agencies and others.

And when the Commission's Government Technology Services Unit shifted to the Department of Internal Affairs in 2009, NZGOAL was completed by staff within both SSC and DIA. In the last few years, operational responsibility for NZGOAL has lay with DIA and Land Information New Zealand with support from a cross-agency steering group.

So, let's start then with the six drivers behind NZGOAL. Why was it developed? Well, the first driver was that there was confusion, uncertainty, and criticism from members of the public as to the nature and status of Crown copyright and other government copyright materials and the circumstances in which members of the public could use it.

For example, some agencies' websites would say one thing as to the licencing of material on those websites. Other websites would say other things. There were some members of the public who thought that they could use anything that was subject to Crown copyright, regardless of whether there was a licencing statement. So this all led to a mire, if you like, of an unsatisfactory state.

The second driver was that there was a recognition within the State Services Commission and other agencies that additional guidance was needed for agencies when it came to them releasing material for reuse.

The third reason was there was increasing interest from agencies in Creative Commons licences. Some agencies had been approaching the State Services Commission to ask whether they could use the Creative Commons International licences, as they were at that time. And one agency was even applying a Creative Commons licence to one of its more notable data sets.

There were also a number of notable public sector and private sector initiatives. And I'll touch on one of those, at least, later on.

As well as those drivers, number five, there was significant movement internationally in the public sector and open data spaces, if you like. So for example, in Europe, there had been a very strong focus on public sector information for many years, given a European directive in place for European member states. And there was increasing interest in, for example, the United States.

Not only that, but lawyers working for Queensland government had done a fantastic amount of work for what over there was called the Government Information Licencing Framework. And I think we were very fortunate to have that work, because it shortcut a lot of the thinking that we would otherwise have had to do.

There was also a reflection on the economic climate at the time. And there was a recognition that potentially significant value lay locked up in data sets, which at that point, really were siloed within government agencies.

I'm now going to turn briefly to the stages of development of NZGOAL. And there were six, really, again, six stages. Work on NZGOAL commenced in the latter half of 2008 and through into 2009. Commission staff researched what was happening internationally, and a legal review was undertaken as to what sort of licences would be appropriate for New Zealand, what sort of framework might be put in place, and a range of other issues in relation to, for example, the Official Information Act, Public Records Act, and so forth.

Then in March 2009, the Commission released a discussion paper on what it proposed might be a way forward and it received substantial feedback from a number of departments. 19 departments responded. The Education Sector ICT Management Committee also responded, as well as the Council for the Humanities, which at that time was taking responsibility for a New Zealand version of the Creative Commons licences.

In May 2009, the Commission released a fairly detailed summary of all the feedback it had received, so far, on the discussion paper. It analysed the issues that were raised in the feedback, and it presented that all back to agencies.

Then in August 2009, the Commission released a draft of NZGOAL for road testing and comment. It did this because it believed that there was significant advantage to be had in allowing agencies to apply the draft in a live environment before presenting a document as a final fait accompli to agencies without any testing.

Further feedback was received as a result of that and ultimately Cabinet approved NZGOAL in July 2010. And one month later, in August, NZGOAL was released by the Minister of State Services and the State Services Commission.

So you'll probably be able to see already then that there was a substantial amount of government collaboration in the development of NZGOAL. There was the discussion paper I mentioned, a feedback loop there, the release of a draft of NZGOAL. There were also face-to-face meetings with agencies and a working group. Some agencies, for example, had agency-specific issues that they wanted to raise with the Commission, so there was quite a lot of work went into meeting with them and taking their feedback into account.

There was consultation with departments on a draft of the Cabinet paper in which Cabinet endorsement of NZGOAL was going to be sought. That Cabinet paper then went to a review committee. It then went off to the Cabinet office, and as I've said earlier, Cabinet approved NZGOAL, and it was released.

Now, I don't want to overlook the significant role that members of the public played in the formation and release of NZGOAL. And I just want to touch on a few of those here.

In February 2009, for example, a workshop was hosted at the State Services Commission on the reuse of government-held non-personal data. Now, as I say here, that was government hosted, but it was with a panel of experts that had been supplied by Webstock, as the Webstock Conference was taking place at that time.

In early to mid 2009, something called Open New Zealand was established and their work included the creation of what was called the Open Data Catalogue and what they suggested would be requirements for a data.gov.nz. Now, if you want to see what it was like, here it is here. And it's still online to this day, if you want to do a search for it and take a look for yourself.

In August 2009, there was an Open Data Bar Camp as well as a Hackfest. And as I've said here, these were both private sector organised.

And in August 2009, from that point through to about really 2010, there was public feedback on the draft of NZGOAL, as well as the agency feedback. And so, there was public feedback from individual open data advocates, or open data ninjas, as they would soon come to be known. There was feedback from academic lawyers and from Google as well.

So the net result of all this, I think, is that NZGOAL really is the offspring of both government and public collaboration. Both were vital to its birth.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

 

Video 3: Quick overview for government agencies

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: Welcome to this third part of the NZGOAL training sessions. In this video, I'm going to provide a fairly quick overview of NZGOAL for agency stuff who wish to get a quick understanding of what it's all about. So what is NZGOAL?

Well, as I mentioned in the first video, NZGOAL is government guidance for agencies to follow when they're releasing copyright works and non-copyright material for reuse by others. It seeks to standardise the licencing of government copyright works for reuse using the Creative Commons licences, and it recommends the use of no known rights statements for non-copyright material. In case you're not aware, Creative Commons licences are freely available copyright licences that enable the sharing of copyright works for reuse in a standardised way and in forms that are human, machine, and lawyer readable.

Turning now to NZGOALS's purpose, its purpose is to enable people to reuse government material for their own purposes-- and those purposes could be economic, environmental, creative, or cultural-- in the knowledge that they may do so legally. And to encourage experts and others to contribute to improved policy development and more efficient financial performance by government through being able to access, manipulate, and provide feedback on such material.

NZGOAL applies to State Services agencies. If you're not familiar with the breadth of the State Services and you want to learn more, you can find a list of State Services agencies on the State Services Commission's website. Now, I've said NZGOAL applies to State Services agencies, and it does, but whether an agency is mandated or only expected to take it into account depends on the nature of the agency, and that's because NZGOAL is government guidance approved by Cabinet and Cabinet only directs departments.

Now, Cabinet has directed all public service departments to familiarise themselves with NZGOAL and to take it into account when releasing copyright material and non-copyright material to the public for reuse. Cabinet has also invited the New Zealand police, the Defence Force, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the Security Intelligence Service to do likewise, and it agreed that other state services agencies, except for school boards of trustees, be strongly encouraged to do the same. Turning to school boards of trustees, what Cabinet did there was invite the Ministry of Education to invite school boards of trustees to do the same.

I should also make a brief mention of the Declaration on Open and Transparent Government, which was approved by Cabinet in August 2011, about a year after approval of NZGOAL. In essence, the Declaration states, building on New Zealand's democratic tradition, that the Government commits to actively releasing high value, non-personal public data in accordance with the Declaration itself, some accompanying principles called the New Zealand Data and Information Management Principles, and - this is relevant here - in accordance with NZGOAL. Cabinet applied the Declaration to State Services agencies in a manner similar to NZGOAL, but I mention it here because state sector agencies and territorial and regional chief executives were also invited to participate in this initiative. They were, therefore, invited to release high value non-personal public data in accordance with NZGOAL.

And what material does NZGOAL apply to? Well, as I said before, it applies to both copyright works and non-copyright material, and that covers a huge amount of things. Copyright works can include geospatial data sets, commissioned research reports, scientific data sets, collections of official statistics, data sets on government performance, photographic images, educational resources, archive film, and so on.

In each case, a work is only a copyright work if it meets the law's threshold of originality, and if it does, the period of copyright has not expired, which in some cases may be relevant to old government held works. Non-copyright material can include out of copyright images and material in which by law there is no copyright. So for example, there's no copyright in most of the country's legislation. I should note that NZGOAL does not apply to information or works containing personal information, except to the extent that it contains guidance on anonymising data sets, which once stripped of their personal information, might be licenced or released under NZGOAL. The other point to note is that NZGOAL does not apply to software.

I'll now take a quick look at how NZGOAL works. The NZGOAL policy principles state the Government's position on a number of issues that commonly arise in the context of agencies releasing material for reuse. They guide agencies on decisions that are required when releasing material, and they address, among other things, issues related to open licencing, open access, creativity, authenticity, non-discrimination, open formats, and charging. The key policy principles are the open licencing principle and the open access principle.

