Case Studies/Dan Gillmor - Revision history

U.S. Curator: Category:USA

2011-09-11T20:04:47Z

Category:USA

CCID-jane at 18:56, 21 December 2010

2010-12-21T18:56:05Z

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

CCID-jane: /* Motivations */

2010-12-16T17:56:42Z

‎Motivations

CCID-jane: /* Impact */

2010-12-16T17:56:02Z

‎Impact

CCID-jane: /* Impact */

2010-12-16T17:52:38Z

‎Impact

CCID-jane: /* Motivations */

2010-12-16T17:52:28Z

‎Motivations

CCID-jane: /* Motivations */

2010-12-16T17:46:54Z

‎Motivations

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.

← 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]]

← 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 ==

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 == 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>

← 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 ==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Case Study
 |Mainurl=http://mediactive.com/
 |Author=Dan Gillmor
@@ Line 5: / Line 6: @@
 |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.'''
+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 ==
-'''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 ==
-== 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]:
 <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 ==
-From http://mediactive.com/2010/12/16/data-point-lots-of-book-downloads/ and http://mediactive.com/epilogue-and-thanks/:
 <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>

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