In this blog post, I explore how my course learnings are shaping how I consider issues around Open Licensing and Creative Commons. As I have progressed through this course, I have been reminded of copyright's origins and orginal purpose - a right to copy - ( The Statute of Anne), and reading the Berne Convention and associated treaties has highlighted the dispartities and contradictions in and across jurisdictional copyright regimes.
Clearly, Creative Commons the organisation and the six main Creative Commons licences are challenging the entrenched All Rights Reserved system with a more globally attuned regime more aligned with the scholary sharing ethos but as David Wiley reminds us, this doesn't come without its own set of challenges - "...while the choice...to use licenses that include requirements and restrictions can optimize...ability to accomplish...local goals, the choice typically harms the global goals of the broader open content community."*
David Wiley defines openness and free (freedom) as a set of perpetual permissions he refers to as the 5Rs -
Retain - make, own, and control a copy of the resource (e.g., download and keep your own copy)
Revise - edit, adapt, and modify your copy of the resource (e.g., translate into another language)
Remix - combine your original or revised copy of the resource with other existing material to create something new (e.g., make a mashup)
Reuse - use your original, revised, or remixed copy of the resource publicly (e.g., on a website, in a presentation, in a class)
Redistribute - share copies of your original, revised, or remixed copy of the resource with others (e.g., post a copy online or give one to a friend)."*
However, these permissions are not exempt from limitations within the CC licenses themselves -
- Non-commerical (NC)
- Share Alike (SA)
- No Derivatives (ND).
Access to Editing Tools: Is the open content published in a format that can only be revised or remixed using tools that are extremely expensive or published in an exotic format that can only be revised or remixed using tools that run on an obscure or discontinued platform? Conversely, is the open content published in a format that can be revised or remixed using tools that are freely available and run on all major platforms?
Level of Expertise Required: Is the open content published in a format that requires a significant amount of technical expertise to revise or remix or is the open content published in a format that requires a minimum level of technical expertise to revise or remix?
Meaningfully Editable: Is the open content published in a manner that makes its content essentially impossible to revise or remix or is the open content published in a manner making its content easy to revise or remix?
Self-Sourced: Is the format preferred for consuming the open content the same format preferred for revising or remixing the open content?*
*This material is an adaptation of Defining the "Open" in Open Content and Open Educational Resources, which was originally written by David Wiley and published freely under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license at http://opencontent.org/definition/.
Discussion around open licensing in my institution generally manifests itself in questions such as -
- "Can I use xxxx image in my teaching materials?"
- "What licence should I apply to my research report?"
- "Can we make this University output openly available via the University's online research repository?"
So, for example,
Does Australia's fee-based education system preclude me from using something that is CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 with the following credit: Image by Tom.Arthur on Flikr (2008) CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 in my lecture slides?
Does Australia's fee-based education system constitute a commercial use within the terms of the CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 licence? Section 4c of the legal code provides some clues -
The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.
The CC FAQs clarify this position further -
CC's defintion does not turn on the type of user: If you are a non-profit or charitable organisation, your use of an NC licensed work could still run afoul of the NC restriction, and if you are a for-profit entity, your use of an NC licensed work does not necessarily mean you have violated the term.
Would the situation be different if the purpose in making the copy was to recruit students to the University?
Icon placeholder / By Becca O'Shea, NZ. CC-BY licence.
Unfortunately, I have not been able to include a copy of the original photo in this post due to remix compatibility issues but it is referenced below -
Do I need copyright permission to use images from Wikipedia in my lecture slides if the purpose is just to make the lecture material more engaging?
Puentedelabarra by M. scwed. Public Domain Copyright.
3. License Grant.
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:
- to reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collective Works;
- to create and reproduce Derivative Works;
- to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission the Work including as incorporated in Collective Works;
- to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission Derivative Works.
Neither the CC-BY-SA 2.0 licence or the public domain dedication prescribe a purpose for which copies of the photos can be made. For example, for the purpose of research or study, for criticism or review, or use within a course of instruction, for example.
