CCCOER: Copyright & Open Licensing Panel

0
9


– [Matthew] Sounds good. All right well, welcome everyone to the Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources Fall 2019 Webinar on Copyright
and Licensing with OER. I’m Matthew Bloom. I am the OER coordinator at the Maricopa County
Community College District in the Phoenix, Arizona area, and I’m also one of the vice presidents for professional development with CCCOER. And I’ll be moderating a
panel discussion today. So, I will introduce our panelists, and then we will talk a little bit very briefly about who we are at the Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources. And then Jennryn Wetzler
from Creative Commons will provide a flash review of the different Creative
Commons licenses. And then we’ll have a panel discussion, which we hope to be somewhat interesting, and avoiding some of the too complicated discussions,
but actually at the same time, engaging in some of the nuances of the Creative Commons
licenses and how they work with all the work that we’re doing for open education at
our given institutions. Just as a reminder, you will have the opportunity
to ask some questions. Hopefully we’ll have some time at the end. If you do have some questions, feel free to enter them
into the chat window. I cannot guarantee that
we’ll get to them all, but hopefully we’ll have some
time at the end for that. And past that, we’ll talk about a few resources that you have and ways that you can
stay in contact with us. So without further ado, I would like to turn it over
to our speakers for today to introduce themselves. Anali, would you like to start? – [Anali] Sure. Hi everyone, I’m Anali Maughan Perry. I’m a scholarly communication librarian at Arizona State University, which means that I specialize in scholarly publishing, copyright, fair use, and all things open. – [Matthew] Thank you. And Kelsey? – [Kelsey] Hi, I’m Kelsey Smith. I am the open educational
resource librarian at West Hills College in Lemoore. And since most people don’t know where Lemoore is, it’s sort
of in the middle of nowhere, California, about 30
miles south of Brisbane. So, Central Valley. My job, sort of my daily duties are working visually with
faculty and in groups. I work exclusively with OER and I don’t really do a lot of that normal librarian type stuff. And most of my job
involves searching for OER. – [Matthew] Great, thank you. And Jennryn? – [Jennryn] Hi, thanks for having me. I am the assistant
director of open education at Creative Commons, and love connecting with folks who have run through the
CC Certificate course. I know some of you are here. And also working with a lot of you who are in the audience. So, it’s just, it’s an honor to be here. – [Matthew] Well, thank you very much. I think that we have a lot of
interest in this webinar today because hearing from a few experts about kind of the nuances, the intricacies of
Creative Commons licensing is a very popular topic. We found a lot of interest in it. So, it seems like it’s
going to be pretty engaging. So first of all, like I said, feel free to introduce
yourselves in the chat window. A lot of you have already done that. We have, last time I looked, we had almost 90 people logged
in right now to the webinar. But feel free to introduce yourself, and like I said, if
you have any questions, go ahead and put them
into the chat window, and we’ll try to either incorporate that into the discussion as we go, or have a little bit of time at the end if we have that opportunity. And just as a reminder, if some of you are perhaps new to the CCOER webinars, the Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources is a subgroup of the Global
Open Education Consortium. And our goals are to expand awareness and access to high quality OER, support faculty choice
and faculty development, and also provide some regional leadership for open education. All, of course, with the goal
of improving student success. And we have been doing
webinars for several years now. They are archived on our website. You can go check out webinars going all the way back to, if
I remember correctly, 2012. So, there’s quite a bit of interesting discussions and great resources that you can find on the website there. And we also have memberships from all across the United States. We have several new members here and maybe some representatives
from those institutions might be on the webinar today. So, congratulations to the new members and thank you for joining with us. And if you are interested
in more details about CCCOER or about how to become a member, you can always check out our website to find out that information. So without further ado, I will go ahead and turn this over to Jennryn Wetzler, who will provide us with a little bit of an overview on the
basics of Creative Commons, the difference between all rights reserved and some rights reserved, for those of us in the audience who may need a refresher on those basics, or may be very new to
Creative Commons license. So Jennryn, take it away. – [Jennryn] Thanks so much. Well, first I want to recognize that there are plenty of
