text:
CopywrongSeptember 09, 2003
Perhaps I should wait until I cool down some… but by the time you're done reading this, chances are you'll be angry too.
Logic aside, if you offer work for others to learn from you run the risk of those same people you wish to help claiming the work as their own. I've had good luck so far with the Zen Garden, but that changed this week.
Since nearly the beginning, there have been people grabbing entire templates, graphics and all, and using them as the basis of their site; these I have politely requested the site owners to take down, and compliance has been prompt and agreeable.
The tricky part is when people want to use an individual .css file as a basis for their design, changing only images, perhaps with a new colour or font scheme. Obviously releasing the .css file under the Attribution-ShareAlike license from Creative Commons means that it's open to interpretation; I've tried to address this in the FAQ by adding a further layer of permissions on top of the CC license.
The idea is that you can feel free to steal bits and pieces, learn from, and generally plunder the CSS as long as you don't approach it as a template. The line is fuzzy and vague, and it's where most confusion springs from. I've been lenient. Most have been considerate, and e-mailed me or the designer before beginning; generally these people are granted permission, and the designer is flattered.
But this week I have been dealing with someone in particular who started off on the wrong foot by using the designs wholesale (graphics and all), and continues to grow more belligerent with each new e-mail. Allow me to quote him, sic:
I am not your ennemy… There is no copyright issues in seeing Mona Lisa In the Louvres museum, draw it at home, and make this drawing available on the internet, (once again, there will be no commercial issues with theses templates)…Can we talk to find an acceptable solution? Waiting for a proposal of yours Dave. Forget the threats, or I will definitively skip you off the process. You have no choice Dave, either I do it under your supuervision, or I do it alone.
If you don't want this like that to happen again, then I am affraid that you should make your web site private access, and make the people pay per view… do you like the idea? Ever heard about the price oF success? Congratulation Dave, that's what is happening to Css Zen Garden
Where does this sense of entitlement come from? How can someone see something online, assume they have permission to use it, and argue against the person who created it that they have the right to continue doing so? This particular individual was planning on using some of the Zen Garden designs as templates for re-distribution with an open source content management system. Perhaps that says something.
Regardless, I think it's time to re-visit the Zen Garden's licensing. I have a responsibility to protect the work of 34 graphic artists (and that number grows weekly.) I need better tools at my disposal.
Reader Comments
This is easily the most disheartening thing I've read all day.
Sorry to hear that you've been dealing with this, Dave..sorrier still to hear that it's forcing you to rethink the Zen Garden's licensing structure.
Since I know which points people will bring up in the comments, here are a few of my replies in advance:
- I won't name/link him because the rip-offs are now password-protected. He has also been good about taking down the graphics after receiving emphatic no's from the original designers, but he remains unrepentant about the CSS.
- re: entitlement. My reply: "You say you are allowed to use the CSS any way you choose? Fact is, *I* wrote the permissions, and your interpretation of them doesn't mean a damn thing. You could interpret them to mean I owe you dinner and a night on the town, but that doesn't make it so. I say you cannot use the .CSS files as templates replaced with your own artwork, that's not what they're available for. You now have a third e-mail from me saying exactly this. Why do you feel so entitled to them?"
- re: Mona Lisa. My reply: "Of course there's no copyright issue on the Mona Lisa, that particular work belongs to the public domain. Try selling drawings of the Coca-Cola logo, and then you're moving into a more relevant example. Copyrights enforce ownership, and all works in the Garden are protected by copyright."
You're right–the line is fuzzy and vague, and will always be so. There will always be folks who pass off others' work as their own.
This is a different type of copyright violation than simply using or accessing the work without permission.
Quoting your rights to the type of self-entitled doofuses who do this type of thing isn't very productive. It's like trying to convince a spammer not to spam.
In this particular case, you have a much bigger bludgeon at your disposal. csszengarden has far greater mindshare than some joker's new twine-and-cardboard CMS system. Use that. Do post the project name (but not the person's name), with a request that folks avoid it, and your reason why.
Heck, you've done 90% of that already.
Yeah, I know…any publicity is good publicity. But in this case, I doubt it.
Good call on "you'll be angry too by the end of this post." wow but some people have nerve. I will readily admit that as a newbie (one of these days I'm gonna have to stop using that.) I have looked at code left and right. I've even grabbed pages to study, hacking things to pieces to try and figure out what makes stuff tick, but I've never used anything that I didn't have permission to use. And if I had and someone had called me on it, I'd be properly apologetic (not to mention so many shades of embarrassed) instead of getting belligerent.
I don't blame you at all for being angry. I personally want to thank you for not linking to the person. So often when people are angry and they blog about it, and include a link to whoever is making them angry, others take it upon themselves to get involved and that just gets so messy and ugly. There's a high road here and you're definitely on it.
This is a sad story indeed, and an all too familiar one. Dave, I hope this guy will have a grain of dignity left and take the CSS off-line. What you're doing is invaluable to a lot of people like myself. Thank you for that! We all learn by sharing, not by stealing.
It is very sad that people who have this attitude are around. It makes it that much more difficult for us folk who purely want to learn new tricks and come up with our own ideas. You need a basis for inspiration as it cannot come from a vacuum. This is what CSS Zen Garden provides me. I look at the designs here and download the css because it helps me become better at what I do. And the work is truly inspiring!! I certainly hope that this joker doesn't ruin it for us all. Dave, you keep up the good work. Thanks for providing a site like this and proving that it doesn't have to be complex in order to be elegant and beautiful.
dave…maybe mentioning the sharealike license may not be the best idea. rather than trying to limit such an open license by adding restrictions to it, maybe you should just write your own licensing terms. additionally, the restrictions as stated in your FAQ are nowhere to be found in the actual css files. and personally, i hadn't even looked at the FAQ before, as i thought the boilerplate at the beginning of the css didn't leave any questions open…mistakenly, as i now see.
so from THAT point of view, you may have shot yourself slightly in the foot…which however does not condone the other guy's behaviour and attitude, of course.
While i agree that this guy (whoever he is) is being a jackass, i don't agree with you Dave that your interpretation is necessarily what matters. You licensed it under a creative commons license, which explicitly states what is and what isn't allowed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/legalcode
The way I read the license, this guy seems to be within his rights to do what he's trying to do. If you don't want him to be able to do this (and I don't blame you, I wouldn't either), I think you'll have to pick a different license and not use this particular Creative Commons license.
This is sad. Whatever happened to professional pride and the desire to do what's right? Inspiration is a wonderful thing to have and it makes me sick when someone out there, who I imagine sees himself as a peer, takes advantage of that inspiration and other's hard work.
I'm sure he'll get his comeuppance. It's just a shame you've got to deal with this crap Dave. I'm truly sorry.
While i agree that this guy (whoever he is) is being a jackass, i don't agree with you Dave that your interpretation is necessarily what matters. You licensed it under a creative commons license, which explicitly states what is and what isn't allowed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/legalcode
The way I read the license, this guy seems to be within his rights to do what he's trying to do. If you don't want him to be able to do this (and I don't blame you, I wouldn't either), I think you'll have to pick a different license and not use this particular Creative Commons license.
Even if you (Dave) don't release the thief's name, someone will read this, try his new content management system, and recognize the design. He will then hopefully report them to http://www.Pirated-Sites.com and let the community boycott his work. He will then learn the hard way the public image and respect of others work are the only way to get respect in return.
I think you're both out of line here. It was definitely wrong of him to use the graphics without permission, since it is made clear that they remain copyrighted by the artists. However it is perfectly within his rights to use the CSS according to the license under which you released it.
Legally, your interpretation of the permissions (the CreativeCommons license) doesn't mean a thing either; all that matters is the interpretation of the courts. The CreativeCommons license is unambiguous: direct copies and derivative works are allowed, provided that the conditions of the license are met: namely, that he properly attribute the work and licenses modifications to others under the same license.
You cannot further restrict the license grants by putting supplemental information in a FAQ. You need to make a decision to use the CreativeCommons license or not. You have to accept that fact that the license you have chosen specifically allows direct copying and the creation of derivative works.
Even if the Mona Lisa was not in the public domain, it would still be legal to sell original drawings impersonating it. Copyright law is very clear that only specific works of authorship are protected: never ideas or concepts. The Coca-Cola logo is protected by trademark law, not copyright.
Sorry to hear about that Dave, there's always some idiot who can't do things for themselves and thinks that they can just treat people like dirt.
As a radio presenter I listen to regularly (James Whale)would say 'the only solution is to have these people put down.'
Chin up mate, there's a tosser born every minute, not worth stressing about, you'll sort it.
Rereading my comment, I realize that it sounds like I support this guy's conduct. I do not. I personally believe in respecting the wishes of authors (to a degree, but I won't go into that). I was only establishing that *legally* he has the right to do what he is doing.
Fair usage of the files has evolved over time. At the beginning I naively believed everyone would just play fair, and fully intended on allowing unrestricted access to the CSS files. This assumed the person on the other end wasn't malicious, and I've started realizing that it was a wrong assumption.
The current licensing is spread out too much, so I think it's time to consolidate and unify. I want to keep the designs as open to learning as possible, which means that people should be allowed to copy and paste snippits without impunity. The CC license provided for this, but obviously it's far too broad and allows usage of the work that neither I or the original designers wish to grant. It'll be the first thing to go.
If someone has a boilerplate license on hand that I might be able to modify to suit this purpose, I'd be interested in taking a look. Get in touch.
Joshua - one further point about CC licenses. I don't give up copyrights when using one - they grant certain priveledges, but anything granted by one is most definitely revokable by the original copyright holder.
Well, there are creative commons licenses with different terms. For instance "no derivative works allowed", etc. Look into that. Unfortunately for you, however, according to the terms of the CC license, they are not revocable. I.e. Everything that you've licensed under the original license is legally still bound by that license. So there's no *legal* way for you to stop this guy from doing what he's doing. All you can do is appeal to his better nature I guess.
