Case Studies/Dan Gillmor - Revision history

U.S. Curator: Category:USA

2011-09-11T20:04:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:04, 11 September 2011
Line 54:		Line 54:

	Delete the above questions and add text here.		Delete the above questions and add text here.

			[[Category:USA]]

CCID-jane at 18:56, 21 December 2010

2010-12-21T18:56:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:56, 21 December 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Case Study		{{Case Study
			\|Description=Dan Gillmor is a journalist and author of "We the Media" and "Mediactive", books about the changing landscape of media.
	\|Mainurl=http://mediactive.com/		\|Mainurl=http://mediactive.com/
	\|Author=Dan Gillmor		\|Author=Dan Gillmor
Line 5:		Line 6:
	\|Tag=book, publishing, Dan Gillmor		\|Tag=book, publishing, Dan Gillmor
	\|License short name=CC BY-NC-SA		\|License short name=CC BY-NC-SA
			\|CC adoption date=2004
			\|Format=Text
			\|Country=United States
			\|Quote=...the main reason I’m still getting royalty checks for We the Media is that the book has been available as a free download since the day it went into bookstores.
			\|Quote_Attribution=Dan Gillmor
	}}		}}
	== Overview ==		== Overview ==

	'~~''Please provide an overview~~ of the ~~work~~. ~~Describe the author or organization (location, funding/business model, partner organizations), objectives, current projects.'''~~		Dan Gillmor is a journalist and established author who has published two books under Creative Commons licenses. His first book, "We the Media", was published by O'Reilly Media in 2004 under a CC BY-NC-SA license. The book received wide recognition and was adapted into audio. "We the Media" tells the shift of how grassroots journalism will take over the Big Media monopoly on news.

	~~Delete~~ the ~~above questions and add text here~~.		More recently, he has published "Mediactive", also under CC BY-NC-SA, on his website at mediactive.com. Mediactive is both a book and website aimed to help people navigate today's media landscape, building on Dan's earlier themes from "We the Media."

	== License Usage ==		== License Usage ==

	~~'''Please specify~~ the ~~license adopted~~. How is the license applied? Can you provide any available statistics? What has been the author or organization's experience with Creative Commons licenses so far – what have been the benefits and lessons learned?'''		Both "We the Media" and "Mediactive" are licensed under CC BY-NC-SA.

	~~Delete~~ the ~~above questions~~ and ~~add text here~~.		== Motivations ==

			Dan's motivation for licensing his first book, "We the Media", is detailed in our [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7036 interview] from 2005:

			<blockquote>"CC: Why did you decide to license We the Media under a Creative Commons license?

			DG: It was an opportunity to live up to the things I’ve been preaching. Creative Commons is offering one of the only alternatives to the stifling and, I believe, dangerous ways of the copyright cartel that is trying to lock everything down."</blockquote>

	~~== Motivations ==~~		Six years later, he decided to also license "Mediactive" under the same license due to these principles but also because of the benefits he saw from openly licensing his earlier work. He writes on [http://mediactive.com/epilogue-and-thanks/ Mediactive]:
	~~From~~ http://mediactive.com/epilogue-and-thanks/:

	<blockquote>"Almost a decade after Creative Commons was founded, and despite ample evidence that licensing copyrighted works this way doesn’t harm sales, book publishers remain mostly clueless about this option, or hostile to it. As David explained to editors, the main reason I’m still getting royalty checks for We the Media is that the book has been available as a free download since the day it went into bookstores. This is how word about it spread. Had we not published it that way, given the indifference (at best) shown by American newspapers and magazines, the book would have sunk without a trace."</blockquote>		<blockquote>"Almost a decade after Creative Commons was founded, and despite ample evidence that licensing copyrighted works this way doesn’t harm sales, book publishers remain mostly clueless about this option, or hostile to it. As David explained to editors, the main reason I’m still getting royalty checks for We the Media is that the book has been available as a free download since the day it went into bookstores. This is how word about it spread. Had we not published it that way, given the indifference (at best) shown by American newspapers and magazines, the book would have sunk without a trace."</blockquote>

	== Impact ==		== Impact ==
	~~From~~ http://mediactive.com/2010/12/16/data-point-lots-of-book-downloads/ ~~and http://mediactive.com/epilogue-and-thanks/~~:
			As noted previously, the CC license increased the audience of "We the Media" and indirectly contributes to the book's in-print status six years later. The CC license also allowed "We the Media" to be adapted into audio without further transaction costs.