people in the audience who also have far more
expertise than I do. So, if anybody has questions
about what I’m saying or any revisions to what I’m saying, please feel free to type
that in the chat space. So, simply put, we’re in an information abundant era, as Cable Green, also in
the audience, likes to say. What that means is we, we have this really incredible
moment in time where we, our landscape for information sharing has changed with Internet. And what that means is online connectivity has broken down the traditional barriers of geography, of our time and access that’s traditionally kind of stunted our communication flows. But copyright or laws that
grant exclusive rights to creators over their creations was built for the printing press and the information system that existed in that era of the printing press. So, copyright was a way
to incentivize creators, despite the intensive labor, the expensive and limited print copies that were available in that era. And I’m actually, I’m going to pause right there and copy and paste a pretty
good definition of copyright with a caveat in the chat space, in case anybody wants a
little bit more information. All right. Not sure if that pasted, okay. So, we now have this opportunity to share works far more easily and at near zero cost online, and scale the number of people reached with these works far more easily. But our current copyright
system has not adapted. Beyond that kind of lack of adaptation, we’re seeing other restrictions to this copyright system. So we see increased prices
for published textbooks, the rise of subscription
prices for publications. And not only are there increased costs, but there’s also an
increased amount of time that works remain under copyright. So in the 1990s, the US, for example, extended
the copyright protections over works from life of
the author plus 50 years to life of the author plus 70 years. Which means it’s almost, at times, it takes almost two lifetimes to access the really wonderful resources that could be at our fingertips for reuse, for innovation,
and for learning. So, I think, this presents us with a
pretty significant challenge. And many, many people recognize that there is, that these restrictions, despite the ease of information sharing in this current era, is untenable. So there are a number of different ways to address this challenge, and I would argue that some ways are a little bit more
effective than others. And I want to pause
there and just recognize the difference between one set of ways versus another that might seem more
similar on the surface. A lot of times, people will
hear about free resources, and they’ll also hear
about open resources. Open educational resources,
open access to information, and so on. But these are actually
two very different terms that have very different connotations. So free, for example,
might sound really good, but oftentimes in this kind of ecosystem, it masks the transfer of costs from encouraged within this kind of traditional copyright system incurred by one party that are kind of transferred to another party. So, an example of that would be when students get access to free textbooks or academic journals. This is not actually free because universities actually pay for subscription bundles
to these academic journals, and they ultimately get their funds for this from tuition, from students. So this is an example of
how free is not exactly what we’re looking for when we’re looking at open. Open, on the other hand, refers to unfettered access or access to resources and formats that allow for free download, adaptation and improvements. It also refers to no time restrictions in accessing those resources either. So, open is completely
different from free, but it’s often mistaken for free at times. Or free’s mistaken for open. So, how do we actually
open access to resources? This is where the CC
licenses come into play, and I will recognize that
there are other licenses that are open licenses, but Creative Commons
has the global standard for these open licenses
that are also interoperable. So with open licenses, right off the bat, creators can execute their own rights and grant permissions to others that want to access their works. They can provide unfettered access or retain certain rights as needed. So, CC licenses are kind of considered some rights reserved as opposed to the all rights reserved
of copyright licenses. So I think, on my screen, I’m seeing Matt Bloom’s
contact information, but I expect everyone else is able to see the CC licenses here. I’ll just spend a moment
to give a quick overview about the CC licenses, and if anybody is curious
about learning more, I’m happy to follow up
after this discussion. Okay, so there are six different licenses that Creative Commons affords. These are all contingent on
four basic license elements. And so, you can see that there are kind of four icons here
that are mixed together. So, our first element
is the CC BY element, or attribution element, that is common on all of the licenses. It basically means that you can use an open license work as long as you give