I gotta agree with jonner and Joshua, you used the Creative Commons licence, he is well within his rights. You cannot have your cake and eat it too by piling on restrictions elsewhere.
The licences were made to be easy to read and stand by themselves. You've got to either use it or not use it.
But even if you do decide to stop using the licence he can keep using it. "the license granted here is perpetual" ie: you can't revoke his right to use it, you can stop distributing it, you can change the licence, but never the rights you already gave him.
Of course this is all legal and not moral rights, what he did may have been against the spirit of the page. The creative commons licences are great, but you need to know what they are before you use them.
I was about to reply as the first dissenting voice, but I see others have stepped in. I'll post the question I wrote originally, though: how is the requested reuse different from this [ http://www.mezzoblue.com/cgi-bin/mt/mezzo/archives/000209.asp ] wholesale application of CSS Zen Garden designs to another site in their entirety?
Yes, I know you're not using them as the primary design for the site. And you probably have at least the implicit permission of the designers to use their files by the very fact that they submitted them to you (and I'm sure you got their explicit permission). But what's stopping anyone from doing exactly the same thing as you've done on your own separate site with their designs?
As others have stated, lest it appear I'm unsympathetic, I'm emphatically not: I write a lot of CSS myself, from scratch. I don't have nearly the talent of the people who've submitted to the Garden, graphically, esthetically or otherwise, so I use techniques I've found elsewhere… and using a sliding :hover image is hardly a patented process (yet).
(Slightly off-topic, regarding drawings of the Coca-Cola logo… I don't know the history, but did Andy Warhol get in trouble for reproducing Campbell's Soup cans? Would he today?)
The only problem now is once something is released under a CC license that license can't be taken back. So the things you have already released under that license is under it for its lifetime.
This guy's attitude sucks. Had he asked nicely things could have been more amicable. Changing the license on existing work won't help your cause though. My understanding is that once something has been licensed under the CC sharealike code (or any other code) it can't be unlicensed. You'll only be able to protect new content with a new license and this guy can carry on using the css he has already pilfered unabated. Bloody legal mumbo jumbo!
I have to agree with Joshua. I don't support the copier's attitude or most of his actions, but I do believe that I have the right to distribute verbatime copies of CSS files from the Zen Garden. Why? Because you (and the authors of those files) gave me that permission:
"css released under Creative Commons ShareAlike License v1.0 … The CSS itself may freely be used for anything you wish, but the associated graphics belong to the designer."
If I had contributed a file to the Garden under those terms, I certainly wouldn't want you "protecting" it by denying people the rights I chose to give them.
I encourage designers and authors to really consider what the CC licenses mean! They are not just colorful badges that let you forget about copyright issues. They give actual legal permission for other people to *copy your work*. They are also irrevocable[1], so you should be sure that this is really what you want before you use them.
1. "Every license… is not revocable." http://creativecommons.org/learn/licenses/fullrights
I agree with the others; you can't revoke CC licensed work like that. You can change the license _now_ to what you think it should be, but that won't cover this particular clown.
Don't be disheartened by the odd idiot here and there. You (and your contributors) have created something that a hell of a lot of people admire and draw inspiration from. If a couple of people here and there rip off your work, it might sting, but it doesn't detract from your work in any meaningful way.
Change the license to do what you want, forget about the idiot, and move on.
Thanks Jim, that's precisely my intent. I'm fully aware that rhetoric aside, this guy can't be stopped. But this has opened my eyes.
The ironic thing is that if this were just my OWN work we were talking about, I would be all for a generous CC license. I thought I could get away with it, but now that I'm in a position where I have to defend the rights of 33 other people, it's SO not worth it.
Leave it to those who want more than you can give to ruin it for everyone else.
Whoa. What a complete asshole. On top of being a loser he clearly is a bad typist as well.
I had a bad problem that was similar to this with PhotoStack . I've now moved to a different CC license that permits this sort of activity.
So who is this pig fu, um asshole anyways?
Just out of curiousity, why do you feel that you have to "defend the rights" of the other contributors? Didn't they all consciously choose to grant those rights to the public? I think that you should respect their explicitly-stated wishes.
Unless you have permission from each copyright-holder, it is *illegal* for you to distribute these CC-licensed files under terms more restrictive than the CC license: "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder." (CC-SA-1.0)
As a free software author, I place certain restrictions on copying my work, and I don't like it when people ignore those restrictions. But I am just as mad when someone tries to add restrictions beyond my wishes. That's why licenses like the GPL and CC-SA-1.0 prevent you from removing the freedoms I grant.
Clearly, the only way forward in regards to the wrong-honourable gentleman in question is to have his anus slowly pulled out with a big tin hook. The next step would be to either feed it to him, or use it as the focus-point in a piece of abstract art submitted in competition for the Turner Prize. Taking full copyright ownership for the anus, of course.
To clarify my last point, I am assuming that the other Zen Garden contributors read and understood the license before voluntarily agreeing to it. If other designers have contacted Dave privately with concerns about the license, then he certainly try to protect those designers' rights.
By the way, this paragraph appears in the Creative Commons license used by the CSS Zen Garden:
"This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You."
Dave, quick disclaimer - I work for the Creative Commons, but I'm not a lawyer and don't consider this legal advice. I'm sorry to hear about the copies of CSS being used as-is, but as others have said unfortunately, the license allows this.
A more fitting license would be our in-development Sampling license, as it allows people to make derivative works of stuff, without being able to release simple copies of the original. It may be out this fall, and though it was created with music and photo collages in mind, it could work in this case as well.
Well, I have to agree with the flow here … this guy is within the terms; and honestly before this came up I read the license because I'd never seen it before and I thought it fit the site and intent of the site; particularly with the explicit withhold of the images used.
Next project, or even future submissions to this project, pick a license more keeping with your intent, that's your homework.
Honestly, if attribution is given (as it needs to be), I think the authors should be flattered to have their templates in an open source cms … but that's just me and I don't have a design in the gallery.
I forgot about the URL: http://creativecommons.org/discuss#sampling
The sad part in all of this is the legalistic vantage points that everyone has to come from nowadays.
It can't just be about what's proper, polite, courtious, considerate, correct, or nice.
It has to be about what the license says, what the offender feels entightled to, how far the offender feels he can go with it, what the letter of the law says can and can't happen.
It can't be a nice little "oh sorry", "hey, no problem" affair. It's gotta be "sorry bucko you lose, too bad" and "listen here you jerk". Maybe I'm just a little polly-anna but I expect better behavior out of people whether or not there's a license covering that behavior. It saddens me that there are people out there so immature and so self-absorbed that they just can't understand it when people don't want to give them the world for free and act belligerent when people challenge them for that behavior.
Michael - THANK you. That is the best I've heard it stated in a long time.
Matt - thanks for the info. Sampling looks good, and would have been my first choice if it were around at the time.
I hate to disagree with Michael, but I have to. That's the whole *point* of attaching a license to a copyrighted work. Without an explicit license, anyone who wanted to (re)use the CSS from the Zen Garden would have to ask Dave (and the original artist) for *permission* (beyond whatever fair-use rights might hold in this case). Dave could then say, on a case-by-case basis what was or was not permitted.
By attaching a licence, Dave is saying to one-and-all, "Don't ask, just take!" The only way that *works* is if the terms of what is permitted are stated clearly and explicitly in the license. Otherwise, a potential user would have to *ask* Dave, anyway, whether his intended use was permitted. The whole *point* of granting a license is that (subject to its conditions), the licensees *don't* have to ask permission.
The trouble came when Dave chose a license which did not reflect his intentions. He won't be the first to make such a mistake. My blog sported a CC license for a while, before some of the terms (which I found objectionable) were pointed out to me:
Michael - I believe that both legal questions and ethical ones are important. I believe in doing what is right, and for me that usually means respecting the wishes of the author.
This guy's attitude sucks, he's being disrespectful and rude. But the fact of the matter is that he was specifically given the right to do what he is doing with the CSS by the CC license. You're getting mad at him for doing things you specifically gave him permission to do. No one has any authority to say "sorry bucko you lose," and even if they did: what kind of conflict was ever solved this way?
Licenses are important because they are a way for authors to express their wishes formally in a legally binding way. Like Matt Brubeck, I have licensed a lot of my own software work under a license a lot like the CC license Dave is using. We use that license because we mean it: we really want people to be able to use our work, whether that means copying it verbatim or making changes.
Dave granted the public similar rights when he used the CC license, but he is angry when people attempt to exercise them. This doesn't make any sense. Licenses are a tool, not just a detail.
This is indeed a sad state of affairs. But the man in question really is in violation – considering he filched the GRAPHICS as well as the CSS.
Why can't people just make up their own ideas? blah blah blah all the legalities. Where have all the manners gone? Why didn't the guy just ask for permission? A quick e-mail here or there before using a design would have resolved this issue.
I mean, one of the SitePoint CSS contest entries is obviously influenced by Doug B's Golden Mean entry – but as Doug also pointed out, it was refreshing to see that effort and final product was made to make it the person's own.
Dave, apart from the images, why would you be upset about someone using the css as a template? How does that "ruin" anything?
Wouldn't you rather encourage people to take the css file and use it anywhere and everywhere, as they like? What negative aspect could there possibly be?
If the goal is to promote css use, then a mere note in the css file pointing people to the zen site is all that should be asked, even voluntarily as the user wishes (as many promoter's of techniques often nicely do).
This is certainly a touchy issue, and as one of the designers whose Zen Garden submission is being used by this "individual", I'm going to attempt to stay as neutral as possible with my comments.
Regarding the CC license: What's done is done, Dave knows this, the designers whose work is at stake in this particular situation know this, and each designer will ultimately be responsible for following up with this "individual" if they want to protect their graphics. The CSS is of course another matter, but if we (the designers) want to take this "individual" to task over their use, it is up to us, not Dave.