			Though just published, the CC license has also facilitated Mediactive's distribution. Dan writes on [http://mediactive.com/2010/12/16/data-point-lots-of-book-downloads/ Mediactive]:

	<blockquote>"In the three days since Mediactive was published here in PDF format, about 1,500 visitors here have downloaded the book, and many more have visited the Table of Contents, which connects to the HTML version. Far few have purchased the book, of course, but it’s selling — and I’ve barely begun the real marketing process, which will take place in the new year."</blockquote>		<blockquote>"In the three days since Mediactive was published here in PDF format, about 1,500 visitors here have downloaded the book, and many more have visited the Table of Contents, which connects to the HTML version. Far few have purchased the book, of course, but it’s selling — and I’ve barely begun the real marketing process, which will take place in the new year."</blockquote>

			Publishing under CC also facilitated the speed with which Dan was able to publish his second book. He [http://mediactive.com/epilogue-and-thanks/ writes]:

	<blockquote>"Incidentally, had I signed with a traditional publisher, the book would not have reached the marketplace for a year or more from the date when I signed. With a company like Lulu, you wrap up the project and you’re off to the races. In a fast-moving area like media, that’s a huge benefit to foregoing the standard route."</blockquote>		<blockquote>"Incidentally, had I signed with a traditional publisher, the book would not have reached the marketplace for a year or more from the date when I signed. With a company like Lulu, you wrap up the project and you’re off to the races. In a fast-moving area like media, that’s a huge benefit to foregoing the standard route."</blockquote>

CCID-jane: moved Case Studies/Mediactive to Case Studies/Dan Gillmor

2010-12-21T18:22:25Z

moved Case Studies/Mediactive to Case Studies/Dan Gillmor

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:22, 21 December 2010
(No difference)

CCID-jane: /* Motivations */

2010-12-16T17:56:42Z

Motivations

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:56, 16 December 2010
Line 19:		Line 19:

	== Motivations ==		== Motivations ==
			From http://mediactive.com/epilogue-and-thanks/:

			<blockquote>"Almost a decade after Creative Commons was founded, and despite ample evidence that licensing copyrighted works this way doesn’t harm sales, book publishers remain mostly clueless about this option, or hostile to it. As David explained to editors, the main reason I’m still getting royalty checks for We the Media is that the book has been available as a free download since the day it went into bookstores. This is how word about it spread. Had we not published it that way, given the indifference (at best) shown by American newspapers and magazines, the book would have sunk without a trace."</blockquote>

	== Impact ==		== Impact ==

CCID-jane: /* Impact */

2010-12-16T17:56:02Z

Impact

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:56, 16 December 2010
Line 21:		Line 21:

	== Impact ==		== Impact ==
	From ~~Dan Gillmor's~~ http://mediactive.com/epilogue-and-thanks/:		From http://mediactive.com/2010/12/16/data-point-lots-of-book-downloads/ and http://mediactive.com/epilogue-and-thanks/:

	<blockquote>"~~Almost a decade after Creative Commons~~ was ~~founded~~, ~~and despite ample evidence that licensing copyrighted works this way doesn’t harm sales~~, book ~~publishers remain mostly clueless about this option~~, ~~or hostile~~ to it. ~~As David explained to editors, the main reason I’m still getting royalty checks for We the Media is that~~ the book ~~has been available as a free download since the day it went into bookstores. This is how word about it spread. Had we not published it that way~~, ~~given~~ the ~~indifference (at best) shown by American newspapers and magazines~~, the ~~book would have sunk without a trace~~."</blockquote>		<blockquote>"In the three days since Mediactive was published here in PDF format, about 1,500 visitors here have downloaded the book, and many more have visited the Table of Contents, which connects to the HTML version. Far few have purchased the book, of course, but it’s selling — and I’ve barely begun the real marketing process, which will take place in the new year."</blockquote>

	<blockquote>"Incidentally, had I signed with a traditional publisher, the book would not have reached the marketplace for a year or more from the date when I signed. With a company like Lulu, you wrap up the project and you’re off to the races. In a fast-moving area like media, that’s a huge benefit to foregoing the standard route."</blockquote>		<blockquote>"Incidentally, had I signed with a traditional publisher, the book would not have reached the marketplace for a year or more from the date when I signed. With a company like Lulu, you wrap up the project and you’re off to the races. In a fast-moving area like media, that’s a huge benefit to foregoing the standard route."</blockquote>

CCID-jane: /* Impact */

2010-12-16T17:52:38Z

Impact

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:52, 16 December 2010
Line 21:		Line 21:

	== Impact ==		== Impact ==
	'~~''What is the impact of this CC~~-~~enabled project or resource? Specifically, what has the license enabled that otherwise would not exist? Provide statistics or other data if possible.'''~~		From Dan Gillmor's http://mediactive.com/epilogue-and-thanks/:

