Working Towards a Digital Commonwealth
The governance of land and property has been long disputed, practiced, and theorised – so it makes sense for us to look at this history to help us determine how to best govern the goods of the emerging, digital world. These goods, being data, platforms and other digital resources, are much like the land and all of the resources it bears – they’re either privately owned or public.
Leaving something as public would mean for it to be an open resource for anybody. This concept of commons has famously been ruled out by ‘the tragedy of the commons’ – a proposed dilemma in which under common land or resource, people will over consume out of self-interest and exacerbate the resources that are shared.
That does not have to be the case. With the enclosure of land comes less commons – which Marxist believes to be essential to capitalism. Profit can be made from other people’s labour on these lands. By now, I’m sure you’re aware of the dangers of capitalism in creating a monopolised world. And the enclosure of public land is not historical, but current. It’s a relevant issue worth considering now – for the sake of both the real and digital world.
Elinor Ostrom rightly argued against the ‘tragedy of the commons’, claiming that this theory was based on an ‘open access’ system, rather than a commons. She instead redefines the commons under a number of principles, where there is governance.
While there is an abundance privately owned data (capitalism) in the digital world, you can also see many efforts for digital resources to be made accessible. Let’s look at Unsplash, as an example, to see the extent to which it can be considered a commons-based media resource, and how open-resources might be successful in the digital world.
The platform’s tagline reads,
“The internet’s source of freely-usable images. Powered by creators everywhere.”
Unsplash is an open resource of over a million curated photos with a community of roughly 200,000 photographers. Born out of the difficulty in finding good, usable images, the platform welcomes all members to register (or not!), and use their photos for free. Unsplash has simple rules under their license, one ensuring that photos are significantly modified before being sold. They also give a tip on how to give the photographers attribution, despite it not being required. So, is it a commons-based media?
According to Ostrom’s model, maybe not. User’s don’t seem to have a say in its running, or the power to appoint monitors. And while it has some boundaries under their license that make sure the resources aren’t taken advantage of – it still leaves room for users to ‘free-ride’.
On the other hand, it definitely establishes a sense of community, and it is governed. The platform allows passionate and aspiring photographers to share work (approved by Unsplash) and shows them how and where their photos have been used. The contributors can feel recognition through their work helping others, implying that they do it for the love of photography – creating a community. Also, under the license, photos must be modified enough to be sold, encouraging users to create their own works of art from the resources they provide, strengthening the community by their shared creative interests and respect for art.
The right to sell after modification makes me think of John Locke, who thought not of private property as being enclosed, but believed in the right to it if you preformed labour, or work on that land, for example. It then becomes yours – allowing you to enjoy the fruit of your own labour. This suggests a world where private property does not have to exploit the labour of others. While Unsplash is an open-resource, it does suggest that with enough modification, or work, an image can be used and sold as part of your own creations – implying that it has become yours. I believe in this power of sharing creativity to create your own works of art, but think the contributors of that work should be accounted for adequately.