OCL4Ed - 3rd learning reflection

Learning reflection 3 for OCL4Ed - The Right License

This final section of the course began with a video signpost by Frances Ferreira, from the Commonwealth of Learning. She offered a viewpoint from the perspective of those who are trying to overcome the problem of the millions of children who do not attend school and do not have access to education because they are too poor or because of the social climate where they live. As I mentioned in my Google+ OCL4Ed community post, I agree with Frances Ferreira that OC is not a panacea to the problem of out of school children but that it can be one useful tool to improving the situation.

But it does require cooperation and trust to make it work. It doesn't just require individuals to choose the right license. Frances talked about the issues of reluctance to adopt OER and how there is currently a lack of an enabling environment. It needs policies like that of COMOSA, and by governments and other education departments for their staff to be able to choose OCL.

We then looked at comments from Ahrash Bissell, on choosing which license to use.
This choice was put in the format of some simple questions to ask yourself:

•  In what ways do you envision your work being used?
•  What do you want users to be able to do with your work?
•  Do you want your work to be as widely accessible as possible, regardless of whether it is used for commercial or noncommercial purposes?
•  Do you want others to be able to improve upon your work?
•  And if so, do you want to require them to make their own improvements available under the same terms as you’ve made your work available?

Reflection questions from OCL4Ed course. Adapted from

Open Educational Resources and Creative Commons Licensing

, prepared by the former CCLearn team, including Ahrash Bissell, Lila Bailey, Jane Park.

.
We were asked to comment on Ahrash Bissell's recommendation:
 "When sharing, simple is best. Use CC-BY."

By this time, having read about the different types of licenses and their compatibilities (or rather their incompatibilities) and attempted to use them in a remix exercise myself, I was coming round to the argument that if you're going to share freely you should share freely.

I posted to the Google+ community:
"I do think that CC-BY is the best license for OER (if you produce works for other purposes then other rules may apply, but for OER, definitely), because only certain combinations of the CC licenses are compatible. We discovered in our remix exercise that usage of resources with different license types becomes very restrictive very quickly. If you are well-intentioned enough to give it a CC licence why not make it as free to use as possible? Even if that does carry the risk of someone using it for commercial purposes, it still gives ALL users more options for how to use it. #OCL4Ed"

We still had some more reading ahead of us on the nature of non-commercial (-NC) licenses, but by this time I was well on the way to being converted.

When we started on this journey -NC seemed a good ideological standpoint.

If I offer my work to the world for free why should someone else be allowed to come along and make money from it? 

But after trying and failing to remix a -NC work with ShareAlike (-SA) license in the remix exercise I began to realise that this placed a huge restriction on usage, even for a user who does not intend commercial purpose for their work.

Richard Stallman's description of free software began to make sense of this for me:

" “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”."

 Free Software Foundation. "The Free Software Definition." 

Amazing how a metaphor can simplify things!

And especially after reading Erik Möller's essay The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License I've realized that -NC just doesn't work.

Just before reading about Chris Betcher's experience and watching his video reflection I recalled that earlier in the OCL4Ed course Justin Cone reflected that he removed the -NC restriction on his video (possibly perfectly calculated positioning by our course coordinators).

This question of -NC or non -NC does take a bit of getting your head around. I'll just leave it off here by directing you back to Erik Möller's essay (which does include counter-arguments at the end). He argues it a lot better than I can.

I'm still on the fence as to whether -BY or -BY-SA is best.

I get the feeling one reason we tend to opt for -BY-SA is that we still want to protect our 'baby'. We don't want other people to exploit our baby and so want to give it some sort of protection against that. But is it really necessary? If users can get hold of it for free, how much real commercial value does it have unless the "exploiter" provides considerable added value to it? And lets face it, babies grow up into adults who can make their own decisions about whether or how they want to be exploited (okay, maybe not such a good metaphor, but what I'm trying to say is something like : do we really own an idea? and do we really want to restrict the creativity and innovation of people in the future?). I guess it comes down to circumstances to a great extent.