	~~Delete~~ the ~~above questions~~ and ~~add text here~~.		<blockquote>"Almost a decade after Creative Commons was founded, and despite ample evidence that licensing copyrighted works this way doesn’t harm sales, book publishers remain mostly clueless about this option, or hostile to it. As David explained to editors, the main reason I’m still getting royalty checks for We the Media is that the book has been available as a free download since the day it went into bookstores. This is how word about it spread. Had we not published it that way, given the indifference (at best) shown by American newspapers and magazines, the book would have sunk without a trace."</blockquote>

			<blockquote>"Incidentally, had I signed with a traditional publisher, the book would not have reached the marketplace for a year or more from the date when I signed. With a company like Lulu, you wrap up the project and you’re off to the races. In a fast-moving area like media, that’s a huge benefit to foregoing the standard route."</blockquote>

	== Technical Details ==		== Technical Details ==

CCID-jane: /* Motivations */

2010-12-16T17:52:28Z

Motivations

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:52, 16 December 2010
Line 19:		Line 19:

	== Motivations ==		== Motivations ==
	~~From Dan Gillmor's http://mediactive.com/epilogue-and-thanks/:~~

	<blockquote>"Almost a decade after Creative Commons was founded, and despite ample evidence that licensing copyrighted works this way doesn’t harm sales, book publishers remain mostly clueless about this option, or hostile to it. As David explained to editors, the main reason I’m still getting royalty checks for We the Media is that the book has been available as a free download since the day it went into bookstores. This is how word about it spread. Had we not published it that way, given the indifference (at best) shown by American newspapers and magazines, the book would have sunk without a trace."</blockquote>

	<blockquote>"Incidentally, had I signed with a traditional publisher, the book would not have reached the marketplace for a year or more from the date when I signed. With a company like Lulu, you wrap up the project and you’re off to the races. In a fast-moving area like media, that’s a huge benefit to foregoing the standard route."</blockquote>

	== Impact ==		== Impact ==

CCID-jane: /* Motivations */

2010-12-16T17:46:54Z

Motivations

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:46, 16 December 2010
Line 19:		Line 19:

	== Motivations ==		== Motivations ==
			From Dan Gillmor's http://mediactive.com/epilogue-and-thanks/:

	~~http:~~/~~/mediactive~~.~~com/epilogue-~~and-~~thanks~~/		<blockquote>"Almost a decade after Creative Commons was founded, and despite ample evidence that licensing copyrighted works this way doesn’t harm sales, book publishers remain mostly clueless about this option, or hostile to it. As David explained to editors, the main reason I’m still getting royalty checks for We the Media is that the book has been available as a free download since the day it went into bookstores. This is how word about it spread. Had we not published it that way, given the indifference (at best) shown by American newspapers and magazines, the book would have sunk without a trace."</blockquote>

			<blockquote>"Incidentally, had I signed with a traditional publisher, the book would not have reached the marketplace for a year or more from the date when I signed. With a company like Lulu, you wrap up the project and you’re off to the races. In a fast-moving area like media, that’s a huge benefit to foregoing the standard route."</blockquote>

	== Impact ==		== Impact ==

CCID-jane: Created page with "{{Case Study |Mainurl=http://mediactive.com/ |Author=Dan Gillmor |User_Status=Creator |Tag=book, publishing, Dan Gillmor |License short name=CC BY-NC-SA }} == Overview == '''Ple..."

2010-12-16T17:39:14Z

Created page with "{{Case Study |Mainurl=http://mediactive.com/ |Author=Dan Gillmor |User_Status=Creator |Tag=book, publishing, Dan Gillmor |License short name=CC BY-NC-SA }} == Overview == '''Ple..."

New page

{{Case Study
|Mainurl=http://mediactive.com/
|Author=Dan Gillmor
|User_Status=Creator
|Tag=book, publishing, Dan Gillmor
|License short name=CC BY-NC-SA
}}
== Overview ==

'''Please provide an overview of the work. Describe the author or organization (location, funding/business model, partner organizations), objectives, current projects.'''

Delete the above questions and add text here.

== License Usage ==

'''Please specify the license adopted. How is the license applied? Can you provide any available statistics? What has been the author or organization's experience with Creative Commons licenses so far – what have been the benefits and lessons learned?'''

Delete the above questions and add text here.

== Motivations ==

http://mediactive.com/epilogue-and-thanks/

== Impact ==
'''What is the impact of this CC-enabled project or resource? Specifically, what has the license enabled that otherwise would not exist? Provide statistics or other data if possible.'''

Delete the above questions and add text here.

== Technical Details ==

'''Provide any technical details of the implementation here'''

== Media ==
'''Please include any screenshots, logos, links to videos, audio files, press hits, etc. To upload a file, open a separate window and click through [[Special:Upload]].'''

Delete the above questions and add text here.