Now, the open licencing principle states that State Services agencies should make their copyright works, which are or may be of interest or use to people, they should make those works available online for reuse on the most open of licencing terms with NZGOAL, and that is the Creative Commons Attribution licence, unless a restriction applies. Now, if a restriction does apply, it may be appropriate to select an alternative Creative Commons licence or not release the material openly for reuse at all. Now similarly, for non-copyright material, the open access principle states that agencies should provide public online access to that material using a no known rights statement, and again, unless a restriction applies. And a number of restrictions are set out in NZGOAL, which agencies are expected to consider before releasing material.

To help agencies with the legal and practical issues that arise when releasing both copyright and non-copyright material for reuse, NZGOAL provides a seven stage review and release process, covering copyright related rights evaluations, evaluations of restrictions, the selection of reuse rights, how to apply one's selected licence or no known rights statement, moral rights checks, format selection, and release.

The last thing I should touch on is the relationship between NZGOAL and data.gov.nz. Now, data.gov.nz is a directory of publicly available, non-personal New Zealand government data sets, and it links to data sets held on other government websites. So at this point, it's not a repository.

NZGOAL, for its part, recommends that material released for reuse be released in the first instance on an agency's own website. But if the relevant work is also a data set, then NZGOAL prompts the releasing agency to announce the release on data.gov.nz as well. When listing a data set on data.gov.nz, the releasing agency needs to specify the reuse rights for the data set it is releasing.

And it's important to note that these rights will, or should at least, have already been applied following the analysis set out in NZGOAL. data.gov.nz itself, when you go to add a data set listing, that's not the place to apply a licence to your work for the first time. Rather, the agency should already have taken into account all the legal and other considerations that the NZGOAL review and release process prompts them to consider.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

 

Video 4: Quick overview of NZGOAL for New Zealanders

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: Welcome to this fourth part of the NZGOAL training sessions. In this video I'm going to provide a fairly quick overview of NZGOAL for New Zealanders: the people who may wish to use government material for their own purposes, or who may simply be interested in what NZGOAL is all about.

The New Zealand Government Open Access and Licencing Framework - or NZGOAL for short - is government guidance for agencies to follow when releasing copyright works and non-copyright material for reuse by others. It seeks to standardise the licencing of government copyright works for reuse using Creative Commons licences, and recommends the use of no-known rights statements for non-copyright material.

One question you might ask is, how can NZGOAL help me? And how can it help the government? At its heart, NZGOAL seeks to foster a culture of sharing government material for reuse by others.

If applied by agencies as expected, it can help people by enabling them to reuse government material for their own purposes. And those purposes could be economic, environmental, creative, or cultural, in the knowledge that they may do so legally. And it can help government by encouraging experts and others to contribute to improved policy development and more efficient financial performance by government.

Now what is copyright? And why is a licence needed for reuse of government copyright works? Well, copyright is a property right that exists in certain original works. In a government context, the most relevant categories are literary works - and they can include data sets and databases - artistic works, sound recordings, and films. With few exceptions, copyright exists in original works created by government, just as it does in original works created by others.

A licence - or in other words, a permission - is needed for most reuses of government copyright works because without one, a person may well infringe copyright in a work when he or she does any number of what the law considers to be restricted acts. The most common restricted act is copying the work or a substantial part of it.

Copying less than a substantial part will not amount to copyright infringement. But once that substantial part threshold is reached - and it can be reached quite easily - a licence is required for reuse. For example, for copying, republishing, or making an adaptation.

So what's a Creative Commons licence? Creative Commons licences are freely available copyright licences that enable the sharing of copyright works for reuse in a standardised way, and in forms that are human, machine, and lawyer-readable. Creative Commons itself is an international organisation with affiliate organisations around the world. Information on the New Zealand affiliate organisation can be found at creativecommons.org.nz.

There are six different Creative Commons licences. NZGOAL states that unless a restriction applies, agencies should make useful copyright works available for reuse using the most open, or in other words, the most permissive, form of Creative Commons licence. And the most open licence is the Creative Commons Attribution licence. If a work is licenced with this licence, then you are free to copy it, distribute it, adapt it, as long as you attribute the work to its source, and abide by the other licence terms.

Sometimes people ask this question. Do I need to sign anything? The answer is no. The owner of a copyright work can attach a description of the selected licence to the work that tells people how they may reuse the work. People are then able to act in accordance with the permissions and the selected licence without having to sign anything with the agency.

How then does NZGOAL apply to non-copyright material? Well, non-copyright material can include out of copyright images and material in which by law there is no copyright. NZGOAL encourages agencies to release this sort of material for reuse with what we've called no-known rights statements, which make it clear that there is no copyright related restriction on reuse of the material. No licence is required to reuse it.

What about your personal information held by government? Will it remain protected? Yes, it will. NZGOAL does not apply to informational works containing personal information. It also provides guidance on anonymising data sets which, once stripped of personal information, might be licenced or released for reuse.

What's the relationship then between NZGOAL and data.govt.nz? NZGOAL is government guidance that encourages agencies to release useful material for reuse, and explains how to do so in a legally correct manner. data.govt.nz, by contrast, is a directory of publicly available, non-personal, New Zealand government data sets.

How can I ask an agency to release material for reuse in accordance with NZGOAL? Well, you can always approach the agency directly and you should feel free to do so. If you're seeking the release for reuse of a data set, you can also make a data set release request on data.govt.nz.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

 

Video 5: Copyright basics, NZGOAL and Creative Commons

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: Welcome to this fifth part of the NZGOAL training sessions. In this video, I'm going to provide an overview of some core features of copyright law. It's helpful to have at least a basic understanding of copyright law, as it's copyright law that underpins the need for a framework like NZGOAL. I'll then explain how NZGOAL intersects with the requirements of copyright law. And I'll also explain the role of Creative Commons and the Creative Commons licences.

I'm going to start, then, in this part one, with some copyright basics. Copyright is a property right in certain original works. And the categories of original works are defined in the Copyright Act. Examples of those categories are literary works (which can include data sets), artistic works, sound recordings, and films.

Copyright does not, however, generally protect mere facts or information. So, for example, a written statement such as "the moon is spherical" clearly does not constitute a copyright work.

Crown copyright - now, what's Crown copyright? Well, Crown copyright is simply a species of copyright. And "Crown", for these purposes, includes ministers, departments, and offices of Parliament. But it's important to note that it does not include Crown entities. This means that it's not appropriate for a Crown entity to describe content, for example, on its website as being subject to Crown copyright. It's not. It's subject to what one might call ordinary copyright, but not Crown copyright.

Now, how does one infringe copyright? Well, one infringes copyright by doing what the law considers to be a restricted act without permission. And there are a number of different types of restricted act. But the most common one is copying all or a substantial part of a copyright work. Another example is adapting a work without permission.

I should also note that there's no copyright in certain works listed in the Copyright Act. So the Copyright Act says now that there is no copyright in legislation, parliamentary debates, and court judgments, for example.

I said earlier that copyright is a property right that exists in certain categories of original works. But what makes something original? Well, the courts have said that the threshold test for originality is not high. The determining factor, they've said, is whether sufficient time, skill, labour, or judgement  has been expended in producing the work.

It's relevant to note here that copyright is not concerned with the originality of ideas but with the form of their expression. Another point to note is that if the test for originality is met, then copyright applies automatically. There's no need for registration.

I'll turn now to the question of who owns copyright. Now, the default position in the Copyright Act is that the author of the work is the owner. But that default position is displaced by what's called the employment rule and by the commissioning rule.

I'll start with the employment rule first. The employment rule says that where an employee makes, in the course of his or her employment, a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work, then that person's employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work.

Turning now to the commissioning rule - the commissioning rule can be a little bit tricky because it applies differently in relation to certain types of works depending on whether the commissioning party is the Crown or is not the Crown. I'll start with the Crown first because that's the easy one. When the Crown commissions a copyright work, the Crown is the first owner of the work, regardless of the type of work in question.

But matters are not so straightforward when the commissioning party is not the Crown. What the Act says is that where a person commissions and pays or agrees to pay for the taking or the making of a wide range of copyright works, then the commissioning party is the first owner of copyright in the work.

But it's important to note that the list of works in this provision only includes some types of literary works. So, for example, it includes the making of a computer programme. A computer programme is a type of literary work. But it does not include the making of a report, for example. This means that the default position in the Copyright Act for the making of a report, where the commissioning party is not the Crown, is that copyright is owned by the commissioned party -- in other words, the party that actually writes the report.

So they are the employment rule and the commissioning rule. It's also important to note that parties can contract out of these rules. In other words, they can alter the default positions by contract. If you work for a government agency that uses the Government Model Contract for Services, then your agency will own all new copyright on creation because the intellectual property clause in that contract makes that abundantly clear. That'll be the position unless your agency has agreed that the contracting service provider will own the copyright.