The last section of this course looked at technology issues. This was a practical element that I had not considered. I'll have to look into this in more detail. I suppose I was vaguely aware that the format I use would affect people's ability to modify or even share it, but as I've said, I don't do a lot of this stuff, so I hadn't thought about it. At least I am now aware of which formats can be used for what/by whom.

Actually, there does seem to be a need for a checklist for making your work OER usable.

ie.

• A set of questions on what you want users to be able to do with your work (as per the Ahrash Bissell questions above)
• What licenses or other restrictions are there on any resources from other people's work that I've used?
• A set of questions about technology format (does the format allow the uses in the first set of questions?)
• ... and probably some others

I wonder if anyone has produced one?

This OCL4Ed course has been very interesting and thought provoking. It hasn't just been a list of possible resources and situations, but also of philosophical and ideological viewpoints. I've also been provoked to think beyond my own circumstances by some of the perspectives of other participants in other parts of the world, and have been humbled by them. I do now feel more informed about the possibilities of open content licensing but also about the potential stumbling blocks.

This blog post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Activity 4.1 Remix and reflection

1920s Flapper Fashions

I attend a recreational dance class and each year the school puts on an end-of-year show. This year my class has decided to base our dance on a 1920s party theme including a Charleston. We've stared working on the steps so now it's time to start researching the costumes. I thought this would make a great theme for my remix.

Fashion of the 1920s (from Wikispaces.com)

"The 1920's, also known as the roaring twenties, was known as a time of change, "out with the old and in with the new!"

Fashion changed dramatically

Previous woman's clothing covered much of their bodies and was very constricted, but in the 1920's women's fashion was turned around

• hemlines rose, making the legs the focus
• since hems were shorter, stockings and shoes became more elaborate
• less fabric was used for dresses
• materials such as rayon were being used to make clothing to give women more mobility, naturally since women were involved in more activities. eg sports, dancing, and driving automobiles
• brighter colors and more textures
• pantsuits became stylish
• beads were incorporated onto dresses hats and bags
• the style was to be thin with no womanly curves, a "teen" look"

Copyright http://womenof1920s.wikispaces.com/ under CC BY-SA.

So, what is the flapper look?

Flapper dresses (from Wikipedia)
"Flapper dresses were straight and loose, leaving the arms bare (sometimes no straps at all) and dropping the waistline to the hips. Silk or rayon stockings were held up by garters. Skirts rose to just below the knee by 1927, allowing flashes of leg to be seen when a girl danced or walked through a breeze, although the way they danced made any long loose skirt flap up to show their legs. To enhance the view, some flappers applied rouge to their knees. Popular dress styles included the Robe de style. High heels also came into vogue at the time, reaching 2-3 inches (5-8 cm) high."
Copyright Wikipedia under CC BY-SA.




Josephine Baker was the quintessential, Charleston dancing, flapper girl.
By Walery, French, 1863-1935 (http://estonia.usembassy.gov/) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

I also feel it's important to get the shoes right.

Text from Flapper Fashion 1920s
C20th Fashion History By Pauline Weston Thomas for Fashion-Era.com
"Once shoes began to be mass manufactured in the 1920s footwear became an essential fashion accessory.  Now it was truly visible beneath shorter dresses it needed to be selected with more care.  Heels were over 2 inches high and waisted until the 1930s when they were lower straighter Cuban shapes.  Strapped shoes were called Mary Janes. T-bar shoes or others with buckles and bows made interesting fashion statements. Sequin or diamante trims were quite usual."
Copyright Fashion-era.com


So, it's clear that my shoes need to be just as ritzy as my frock. Hopefully, if I'm hep, I won't be a dud. I'll be the cat's meow!


Reflection

For this remix I used 2 works the Creative Commons license BY-SA, one resource in the public domain, and an All Rights Reserved work used here under Fair Dealing as per New Zealand Copyright Act 1994.