attribution to the licenser. Generally the creator, but
sometimes it’s different. So that attribution element is kind of at the core of all of these licenses. You also have a ShareAlike or SA icon, and it’s the little arrow circle. This references our ability to work with open license
works and use them, but the requirement to share works with the same or comparable license. So you cannot, for example, add on additional restrictions to a work with a ShareAlike license as you remix it. We also have our non-commercial element, which means you cannot
use an open license work with this non-commercial icon for commercial purposes. And I think we’ll probably get into that a little bit more in
the discussion later on. And then finally we have
the no derivatives element. And this means that you are entitled to use the work that is openly licensed with
a no derivatives clause, but you cannot share any
adaptations of that publicly. So while you may be able
to make an adaptation of say a play or an image for your own personal use, you cannot share that personal use because it changes the license. So these are the four elements that undergird the six
different license options, or the six ways to provide permissions for downstream users
of open licensed works. So when creators want to determine what they want their works to, how they want their works to be used, they can select one of these six licenses. And you can actually learn more about which license may be most suitable for you with our CC license chooser, and I’ll get a link for that and post it in the chat space. Here it is. Okay. So if we can go to the next slide, here you’ll see the, the kind of sliding scale of open. So this is a demonstration of how our licenses can roam from very open unfettered access to much more limited access, until eventually, you get to
all rights reserved access or all rights reserved
copyright at the bottom. I will make a note that at the top you see our public domain tools or our icons for public
domain dedications. These are technically not licenses because the public domain is kind of the vast
pool of human knowledge that exists outside of the
restrictions of copyright. So these are considered tools. The rest of the six
licenses that you see are, they work in copyright. So they work with those restrictions. So here you see those licenses going from CC BY to the very most restrictive license at the bottom to copyright. I’m realizing, in terms of timing, I’ll stop there, but happy
to answer any questions about the licenses and how to use them during the discussion and
following the discussion. That’s enough.
– Well that’s great. Thank you, yeah, thank
you very much, Jennryn. I think that that is extremely helpful, because like I said, we have maybe some people on the call who are experts at
Creative Commons licensing, far surpassing whatever small amount of expertise I might have. And then there are also maybe some folks who really need the kind of reminder about some of the basics. And that actually brings me
to one of my first questions, which I’ll get to in a moment. I just want to say that one of the kind of basic requirements of all of the six
Creative Commons licenses, or actually the basic requirement, is the need for attribution. And I’m sure that a lot of us over the course of the next
45 minutes or 40 minutes will probably have questions about how to attribute and what are
the best practices for that. And we decided to actually just provide you with a set of resources for best practices for attribution, how to build an attribution itself, some tools for that. And so, there’s a slide later on that is dedicated to some of these resources for attribution. Although feel free to
share specific questions in the chat window. I did want to start the panel discussion, after kinda having this primer focused on the basics of copyright and the need for open licensing and how the open licenses work along with existing copyright law. I felt like it would be a good idea to start with a very basic question, or I guess, suite of questions, focused on this really, I think, interesting word, work. So, again, I almost, I just want to say, I almost put a slide in this presentation with a picture of a bunch
of lawyers in a room to say, just to kinda preface the whole thing and saying, “We are not lawyers”. Nobody on this, at least to my knowledge, nobody participating in
this webinar is a lawyer. So, it’s all prefaced
with that kind of caveat that these are just kind of opinions about how the licenses work. But it would nonetheless, I think, be very valuable for us to
draw from our experiences and for you specifically on the panel to draw from your
experiences working with OER, working with faculty at your institutions or with other organizations, working with people who are, or thinking about the experiences that you’ve had with the open licensing. And just give us a general sense. And I’ll just leave this open to whoever kinda wants to jump in and respond. But what do we mean