As long as something positive results from this experience, we will all benefit, as will the Zen Garden and all who learn from it.
I nearly allowed myself to become swept up in the excitement surrounding CC licenses, and was ready to attach one to my site (http://superfluousbanter.org/), and then I read them all *very carefully* – I used to be very interested in copyright law (a few years ago) and I'd like to think I'm a little more informed about some of its nuances than the average person, and I decided that for me, the better choice was to retain copyright over my work, and that if any legitimate individual wanted to reuse any portion of the code, my writings or the graphics, they would contact me first for permission.
Ultimately, that provides the most secure basis for this sort of work – the CSS files for the Zen Garden could certainly have a copyright statement at the top, with specific rights granted to the user either in that file directly, or in a user agreement permanently located on the site (managed like many web hosting user agreements: updateable at will, and the user agrees ahead of time to those updates and changes). It's more strict, but more protective, while still allowing snippets of CSS to be used, as Dave originally intended.
Thanks again Dave, for all the work you have put into this project (and dealing with this particular "individual") and for the resource you have provided to the web.
That's what happends when you let Stallman-like open source communists run amok on the internet. They'll try to implement their communal property "vision".
I guess this guy makes the same argument for stealing MP3 and full movies.
Dave, we understand that you're trying your best to protect the interests of the artists who participated in the Zen Garden. Don't feel beat up about it - it is hardly your fault.
Just to brighten up your day a little: The Zen Garden has been a source of inspiration to many, many of us. Trust that we'll do our part through word-of-mouth in ensuring that his ill-spiritedness will find neither profit nor name.
May integrity prevail.
The problem is the unforgiving nature built into everything we do today. Just as in this case, once the work is put into that particular license there's no ability to adapt. Should the license have a loophole or not fit the need of the original product creator, then there is no recourse for the author of the work. With other copyright licensing the terms are skewed in the opposite direction granting too much power to the producer of the work.
How to strike a balance?
The only thing allowed within the law are punishment and awards. Too often the punishment is far too damaging and the awards are far too rewarding. In this case Dave is being punished by having a work released FOREVER without the ability to modify the mistaken agreement, and whomever is rewarded with a lifetime contract to use the work however he sees fit regardless of if damages anyone elses reputation or goodwill.
In today's legalistic society we don't allow for things like "forgiveness", "correction", "apologies", or "rehabilitation". We do however like words like "punishment", "reward", "prosecute", "win". Those words are some how much easier to define. It's so much easier to assume that by creating these hardlined definitions and setting contractual obligations that we are being "fair" and that no bias will creep in. We assume that by strictly setting out all of the guidelines for how something should or should not be used that it will keep people from abusing the system. Of course that's not true.
I've seen the conversation that Dave had a thousand times. Someone creates a work puts it out for display, someone else takes is and uses it for their own purposes. The author goes back and say's please don't do that and the offender thumbs their nose "if you didn't want someone to use it you shouldn't have put it out there". And thus the war of words begins. Typically the offender could care less about copyright law or licensing agreements. I hazard a guess that the user of the work in question didn't know anything about the CC license in effect and simply took something he felt entitled to take because he could see it.
There will always be people like this. These people are the super consumers, always taking never returning. The tighter we attempt to close our fist around them to license them out of abusing a system, the more they slip through our fingers and onto more lucrative rewards.
Hello everybody
I am the guy dave is referring to. I want to publicly present my apologizes to Dave and the Css Zen garden community for my words that have been totally out of place. I don't want to enter here in more discussions, and what some words taken out of context in a speach or in previous emails are or not 100% valid to represent a real situation. Dave is somehow right in what he is saying. Sorry again, Dave, that was not my intention
Just to let you know that:
1. I never intended to steal anything or make money in any way
2. Owners have been contacted, to see whether they were granted me the authorization to use their artwork (jpg & gif) "as-is". In any other case artwork would have been changed.
3. Both css & html files have been modified to make possible the adaptation to the CMS tool
4. The web site where templates were uploaded is a work section (no traffic has been driven there, except the designers I have contacted). I have made it private access due to the discussion arisen.
Let us positive the things of this sad incident:
- Dave may review its licensing structure, if he thinks this should be more stringent, because legally it seems Css Zen garden is not protected enough
- Real stealers have already stolen & used your work…I have not, but I am the guy who's attitude stinks…life is funny :-)
- What is the real nature of Css Zen garden… a private gallery or a learning community based on sharing ?� Mission, values & strategic marketing may be reviewed too if relevant
- Talking about brand.. I will personally stay with "socrates" comment…"appart from the images, why would you be upset about someone using the css as a template? How does that "ruin" anything ?� "
last thing, I have nothing to deal with the CMS open source project, I am just a user of it
Best regards to all, your work is great, keep making newbies and other designers learn by sharing your knowledge over the net.
The ethic behind the problem that we have been faced here is as simple as: "Should Art be made available to the mass ?�"
My answer is yes, protecting the author of the original art.
Once again sorry
As one of the artists involved I have read each comment in this thread with much attention. So far I have noticed two ways of approaching this matter: legal vs. ethical (moral). As others have mentioned above the ethical (moral) issues have little to no meaning in a courtroom; although ultimatly I could argue this, but theoretically speaking this is true (laws are in essence translations of ethical and moral matters within social interactions).
Now the legal aspect of this matter is pretty clear: as long as the person in question does not use any of the images (which are copyrighted artwork) he is entitled to use the CSS to his or her likings. The CC license permits to copy CSS files wholesale and redistribute them without explicit permission from the original creator.
The world wide web (internet) has always been an open medium. This is an inheritance from an academic spirit and was an ideal network for RFC's, articles and papers. By sharing material one could improve its work and include references to other work. Eventually the open source mouvement uses this exact scheme to share knowledge and experiences and I think it is a great concept for software. I however think it is less suitable for artwork.
I think it is important to stress that an open medium does not by definition mean that anything going through that medium is free and belongs to the public domain. Most of us are familiar with organisations such as the RIAA and BSA (I however do not agree with all of their actions). Somehow downloading MP3's and illegal software has become normal. It is fairly easy and the open spririt of the world wide web has become a justification of those actions and ultimatly refute any moral objections.
I was contacted by this person in question personally. Although I had no legal right to not grant him permission (except for the images) I tried to explain why I would rather not have him use my submission as a template.
"My submission was exclusively produced for the CSS Zen Garden. I never duplicate my work to be featured on different sites (in principle). I believe in uniqueness of art. The spirit and idea behind the CSS Zen Garden project is important to me and as such I want this design to stay exclusively associated with it. Granting permission to whomever wants to use this design as a template would deteriorate the concept (in my opinion). It�s like those popular Louis Vuitton bags: what�s the point of owning a real one if half the world is walking around with a fake one. If you are not familiar with Louis Vuitton bags think of Rolex watches instead."
In this case I'm actually not talking about the individual CSS rules and definitions themselves, which are obviously not the issue here. However the combined set of rules and definitions in that file define my design.
Again, as others have stated above this person is still entitled to use the CSS as such. The CC license permits this. Eventually I will have to agree, whether I like it or not. Simple.
One thing that has not been mentioned here are the intentions of the person. I suspect this person did go through with his project way too far to make a u-turn and drop the templates. It is pretty obvious from the way he is dealing with this situation. If he is not granted permission his whole project is off and relegated to oblivion. Now you can interpret this any way you want but other peoples efforts are certainly not used for learning purposes.
The bottomline is that Dave needs to change the license for the CSS Zen Garden (as he already did). As I understood from other commentors this change will only affect future submissions while the current 44 designs are legally bound to the Creative Commons ShareAlike 1.0 license. Whatever my personal opinion on the matter I have to stick to this. My only weapon in cases of abuse is limited to my personal preference and goodwill of users (abusers) on the other end.
I am amazed at the naivety of most of the comments in this thread. If you use a license such as the one that Dave used, you can be sure that someone will take full advantage of the license. This has nothing to do with our current culture. It is the way business has always been and will most likely always be done. It is the reason that most people should always have a lawyer review *and explain the nuances* of any contract they sign. And nowadays review any license that you use to publish your work. My guess is that most of the "outraged" comments above are from people who are under 30 and have very little experience in business world.
who is ~50 with plenty of experience in the world of business
Dave, quick question…
When you chose the CC licence originally you seem to have misinterpreted its purpose. Do you think that the way the licence was presented to you could have been made clearer so that you could have picked something that was more appropriate for your goals?
Personally I've found the CC licensing site a model of clarity (and I've used them for some things depending on how I felt about reuse) and find it difficult to see how you could have got the wrong end of the stick as it were…
This isn't meant as a criticism - I've made licensing mistakes in the past myself - but I was wondering if the licence could have been better presented so others don't make the same mistake.
Although I must agree with our Anonymous Coward I like to add a few comments.
From a legal point of view we are indeed f*cked. Feelings do not play a role (how sad this might sound) in business as such. In the end it is all about money, women, fame, profit, and stocks (et. al.).
However this project is not intended as business. Sure, some submissions are bound to surface in commercial work. So be it. But do not forget that most of the perpetrators are under 30 too - thus naive. In most cases a warning or explenation is enough.
Big corporations settle their differences in court. But do you really think I (in this case) am going to call my laywer to ask him to see if my work is being used in a way that is suitable or does not infringe copyright? No! He would propably kick my ass and tell me I am responsible for my own actions and should face the consequences if I agreed with established license agreements.
In matters where I have no legal grounds to protect my work from abuse I only have my personal view and opinion on the matter left. It is weak, but in most cases works. In the end most of the copied work does not end up on high-profile websites or places. And if it does? Well, too bad, because there is not a damn thing I can do about it.
Personally I think that using the images is the only thing this guy has done wrong.
I don't see how anybody can claim ownership over the way a combination of xhtml and css has been strung together because at the end of the day both of those languages are available to everybody to use and more importantly how they choose to use them too.