How long does copyright last for? Well, as you can see here, it lasts for quite a long time. If we just have a quick look at literary works as an example, if a party who is not the Crown creates a literary work, then copyright on that work expires 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies - quite a long time. It's even longer in the case of Crown copyright. In the case of Crown copyright, it's 100 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work is made.

I'll touch now on the question of copyright versus licencing. Copyright in content and licences to use copyright content are, as I say here, conceptually distinct. The copyright owner has a bundle of exclusive rights. Only the copyright owner can exercise those rights. Other people cannot exercise those rights. They cannot do what the law considers to be a restricted act without permission from the copyright owner, without a licence.

Now, when a copyright owner allows someone to exercise his or her exclusive rights, the copyright owner essentially licenses that person to exercise some of the copyright owner's rights. And usually, the person who is licensed or the person who is given permission can only do a subset of the things that the owner can do.

Another point to understand is what one means when one refers to the public domain. If content is in the public domain, then, in legal terms, there is no copyright or other restriction on its reuse by others. It can be reused freely and as anyone wishes. And this can be the case, for example, when copyright in a work has expired or where there is no copyright in a work -- for example, in a court judgement .

It's important to understand this meaning of public domain because some people think that when a work is put on the internet, it is from that point forward in the public domain and can be used as anyone wishes. But that's not the case.

Part two. Let's have a look at how NZGOAL fits into the equation. NZGOAL is a bit like a key that helps agencies to unlock copyright works for reuse and indicate to people when content is in the public domain. So NZGOAL endorses the licencing by government agencies of their copyright works for reuse, and it explains how agencies can do that. And it also explains how agencies can indicate that non-copyright content is in the public domain.

As I've explained in previous videos, NZGOAL is government policy endorsed by Cabinet. Cabinet has directed public sector departments to take it into account when releasing material for reuse and, in essence, has encouraged or invited other agencies to do the same.

All the guidance material on NZGOAL can be found at ict.gov.nz. And there you will find NZGOAL itself, you'll find a quick guide for agencies and a quick guide for users, you'll also find a number of NZGOAL guidance notes or links to guidance notes.

So ict.gov.nz links to the New Zealand government web toolkit, where you will find NZGOAL guidance note number one, which is on website copyright statements. And I'll be talking about that in more detail in a later video. There's NZGOAL guidance note two on file formats, NZGOAL guidance note three on procuring copyright works -- and I'll be talking about that in a later video, as well. Guidance note number four is all about databases and data sets. And yes, there'll be another video on that later.

You'll also find a new guidance note five, which compares the Creative Commons 3.0 New Zealand licences with the 4.0 International licences which NZGOAL version two now endorses. You'll also find an NZGOAL copyright guide. This guide contains material that previously was contained in version one of NZGOAL but has been moved out of it into a separate guide.

I'll turn now, in part three, to the role of Creative Commons licencing. So you will have gathered by now that NZGOAL uses and depends heavily on the Creative Commons licences to enable agencies to allow people to reuse their copyright works.

For those not familiar with Creative Commons, it's a nonprofit organisation founded in the United States in 2001 by proponents of reduced legal restrictions on the sharing and use of copyright works. Headquartered in California, it also has affiliate organisations around the world. It aims to establish a middle way between full copyright control and the uncontrolled uses of intellectual property. And to do that, it provides a range of copyright licences, freely available to the public, which allow those creating intellectual property to mark their work with the freedoms they want it to carry.

The New Zealand affiliate for Creative Commons is Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand. You can learn more about the wide range of work it's doing at creativecommons.org.nz.

Turning now to the Creative Commons licences themselves, I'm going to turn on the tele, take a breather, and let a Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand video do the talking. [VIDEO PLAYBACK]

-Have you ever wondered how to download and share digital content legally? How do you let people know that you want them to reuse your own work? Creative Commons licences can help you do both. We'll show you how.

Our world's exploded with digital opportunities. Now we can communicate, share, and work together using the exceptional distribution network that is the internet. Information and content can fly between us in exciting new ways.

But it's important to know that when something is created-- say, a photo or document or a music track-- it's automatically protected by copyright. Copyright enables people to say who can share and reuse their creations. You must always obtain someone's permission before sharing or reusing their work, even when it's posted online.

But what if a creator wants everyone to use their work without the hassle of granting permission over and over? This is where Creative Commons can help. Creative Commons provides licencing tools that are free to use. You can apply a licence to your work, which refines your copyright and streamlines how you give permission.

Zack here downloads a photo called CC Kiwi that he wants to use in his science project. He can do this without asking Kiri, the photographer, first because she's already given permission with a Creative Commons licence. Kiri's licence is legally robust but easy for Zack to understand. She's told the world, including Zack, that they can use CC Kiwi as long as they acknowledge her as the original photographer.

There are more roles Kiri could've included. Creative Commons licences are made up of licence elements-- you can think of them as rules-- and each have their own special symbol. This is attribution. It means that Zack must acknowledge Kiri when he publishes his science project containing her photo.

This is non-commercial. It means no one else but Kiri is permitted to make money from CC Kiwi. Tim wants to print the photo onto t-shirts and distribute them to friends. He can do this, but he must not sell them.

This is no derivatives, and it means that Kiri hasn't given permission to change her photo. Kate can use CC Kiwi on her design blog but will need to ask Kiri before retouching or mixing up the image.

And this is share alike. It means new creations that use CC Kiwi need to carry the same licence. Jack incorporates his own remix of CC Kiwi in his video installation. But he must share the work under the same terms that Kiri has.

Each Creative Commons licence gives permission to share and includes the attribution rule. So people who find your Creative Commons licensed work are automatically allowed to share it, but are required to acknowledge you if they do. The other three licence elements are optional, and you can choose which ones to add, if any.

Here are the six combinations that make up Creative Commons licences. The difference between them is how many rules apply when someone wishes to use your work. The attribution licence allows reusers the most freedom. And the attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives licence allows the least freedom.

The attribution licence and the attribution, share alike licences are sometimes referred to as free cultural works approved licences. These three licences restrict commercial use of a work. And these two licences do not give permission for adapting or remixing. These two licences require new works to be licenced under the same terms.

To choose and apply one of these licences, and to view their terms in more detail, visit us at creativecommons.org.nz. Or, you can answer some questions to help you decide which licence best suits your needs at creativecommons.org/choose.

There are some good ways to find other people's Creative Commons licenced work online. You can use a search filter by going to the Creative Commons website. Or why not try the Jamendo website for music, Flickr for images, or digitalnz for New Zealand content?

Using Creative Commons licences could help your creations reach more people. Maybe you want to connect with others across the globe and take turns at improving a report. Or maybe you just want to have fun remixing someone else's work. Whatever reason you have to share your work, you'll find there are scientists, educators, companies, and public agencies who are using Creative Commons.

By opening up permission, just imagine how much we can achieve -- collaborating on what we hold in common, being open about big decisions, and finding solutions in the spaces between us. Let's work together, confidently and legally. It's good to share with Creative Commons.

[END PLAYBACK]

[MUSIC PLAYING]

 

Video 6: Policy principles and review and release process

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: Welcome to this sixth part of the NZGOAL training sessions. In this video, I'm going to explain the NZGOAL policy principles and NZGOAL's review and release process. These two areas are really the core of NZGOAL. The policy principles are statements of the government's policy positions - guide posts, if you like - for agencies to consider and apply when licencing their copyright works for reuse and enabling public access to and reuse of their non-copyright material.

The review and release prices was designed to ensure that agencies take legal and other relevant issues into account before releasing materials for reuse and to provide them with a step-by-step guide to releasing material for reuse. In addition to talking about the policy principles and the review and release process, I'm also going to talk through some worked examples to show you how the review and release process works in practice.

Let's start, then, with the policy principles. There are a number of policy principles and I'll just briefly go through each of them. The first principle is the open access to copyright works with CC-BY as default, or in summary, the Open Licencing Principle. And this principle says that the most open of the Creative Commons licences, which is the Creative Commons Attribution licence, should be used for copyright works that an agency wishes to release for reuse unless a restriction applies. And I'll touch on the restrictions in a minute.

The second principle is really a corollary of the first and it applies where you are dealing with copyright works. And it says quite simply that an agency should only license a copyright work for reuse where it has the rights to do so. The third principle, the Open Access Principle, is similar to the first but it applies to non-copyright material. And that principle says that agencies should provide access to non-copyright material with a no known rights statement unless a restriction applies.