when we talk about work? What is a work? And then I’ve also heard other terms. Collective work, I’ve heard, obviously, derivative work is something we’ll be talking about. So, wondering if someone on the panel would be interested in kind of providing an answer or a set of answers
to these questions here. – [Anali] Sure, I’ll go ahead and jump in. Since copyright’s one of
my hobbies, I suppose. You’re absolutely right, I’m not a lawyer. So when we look at works for copyright, we look at things that can
be protected by copyright. And these are often things that are original works of authorship that can be fixed in a
tangible medium of expression. And this can cover a lot of
different types of things. A lot of the things that we normally think about in education, such as textbooks,
learning objects, videos, slide decks, and other sorts of things. But there are some things that under, that might not be protected by copyright that we might still consider a work. So, certain types of facts and data may not be protected by copyright or procedures or processes. Now they might be protected by a different type of intellectual property, but they’re not protected by copyright. So, works can be a whole bunch of different types of things. And some can be larger works, some can be smaller works. Sometimes it could just be a brief essay. Sometimes it can be an entire documentary. So there’s lots of different sizes here. When we look at a collective work, that is often a group of
different types of works that have been pulled together. And they may be offered by
a bunch of different people, or they may be group offered, where there’s a bunch of
people working together to make kind of a unified whole, as opposed to pulling together a bunch of different kinds of works that are authored by different people, not necessarily intending
for it to be put together and mixed up into one cohesive bit. A derivative work is something specifically mentioned in
copyright law as something, as one of the exclusive
rights of a copyright holder, and that is building from one, starting with one type of work and building to another type. So, a really good example would be, I have a work that I created and I want to translate
it to another language. So that would be, that would be a derivative work. Or perhaps I am starting with a lecture that I’ve presented, and I have a bunch of, maybe a slide deck, but now I want to take that slide deck and make it into an interactive tutorial. That would be a derivative work as well. So I’ll start there and see if any of the other panelists want to jump in. – [Kelsey] I don’t think I could’ve said it any better than that. I just wanted to add on another example of what a collective work is and one that I see very often at the
community college level. Our faculty often compile a lot of OER on our LMS, which is Canvas. And so, that would be
considered a collective work. So, they may apply a CC
license to their whole course. But there are so many different OER compiled into that. So they may have videos, images, texts, all of that organized
into an online course. So that would be an example
of a collective work. – [Jennryn] And I don’t have
anything else to add to that. I think the one kind of side note, in terms of derivatives, we also sometimes refer to
them as remixes or adaptations. So if you hear people talking about derivatives or remixes or adaptations, at least in my context, we use them interchangeably. – [Matthew] That’s
great, thank you so much. Now there are a couple questions, a thread of kinda questions going on in the chat window right now that I think would be
definitely appropriate to expand on this a little bit. It was brought up, the point I think, it was Buddy Muse said, “To be copyrighted, the work must “be in tangible form as well”. And then the response
from Andrea Truncoso was, “What counts as tangible? “Obviously can’t simply mean physical, “otherwise, everything
digital would be open.” So, would someone on the panel like to maybe address this question? What do we mean when we talk about a work being in a fixed
form or in a tangible form? Can we just kinda flesh
out that definition just a little bit? – [Anali] Sure. So we usually mean, when we say fixed an intangible form of expression, it means that it has to be saved and in a format that can
then be accessed later. So, if I take a picture with my phone and it’s on my phone, that counts as a tangible
form of expression. If I save the document on my computer or in the cloud somewhere,
that also counts. So it’s really that it has to be able to be preserved in some way that when you can come back
to it at a later date, you can share it with other people, and it will still exist
in that kind of state that it was in when you saved it. – [Matthew] Excellent, I
think that’s very helpful. It also occurs to me that we may end up addressing at
some point in this discussion a definition of what
does it mean to publish or share something too. Because it could just
very well be that you, so, and maybe I’ll just ask
the panel this right now. If I were to create a
document on my computer without the intention of ever sharing it, I would still own the
copyright automatically for that work, correct? – Yes.