However, If this person just copied all the images, css and xhtml code files from one computer to another and palmed them off as his own work then that is wrong because you and the zen garden designer in question are the creators/authors of those files.
Paul: "I don�t see how anybody can claim ownership over the way a combination of xhtml and css has been strung together because at the end of the day both of those languages are available to everybody to use and more importantly how they choose to use them too."
I guess books are just a combination of alpha-numeric characters strung together, eh?
wow. i think this is pretty crappy, and i'm sorry to hear it, dave…
on the upside (being the optimist here), i've learned something new today about licensing and ownership… to be honest, i've never thought of my .CSS files as being off limits to people… i've always sorta grouped my .css files in with HTML, but draw the line (sometimes) at my .JS files - cuz original scripting or programming is one thing, but style'n something another… be with with a TABLE or a styled DIV.
copy wholesale designs created by others, including the graphics, is just disgusting… maybe you should create something like "Pirated Sites" for the Garden? just a thought…
You have more than enough "junk" (no offense anyone) to read here so I'll make this short.
I don't know what the letter of the law is but, instead of making it very restrictive to use, perhaps you could use some sort of positive opt box on entry to force a person to select an, "I will not use any of the information I find on this site for purposes other than education." Or something of the like.
That will allow this to continue to be a great source of information and demonstrate the potential of the technology with limited exposure to this sort of situation.
Also, you may or may not remember me but about 2 months ago I asked to use some of the pages for a presentation I was doing. I just wanted to again say thank you and let you know that it went very well and I think many of the people present now see some more of the options available to them.
It would be a shame to loose this source of information.
Please don't take our sunshine away.
"Generally, if you create a work, you own the copyright from the moment of creation. The only way you can lose copyright is if you sign it away in writing. Even though you don't legally need to, it doesn't hurt to attach that little � to your work."
Thanks for the projects.
I have no doubt, re Zen Garden, that respect outweighs contempt by a country mile.
Dave - I am very sorry - though not surprised - to read of the "hijacking" this morning. I have turned to CSS Zen Garden on a near daily basis for the past several months seeking information and inspiration. Though I have examined the CSS often, I have found that the best way for me to learn is to try to emulate a given layout or effect by writing my own code and referring back to the Garden to see how well I can achieve it using my own techniques.
Sadly, there will always be people who wish to take the low-road, the path of least resistance, etc. and stand upon the backs of others to get where they want to go. I agree with one of the above posts in that the community will eventually decide the fate of the individual, by supporting or boycotting the site/system which he/she is developing. I fear, however, that all those bloggers out there who also want the easy way, will pay no heed to a boycott of a "pirated" site. They just want something that looks good.
I wish you luck in setting more strict terms with the Garden, and I certainly appreciate that you took the risk in creating it. Hopefully the rewards that you have reaped - from designers all over the globe - in sharing it will outweigh the problems that these petty theives create for you. Be well.
And one more comment to those pointing out the legalities of using the code, etc.:
Something tells me, based on the quotes from the e-mail exchanges, that the person using the code has virtually NO understanding of the CC license. It seems, rather, that they are simply making assumptions about what is "free" on the web. To someone who can't even use a spellchecker on their e-mail (or someone who needs a spellchecker in the first place) a CC license is probably as foreign as Webster himself.
The attribution aspect here is interesting to me. The license says the attribution must be "reasonable to the medium", a very lawyer-ish term. Does this mean the name of the author has to be visible or just stashed away in the css file? My viewpoint would be that putting it in only the css file would be fine, unless the page has a "designed by" or "powered by" on it (common with CMS), at which point I would think it would be "reasonable" to include the name of the CSS designer in a similar manner.
Yeah, the CC allows the Lazy One to use the CSS code in it's entirety. That sucks. Oh well, let's move on.
If he uses the graphics, though, nail his lazy hands to the wall. That is explicit violation of the Zen Garden's expressed liscence.
A person such as the one in question will eventually run into legal trouble, because if he can't write his own code, eventually someone will see that and take him intoa legal ringer. This time he gets away on a technicality. Next time… maybe not. Let's hope justice and integrity prevail.
"you can feel free to steal bits and pieces, learn from, and generally plunder the CSS as long as you don�t approach it as a template. The line is fuzzy and vague"
Sorry, but that's just *begging* for this to happen. This is where his incorrect sense of entitlement comes from. We all learned from View-Source, and it is impossible to define "STEAL and PLUNDER, but not too much." Can you really be mad when someone steals and plunders?
I just found this site today, and I have to say that I'm greatly impressed by the raw power that CSS can wield on a page. I've never thought of some of the things I've seen in the submitted designs. I feel truely inspired to rethink the redesign of my site that I'm working on to make it less dependant on the design itself. That being said, what kind of idiot would grab everything and decide to throw it in some project without even so much as asking? I'm sure that if each artist had been contacted on the matter, most would've been flattered and agreed to their designs being a part of this content management system. I know that if I had submitted a design and had been asked, I'd be proud, but woe be to anyone who ripped it off wholesale without asking.
@ Patrick Lioi: Did you even READ what you quoted? Here it is again, and pay attention to the actual words this time.
?you can feel free to steal bits and pieces, learn from, and generally plunder the CSS as long as you don?t approach it as a template."
This guy is taking the whole thing and using it as a template. These aren't bits and pieces we're talking about here.
"I don't see how anybody can claim ownership over the way a combination of xhtml and css has been strung together because at the end of the day both of those languages are available to everybody to use and more importantly how they choose to use them too."
So, I'm sure id software wouldn't be upset if I used their Quake 3 game engine (minus graphics) for a project and claimed it was my own creation then? I mean, who can claim ownership over the way a combination of C++ code was used because at the end of the day that language is available to everybody to use, and more importantly, how they choose to use it.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
(sorry for the double post.. just saw this one)
the css zengarden has done nothing but help thousands of people (myself included) in understanding that css can be used to seperate content from design, and to make beautiful webpages. thank you so much for it, and know that the good it does will outlast the bad.
This person contacted me asking to use my css and modify my graphics for use *both* on the cms templates and the part of his website devoted to cms templates download.
I asked for a preview of what he intended to do with it, and after seeing it my answer was 'no'.
The design and adaptations were rather ugly.
I refused to send the photoshop files he requested, but I don't mind if he uses the css file and does whatever he likes with it. I *think* the License allows this and I accept it.
I wouldn't like to see him use my graphics, though.
Lloyd, this person doesn't seem to be directly linked with the open source cms project, which I think doesn't deserve to suffer from a third party 'strange' efforts.
I've seen my zengarden css file used in a weblog, with different images, and I felt this adaptation had followed the rules.
This kind of use also allows non-webdesigners to choose a css layout for a personal weblog, and that's one of the points of the css zen garden idea, propagating css use.
Paul: "I don?t see how anybody can claim ownership over the way a combination of xhtml and css has been strung together because at the end of the day both of those languages are available to everybody to use and more importantly how they choose to use them too."
Not sure I understand this - the latin alphabet is available to everyone to use too, but as soon as you start sticking those characters together into words and sentences you gain ownership of the text and ideas that you're presenting.
Seriously, though, it sounds like we need a license that protects intellectual propery without restricting fair use of someone else's ideas (properly attributed, of course.)
@paul: You're still missing the point. Back to my Q3 engine example… sure, anyone could program the exact same thing.. but they didn't. Even if they did, they didn't do it first. Now there are times when 2 people have almost the exact same idea across the country from each other, but one will get the patent in first and be credited as the inventor. Even so, if 2 people have the idea for a layout on a site, it will not be letter for letter identical in the code. That just doesn't happen. Granted, there's the old saying that 1000 monkeys with typewriters will eventually create the entire works of shakespear… but usenet has been around for years and it looks nothing like hamlet =)
There's a big difference between saying that anyone could come up with the idea and saying that it's ok to steal something because you could've potentially done it anyway, but were either too lazy or uninspired. You don't seem to grasp that distinction.
I mean, I could use the same brush strokes and colors to make a painting… call it the LisaMona… but if it looks exactly like the MonaLisa, it doesn't matter, because it's obviously a ripoff. It would never make it as the centerpiece in a museum, no matter how well it was painted, because it wasn't CREATED… it was merely copied.
Overall, I don't think it's fair to make a distinction between the layout of a page done in CSS and one done in photoshop. Putting little boxes of color with various border designs on a page, and arranging them in a way that is pleasing to the eye is still an artform. Those same boxes could be made in the exact same spots in photoshop, but it would take a LOT longer to load. You seem to think that the inefficient graphic method is wrong to copy, but the more efficient CSS version is fair game. That's just wrong in my mind. If they are visually identical, who cares how it got on the screen. Both versions required the same artistic talent to plan.
brent wrote:
_Something tells me, based on the quotes from the e-mail exchanges, that the person using the code has virtually NO understanding of the CC license. It seems, rather, that they are simply making assumptions about what is �free� on the web. To someone who can�t even use a spellchecker on their e-mail (or someone who needs a spellchecker in the first place) a CC license is probably as foreign as Webster himself._
How about the person in question not being a native English speaker? That would also make understanding the licenses difficult, and the *unusual* spellings point to this fact as well. Don't slag someone off without knowing the facts (as if I do either… hmmm).
Seriously, I don't see the problem with people using the CSS files, so long as they use their own images. What would have happened if the first people to use tables for layout had kicked up a fuss when others pinched the tables, changed the links, images and text (and sometimes the colours), and republished? These things happen.
The authors should be proud that they are helping to spread CSS based designs across the web. Think where CSS designs would be if we hadn't had the layout reservoir by BlueRobot and other similar sites. Think of CSSZenGarden as the next step on from this. That is how I believe it should be seen. Not just as a showcase of designers' talent, to be looked at but no more.