Now, in terms of these restrictions, NZGOAL sets out a number of restrictions which agencies are encouraged to consider before releasing material for reuse. To give you some examples, releasing a copyright work might be contrary to a court order. It might be contrary to a contractual prohibition on release. It might be contrary to an agency's legitimate commercial interests. Or it may jeopardise the economic or other potential to Maori or other indigenous groups of Maori or other traditional knowledge or other culturally-sensitive material.

The next principle applies where a restriction has been found to exist. If a restriction applies to a copyright work, this principle says that an agency should still go on to consider if some other form of licencing as possible. So for example, whilst it may not be possible to apply the Creative Commons Attribution licence, it may nevertheless be possible to apply some other Creative Commons licence, such as the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial licence.

The next principle concerns the ShareAlike and No Derivative Work variants of the Creative Commons licences. And this principle is really a caution to agencies which discourages the use of these forms of licences unless they are really necessary, because when a Creative Commons licence imposes a share-alike obligation on end-users or when it prohibits the making of adaptations, the licence restricts the uses to which people might put the material that has been released for reuse.

To explain this a bit more, take a scenario where a commercial organisation takes government material that has been released for reuse under a Creative Commons licence. It adds value to the material that has been released. It might package it up into an end service or product. If a share-alike obligation - if a share-alike variant of a Creative Commons licence - is used, then that commercial organisation will be required to share the fruits of its commercial efforts when it distributes the material.

Now, the question is, why should the government require a commercial organisation to do that, particularly when commercial organisations are taxpayers just like anyone else? The next principle, Non-discrimination, says that agencies should not discriminate between individual, not-for-profit, and commercial use. The Anonymisation Principle expresses caution when it comes to agencies anonymising data sets which contain personal information.

So, for example, an agency may anonymise a data set that does contain personal information and it may think that there is thereafter no risk of any personal information being disclosed. But let's take a scenario where Agency A's anonymised data set is linked up and mashed up with an anonymised data set of Agency B and an anonymised data set of Agency C. In that kind of situation, it may well be the case that some smart person could put the different data sets together and from them identify personal information relating to individuals.

So this principle expresses caution on that front and encourages agencies to think about the prospect of that occurring before releasing these sorts of data sets for reuse and encourages them to speak to Statistics New Zealand or the Office of the Privacy Commissioner if they have any concerns on this front.

Turning now to the Attribution Requirements for Data Sets principle, you'll recall that I said earlier that every Creative Commons licence has an attribution requirement. Now, this principle relates to something called attribution stacking where multiple different attribution types can produce a so-called stack of attribution requirements. Let me explain.

So let's say Agency A has a data set and it says in relation to its data set, you end users who use this and copy it and so forth, you have to say a, b, and c. And then, Agency B says, in relation to a separate data set, you have to say x, y, z. And then, Agency C, in relation to a third data set, says something different again. Now, in these sorts of circumstances, an end user may need to comply with multiple, different attribution requirements. And that can be burdensome for people. So this principle is saying that, where there is a prospect of this happening, then agencies are encouraged to require the most minimal of attribution statements. And examples of minimum attribution statements are given in NZGOAL.

The next principle, about protected names, emblems, and trademarks, is essentially saying to agencies, be careful of how you express the scope of your licences when the works that you are licensing contain protected names, emblems and trademarks. And this principle gives two alternative ways in which these things can be dealt with.

The Formats principle is really saying to agencies, please release material in useful and open formats. It says if an agency does release a copyright work or does release non-copyright material in a proprietary format, then it should also release it in non-proprietary formats to enable people who don't have the proprietary software, for example, to use the material.

We turn now to the question of respecting moral rights. Moral rights are a set of statutory rights in the Copyright Act. They are personal to the authors or other creators of original works. They are distinct from the exclusive and economic property rights conferred on the owners of copyright works.

Now, when we're talking about New Zealand government works, where the vast majority of works will be literary works, the most potentially relevant moral rights will be the right to be identified as author and the right to object to a derogatory treatment of a work. Now, more often then not, these rights will not arise. It's very rare for them to arise in a government context. But this principle is saying that if they do arise, then they should be respected.

Whilst a number of legal questions may need to be considered when addressing moral rights questions, the simplest way to check whether there might be an issue is to ask whether any author of a work that the agency proposes to release for reuse has asserted a right to be identified as the author of the work. And also to ask whether the version of the work to be released could be considered a derogatory treatment of the original work.

Now, if the answer to these questions is no, then you can proceed without considering moral rights any further. If the answer to either of the questions is yes or might be yes, then I suggest that the agency should consult the moral rights section in the NZGOAL Copyright Guide and discuss the matter with its legal team.

Focusing now on Digital Rights Management, this principle basically says agencies should not use DRM technologies on the works that they release, because doing so would restrict the uses to which people could put that material. The Charging principle discourages charging for the reuse of material that is released for reuse.

NZGOAL says that before making any decision to charge, agencies should take into account a number of different governmental guidelines on setting up charges in the public sector. And to the extent that an agency decides that it does need to impose a charge, then it's encouraged to consider whether to allow non-commercial use without charge, to limit charges to what's reasonably necessary to meet the cost of distribution, to use technology to reduce costs to the extent practicable, and to seek legal advice on the most appropriate choice of NZGOAL licence.

Looking now at the Updating Released Copyright Works and Non-copyright Material principle, this one says that where State Services agencies have released copyright works or non-copyright material on terms allowing reuse and the released copyright works or material is superseded by a later version or found to contain mistakes or other inaccuracies, agencies should endeavour to release the later versions to inform the public of the errors or inaccuracies.

The Procuring and Preparing Copyright Works and Non-copyright Material principle is really a flag to agencies to think about potential reuse of material when they procure copyright works from third parties or prepare copyright works. Particularly in the case of procurement, it could be important to make sure that the agency owns the copyright in the copyright works that are created if the agency wishes to release them for reuse down the line.

Now, if an agency uses a Government Model Contract for Services, it will, by default, own all new copyright works created. But sometimes contractors try and reverse the contractual position in those contracts so that the contractor owns the new copyright. And that's just something to be wary of if an agency does, in fact, want to release the material for reuse later on.

And the final principle regarding the review and release process basically says agencies should follow that process before releasing material for reuse. And the purpose of that, as I suggested earlier, is to make sure that agencies take everything into account and make legally-defensible decisions.

Let's take a look, then, at the NZGOAL Review and Release Process. The process consists of seven stages and I'll go through each of them fairly briefly. The first stage is a copyright related rights evaluation. It involves clearly identifying the boundaries of the work or material that your agency proposes to release and then determining whether it constitutes or contains a copyright work. If it does constitute or contain a copyright work, you need to ask yourself whether your agency owns the copyright in it, and if it doesn't, whether it has an appropriately broad licence to sub-license the material under the relevant licence.

Turning now to stage two, regardless of whether you're dealing with a copyright work, you need to ask whether any restriction applies. And as we've discussed earlier, if a restriction does apply, it may displace the presumption of CC-BY being used for copyright works or open release with a no known right statement.

Stage three applies where a restriction has been identified at stage two, but it doesn't completely prevent release of the copyright work or non-copyright material. In this situation, if you're dealing with a copyright work, this stage asks you to consider whether the work can, nevertheless, be released under a different licence. Or if you're dealing with non-copyright material, whether it may be possible to release it on restricted contractual terms.

Turning to stage four, stage four explains how you go about applying a licence if you're dealing with a copyright work or a no known rights statement if you're dealing with non-copyright material. I'm going to explain stage four in much more detail in a later video. Stage five is the moral rights check we have talked about earlier. And this check only applies when you're dealing with a copyright work.

The six and seventh stages of the review and release process can be dealt with fairly swiftly. Stage six is simply about releasing the material in useful and open formats. And stage seven is about releasing the material through appropriate channels. And that's explained in more detail in NZGOAL.

NZGOAL contains a decision tree, which illustrates and walks you through the review and release process. It asks relevant questions and it leads you in the right direction, depending on your answers. It's intended to be used in conjunction with the textual explanations of each stage of the review and release process.

In the first version of NZGOAL, there was a single decision tree, which covered both copyright works and non-copyright material. But feedback from agencies suggested it would be more helpful if the paths for copyright works could be separated out from the paths for non-copyright material. This has now been done in version two. As a result, there are now two separate decision trees, one for copyright works and another for non-copyright material.

The first question in the decision tree for copyright works asks whether the material the agency proposes to release constitutes or contains a copyright work. If the answer is yes, you continue working through that same decision tree. If the answer is no, then you're sent to the separate decision tree for non-copyright material.