– In the US, yep. – [Matthew] Yeah. So, one of the questions that
we had following up to this, when we talk about a collective work or a derivative work, I want to thank Nate
Angell actually for his, some of us on participating
here in this webinar may be familiar with this analogy that he shared about remixing, comparing the different ways that you can either curate Creative Commons license
works in a way like this. This would be like, the tray would be kind
of the collective work. And then the individual
compartments on the tray are the various, I guess, ingredients in the meal. But they have their different licenses and you can clearly
distinguish one from the other because you’ve got very
solid boundaries there. The comparison between
this kind of curation of openly licensed materials with what he calls the CC smoothie, wherein it’s the remix process. Putting it in the blender basically. You’re creating this lumpy paste and it’s virtually
impossible at that point to tell where the strawberry ends and the banana begins. And so, thus in this smoothie, the ingredient with the
most restrictive license tends to overpower the beverage. I think my question here, ’cause I’ve found this to
be a very helpful analogy, but my question is, is the
distinction always that clear? Are there situations where the blender maybe has only been pulsed once or twice and there’s big chunks of
apple or something in there? Or is any blending at all gonna require the application of the more restrictive license? And another way to ask
that question would be, just in general, where do we draw the line between curation of works and the creation of a
remix or derivative work? – [Jennryn] I’m happy to
jump in with the first stab. So this is actually a
really challenging question that comes up a lot in
our certificate course on open licensing at Creative Commons and it’s not always clear. I think there are a lot of cases where it’s hard to determine originality. And a lot of times, what constitutes originality
actually depends on a country’s applicable law. So, I’m gonna post a link to a little bit more information on that if you’re curious. I would say, because the lines can be blurry, in our course, we end up emphasizing attribution first and foremost. So if you do a good job
attributing the content, then it’s almost secondary whether the content is collection content or remix content. Not saying it’s not important, I’m just saying it can be
very difficult to determine. – I think–
– I was just gonna, oh, go ahead. – You go.
– Okay. I was just gonna say that there is no clear line, and nobody really likes a chunky smoothie. We want it to be either a
smoothie or a TV dinner. And like you said, no matter what, you will have to attribute every one of those ingredients
that you are using. So, it’s really, it’s
so situation dependent. It’s pretty difficult to answer. So, go ahead, Anali. – [Anali] I was just going to say that a lot of these questions are a copyright, everybody loves copyright. We always have the same
answer to most questions is it depends. So it’s so hard to
determine how far is it. If I take a work that is perhaps a meme. I have a picture and I
have some images on it. And maybe I want to use, or some words on it, and I want to use it in a different presentation. And maybe I want to change the words. How much of a change is that? How key are the words to that image? And that’s a hard thing to determine. I might argue, well, it’s
not that big of a change. Maybe I’m changing one word. Maybe it doesn’t really count as a sole derivative or adaptation. It’s just a really minor change. But I think that Jennryn’s point to being really clear in your attribution and articulating what you did change. ‘Cause that’s kind of the key piece. Yes, I used this. Here’s where it came from. Only my version had a different word here. So that nobody kind of mixes up what I’m doing versus what I took it from. – [Matthew] Okay, well
thank you very much, I mean, and so again, it’s maybe not always the most satisfying thing to hear that the answer is it
depends, but it’s just true. And I appreciate that very much. I would like to shift a little bit to a question about fair use and how fair use, this
concept of defending your, I guess, violation of somebody else’s intellectual property rights
as fair use or fair game. How does that work with
Creative Commons licensing? So for example, if I were to, let me just ask this. Is it possible to apply a
Creative Commons license to a work in which you are fairly using all rights reserved content? Because I, for one, I know
some other people as well, but I know that I found
myself at one point under the impression that
Creative Commons licenses and fair use defenses
didn’t really work together. If you were gonna put a
Creative Commons license on something then you shouldn’t be fairly using that work. Although I have been corrected in that misinterpretation of it. So I’m just wondering. Is it possible to apply that kind of a Creative Commons license to a work where you’re fairly using something? And if so, what
considerations are necessary? – [Kelsey] I think the answer to this would be a yes but. So if you are using, depending on fair use for a few things within a work, maybe a collection, you can apply a Creative