I guess what I was trying to say was that, what one person can create in css and xhtml equally so can somebody else.
All cars have stearing wheels but nobody tries to claim ownership of them.
You can't really stop somebody from using a similar or even identical combination of box's, text styles and formatting of a page, or at least I don't think so. If they are using your graphics and that is different. Maybe I am still wrong but to be honest this sort of thing bores me.
Hi all, I just submitted my own design for zengarden and noticed this sad state of affairs.
In reading your posts i began to get worried: "have i done this awful thing too?!?"
i downloaded many different css to put together my own, but all i was doing was seeing an effect that I wanted, i used other peoples css to see how theyd done it and then adapted it to suit my own design.
After further reading i was happy to see that im not as evil as i thought.- yay!
My zengarden submission is pretty much the first page id put together entirely in css. Most of what i know about css is thanks to zengarden, although i have printed out hundreds of pages of reference from the w3c, w3schools, bluerobot and the like, i have found csszengarden to be the most helpful.
I just think its a real pity that people can take advantage of such a great resource.
when i first looked at the site, it was clear to me: you can look at the css and learn from it, but what you do must be your own, and all images remain the property of the designer. That was without reading the licence, and i thought it would all be pretty much common sense??
why cant people just be nice?
Re: Didier Hillhorst's comments.
He says opensource is a great concept for academics but not for artists. The great irony is that without that original openness there wouldn't be software or a web. Most of the art he refers to wouldn't have got beyond the artist's bedroom wall. Sure there are going to be rip-offs but personally I find some of the responses to this guys actions more offensive than what he's done. A little too much preciousness maybe?
P.S. What's the point in owning a Louis Vuitton bag anyway, jeeez!
"All cars have stearing wheels but nobody tries to claim ownership of them. "
And there you would be wrong. There are patents past and present that claim ownership over the steering wheel as well as almost every single thing around you, inside or outside of the car. Some companies want patents on YOUR GENES and on the chemical process happening in YOUR body when you take one of THEIR pills. Of course patents are not copyrights but their somewhat related since they all start with the premise of owning an idea.
Yeah Chris, when you put it like that you are probably right. I am not affraid to admit when I am wrong, specially when somebody makes a point rationally and ellequently as you have, which makes a nice change from the usual insult slinging that happens all to often on the internet.
I'm rather fond of serious debate on topics myself, but it is hard to find someone to debate with who doesn't degenerate into an insult fest =) Thanks for the pleasant surprise
As for the rest of you… stealing code is bad.. learning from code is another thing altogether.
Give a man a CSS template, and you make him a site… teach a man CSS and you make him a webmaster! =)
Chris and Paul: Unlike you two a significant amount of conversations between people (on the internet and in person) inolve those who either cannot admit fault, cannot commit to change, or cannot stand to "lose". When they have no valid arguments left to offer up that's when the fall back of insults and rudeness ensue. It's difficult for people to let go of ego and to understand that the person on the other end may be actually offering you something that in the end will make you a better person.
Software is not art nor is the interent as such. You could of course argue this but I am sure you understand what I mean. Ripping happens in academic surroundings aswel and is known as plagiarism. Nevertheless one researcher might use and include another researcher's work to improve existing theories or find new ones. In all cases material that is included and written by others should be properly referenced; stated with a source.
The above method of research and use can not be effectively applied to art. I can not take a painting by Picasso and improve it. It just does not make sense. Likewise I can not take a design wholesale and improve it (improving something is always a matter of taste and is a subjective matter). You can however improve software. That's why I think an open source structure is more suitable for software or academic surroundings.
The lines are blurry. Maybe I should be flattered that my work is used elsewhere and to a certain degree I am. Maybe I concider my work important while it's not. Maybe I should feel less proprietary about my work. Maybe, maybe, maybe…
Lastly the quality of work has no impact on this discussion. You could concider any piece of art (tradional or digital) a piece of junk. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
The Louis Vuitton bags are just stated as an example. Whether a person would actually buy one is a matter of personal taste (and money).
For once I've been rendered speechless. It's one thing to be inspired and full of admiration for another's work but it's a whole new realm when you try and pass it as your own. Where's the creativity and self pride gone?
Hmmm, I've read this through a couple of times now and although it makes me angry that the chap in question is obviously in the wrong, knows it, and is still fighting his corner it does raise some interesting copyright points…
Who actually owns CSS? It's a language that's freely available for anyone to build using basic markup constraints, in very much the same way as HTML, at the end of the day no matter how clever your code is it's simply made out of a selection of markers from a library so what right realistically do you have to hold it as your own?
I suppose the semantic you could have this chap on is that it's the 'design' he's stealing, that is intelectually copyrighted to whoever produced it should they decide to inforce that right, however if the design has been altered so only the structure remains then the case I would imagine would become tenuous?
I can fully appreciate your anger, I've had my own work stolen by people who (frankly) couldn't be f*cked to get up and do their own creative, it really hurts to see work you've toiled over taken from you and used in a different enviroment to the one you envisaged it in, but the law around the use of other people's HTML and CSS is shady to say the least as I've said before it can readily be argued that it's simply a structural language made up out of a pre-defined library of components, so how can someone possibly steal it?
My personal advice would be to make designers and techie alike aware of the copyright of intelectual property, if you can prove you have designed the attributes that the CSS and HTML then support (i.e graphics, rich media, typography, photography etc) then you'll have a much stronger case to try and keep hold of the hard work you put into designing the code that forms the framework that holds the attributes together.
I've had the same thing, and from a friend too. Not nice.


text:
This is my first foray into La Femme products! I've heard other bloggers talk about the brand but I associated it with Constance Carroll….urgh, don't ask.
I was browsing eBay and spotted these La Femme Liquid Blushers…looked inoffensive enough so I purchased two colours to try.
There are 6 shades* and for some reason they chose to make it all very pink based, which basically eliminates my need to buy more than 2 of these blushers!
I got 01 Bright Pink and 05 Soft brown. Other shades I saw were 03 Dark Pink, 04 Pink Glow and 06 Soft Pink.
I definitely have a soft spot of cream and liquid blushers more than powder – I like them if they leave a soft, natural glow and set on the skin.
This La Femme Liquid Blusher I guess, is more of a cream than a liquid, but it isn't firm enough to live in a tub so I guess that's why it classes as a liquid….
These are cheap. Like £2.60 each on eBay. I bought two shades – as mentioned before there's loads of pinks so I went for bright pink and soft brown.
The brown is not brown, it's an orange and the bright pink is fairly vivid and with a blue tone:
The texture is medium creamy, it's nice to work with and blends in the cheeks easily, and it also seems to set and last about 4 hours +.
Most of my cream blushers are in a pot, and other than that I tend to have cheek tints. This is a nice inbetween product.
This does stain though even after just a few minutes on the skin. Here is what was left on my hand after doing my swatches:
I don't really like make up that leaves stains anywhere, even if it's a lipstick!
Nevertheless – I was very impressed by this liquid blush after using it for a few weeks. It's super duper easy to blend and is buildable. The colour range is limited but you get an absolute ton of product in the tube (you only need a bit) so it will last for ages.
The ingredients list (I'm not mad about it but I don't think it's worse than a lot of other cream blushers out there):
Used the soft orange here:
I must admit I do like my posh make up but these cheap La Femme Liquid Blushers are a nice purchase and great value. I bought mine from eBay, they're around £2.60 each.
*FYI The six shades:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
At The Argyle, we strive to offer a wide variety of events that reinforce the sense of community our residents value so much. Some examples of the types of activities that fill our social calendar include shopping trips, game nights, cocktail hours, group outings to local restaurants and so much more! Whether you're looking at the calendar for yourself or a loved one, don't forget to check this page for the latest schedule each month.
Current residents can find the monthly Activity Calendar here:


text:
A cure is a substance or procedure that ends a medical condition, such as a medication, a surgical operation, a change in lifestyle or even a philosophical mindset that helps end a person's sufferings; or the state of being healed, or cured.
A disease is said to be incurable if there is always a chance of the patient relapsing, no matter how long the patient has been in remission. An incurable disease may or may not be a terminal illness; conversely, a curable illness can still result in the patient's death.
The proportion of people with a disease that are cured by a given treatment, called the cure fraction or cure rate, is determined by comparing disease-free survival of treated people against a matched control group that never had the disease.[1]
Another way of determining the cure fraction and/or "cure time" is by measuring when the hazard rate in a diseased group of individuals returns to the hazard rate measured in the general population.[2][3]
Inherent in the idea of a cure is the permanent end to the specific instance of the disease.[4][5] When a person has the common cold, and then recovers from it, the person is said to be cured, even though the person might someday catch another cold. Conversely, a person that has successfully managed a disease, such as diabetes mellitus, so that it produces no undesirable symptoms for the moment, but without actually permanently ending it, is not cured.
Related concepts, whose meaning can differ, include response, remission and recovery.
Statistical modelEdit
In complex diseases, such as cancer, researchers rely on statistical comparisons of disease-free survival (DFS) of patients against matched, healthy control groups. This logically rigorous approach essentially equates indefinite remission with cure.[6] The comparison is usually made through the Kaplan-Meier estimator approach.[7]
The simplest cure rate model was published by Berkson and Gage in 1952.[7] In this model, the survival at any given time is equal to those that are cured plus those that are not cured, but who have not yet died or, in the case of diseases that feature asymptomatic remissions, have not yet re-developed signs and symptoms of the disease. When all of the non-cured people have died or re-developed the disease, only the permanently cured members of the population will remain, and the DFS curve will be perfectly flat. The earliest point in time that the curve goes flat is the point at which all remaining disease-free survivors are declared to be permanently cured. If the curve never goes flat, then the disease is formally considered incurable (with the existing treatments).
The Berkson and Gage equation is
where is the proportion of people surviving at any given point in time, is the proportion that are permanently cured, and is an exponential curve that represents the survival of the non-cured people.