The decision trees might look a little daunting at first but the feedback we have received from agencies over the years tells us that, once you work through it a couple of times, it's fairly easy to follow and work through. At the same time, we are dealing with questions of copyright and, in some cases, with other legal issues when it comes to applying some of the restrictions that are listed in the policy principles.

If you're not sure whether you're dealing with a copyright work or whether your agency owns the copyright in a work or how you should define the scope of what's being licensed or whether a restriction to open licencing or open release might apply, you might want to involve a member of your legal team. In clear cut and simple cases, this mightn't be necessary, but if there's any doubt on these issues, it'd probably be wise to involve a lawyer.

To show you how the review and release process works in practice and how you can use the decision tree to work through the process, I'm going to discuss a few NZGOAL licencing case studies from easy to hard. You might find it handy to have a copy of the decision tree with you for this part of the video so you can step through the review and release process stages with me.

Let's start, then, with a pretty easy scenario. As you can see, your agency would like to Creative Commons license a procedures manual it's written. Agency staff wrote the content from scratch, there was no copying of anyone else's work, and there are no images in it. Turning to the decision tree, we need to ask whether the procedures manual is a copyright work. The answer will be yes, because it's a new literary work that will meet the law's threshold for originality.

We then need to ask whether the agency owns the copyright in the work or has sufficient rights to license it. Again, the answer is yes. The agency will own the work because its employees created it. This takes us to the default position in the Policy Principles that the manual should be licenced with the most open of the Creative Commons licences, which is the Creative Commons Attribution licence.

Turning to stage two of the review and release process, we now need to ask whether any restrictions apply. On the basic facts given to us, there do not appear to be any restrictions. In theory, a procedures manual might contain security or other sensitive information, but there's no indication of that here. Let's proceed on the basis, then, that no restrictions apply. That being the case and moving into stage three, the Creative Commons Attribution licence should be applied.

The rest of the review and release process is largely mechanical. In stage four, you'll apply the CC licence to the work. The procedures manual will probably be put online and you'd also be able to consume it offline, for example, as a printed PDF. For this reason, you'll probably need to apply the relevant licencing statement to the PDF version and obtain an HTML5 code snippet and insert that into the relevant web page. I'll explain these processes in more detail in a later video.

Moving in to stage five, we're not aware of the author or any author having asserted a right to be identified as author. And there's not going to be a derogatory treatment of the work here. For these reasons, no moral rights questions arise, and we move into stages six and seven, Format Selection and Release. And that's really it for this example. It's fairly straightforward.

The next example is a bit harder. Your agency would like to Creative Commons license a commissioned report, which was written by a contractor and contains third-party licenced stock images. Let's say the images are from the likes of iStockphoto or Shutterstock or BigStock Photo. The contract with the contractor, we're told, was a Government Model Contract for Services.

Starting at the top, the report will be a copyright work. So the answer to the first question is yes. But does the agency own the copyright in the report or otherwise have sufficient rights to license it? Well, because a Government Model Contract for Services was used, the agency will own new copyright in the report unless the agency agreed to amend the standard IP clause in that contract. However, under that contract, pre-existing intellectual property rights, including copyright, remain the property of their current owner.

In this case, the report contains third party stock images. The agency certainly will not own the copyright on those images, nor will it be authorised to sub-license them under a Creative Commons licence. This means that the agency does not have sufficient rights in the report - in its entirety, that is - to license it. This is why you see the answer 'no' in orange. That leads to the statement saying, either obtain the relevant rights or do not release for reuse.

But, in this scenario, this is not the end of the matter. If you look at the note above this apparent conclusion, it makes the point that, whether or not one has sufficient rights can be a question of defining what is to be released for reuse. It says, if the agency does not have the right to only part of the work, it could exclude that part from the scope of the selected licence. In our case, it's fairly easy to exclude the third party images from the scope of what the agency is licensing.

Instead of saying it wishes to licence the entire report, it can say instead that it wishes to license the report, but excluding any third party images. In other words, those images can be carved out of the scope of what is being licensed. If we redefine the scope in this way, then the agency does have sufficient rights to license the work. This is why there is also the green path to the right. I don't need to go through it in detail as the analysis from this point is the same as in the previous example as you can see here.

The third example is a bit trickier still. Your agency has created and would like to Creative Commons license a composite data set which contains one of its own data sets, as well as other State Services agencies' data sets, and a company's data set. We're told that the company does not agree. Whilst there's no problem with the agency's own data set and whilst it's probably possible to obtain permission from the other State Services agencies - something that, of course, you'd need to test with them - the inclusion of the company data set and the composite data set means the agency won't, in all likelihood, have sufficient rights to license the data set in its entirety under a Creative Commons licence.

On this fact pattern, I think this is the most likely outcome, which is why the green path takes us to the conclusion of, in a sense, no-go. There might be another possibility, though. It might be possible to create two separate data sets from the composite so as to produce one data set that contains the agency's and other State Services agencies' data sets - let's assume that those agencies agree to the proposed Creative Commons licencing - and another one that is limited to the company data set.

Or in other words, it might be possible to create a copy of the composite data set and then remove the company data from it. If that were possible, one might be able to licence that government agency-only data set. That's why I put the orange path down the right.

In practical terms, though, it might be harder to do this than it is, for example, to exclude some third party images. That's why I've put the right-side path in orange. We are aware of one agency having done this, but I doubt - at least on this fact scenario - that it happens very often. If the agency were able to license a government agency-only data set, then the remaining stages would be the same as in the previous example, so I don't really need to go through them here.

Turning to the last example, you would like your agency to license a copyright data set, and we're told that the copyright in that data set is owned by your agency, but your manager is worried about people misrepresenting or distorting what it reveals. She doesn't think the company should be able to profit from your agency's investment. You think this seems a bit odd and wonder what to do.

Your agency does have the rights to license the data set. This means, applying NZGOAL's Policy Principles, that it should be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence, unless a restriction applies. Moving to stage two of the review and release process, one asks, are there any restrictions? You may not think so, but your manager clearly does. She's concerned about distortion and commercial gain. That's why we're taken to the question, can the restrictions be addressed by amendment or anonymisation of the material?

In this case, the restrictions cannot be addressed by these means. For that reason, we are asked whether the restrictions prevent all forms of release for reuse. In this case, the answer to that is, in all likelihood, no, because it may well be possible to apply a licence which addresses the manager's concerns about distortion and commercial gain.

That takes us into stage three, where we are encouraged to consider licensing the work with another Creative Commons licence or a restrictive licence, as appropriate. In this case, the manager's concerns could probably be met by selecting an alternative Creative Commons licence. The licence that is most likely to appease your manager's concerns is the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial No Derivative Works licence. If that licence is chosen, you can continue through stages four to seven, just as in the previous examples.

However, going back to the previous screen, I've placed the selection of an alternative licence in orange to express caution, because you might want to challenge your manager's concerns in this case. For a number of reasons, concerns about misrepresentation or distortion can often be overstated. The first reason is that one person's representation can be another's misrepresentation. Two similarly-placed interpreters of data may, quite reasonably, interpret the data differently. Just because your agency interprets the data in one way doesn't necessarily mean that its view is correct. If that view is capable of being critically examined, arguably it should be.

The second reason is that people can, and probably will, interpret data as they see fit, regardless of what licence your agency applies to it. And in some cases, they may need no licence to do so, because the mere expression of an opinion or an interpretation of data may not involve copying a substantial part of a work or adapting the work. If it doesn't, then no licence is required.

The third reason is that, if someone does distort the data - for example, by amending it in a way that you disagree with - the original source data will still be available, so you can point to it as your agency's actual data if you need to. The fourth reason is that you can require people who amend or add to your licensed data set, in circumstances where they'd need a copyright licence to do so, to include in their attribution statement that they have amended the data.

Turning now to your manager's concerns about companies profiting from your agency's investment, that is probably contrary to the Nondiscrimination Policy Principle, which says that, except when necessary to protect their own or others' commercial or other interests, agencies should not discriminate when selecting a licence between individual, not-for-profit, and commercial uses of a copyright work. Sometimes the kinds of concerns we're talking about in this example can be a conservative reaction to a proposal to release a work for reuse. Sometimes such concerns may not withstand the light of the NZGOAL Policy Principles.

 

Video 7: Applying the licences and no known rights statements

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: Welcome to the seventh part of the NZGOAL training sessions. In this video I'm going to do two things. First, I'm going to delve into the mechanics of applying a Creative Commons licence to a copyright work that an agency has decided may be released for reuse. After that I'll turn to non-copyright materials that an agency wishes to release for reuse, and talk about applying a no known rights statement to that material.