Commons license to that, but you need to be very clear in what is being used fairly. So, you need to be clear
on if you are using something that’s protected under all rights reserved copyright, that you make that distinction. That your Creative Commons license does not apply to that section. I never encourage this among
faculty that I work with. If they are using diagrams or videos in their course that they
want to share out openly, that they then replace
those with hyperlinks before sharing out. There’s also a no to this question. If you are using a whole
PDF column in your course that is all rights reserved copyright and you’re relying on fair use, you cannot apply a Creative Commons to something that you
don’t own the copyright to. So, a no and a yes but. – [Anali] Yeah, I would agree with that, and I really love to highlight, so one thing to really consider is that traditional publishers rely
on fair use all the time for commercial uses. And we have big studios,
we have textbooks. They use rely on fair use. And so, there’s really
nothing that prevents us from doing so with Creative Commons and open education content. I really appreciated Kelsey’s comment about making sure that you make it clear that this content, this copyrighted content, is excluded from our open license. And then there’s a really
great code of best practice in fair use for open courseware that came out in 2009. I’m gonna post the link
to that here in the chat. And this specifically addresses these codes of fair use can really provide great guidance for common
situations in open situations. Or it provides good guidance for these different best
practices and situations. So you’ll see that this
is a common situation. It happens in this environment, and here’s how fair use can apply if your situation is very similar to this. This fair use argument
may work as well for you. So even though you always
have to do your own fair use justification for your use, yes, things can be different. There’s always little individual changes. But these codes of best practice can provide a lot of guidance. – [Jennryn] Thanks, I’m looking forward to seeing that resource myself. Yeah, I think the one thing
that I wanted to reiterate is that Creative Commons licenses do not replace other copyright licenses. And fair use is a limitation to copyright, so I don’t see fair use as a good bedfellow or a bad bedfellow. (laughs) I think they’re two separate things. Creative Commons licenses and copyright can be restricted or can have
the limitation of fair use. – [Matthew] Excellent, I think that those are great responses. And again, highlighting
some of the complexity here, but also, I think helping to clarify maybe some misperceptions
that might be out there. I do have a question about other kinds of open content licenses. I guess just, just to ask the question directly, should we be remixing Creative
Commons licensed content with work made available
under other open licenses? Or even work that has been published with a nonstandard permission statement. As we probably have all
seen at one time or another, for example, an educator maybe before Creative Commons existed, somebody might have created a website, a teaching blog or something, and put content on that, and then down at the bottom, just written in very
much non-lawyer language, something along the lines of, “Well, feel free to use this as long “as you’re doing it for X and
Y and not blah blah blah”. So I’m just wondering what, should we be remixing content like that? And if so, what should we consider? – [Jennryn] I’m happy to jump in with a quick thought on this. So I think when you’re trying to look at the interoperability
of copyright permissions, you need a copyright lawyer. So if you are going to try to remix or if you’re trying to kind
of merge these permissions, it’s gonna get very messy, especially for laypeople, like us. So, I would argue that
it’s not a good idea. I think a really good thing about the Creative Commons licenses is they are interoperable. You don’t have to initiate
a legal conversation with a lawyer every time you need to use or remix them. – [Anali] I can definitely
see some hesitation and I think that that’s absolutely right. But I guess I would also
argue two quick things. It’s that for one thing, if somebody’s kind of giving
some permission in advance, even if it’s not a standard license, but if they say pretty
clearly on their blog or something like that saying, “You’re free to use this
for this type of purpose”, I think that it would be okay if you’re using it for
that kind of purpose. But again, you would want to make sure that you’re clear in your attribution and your documentation that I’m using this by permission
seen on this page. And I would also say something like, and I guess the other thing is if you felt uncomfortable doing that, here’s where it’s fine
to ask for permission. We can always do that. And if you’re looking at somebody’s blog where they’re giving that permission, then you’re in an enviable place where you think that you know who the copyright owner is at that point. And so, you can always contact them and ask them for permission. – [Kelsey] Yeah, I was
also going to mention that. And I’ve done that before, where I wasn’t completely clear on what the person was