Cure rate curves can be determined through an analysis of the data.[7] The analysis allows the statistician to determine the proportion of people that are permanently cured by a given treatment, and also how long after treatment it is necessary to wait before declaring an asymptomatic individual to be cured.[3]
Several cure rate models exist, such as the expectation-maximization algorithm and Markov chain Monte Carlo model.[7] It is possible to use cure rate models to compare the efficacy of different treatments.[7] Generally, the survival curves are adjusted for the effects of normal aging on mortality, especially when diseases of older people are being studied.[8]
From the perspective of the patient, particularly one that has received a new treatment, the statistical model may be frustrating.[6] It may take many years to accumulate sufficient information to determine the point at which the DFS curve flattens (and therefore no more relapses are expected). Some diseases may be discovered to be technically incurable, but also to require treatment so infrequently as to be not materially different from a cure. Other diseases may prove to have multiple plateaus, so that what was once hailed as a "cure" results unexpectedly in very late relapses. Consequently, patients, parents and psychologists developed the notion of psychological cure, or the moment at which the patient decides that the treatment was sufficiently likely to be a cure as to be called a cure.[6] For example, a patient may declare himself to be "cured", and to determine to live his life as if the cure were definitely confirmed, immediately after treatment.
Related termsEdit
- Response
- is a partial reduction in symptoms after treatment.
- Recovery
- is a restoration of health or functioning. A person who has been cured may not be fully recovered, and a person who has recovered may not be cured, as in the case of a person in a temporary remission or who is an asymptomatic carrier for an infectious disease.
- Prevention
- is a way to avoid an injury, sickness, disability, or disease in the first place, and generally it will not help someone who is already ill (though there are exceptions). For instance, many babies and young children are vaccinated against polio and other infectious diseases, which prevents them from contracting polio. But the vaccination does not work on patients who already have polio. A treatment or cure is applied after a medical problem has already started.
- Therapy
- treats a problem, and may or may not lead to its cure. In incurable conditions, a treatment ameliorates the medical condition, often only for as long as the treatment is continued or for a short while after treatment is ended. For example, there is no cure for AIDS, but treatments are available to slow down the harm done by HIV and extend the treated person's life. Treatments don't always work. For example, chemotherapy is a treatment for cancer, but it may not work for every patient. In easily cured forms of cancer, such as childhood leukemias, testicular cancer and Hodgkin lymphoma, cure rates may approach 90%.[9] In other forms, treatment may be essentially impossible. A treatment need not be successful in 100% of patients to be considered curative. A given treatment may permanently cure only a small number of patients; so long as those patients are cured, the treatment is considered curative.
The most common example of a complete cure is a bacterial infection treated with antibiotics.[10] In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization established a goal to cure 85% of tuberculosis patients in Russia. They reached an 80% success rate, with 75% of the diseased cured, and 5% that had otherwise successfully finished treatment.
Hepatitis C, a viral infection, is curable.[11]
See alsoEdit
- Eradication of infectious diseases
- List of incurable diseases
- Preventive medicine
- Remission (medicine)
- Relapse, the reappearance of a disease
- Spontaneous remission
- ^ Fuller, Arlan F.; Griffiths, C. M. (1983). Gynecologic oncology. The Hague: M. Nijhoff. ISBN 0-89838-555-5.
- ^ Lambert PC, Thompson JR, Weston CL, Dickman PW (2007). "Estimating and modeling the cure fraction in population-based cancer survival analysis". Biostatistics. 8 (3): 576–594. doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxl030. PMID 17021277.
- ^ a b Smoll NR, Schaller K, Gautschi OP (2012). "The Cure Fraction of Glioblastoma Multiforme". Neuroepidemiology. 39 (1): 63–9. doi:10.1159/000339319. PMID 22776797.
- ^ "Nearing a Cancer Cure?". Harvard Health Commentaries. 21 August 2006.
- ^ What's the Difference Between a Treatment and a Cure? Archived 2008-04-13 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b c Barnes E (December 2007). "Between remission and cure: patients, practitioners and the transformation of leukaemia in the late twentieth century". Chronic Illn. 3 (4): 253–64. doi:10.1177/1742395307085333. PMID 18083680.
- ^ a b c d e Friis, Robert H.; Chernick, Michael L. (2003). Introductory biostatistics for the health sciences: modern applications including bootstrap. New York: Wiley-Interscience. pp. 348–349. ISBN 0-471-41137-X.
- ^ Tobias, Jeffrey M.; Souhami, Robert L. (2003). Cancer and its management. Oxford: Blackwell Science. p. 11. ISBN 0-632-05531-6.
- ^ What is a Cure?[permanent dead link] page 3.
- ^ What Is a cure?[permanent dead link] page 2.
- ^ Wheeler, Regina Boyle. "Is Hep C Curable?". WebMD. Retrieved 2019-02-12.


text:
Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c provides a seamless and end-to-end solution for managing Oracle Database's entire lifecycle in both physical and cloud environments—offering better coverage, greater depth, and more automation. Only Oracle enables administrators to secure, manage, and maintain multiple databases consistently, with lower risk and effort across development, test and production environments—all from a centralized console.
Cerner Saves $9.5 Million Using Oracle Enterprise ManagerListen in as Cerner, one of the leading healthcare technology solution providers, discusses how it uses Oracle Enterprise Manager to not only save millions in IT costs, but to also improve DBA productivity by as much as 50 percent.


text:
Oceania Marina Ready to Set "Sale"by Paul Motter, CruiseMates Editor | January 25, 2010
One of the cruise world's most unique success stories expands their achievement with a brand new ship design.
Just by looking at the picture above you see Oceania's Marina will be a hit - it is chock-full of verandah cabins, perfect for the famous port-intensive Oceania itineraries. Read on for more details on how Marina expands upon what has made Oceania the almost cult-favorite cruise line its fans adore. There are more distinct restaurants and an invigorated focus on stateroom comfort. This adds up to the perfect cruise travel experience for the people who sail to see the world in style.
The new ship under construction for Oceania Cruises, Marina, went on sale to the general public last Monday, January 18, -- but the pickings will be somewhat slim for the ship's five inaugural winter voyages, since they have already been substantially booked by past guests of Oceania Cruises, who were given booking priority starting January 13.
Marina is under construction at Fincantieri's shipyard near Genoa, Italy, and won't sail until January 2011. Nonetheless, Oceania's loyal past guests wasted little time: In Marina's booking debut, nearly 50 percent of the 2011 winter season sailings sold in less than 12 hours, exceeding the line's previous one-day booking record by 26 percent. The ship's January 22, 2011, maiden voyage is a 13-day transatlantic cruise from Barcelona to Miami, calling at Malaga, Spain; Casablanca, Morocco; and the Canary Islands before crossing the Atlantic. Seven days at sea will give guests time to explore Marina from stem to stern. Early booking fares start at $1,999 per person, double.
From Miami, Marina will depart February 8, 2011 to transit the Panama Canal, visiting Cartagena, Colombia and Puntarenas, Costa Rica. The cruise includes two ports in Mexico: Puerto Chiapas, the gateway to Mayan ruins; and the popular resort Cabo San Lucas. Marina will visit Los Angeles and land at San Francisco, a new port for Oceania Cruises. The 18-day cruise is priced from $4,299 per person, double.
The ship then returns to Miami with a never-before-offered Panama Canal itinerary, departing February 26. This voyage sails from San Francisco, cruising California's Pacific coast before calling at San Diego, another maiden port for the line. Guests enjoy a Latin interlude in Puerto Chiapas before transiting the Canal and making landfall at Cartagena. A stop in George Town, Grand Cayman, will offer time to rest and relax before disembarkation in Miami. Early booking fares begin at $2,499 per person, double.
Next, Marina embarks on what the line calls "the definitive Caribbean cruise." The 12-day voyage departs Miami March 16, 2010 for the British Virgin Islands before calling at St. Barts, Dominica, St. Lucia and Grand Turk. Early booking fares begin at $2,999 per person, double.
Before Marina returns to Barcelona to begin her summer season in Europe, she will sail along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard, departing Miami March 28 and visiting Savannah and Charleston before making her curtain call in New York City, where an overnight stay allows guests to visit the Great White Way. From Manhattan, the ship sails for Hamilton, Bermuda followed by five uninterrupted days at sea before visiting Funchal (Madeira Island), Portugal and Barcelona. Early booking fares begin at $2,999 per person, double.
About Oceania Marina
Marina will offer an array of elegant bars and lounges and an amazing 10 dining venues � probably the most dining venues of any ship on a per person basis. Six of these restaurants are open-seating gourmet venues � including Jacques, the first restaurant at sea for Chef Jacques Pépin; and Red Ginger, all at no additional charge. Pépin's namesake restaurant will draw inspiration from bistros in Paris and his home town of Lyon. "The cornerstone of any great dining experience is freshly prepared, simple dishes that are as visually pleasing on the plate as they are on the palate," according to Pépin.
Other highlights of the ship include a Bon App�tit Culinary Center and a Grand Stairway made of Lalique fine crystal. The full-service spa will be operated by the famous Canyon Ranch SpaClub.
Guest accommodations include 629 staterooms and suites, 96 percent with private verandas.
Marina will be the first ship to offer luxury suites completely appointed from the acclaimed Ralph Lauren Home collection -- from furniture and fabrics to lighting and bedding. To accomplish this industry first, the cruise line tapped New York-based Tocar, whose owner Susan Bednar Long oversaw the decoration of flagship retail stores for Polo across North America.
"We wanted the best suites on Marina to feel like a luxurious estate home and insisted on the finest craftsmanship and most talented residential designers," said Bob Binder, Oceania Cruises' president. "Tocar has designed the first suites at sea exclusively using furnishings from Ralph Lauren Home."