Let's start, then, with copyright works. The means by which a Creative Commons licence is applied to a copyright work depends on how it's released and consumed. Sometimes an agency will only release offline hard copies of a work, although that's fairly rare these days, sometimes an agency will only release an online vision of a work, and sometimes an agency will release both offline and online visions.

Note also that a document might be released online, but also be capable of being consumed in an offline environment. For example, a PDF document that can be printed. Licensing statements need to be added in a way that recognises the different ways in which a work can be consumed. So, for example, the licensing of a work that is released online might be noted on the web page on which the work is released, or on a general website copyright statement.

But if a PDF version is released along with the HTML version, a separate licensing statement should be added to the PDF file so people who only receive the PDF, whether it be online or offline, can understand its licensing. The process of applying the licensing statements is fairly straightforward. Let's start with offline releases.

First of all, we need to choose a recommended licensing statement from NZGOAL's Appendix, including whether you want to include specific attribution requirements. After you've done that, you need to fill in the gaps in your chosen statement. When you take one of these statements from the Appendix, there will be certain gaps for you to fill in. You need to fill in those gaps.

And thirdly, you need to add the completed statement to your copyright work. Turning now to online releases, first you need to choose a recommended HTML5 code snippet, again from NZGOAL's Appendix, and again including whether you want to include specific attribution requirements. Then you need to fill in the gaps in your chosen code snippet.

Just like the hard copy statements, the code snippets have certain gaps that you need to fill in. Once you've done that, you then add the code snippet to the relevant web page. Note that some agencies prefer to add a generic copyright and licensing statement to their websites, rather than adding individual licensing statements for each copyright work they release. I'll be discussing that topic in more detail in a later video.

Now, as you can see at the bottom here, just a brief reminder, if you are licensing a data set, then agencies are also encouraged to add a listing of that data set to data.gov.nz. This is just a sample of what you will find in the Appendix. So if we zoom up on one of these, this is a basic copyright and licencing statement for a work that is going to be released under a Creative Commons Attribution licence.

And so you can see under the headings there, there's recommended statement text for an offline release. And then underneath that there's a recommended HTML5 code snippet that you can take and complete, as I've mentioned earlier. Just thought I'd show you an example of how a licensing statement that is added to an offline release might look. So this is just a copy of NZGOAL itself.

If you look down to the bottom right of the screen you'll see in small print a copyright and licensing statement. I'll just zoom up on that, and that's what it looks like there. So I don't need to read it out. You can pause the video if you like, but that is just taking wording from the Appendix in NZGOAL and filling in the gaps, and we just pasted the icon and the text into the NZGOAL document.

This is an example of an online release on ict.gov.nz. This is the copyright licensing statement for the NZGOAL Copyright Guide. I should perhaps add that this is the kind of thing you see when you insert an HTML5 code snippet until your web page. This is what is rendered. Now, you can be a bit creative if you want to. So here are two examples, one from teara.govt.nz, the other from .govt.nz, where you can see that the agencies in question have chosen slightly different branding.

So instead of using the standard icons that we've set out in the Appendix to NZGOAL, they've taken different Creative Commons logos. Let's turn now to non-copyright material. Applying a no known rights statement to non-copyright material your agency is releasing for reuse is even easier than applying a Creative Commons licence.

You simply copy the sample no known rights statement that is set out in stage four of the review and release process, fill in the gaps, and insert it on the web page or within the material as appropriate. In the case of online releases, if agencies prefer, they can reproduce a no known rights icon and place it close to the non-copyright material to which it applies.

And they can do this by using a snippet of HTML5 code that they paste into the relevant web page. Sample code enabling agencies to do this will be available either on ict.govt.nz, or a site linked to from ict.govt.nz. Insertion of that code into a web page will insert the icon, as well as a summary of the no known rights text with a link to a web page that contains the full details of the no known rights statement, including its disclaimer.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

 

Video 8: CC0 and CC0 versus CC BY

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: Welcome to this eighth part of the NZGOAL training sessions. In this video, I'm going to talk about CC0. Agencies sometimes ask questions as to why NZGOAL does not support CC0. I'll explain why, and I'll also explain why, in the vast majority of cases, agencies don't really need CC0, as they can, if they want to, achieve much the same thing with CC-BY or, in other words, the Creative Commons Attribution licence.

The first point to note is that CC0 is not primarily a licence. It's a tool that seeks to enable an owner of copyright in a work to waive the copyright in that work, thereby freeing it of copyright-related restrictions on reuse and releasing it into the public domain, at least from a copyright perspective. It also states that if or to the extent that the waiver is legally ineffective in a given country, then an extremely broad and obligation-free licence is granted instead. And this is generally known as the licence fallback. So the tool, in essence, is a waiver plus licence fallback where required.

There are legal, policy and operational aspects to governmental use of CC0, each of which provides reason not to adopt a waiver or CC0 approach. Legally, there are questions as to whether agencies can, in fact, waive copyright under the Copyright Act, as well as potential inconsistencies with the moral rights regime in that Act. At a policy level, guidance which advocated all of government, or even selective agency waiving of copyright would be a substantial move and one which was considered to be more appropriate for assessment in the context of any future reform of the Copyright Act. At the operational level, using CC0 would have the effect of removing attribution requirements despite correct attribution to and integrity of certain categories of copyright works being important to many government agencies.

So these are the reasons why NZGOAL does not endorse CC0. That said, Version 2 of NZGOAL does recognise that an individual agency is not necessarily precluded from deciding to use CC0 if it wishes to. That's a question for the agency.

I mentioned above that agencies don't really need CC0 as they can achieve much the same thing with CC-BY or Creative Commons Attribution.

If we compare CC0 with CC-BY, we see that the main difference is the existence in CC-BY of the attribution requirements. In the 4.0 International licences, for example, these requirements are set out in Section 3. The important point here is that a licensing agency can waive some or all of those attribution requirements if it wishes. Where it does so, then in practical terms, there is little real difference between CC0 and CC-BY. Uses of the work are largely unrestrained, and there's no need to worry about providing attribution to the work's source.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

 

Video 9: Open licensing and procuring copyright works

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: Welcome to this ninth part of the NZGOAL training sessions. In this video, I'm going to talk about open licencing and procuring copyright works. In an earlier video, I referred briefly to the NZGOAL policy principle on procuring and preparing copyright works and non-copyright material. To recap quickly, that principle says that when procuring, preparing or commissioning copyright and non-copyright material, agencies are encouraged to consider whether such material should be released to the public for reuse.

The principle goes on to say that where the material should be released to the public for reuse, agencies should, where applicable, consider the steps that may be required as part of their procurement and contracting processes to ensure that they have the relevant rights to release the material for reuse. In the case of copyright works, these steps may include ensuring that the agency owns the copyright in any relevant commissioned copyright works, or obtains a broad licence from the copyright owner, allowing the agency to sub-license the works on Creative Commons terms.

The steps may also include being careful that procured or commissioned copyright works are not encumbered by externally imposed digital restrictions. In the years following NZGOAL's release, it became apparent that is would be helpful to provide agencies with some sample paragraphs for their notices of procurement, and some sample clauses for their contracts. NZGOAL Guidance Note 3, on Procuring Copyright Works, was prepared to do precisely that. It sets out standard paragraphs that can be inserted into a notice of procurement, such as a request for proposals. And it provides a number of clauses that can be used to amend the Government Model Contract for Services where required.

It also explains the differences between and the reconcilability of the NZGOAL Guidance Note itself, and the Guidelines for Treatment of Intellectual Property Rights in ICT Contracts. I won't discuss this particular point more here, but take a look at the Guidance Note if you're interested in that topic. Returning to the sample clauses, they deal with a number of different scenarios.

First, they deal with a scenario where it may be necessary to supplement the intellectual property terms in the GMC, the Government Model Contract. The standard terms in the GMC state that the agency owns all new intellectual property, but preexisting intellectual property remains owned by its current owners or licensors. It may be necessary to amend these terms where, for example, a commissioned report that an agency wishes to release under a Creative Commons licence includes a supplier's preexisting copyright content.

The suggested clause obtains a licence from the supplier in relation to that preexisting content, enabling the agency to sub-license that preexisting content under a Creative Commons licence. This means that the agency could, if it wanted to, release the entire commissioned report under a Creative Commons licence.

The second scenario that the sample clauses deal with is where there is a need to amend the GMC so as to license the supplier to reuse copyright works that the supplier prepares for the agency, and which, under the default provisions, the agency will own. Sometimes there can be good reason for allowing this. A supplier may have a legitimate interest in being able to reuse the output copyright works it creates in performing a contract. Common examples are agencies commissioning of photography or video footage.