allowing and not allowing. And I know that’s not always possible. Maybe the person doesn’t work for wherever or maybe passed away. But it doesn’t hurt to reach out, and especially if you plan on mixing it with a lot of other
Creative Common license things, you can tell them what your intent is and if it matches with what they planned for their work. And yeah, so it doesn’t hurt to reach out. – [Matthew] Well, all right. So I think that that’s great because at first, it
sounded like we shouldn’t do it but then at the same time, it really is a matter of the ability to contact the original author is a great potential recourse. And I guess as a followup question, if an author has, and again, I don’t know if there’s
even really a solid answer to this possible but, and
I know you’re not lawyers, but if someone had published something in that way with a
nonstandard just expression of permission to use under
certain circumstances, and then you reached out to them, is it appropriate and/or possible to ask that person to release that content under an open license? And if so, is it not, is it possible that
the license that they applied could conflict with what they had written the nonstandard description before? Does that make sense? – [Jennryn] That makes sense to me. I think it would, like
any other communication that you might have with a creator, getting a sense of what the intent is is definitely possible, and if they’re willing to
apply a CC license, great. I think if it, likely as conversation unfolds, that it could open up some
conflicting permissions. But again, that’s probably more an indication that just
additional communication’s needed, rather than an indication of less communication needed, I guess. Or shying away from it. – [Matthew] Well, great. So, one of the questions that, whenever I do any kind of workshop about open educational resources or, and a lot of discussions
that I have with faculty just as in the kinda support
that I give in my job, one of the questions has to do with interpreting the noncommercial licenses. So the question that I have here, I think there might be some
confusion sometimes about when a use is considered commercial. And I’m sure there are a lot of resources out there to kinda help us look at case studies and things like that. But I’m wondering, how do we draw the line between commercial and noncommercial use when working with bookstores or print on demand services? And I guess, and I know
that this is kind of a nebula of questions here, but what about some of
these other case examples? What about the use of
noncommercial content at for profit institutions
or charter schools or when soliciting donations? I was wondering if anyone
could respond to these or maybe even provide a specific example where you have dealt with kind of working out one of, an issue related to the
noncommercial clause. – [Kelsey] I wanted to mention that the noncommercial license was actually purposely written sort of vague because it’s so situation dependent, and that line, there’s no real solid line. It’s pretty blurry. And so, from my understanding, there’s been some court
cases and things about this. As far as bookstores go, let’s do print shops first. So a print shop, you are allowed to use a
print on demand service. Part of the Creative Commons license is giving you the ability to share and reproduce a work. And you sometimes cannot do
that without a print shop. So, print shops are okay to use. That’s not considered commercial. What you cannot do is then, say your bookstore wants to print out an OER book that’s noncommercial. They can’t mark that up highly. They can mark up the price enough to do some cost recovery, but nothing more than that. And that’s kind of been my understanding on the noncommercial in colleges. And then I will let someone else take away the second
part of that question. – [Jennryn] I’m happy to jump in. So, I think that, I think the helpful
distinction is also noting that you’re looking at use,
not the actual user. So if the intended use of the noncommercial licensed work ends up being commercial, then you’re violating the license. If the intended purpose or use is a commercial venture
for, say, a nonprofit, then you’re violating the license. If the intended purpose is noncommercial but it’s being used at IBM or another commercial venture, then you are not violating the license. So it’s really not about the user, it’s about the intended
use of the license. I’m not sure if that made any sense, but I think you can
have for profit entities using noncommercial licensed works without infringing on the rights. – [Matthew] Well, thank
you very much, everyone, for going into some of these
philosophical discussions, or I guess, in some of the nuances, as I keep saying, about them. This first set of questions that I had, the questions we have addressed so far, from what is a work to the questions about remixing and fair use and everything, these were kind of all focused on drawing lines between definitions and kinda looking at
some of those details. But I was also, there’s a couple of, one question in particular that has emerged in discussions