I had wanted to use as open a license as possible but it difficult to find resources with attribution only type licenses. Once you have to mix different types of licenses together your choices rapidly become limited (as I discovered in the remix game) and of course, as soon as a work has a ShareAlike license anything you create from that has to have the same. I found several a very nice pictures and pieces of text but had to ditch them because their licenses were not compatible to be used for a derivative work. I had thought the photos might be a bit tricky but actually finding text sources with compatible licenses near impossible.  In the end I had to search specifically for Creative Commons ShareAlike text and avoiding anything that mentioned "non-commercial" to find the Wikispaces piece. And thank goodness for the photo of Josephine Baker which is in the public domain because the photographer died over 70 years ago. Attribution wasn't necessary for this photo but I've put it in anyway (It still feels wrong not to).

Amazingly, I've ended up with a Free Culture License! How did I manage that?! Did I manage it? Does use of the extract from the All Rights Reserved work mean that I can't actually license my remix under Creative Commons?

This exercise was really hard and took hours!



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Justin Cone's "Building on the past" video

Justin Cone's "Building on the past" video demonstrates how CC works, but also carries the message "Share now. Shape tomorrow" .

By sharing we allow people to experiment and explore. We encourage a more richly creative tomorrow. If we lock all past creations down and don't allow people to share them and use them to create new things, we stifle people's ability to develop both creativity and thought. Tomorrow is likely to be much less innovative. 

I think this is simple phrase "Share now. Shape tomorrow" is actually very powerful. It instructs us to not just think of ourselves and of now, but instead to think of community and how our community might look in the future.

Creative Commons allows us to do a bit of both if you've created something that you feel is special and don't want people to modify it, you can specify that. If you're happy to share but don't want people to make money off it you can specify that. If you're happy to share it completely, but don't want people to have to ask your permission each time they do, you can specify that.

Video 2. Who are you?

Using Creative Commons has obviously changed Justin's view of copyright sharing over time. 

As well as stating the more obvious reasons for wanting to use CC :

It makes creative life easier because you're not in danger of getting in legal trouble; not always having to ask permission

He also notes that as an author, it gives you options of how your creation lives. When you complete or publish a project you can ask yourself "Is this the end of my project? Or is it the beginning?" By giving it a specific type of CC license you can influence how it will continue its story.

Justin initially gave the video a CC license that did not allow commercial use, but later changed it to one that is more liberal. I hadn't realised how easy it was to change a CC license so this was interesting information. It also relieves the pressure on an author if you know that you're not stuck with the license you assign your work for all time for better for worse. If you change your mind (and you might have very good reasons for doing this) you can change the license.

Activity 3.1 - Copyright case study

Libby is a librarian teaching information literacy skills to undergraduates at a tertiary institution in New Zealand. She is developing a course module about how to identify scholarly resources. The module will be delivered via her institution's Moodle site (see also Moodle NZ). Students registered in the course will have access to the Moodle course.

Libby would like to use the following resources:

Resource 1.  A video tutorial about the differences between popular and scholarly sources that she found on YouTube. The video is published on YouTube by the Georgia State University Library, but it does not display a copyright label or statement.

Question 1. 
Who owns the copyright to the video?

a) YouTube
No [incorrect / Distractor]. YouTube does not own the copyright to works posted on its site, it merely provides a forum for creators/owners of videos to share them. The creator/owner retains the copyright. In this case the Georgia State University is the copyright owner.
b) Georgia State University
Yes [Correct]. As the video was created by staff at the Georgia State University Library the copyright is owned by the university.

Question 2.
Can Libby upload the video into her Moodle course without first asking permission?

a) Yes [Incorrect /Distractor] The Legal Statement of the Georgia State Univeristy states: "Copyright 2005, Georgia State University. All Rights Reserved. No material from this Web site may be copied, reproduced, re-published, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for non-commercial, personal, or educational purposes only, provided that you (1) do not modify such information and (2) include both this notice and any copyright notices originally included with such information." http://www.gsu.edu/legal-statement/ . 
Libby could download a copy of the video onto her own pc for personal use, but uploading it to the Moodle site would constitute uploading and distributing it, which is not allowed.
b) No [Correct] If Libby wants to upload a copy of the video she must first ask permission from Georgia State University.