The third scenario that the sample clauses deal with is where there is a need, for whatever reason, to amend the GMC to enable the supplier, rather than the agency, to own new copyright works, but also, in this scenario, to license them to the procuring agency. The licence back to the procuring agency permits it to sub-license the deliverables, such as a report, under a Creative Commons licence.

The sample clauses also included a clause that prohibits the supplier from applying digital rights management restrictions to or within a deliverable. This is fairly rare but if there is any risk of this happening, you might want to think about including such a clause.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

 

Video 10: Copyright, licensing and government websites

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: Welcome to this tenth part of the NZGOAL training sessions. In this video, I'm going to talk about copyright, licensing and government websites.

The first point to note is that NZGOAL does provide, in its Appendix, a range of sample copyright statements for each of the six Creative Commons licences, and for both offline and online releases. Those licencing statements are, though, they are targeted towards individual copyright works.

Taking that approach, every time an agency releases something online, it would need to include an individual copyright statement with each individual copyright work. But some agencies want to license website content generically. In other words, they don't want to apply a single licence to each single released work. Instead they want to be able to provide a general or generic copyright statement that applies to all content on the site - all copyright content on the site that is - unless a page on the site says otherwise for a particular piece of content.

NZGOAL Guidance Number number one was drafted with this in mind. It provides guidance on how an agency can go about drafting a generic copyright and licensing statement for its website, and also what to watch out for.

For some agencies, applying, for example, a Creative Commons Attribution licence to all content on its website might not be that challenging. That would be the case, for example, where an agency owns all content that it puts on its website. It has no concerns about licensing any of that content under a creative commons licence. But for other agencies it won't be so simple.

So, for example, some agencies may post quite a lot of content that contains third party copyright. That third party content could be textual content, in reports for example, or it could be third part imagery or it could be third party video, whatever it may be. So a little bit tougher for those agencies, but it still may be possible to apply a generic copyright licensing statement to certain content on the website whilst excluding the third party copyright content that an agency cannot license.

So, for example, we are aware of one agency that wanted to do this, but it also happens to post a lot of third party content on its site in the nature of images, illustrations, and so forth. What it did was prepare a generic copyright and licensing statement, but it expressly excludes from the scope of the licence any images on the website. The licensing statement says that any textual content on the website can be used in accordance with the Creative Commons licence that the agency chose, but no images fall within the scope of that licence. And if anyone wants to use an image, they need to seek separate permission from the agency.

NZGOAL Guidance Note 1 also provides a sample website copyright statement in the form of a snippet of HTML5 code, which agencies can then complete. So this is what the code looks like. And just as you have to complete certain gaps when you fill out any code snippet that's found in the NZGOAL Appendix, so too when you use this code snippet, you need to complete certain items, and I've placed those items in yellow.

If you look at the last two sentences, they say: please note that this licence does not apply to any logos, emblems, and trademarks on the website - that's fairly common - or to the website's design elements. Again, that's fairly common.

And here in square brackets we've just put an example of a category that an agency may wish to or need to exclude. So in this case, it also does not apply to any photography and imagery. Those specific items may not be reused without express permission.

It might help to give you some examples of agencies that have taken this generic approach to copyright licensing on their websites. The first sample there is from the State Services Commission. So as you can see, they say that except where otherwise stated, information on the website that is subject to Crown copyright is licensed for use under a Creative Commons Attribution licence.

Turning now to the Te Ara website of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, MCH has licenced all textual content under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial licence unless otherwise stated. So for example, it may well be that there's a different position in relation to a particular piece of content. And where that is the case, there would be a statement to that effect. All non-text content is subject to specific conditions.

Turning now to the .govt.nz website operated by the Department of Internal Affairs, you can see that they have applied a generic licence here by saying unless otherwise indicated, all content on their site is licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons Attribution licence.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

 

Video 11: NZGOAL, Creative Commons and data

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: Welcome to this eleventh part of the NZGOAL training sessions. In this video, I'm going to talk about NZGOAL, Creative Commons and data. And the real focus here is on databases and data sets.

NZGOAL Guidance Note 4 contains detailed discussion on a range of topics regarding databases and data sets. In this video, I'm just going to talk about three topics.

The first is key legal points relating to copyright, databases and data sets. The second is the suitability of Creative Commons licences for copyright databases and data sets. And the third topic is about using programmatic means to regulate access to data. And it's important to appreciate that there is potential for conflict between certain API terms - that's application programming interface terms - and the use of CC licences - or Creative Commons licences - for the data that is made available through an API, an application programming interface.

So what does the Copyright Act have to say about data and data sets and databases? Well copyright, as I've explained in a previous video, is a property right that exists in certain original works under the Copyright Act. The categories of works include literary works. Now a literary work includes a table or a compilation. And a compilation is defined to include, among other things, databases and data sets.

Now when it comes to determining what is protected, the courts have emphasised that it must be shown that a sufficient degree of labour, skill, and judgement  is involved in preparing the compilation. It's the compilation itself that counts.

Turning to the topic of infringement, as with other types of copyright works, copyright in a database or data set may be infringed by, for example, copying either the entire database or a substantial part of it. In the context of arrangements and compilations, the courts have endorsed the principle that the greater the originality, the wider will be the scope of the protection which copyright affords, and significantly, vice versa.

When dealing with arrangements and compilations, they've emphasised that substantial reproduction of those aspects of the work in which the originality lies must be shown. So in other words, when it comes to copying bits and pieces of a database where the individual items themselves are not protected by copyright, the threshold for infringement may in substance be a little bit higher than would otherwise be the case.

When NZGOAL was being prepared, officials saw merit in advocating the use of Creative Commons licences for all kinds of copyright works that can be released for reuse, and that included copyright databases and data sets. It was believed that the use of separate licences for databases and data sets would run the risk of further licence proliferation, which is something that NZGOAL was trying to get away from. In addition to that, the Creative Commons model was widely known and respected and it benefited it from the Creative Commons infrastructure.

Now the appropriateness of Creative Commons licences for databases and data sets was considered in detail when NZGOAL was being prepared. During their research, officials identified three main arguments against using Creative Commons licences for copyright databases and data sets, and I've summarised those arguments on the slide.

So the first argument is around what's called attribution stacking. As I mentioned in a previous video, attribution stacking can occur where multiple data sets with different attribution requirements are mashed up together to produce an end product or service. So if data sets A, B, and C had attribution requirements X, Y, and Z and they were all different, then this stack of attribution requirements would grow and that would be burdensome to the end user. So that was one argument against using Creative Commons licences for data sets, because they all have attribution requirements.

The second argument was that the use of a Creative Commons attribution ShareAlike licence would have a stifling effect on downstream use of a data set because the ShareAlike obligation can be inhibiting.

The third argument was that the use of Creative Commons licences could produce what's called category errors.

And this can occur where a copyright licence is placed inappropriately on non-copyright data, or where end users take less than a substantial part of a copyright licensed data set, thinking they are bound by the licence terms when in fact, they are not, because if they take less than a substantial part, then they don't need a copyright licence.

Officials also discovered that people concerned by these apparent problems had suggested a couple of potential solutions to them. The first solution was to adopt CC0 or some other waiver mechanism instead of a copyright licensing approach. And the second and alternative solution was to prefer a licence with fewer attribution requirements.

So all these arguments and solutions were taken into account. And officials' views on each of them were as I've set out on the slide. In relation to attribution stacking, the position there was that this issue could be addressed in the NZGOAL Policy Principles, as it now is with the attribution stacking principle. And in addition to that, agencies can always waive some or all of the attribution requirements if they wish.

Turning to argument 2, NZGOAL recommends the Creative Commons Attribution licence by default, and expressly discourages use of the ShareAlike variants of the Creative Commons licences due to the potentially stifling effect they can have. Turning to category errors, they are not at all unique to Creative Commons licences. They are actually inherent in copyright law's complexity, and they could arise with other licences as well.

In terms of the two solutions that had been put forward by some people, as I've discussed in a previous video, CC0 or a full waiver approach is not supported by NZGOAL, and there are legal, policy, and operational reasons for that. And in relation to solution 2, well there's actually no need to choose licences with fewer attribution requirements because the attribution issues can be dealt with by the attribution stacking policy principle and, where necessary, by agencies waiving the attribution requirements.

In the last few years, officials working with NZGOAL have also heard some assertions in relation to the appropriateness of Creative Commons licences for databases. And I've summarised those assertions here.

The first assertion is that New Zealand law does not recognise copyright in data. The second is that Creative Commons licences are not for data, and Creative Commons has said as much. The third assertion is that Creative Commons licences do not refer to the database right. And the fourth assertion is that Creative Commons licences do not prohibit misrepresentation of data. I'll look at each of these assertions in turn.