Neither is there a requirement under the public domain dedication for the lecturer to credit the Creator as this right has also been waived. However, as a matter of academic integrity, our institution would always recommend attribution.
Can we reproduce a Digital Literacies diagram published by JISC on the Library's Digital Dexterity webpage?
Icon placeholder / By Becca O'Shea, NZ. CC-BY licence.
Unfortunately, I have not been able to include a copy of the original diagram in this post due to remix compatibility issues but it is referenced below -
Seven elements of digital literacies / by JISC. CC-BY-NC-ND.
Can we make the Samstag Museum exhibition catalogues publicly available via the University's online research repository?
To assist in understanding why this might be important,
Samstag Museum of Art is one of the University of South Australia’s leading creative centres; its establishment, in 2007, reflects the University’s determination to make a dynamic contribution to the intellectual and cultural life of South Australia and to the Australian tertiary education sector.
The museum additionally manages the University of South Australia Art Collection and administers the prestigious Samstag Scholarships on behalf of the American-based Trustee of the estate of Gordon Samstag.
Extract from the University of South Australia Samstag Museum webpage.
Content shared via the University's online research repository is made available subject to terms similar to the CC-BY-NC-ND licence. For content published in the Samstag Museum exhibition catalogues, copyright vests with the individual artists and / or authors.
How do the licenses we apply to our outputs impact on the University's abilty to participate fully in open resource sharing initiatives?
A UniSA video, Finding Images Licenced for Reuse (Lucy Andrew, UniSA) to encorage use of openly licensed conent is licensed under a CC-BY-NC-ND4.0 licence.
Video Player Icon / By Pixel_perfect. Pixabay licence.
Consider licensor preferences.
Consider complying with non-binding requests by the licensor.
The licensor may make special requests when you use the material. We recommend you do so when
reasonable, but that is your option and not your obligation.
Reflection
When I first embarked on this challenge, I thought I would simply be evaluating how my understanding of the Creative Commons licenses has evolved as I have progressed through this course through an examination of queries I have received over the years and my answers to them. It has turned out to be so much more.
From the minimum protections enshrined in the Berne Convention, to the Statute of Anne, to David Wiley's 5Rs, and ALMS, these are just some of the reference points I will be referencing as I restructure our University's copyright website to elevate OER, support our Library staff promote our digital and special collections, engage in discussions about what platforms we use to share content right through to supporting our teaching and reasearch staff in the selection of appropriate resources.
For much of this challenge, I delved into the legal code of the licenses and the Creative Commons Frequently Asked Questions pages to provide clarity around derivative works, non-commercial use and the Public Domain Dedication as that might apply within a Higher Education setting.
My original post included content made available under seven different Some Rights Reserved 'licenses'. Licenses in this context includes CC0 and the Public Domain Dedication. I should not have been surprised, therefore, that I encountered several remix compatibility issues. These I have attempted to resolve by replacing the works licensed with the incompatible licenses with CC-BY licensed icons. Had I approached this Challenge from the perspective of creating a new work to be shared under a Free Cultural Works licence at the outset, I wonder whether the complexities inherent in trying to incorporate content published under a multitude of licenses in a single work would have been so apparent. As a learning exercise, I am glad I took the approach I did for this Challenge.
My working document for identifying possible Remix Compatibility issues is reproduced below -
Below is my second working document after I removed the 'remix incompatible' content and from this I was able to select a licence for this blog post. The CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence fulfils the citeria to be considered a Free Cultural Works Licence.
I was particularly struck that the resources with the most remix compatibility issues are -
1. A video encouraging people to find openly licensed images for reuse;
2. A diagram from a website that has within its mission statement terms such as transformation, sustainable, and pioneering within the context of digital content and service delivery.
These examples talk to David Wiley's observation, quoted earlier in this post that -
"...while the choice...to use licenses that include requirements and restrictions can optimize...ability to accomplish...local goals, the choice typically harms the global goals of the broader open content community."
This material is an adaptation of Defining the "Open" in Open Content and Open Educational Resources, which was originally written by David Wiley and published freely under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license at http://opencontent.org/definition/.
Comments
Post a Comment