Reservations for Marina are now open to the general public. For more information or to order a brochure, contact a travel agent, visit www.OceaniaCruises.com or call Oceania Cruises at 800-531-5658.Marina will debut on September 30, 2010 and the sister ship on July 30, 2011. The ships are being built in Fincantieri's Sestre Ponente shipyard in Genoa, Italy, at a total cost of $1.6 billion including the option for a third ship. The interior designers for all of the public spaces, suites and staterooms are a well-known (in the cruise industry) Norwegian company specializing in luxury ships, Y&S Architecture and Interior Design of Oslo. Fincantieri Shipyards is designing the superstructure.
The new ships will feature "the best of" the current ships with a more refined atmosphere featuring rich, dark woods, Italian marble, granite countertops, wool carpets and leather furniture. The color palette is described as a mixture of dulcet tones accented by earthen and jewel tones. Here is the color palette for the new ships is below. For more infortaion on the design of Oceania Marina, see our previous article; "Oceania, Taking it to the Next Level."
Marina Ship Facts
Oceania Class I -- Debuts Fall 2010 Oceania Class II -- Debuts Summer 2011 Guest Capacity -- 1,256 (Double Occupancy) Tonnage -- 66,000 (estimated) Builder -- Fincantieri; Sestre Ponente, Italy Length -- 782 feet Width -- 105 feet Draft -- 24 feet Cruising Speed -- 20 knots Propulsion -- Diesel Electric, 2 controllable pitch propellers Restaurants -- Six Open Seating Restaurants:
- The Grand Dining Room -- Continental Cuisine
- Polo Grill -- Steak House
- Toscana -- Gourmet Italian
- Asian Restaurant -- Asian Cuisine
- Terrace Caf� -- Casual Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner
Accommodations -- 628 Guest Staterooms and Suites:
- 4 Owner's Suites
- 6 Vista Suites
- 12 Oceania Suites
- 120 Penthouse Suites
- 440 Veranda Staterooms
- 20 Ocean View Staterooms
- 26 Inside Staterooms
Deck-by-Deck Highlights
Deck 15:
- Horizons -- Observation lounge and nightclub
- Sports Deck
Deck 14:
- Spa and Fitness Center
- The Patio
- Library
- Polo Grill -- Classic Steakhouse
- Toscana -- Gourmet Italian Restaurant
Deck 12:
- Guest Suites
- Culinary Arts Center
- Enrichment Center
- Waves Bar
- Swimming Pool and Jacuzzis
- Waves Grill & Milkshake Bar
- Private Dining Rooms, Wine Cellar and Veranda
- Terrace Caf� -- casual buffet restaurant
Decks 11 through 7:
- Guest Staterooms and Suites
Deck 6:
- Upper Hall
- Martinis
- Casino
- Card Room
- Grand Bar
- Grand Dining Room -- Continental cuisine
Deck 5:
- Main Lounge
- Reception Hall and Lounge
- French Restaurant -- Country French cuisine
- Asian Restaurant -- a fusion of Asian cuisines


text:
Students Brix Accepts Your Cortland State
Campus Connections Cards!
Join The Brix Team
- Be A Part of the Brix Family...
Do you enjoy being a part of an exciting, fun, and fast paced environment?
Click the button below
Connect With Brix Mobile
Reviews News & Press
- Great Food At An Affordable Price
"....the staff is incredibly friendly, courteous and fast whether it is busy or not. I love Brix Pubaria ... It is one of the best restaurants I've ever been to and you won't find a more unique menu with this great of deals anywhere."
by Greg - From UrbanSpoon.com
"....I was pleasantly surprised by everything at Brix...I will be returning to sample more menu items. Compliments to the proprietors, as they seem to have done their homework"
by Tom - From UrbanSpoon.com


text: mich 0 Posted August 22, 2004 Dr. Mercola's Comment: Most conventional doctors and dermatologists say that acne is not related to diet, but I can confidently tell you that there is indeed a link, and a strong one at that. In my own practice, I found my patients' acne clears up when they follow the no-grain diet described in my book Total Health Cookbook & Program. How does acne originate? Eating refined carbohydrates and sugar leads to a surge of insulin and an insulin-like growth factor called IGF-1 in your body. This can lead to an excess of male hormones, which cause pores in the skin to secrete sebum, a greasy substance that attracts acne-promoting bacteria. Additionally, IGF-1 causes skin cells known as keratinocytes to multiply, a process that is associated with acne. Some say acne is a disease of Western civilization because studies have found that the condition is virtually nonexistent in non-westernized societies, where refined carbohydrates and sugar are rarely eaten. For instance, in one study that looked at acne cases in islanders of Papua New Guinea and hunter-gatherers of Paraguay, no acne cases were found in either group. The findings, which are in-line with many other studies, make a strong case for the significant role of environmental factors, such as diet, in acne. Limiting grains is an integral step toward optimizing your health. The more we study the influence of grains, and their secondary consequences on insulin, the more we will find that their pervasive influences touch nearly every aspect of our health. Wrongly, conventional medicine attempts to treat acne with expensive antibiotics or topical creams that can be especially problematic because, the drug may kill the good bacteria along with the bad. Another consideration especially for teens is the alienation factor. Many people are embarrassed because of having acne and that can prevent them from feeling as confident as they should be for their own good mental health and peace of mind. In fact, one study I've reviewed found the stress of final exams aggravated the acne of college students. That's why it is so important to deal with your stress before it becomes overwhelming. There are a variety of ways that you can do this, including making sure you get enough quality sleep. The most natural, helpful tool to relieve stress I recommend is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), which involves tapping your body's energy meridians and voicing positive affirmations to clear emotional blocks, thus restoring your mind and body's balance. Learn how you can do it yourself with my free EFT report. Because I struggled for the first 40 years of my life with acne, I wish I would've known this information a whole lot sooner. Related Articles: No-Grain Diet Clears up Acne for Good Bread may be the Culprit Behind Acne Doctors Ignore Acne Drug Birth Defect Warnings Teenagers Now a Target of Prescription Medicine Promotions http://www.mercola.com/1999/archive/pcos.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites


text:
To cite this page, please use the following:
· For print: . Accessed
· For web:
Taxonomic history
Proceratium diplopyxHNS new species
Figs. 1, 2.
Holotype worker: TL 6.0, HL (including clypeus) 1.44, HW 1.25, ML (beyond clypeus) 0.15, scape L 1.12, eye diameter 0.12, WL 1.77, petiole L inside view 0.70, gaster L 1.97, hind tibia L 1.26, hind femur L 1.53 mm. CI 87, SI 90. (A single paratype worker hardly differs from the holotype by more than the usual errors of measurement, except that the head is slightly wider: HW 1.29 mm, CI 90.)
Habitus well portrayed in figures 1 and 2. Figure 2 shows the head tilted slightly back from the full-face view plane, so that the posterior cephalic margin appears straight and is slightly surpassed by the scapes laid back in repose. In perfect full-face view, the center of the posterior margin is feebly concave, and the scape laid back does not quite attain it. Median clypeal lobe raised, broad and rounded, with a faint median sulcus and a tendency toward flattening, or even shallow emargination, of the middle of its anterior border, especially as viewed when the head is tilted back. Frontal area narrow-lanceolate and deeply impressed. Eyes each composed of a single, large, clear, convex facet that projects beyond the lateral margins of the head in full-face view.
Mandibles each with 4 sharp teeth, including the apical; because of full closure, the presence of an additional tooth at the basal angle cannot definitely be excluded as a possibility. Labrum retracted against the rest of the under-mouthparts, difficult to see, but appears to be medially sulcate on its visible (extensor) surface and weakly bilobate, with a median excision of its free apical margin. Outside the lateral labral margins can be seen clearly 3 segments of each maxillary palp and 2 segments of each labial palp, so that the palpi must include at least 4 and 3 segments respectively.
Underside of head shallowly concave and weakly rugulose, sunken between thick, rough, raised, ventrolateral cephalic margins ("occipital carinae") that originate near the mandibular insertions.
Antennae with segment II (pedicel) longer than broad; III-VIII about as long as broad to slightly longer than broad; IX-XI slightly broader than long; apical segment about 2 l/2 times as long as broad; the length-breadth ratios vary somewhat in different perpendicular views of the antennal axis.
Trunk as seen from dorsal view weakly pyriform, evenly convex and slightly broader across pronotum (0.94 mm in holotype) than across propodeum and metathorax (0.76 mm), with only a very feeble constriction near truncal midlength, but convexities of mesonotum and propodeum as seen in side-view profile separated by a slight but distinct metanotal impression. Propodeum strongly convex in both directions, passing into declivity through a smooth curve flanked on each side by a short, upturned tooth; declivity smooth and shining, flanked on each side by a low margin bearing a short denticle at the bottom of each concavity, and an upturned, triangular, metapleural tooth or lobe at its ventral extremity.
Propodeal spiracle small, with a nearly round aperture, directed posterolaterad. A curved and rather deep sulcus marks the approximate juncture of propodeum with meso- and metathoracic sclerites below it.
Petiolar node pyriform or subclavate, with feebly suggested peduncle, about 0.47 mm wide across the widest part (near posterior end) in holotype, and about 0.66 mm long. Ventral keel forming an obtuse tooth just behind midlength.
Postpetiole with broadly rounded sides, diverging caudad to the greatest width, a little before the posterior margin (W 0.89 mm in holotype), which is rather sharply constricted. Median posterodorsal surface of postpetiole weakly set off as a high, rounded boss; anteroventral shelf or lip well developed, trailing a short, septate carina caudad.