As to the first one, as a general statement it's not accurate to say that New Zealand law does not recognise copyright in data. Yes, it is correct to say that mere facts are not protected by copyright. But as I've discussed earlier, original compilations of data are protected.

Turning to the assertions that CC licences are not for data and that Creative Commons has said as much, that was never fully the case, and a year or two ago now, Creative Commons Headquarters clarified its position on this issue, making its position abundantly clear that the Creative Commons licences can be used for databases.

Turning to this third assertion about the database right, this really stems from the existence in Europe of a distinct database right that is separate to the copyright protection that can exist in certain databases. There is, in fact, no database right in New Zealand. As I've said here, that's a European legal concept with no New Zealand equivalent.

To the extent that databases are protected in New Zealand, they are protected by copyright. There is no distinct database right. So that assertion is irrelevant here. And in any event, the Creative Commons 4.0 international licences do now expressly refer to the database right. But as I say, it's not relevant in New Zealand.

Turning to the last assertion, it is true that the Creative Commons licences do not contain a prohibition against misrepresentation. But officials consider that inclusion of such a misrepresentation clause could have a chilling effect on potentially legitimate interpretations of data, particularly where there is scope for debate.

As I've mentioned in a previous video, what to one person might be a legitimate interpretation could to another be a misrepresentation. Officials considered that it would be unhelpful to insist upon a misrepresentation clause in licences used for the release of government copyright works. These points are all discussed in more detail in NZGOAL Guidance Note 4.

The conclusion then is that it's all systems go in relation to the use of Creative Commons licences for databases and data sets.

The last topic I'll touch on this video is using programmatic means to regulate access to data and the interrelationship between those means and Creative Commons licensing. As I've said here, the licensing of database content might be part of a wider set of issues around the use of an application programming interface. For example, in addition to regulating the use of copyright content, there may be a need to regulate, by contractual means, the use and protection of API keys, whether - for website or mobile applications - real time calls to the API are required so as to serve up the latest data, and the number of permitted API calls per minute, hour or day.

Looking at the licensing of copyright database content, it is possible for a releasing agency to set up an API for programmatic access to data contents and to Creative Commons license those data contents. But the releasing agency does need to be wary of potential conflicts between the API functionality and terms and the freedoms in the chosen Creative Commons licence. If there is a desire to lock down use of the database content in ways that would be inconsistent with the freedoms in the Creative Commons licence, then either the API restrictions or the use of a Creative Commons licence may need to be reconsidered.

Perhaps it would help to give an example of this sort of conflict. An example would be where API access enables a developer to download the entire database contents, but this is in the face of API terms that constrain the serving up of the developer's stored version of the contents and require instead live calls through to the agency's API. And all this in the context of Creative Commons licence terms that generally enable any kind of copying, storage and use.

So you see, on the one hand the contractual terms that regulate access to the API are saying, you have to make live calls through to our database. But the Creative Commons licence says you can copy and store the data in any way you wish. In that kind of situation, customised licensing and access terms would be required.

If you'd like to see an example in a government context where customised licensing and access terms where in fact required, you could take a look at the developer API terms of use on DigitalNZ.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

 

Video 12: NZGOAL and data.govt.nz

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: Welcome to this 12th part of the NZGOAL training sessions. In this video I'm going to discuss the relationship between NZGOAL and data.govt.nz. I've touched on this topic already in video 3, which provided a quick overview of NZGOAL for agencies, and video 4, which provided a quick overview of NZGOAL for New Zealanders. But we thought it would be helpful to repeat the topic in its own video for those people who wish to jump straight to this topic.

If you've already listened to video 3, the quick overview of NZGOAL for agencies, you'll already have heard the content of this video.

data.govt.nz is a directory of publicly available, non-personal New Zealand government data sets. And it links to data sets held on other government websites. At this point it's not a repository.

NZGOAL, for its part, recommends that material released for reuse be released in the first instance on an agency's own website. But if the relevant work is also a data seat, then NZGOAL prompts the releasing agency to announce the release on data.govt.nz as well.

When listing a data set on data.govt.nz, the releasing agency needs to specify the reuse rights for the data set it is releasing. And it's important to note that these rights will, or should at least, have already been applied following the analysis set out in NZGOAL. data.govt.nz itself, when you go to add a data set listing, that's not the place to apply a licence to your work for the first time. Rather, the agency should already have taken into account all the legal and other considerations that the NZGOAL review and release process prompts them to consider.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

 

Video 13: NZGOAL from version 1 to 2: What's changed

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: Welcome to the 13th and final part of the NZGOAL training sessions. In this video I'm going to talk about the transition from version 1 to version 2 of NZGOAL, and outline what's changed.

Version 1 of NZGOAL was released in August 2010, and has therefore, at the time of my recording this video, been in place for a bit over 4 and 1/2 years. There were three main causes for the review, which began in 2014. The first and main cause was Creative Commons' consultation on, and then release of, the Creative Commons 4.0 International licences. It was considered desirable to assess whether NZGOAL should adopt these new licences.

The second cause was recognition that the HTML code snippets in version 1 of NZGOAL, which are used for online releases of copyright works, were out of date and non-compliant with the latest versions of HTML. They needed to be updated to ensure agencies were being given valid code snippets for their online licensing needs.

The third cause was a recognition, following years of experience with NZGOAL, that it could be simplified in various ways.

So what's changed? The main changes are these. First, about 20 pages have been trimmed from NZGOAL to make it a more digestible and approachable piece of guidance.

For example, the summaries of the licences have been heavily condensed. Some superfluous paragraphs have been removed. And the more detailed discussion of copyright law that had been in an appendix has been removed and placed in a separate NZGOAL Copyright Guide.

Second, NZGOAL now recommends that agencies use the Creative Commons 4.0 International licences in preference to the 3.0 New Zealand licences. The reasons for this recommendation are set out in the new NZGOAL Guidance Note 5, which compares the 3.0 New Zealand licences, and the 4.0 International licences.

In essence, the comparison reveals that the 4.0 International licences are clearer, or otherwise preferable, to the 3.0 New Zealand licences across a number of topics. Those topics are the clarity of the preliminary notes in the licence, greater clarity in relation to adaptations, and what's now called the adapter's licence, greater clarity on the subject of no endorsement, improvements in the approach to attribution, the enabling of more anonymity when a licensor, such as an agency requires it, new provisions on termination and reinstatement of the licences, and the new clause which expressly contemplates additional terms or agreements between the licensor and licensees. You can find more detail on these topics in Guidance Note 5.

Version 2 of NZGOAL emphasises - and I would like to emphasise here - that there's nothing wrong with the 3.0 New Zealand licences. They were regarded as best of breed when they were launched and they were and still are fit for government licensing needs. Agencies are free to continue to use the 3.0 New Zealand law licences if they wish.

It's recognised, for example, that some agencies may have put licensing processes in place using the 3.0 New Zealand licences that they may not wish to change in a hurry. Note also that NZGOAL's preference for the 4.0 International licences does not mean that works already licensed under a 3.0 New Zealand licence need to be re-licensed with a 4.0 International licence. There's no need for that.

Turning to the third change, with assistance from the Department of Internal Affairs, the code samples for online releases of copyright works have all been updated to HTML5. And they now refer to the Creative Commons 4.0 International licences.

Fourth, the approach to moral rights has been simplified. Now you can assess whether there are moral rights issues by asking two questions. First, has an author of the work- - an author might be an employee or a contractor, for example - has an author of the work asserted a right to be named as author? And second, could the treatment of the work in question be considered a derogatory treatment of a work?

If the answers to these questions are both no, there won't be any moral rights requirements and you can proceed to the next stage of the review and release process. If you answer yes to either question, or are unsure, that would be the time to involve your legal team.

Fifth, the section that describes the Creative Commons licences has been rewritten. As I mentioned earlier, it's now easier to digest.

Sixth, there is now a new No Known Rights statement icon, and snippet of HTML code that agencies can use for online releases of non-copyright material.

Seventh. There's a new section that explains why NZGOAL does not endorse CC Zero.

And eighth, following agency feedback, the previous single decision tree, which summarises and walks one through the NZGOAL review and release process for both copyright works and non-copyright material, has been separated into two decision trees. There is now one decision tree for copyright works, and another for non-copyright material.

That brings me to the end of these NZGOAL training sessions. I hope you found them useful. If you have any questions, please feel free to get in touch with the New Zealand Open Government Data Programme Secretariat at Land Information New Zealand.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

 

Last updated 20 September 2016

Top