Resource 2. A handout Libby has created based on a set of criteria for identifying scholarly articles developed by the University of Sydney Library's iResearch information skills for life. The criteria are presented in a unique formula which forms the acronym REVIEW that is easy to recall. Libby wants to use these criteria in her handout but to use other publications that she has found as the examples.

Question 3.
Are the REVIEW criteria themselves covered by copyright?

a) Yes [Correct] The originality and unique expression of these ideas qualifies them to be covered by copyright. The specific criteria used in REVIEW have also been recorded (typed out/saved) which satisfies the requirement under common law countries (which Australia and New Zealand are) for the format to be fixed in order to by covered by copyright.
b) No [Incorrect / Distractor] Although the various criteria for identifying scholarly articles are well known and well discussed (particularly amongst librarians) the creators of REVIEW have come up with an original formula for expressing these ideas. REVIEW is therefore protected under copyright both in terms of originality and in the unique expression of the idea.

Question 4. 
Can Libby use the REVIEW criteria in her handout without asking permission?
a)Yes [Incorrect/Distractor] Because they are the unique expression of an idea the REVIEW criteria are covered by copyright.  All of the University of Sydney's iResearch information skills for life resources have a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Australia Licence, which states that anyone who wants to use the resources must obtain a license and acknowledge the copyright owners. The rules are clearly set out on their website. 
b) No [Correct] In this case, all of the University of Sydney's iResearch information skills for life resources have a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Australia Licence, which states that anyone who wants to use the resources must obtain a license and acknowledge the copyright owners. The rules are clearly set out on their website. 

Update 20/09/2013

Resource 1. The video is also posted on the Georgia State University Library's website. I should have mentioned that here, because as Wayne MacIntosh has mentioned, this might make a difference to allowable usage compared to taking the video directly from YouTube. 

I have also now registered this post with a CC-BY license.

Update 8/10/13

Question 4. I've gone back over this question several times now, wondering whether the answers should reversed. However, I'll stick with my original answer that "No, can't use this without permission". Why? Because of the wording on U Sydney's website. Although they have given the work a CC BY-NC-SA license (in theory meaning: you can use this without permission so long as you assign it the same license and don't make commercial use of it), the wording on their copyright page specifically says that you have to send them a request if you want to obtain a license. The instruction contradicts the license. So, on balance, I would say it was safest to ask their permission before using the work. If using this for a real exercise I suggest changing the wording of my original b) No [Correct] answer to reflect this.



This blog post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Misled on copyright

I have believed it was the right of authors to own their creative works, but now begin to wonder if my beliefs have been moulded by current copyright law.

Take this quote, used in the History of Copyright section of the #OCL4Ed course:

Forté explains: “Copyright isn't on a par with the right to life, liberty, fraternity and equality before the law. It's a privilege extended to us by our fellow citizens because they recognise the value they get out of our efforts.”

Forté, B. (2000, June 15). The Statute of Queen Anne. Retrieved 1 September 2004.

I realise as I go through this section of the course that I've held a lot of misconceptions about copyright.

OCL4Ed - 2nd reflection

In this second part of the course we got into some of the specifics of what OER is (or are).

To summarise David Wiley, open is 2 things:

1. Completely free to access
2. "Unusually liberal copyright permissions"

(I like his turn of phrase. These permission really are unusually liberal at this point in time).

These are permissions to:

• Reuse
• Revise
• Remix 
• Redistribute

and there are just 2 ways to get these permissions

1. Material is old enough for copyright to have expired - in the public domain
2. Copyright owner applies an open license

This may seem overly simplified, but believe that often at their most basic level things are very simple.