The remainder of the abdomen forms the most extraordinary structure of this body region known among the ants (figure 1). The second gastric (fourth true abdominal) tergum is grossly hypertrophied posteriad beyond the anteroventral opening, from which issues the true abdominal apex, with the exserted apical segments extending ventro-cephalad. The hypertrophied posterior extension of the second gastric tergum is permanently curled anteroventrad to form a short, bluntly rounded, false gastric apex, so that the real sternum of this segment is externally represented only by a small anteroventral piece, triangular in side view. The incurled ventral surface of the tergal extension is furnished with a series of coarse, sharp rugae that tend to extend vertically or obliquely part way up the lateral surfaces, and run partly transversely across the concavity in the holotype (in the paratype worker, the posterior rugae tend to run lengthwise, following the curve of the curl). From above, the hypertrophied tergum is cylindrical, 1.3 mm long, with almost straight (very feebly concave), parallel sides and a broadly rounded posterior outline, and is almost exactly (0.87 mm) as wide as the postpetiole. (In the paratype, maximum postpetiole W 0.92 mm, maximum second tergal W 0.90 mm.)
In both specimens the gastric apex is extended as 3 stout visible segments and the strong, exserted sting; undoubtedly these are all retractile to some degree.
Legs rather long and slender, though both femora and tibiae are gradually incrassated from base toward apex; hind leg: femur L 1.53, tibia L 1.26, metatarsus L 1.0 mm. Tibial spurs one on each leg (small on mid tibia), pectinate, but only feebly so on mid tibia. Claws on all legs slender, simple.
Head, trunk, petiole and postpetiole densely and moderately coarsely sculptured, opaque generally, but with minor glancing reflections here and there from individual rugulae or the bottoms of punctures. On the head, the sculpture is finest and most shallow, with rugulosity running in the directions shown in fig. 2, and more or less longitudinally on the sides of the head. Mandibles (except for their smooth, shining apices), median clypeus and frontal lobes rather coarsely and unevenly striate. Trunk, petiole and postpetiole densely rugose to scabriculous, becoming scabriculous-muriculate, or even denticulate on propodeum, petiolar node, and both tergum and sternum of postpetiole. Hidden throughout these roughly sculptured surfaces are numerous small but deep punctures with central, piligerous tubercles. The rugae of the postpetiole are longitudinal and subconcentrically curved as seen from above.
Second gastric (fourth true abdominal) tergum predominantly smooth and shining over most of its dorsal, lateral and posterior surfaces, but with numerous, spaced piligerous papillulae throughout, giving way to piligerous punctures caudad, and to the aforementioned rugae ventrad. Apical segments of gaster delicately strigulate, shining. Legs and antennae finely and densely reticulate-punctulate, the antennae distinctly so, and matt; the legs more superficially so, and weakly shining in part. Coxae obscurely rugulose in addition.
Body and appendages covered with an abundant pilosity consisting of fine, curved, tapered, whitish hairs, mostly 0.05 to 0.2 mm long and obliquely standing (straighter and more erect on clypeus, antennae and legs). A short, dense pubescence is also present and widespread, and especially noticeable on antennae and legs, where it is appressed or subappressed and lies longitudinally, and on posterior surface of large gastric tergite, where it is mostly decumbent. Apical gastric segments, especially the last two, with luxuriant bands or brushes of long, fine, pale hairs.
Body color deep reddish-brown, almost mahogany; second gastric (IV abdominal) segment brighter, more reddish; mandibles, antennae, legs and apical gastric segments ferruginous yellow.
Queen, male and larvae still unknown.
Holotype (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris) and one paratype worker (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) taken in a leaf litter berlesate in "foret dense humide de moyenne altitude" (about 1000 m) at
Iaraka, on the eastern side of the Baie d'Antongil, Province de Tamatave, Malagasy Republic, on 26 November 1969, by J. -M. Betsch.
This altogether extraordinary ant is distinguished at once from its congeners by the strongly produced and downcurved "false apex" of the second gastric segment, as well as by the form of the propodeum, and several minor characters of sculpture, etc. It is the first species of its genus to be taken on Madagascar, and its must be placed in a species group of its own. Its relatively large size, large but singlefacetted eyes, elongate petiole, coarse sculpture and developed propodeal teeth ally it with the stictumHNS group of primitive species more closely than any other group.
Found most commonly in these habitats: 1 times found in rainforest, 2 times found in montane rainforest.
Found most commonly in these microhabitats: 1 times sifted litter (leaf mold, rotten wood).
Collected most commonly using these methods: 1 times MW 50 sample transect, 5m, 2 times pitfall trap.
Elevations: collected from 8 - 1020 meters, 725 meters average
Type specimens: Holotype: casent0101399; paratype: casent0003306


text:
Conference Paper
Designing Virtual Organizations for Citizen Science. In , IFIP Working Group 8.2 OASIS workshop 2009. presented at the 12/2009, Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved from http://sprouts.aisnet.org/9-56/. (2009). OASIS 2009 workshop paper (134.87 KB) OASIS 2009 workshop presentation slides (543 KB)
Did they login? Patterns of anonymous contributions to online communities. In ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW). doi:10.1145/3274346. (2018). anonymous-contributions-cameraready.pdf (1.25 MB)
Discontinuities and Post-Bureaucratic Organizing: A Framework and Research Propositions. In Academy of Management Conference. Denver, CO.. (2002). academy2002 (179.3 KB)
Distance Matters, Except When It Doesn't: Discontinuities in Virtual Work. In Academy of Management Conference. Philadelphia, PA.. (2007). 13412.pdf (211.27 KB)
Distributed Scientific Collaboration: Research Opportunities in Citizen Science. In The Changing Dynamics of Scientific Collaboration, CSCW 2010 workshop. presented at the 02/2010, Savannah, GA. Retrieved from http://www.sci.utah.edu/cscw2010papers.html. (2010). WigginsCSCWworkshop_0.pdf (155.98 KB)
Effective work practices for software engineering. In , Proceedings of the 2004 ACM workshop on Interdisciplinary software engineering research (WISER '04) (p. 18). Newport Beach, CA, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1029997.1030003. (2004). p18-crowston.pdf (381.25 KB)
Face-to-face interactions in self-organizing distributed teams. In Academy of Management Conference. Honolulu, HI.. (2005). FaceToFace Interactions.pdf (4.6 MB)
Factors Influencing Approval of Wikipedia Bots. In Hawai'i International Conference on System Science. Wailea, HI.. (2020). HICSS_WikipediaPaper_3.9.new kc (2).pdf (473.63 KB)
Forgotten island: A story-driven citizen science adventure. In , CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2643–2646). presented at the 4/2013, Paris, France: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2468356.2479484. (2013).
From Conservation to Crowdsourcing: A Typology of Citizen Science. In Proceedings of the Forty-fourth Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-44). presented at the 1/2011, Koloa, HI.. (2011). hicss-44.pdf (117.47 KB)
Gaming for (citizen) science: Exploring motivation and data quality in the context of crowdsourced science through the design and evaluation of a social-computational system. In "Computing for Citizen Science" workshop at the IEEE eScience Conference. presented at the 12/2011, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from http://itee.uq.edu.au/~eresearch/workshops/compcitsci2011/index.html. (2011). gamingforcitizenscience_ver6.pdf (217.69 KB)
The Genie in the Bottle: Different Stakeholders, Different Interpretations of Machine Learning. In Hawai'i International Conference on System Science.. (2020). Social_Construction_of_ML_in_GS_HICCS2020.pdf (124.3 KB)
The impact of national culture on knowledge sharing in global virtual collaboration. In Proceedings of International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). presented at the 12/2010, St. Louis, MO, USA.. (2010).
Innovation in academic-industry partnerships: Measuring the challenges to effective performance. In Academy of Management Conference, Technology and Innovation Management Division. presented at the 8/2012, Boston, MA.. (2012). 17445.pdf (339.44 KB)
Integrated Customer-Focused Knowledge Portals: Design Challenges and Empirical Approaches. In Academy of Management Conference, OCIS Division. presented at the 8/2011, San Antonio, TX.. (2011). 14943.pdf (219.46 KB)
Language and power in self-organizing distributed teams. In OCIS Division, Academy of Management Conference. Atlanta, GA.. (2006). LanguageAndPowerInSelf-organizing.pdf (863.7 KB)
Linguistic Adoption in Online Citizen Science: A Structurational Perspective. In International Conference on Information Systems. Munich, Germany.. (2019). Linguistic Adoption (ICIS) final.pdf (3.07 MB)
Mechanisms for Data Quality and Validation in Citizen Science. In "Computing for Citizen Science" workshop at the IEEE eScience Conference. presented at the 12/2011, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from http://itee.uq.edu.au/~eresearch/workshops/compcitsci2011/index.html. (2011). PID2090593.pdf (125.17 KB)
Meet Me in Cyberspace: Meetings in the Distributed Work Environment. In Academy of Management Conference, OCIS Division. Honolulu, HI.. (2005). academy2005calendar (359.81 KB)
Motivation and data quality in a citizen science game: A design science evaluation. In Forty-sixth Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-46). presented at the 1/2013, Wailea, HI.. (2013). hicss2013citizensort_cameraready.pdf (765.39 KB)
Optimizing Features in Active Machine Learning for Complex Qualitative Content Analysis. In Workshop on Language Technologies and Computational Social Science, 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics . presented at the 06/2014, Baltimore, MD.. (2014). 9_Paper.pdf (195.46 KB)
The paradox of discontinuities and continuities: Toward a more comprehensive view of virtuality. In Academy of Management Conference. New Orleans, LA.. (2004). paradox2004 (379.81 KB)
The perils and pitfalls of mining SourceForge. In Workshop on Mining Software Repositories, 26th International Conference on Software Engineering. Edinburgh, Scotland.. (2004). The perils and pitfalls of mining SourceForge.pdf (64.33 KB)
Purposeful gaming & socio-computational systems: A citizen science design case. In Group '12 Conference. presented at the 10/2012, Sanibel Island, FL, USA.. (2012).
Semi-Automatic Content Analysis of Qualitative Data. In iConference. presented at the 03/2014, Berlin, Germany.. (2014). iConference_Poster_Published.pdf (182.84 KB)