Eben Moglen and Lawrence Lessig discussed some of the complications.  Eben Moglen explained how  sharing for educational purposes has become "theft". He also talked about copyright law and the rights of producers versus distributors, the thought of which always makes me a bit hot under the collar (but I've already blogged on that. I don't think we need to go into it again).

I was interested to hear Lawrence Lessig talk about the 2 contrasting eras of Disney: the creative, remixing era of building on the past and the work of others; and the locking in, locking down, preventing anyone else doing to them what they had done to others. I was shocked to hear about the tactics of Lucas to build on his empire with the compliant (and naive?) creative input of the fan-base.

Lessig summarised "openness" by saying that our lives are sharing activities, and within these:

• we need well protected spaces of fair use
• the ecology of sharing needs freedom to create
• we must respect the creator - through rights directly tied to them.

Enter Creative Commons.

Lessig describes this as a balance of creativity, where we are no longer strung up between "All Rights Reserved" and complete public domain openness. There is now the possibility of "Some Rights Reserved". Most importantly, it is the creators who are able to assign what rights have been reserved and what freedoms attached.

When we came to the point of considering Barriers and Opportunities to OER at our own institutions I was a bit stuck at first. But reading a few posts by the other participants and thinking about what is similar or different at my own institution made me realise that at my institution there are some very real opportunities to improve the students' learning experiences and to find some creative solutions to limitations imposed by intellectual property licensing, particularly for courses offered by distance and where textbooks are expensive.

I'm not sure what barriers there might be, because I don't know what contracts we might be locked into regarding purchase of textbooks from particular vendors, or of encouraging people to join in and actually start sharing. I need to find out more about that.

The #OpenTextbook Tweet was fun as well as informative and I can't wait to have a look for some examples myself.

Who owns ideas? Eben Moglen, Lawrence Lessig and the Sonny Bono Act

For OCL4Ed  - Why open matters - part 2, I've been reading the "Preknowledge" sections on The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998 and watching the video of Eben Moglen and Lawrence Lessig's talks on the ownership of ideas.

I never have been able to understand the argument for extending copyright to 70 years after the producer's death. How is this continuing to protect the rights of the producer when they have already passed away? What right have distributors (estates or publishers) to keep making money off something that someone else created for such a long time? Okay, it's reasonable to assume the producer would have wanted to look after their dependants after they've passed away... Okay, it may be reasonable for them them to have rights to distribution for a while - a  few years, but 70?  That's a whole extra lifetime. Can't they find something else to make money from in that amount of time?  What other type of estate guarantees that?

Yes, distribution can cost money, which it can take time to make back, but 70 years?!

Now I get it. The distributors are propping up our economies. Of course they do, they make so much money. And because they do the important job of propping up our economies it is right and proper that they continue to make lots of money. In fact, they should be making more of it.[note: if I knew the emoticon for sarcasm I'd insert it here]

Eben Moglen made a point that I feel too. Whilst the law of copyright is said to be about the rights of producers, it's not. It's about the rights of the distributors, or at least it has benefitted the distributors more.

Now, with distribution becoming "child's play" as Moglen says, we should be reaching a golden age of copyright. Surely, if copyright is about producers/creators.

So it's understandable that distributors are getting upset and worried, lobbying for a tightening of control. Big publishers, music and film distributors have had it their way for such a long time and made so much money. They must feel very frightened and vulnerable.

So they began to refer to sharing as theft, stealing. 

It reminds me of the character Vizzini, in The Princess Bride, complaining "You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen." (The Princess Bride, 1987 [Motion picture]. Quote retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003791/quotes ).

Lawrence Lessig's talk offers some hope, in the shape of Creative Commons licensing. Finally, here is copyright licensing for, and under the control of the creator. He explains it as a move from "All Rights Reserved" to "Some Rights Reserved". It enables sharing whilst respecting the creator. Permission is given without you having to ask for permission. Balance is restored. Ahh. It does all sound a bit idealistic. He acknowledges that we are not all taking part in this "openness", but asks us to make a commitment to it.