that I’ve had with folks, whether at the open education conference or various times when I’ve met with people who are trying to make these open education initiatives
happen in higher education. And a question that comes up has to do with intellectual
property policies. I mean, different
institutions will inevitably have different policies regarding the intellectual property rights of content developed by
their faculty and staff. And so, to your knowledge, how have some colleges dealt with issues or conflicts related to
intellectual property policies? And I think that’s part
one of the question. Part two of the question
is even more direct, and it’s, should faculty and staff be releasing their work under
Creative Commons licenses when no explicit OER policy language exists at their institution? – [Anali] I think this
is a great question. I know that I’ve been working with our office of general counsel to try to clarify our
intellectual property policies with respect to being able to apply Creative Commons licenses to our work. So, I think a key thing to consider is you should know what your intellectual property policy is. And I think everybody who wants to create their own work and apply a Creative Commons license to it needs to understand
what types of their works, where they own the copyright, and which ones are
considered a work for hire, where their employer owns the copyright. And that’s typically spelled out in either your employment contract or your institution’s
intellectual property policy. And often it’s kind of,
there’s some gray lines where they may say something like, “Well, your syllabus and lecture “and course content and learning objects “that you submit to your students, “those are the work you do “in the course and scope
of your employment. “And that’s your work for hire. “We own the copyright to that.” But if you do textbooks or you’re doing scholarly publishing in your field, we like to encourage you to do that. And so, you own the
copyright to those works. So and sometimes, that’s a great line. How do you draw a line between I’m making a textbook, but I’m building it out
of a bunch of modules that I created for my course. So, I think that first, you need to consider what it is. And then secondly, if you
want to release a creative, your work under Creative Commons license, often there is procedures where you could work with
your department head, your dean, your office of general counsel, and say, “Look, I know that
what you really care about “is that you don’t want me to take “my stuff with me when I go. “So, I’m not gonna do that. “I just want to apply a
Creative Commons license to it. “Is there a process by
which I can do that? “Because I have to have the copyright “in order to apply that license.” And so, you have to clarify that process. But I wouldn’t just slap it on there without having that conversation. – [Kelsey] And just from a perspective of a very small rural community college, I know there’s others out there where the intellectual property policies aren’t really written. And if OER is new on your campus, there’s probably no mention
of open licensing in there. So, at West Hills, we do have
an administrative procedure that sort of mentions it. But nobody was really
educated on it at the time. And it is going into revision. And it did state that if you wanted to openly license something, it had to be CC BY, and then faculty didn’t
really like that, so. But one thing I wanted to mention was it’s a good idea to check if your state has some sort of policy. Our California Community
Colleges Chancellor’s Office actually requires that anything funded by grants or contracts out of the chancellor’s office must be released under a CC BY license. So, that would precede any of our language that we would have here on the college. So, if the work an instructor did was funded from the chancellor’s office, it would need to be released
under CC BY license. Kind of no matter what was
going on here at campus. So, that’s just something to be aware of. You may have a state policy, and just sort of be aware where
the funding is coming from. – [Jennryn] I have nothing to add on the second half of that question. I think you both covered it really well. On the first part of your question, Matt, you were asking a little bit more about some institutions who have dealt with conflicts related to IP or maybe some examples
that we could share. And I don’t have many examples, but I did want to share a recent case that I was aware of that was pretty interesting. So, basically there’s been a legal case against Harvard for using images of slaves
for commercial profit. And the lawsuit, and I’ll
post the article right here, the lawsuit says that the images are spoils of theft because the slaves in the images were unable to give consent. So the descendants of
the slaves in the images may have rights to the IP. So anyway, a fascinating case. I know there are a number
of different colleges that have similar challenges, but this one really came
to the top of my mind. – [Matthew] Thank you, that
does sound very interesting. I’m wondering if, so
we’re getting pretty close to the end here and I want to leave about five minutes to go over the list of resources for attribution and some just other briefing details about how you can stay connected with CCCOER. Before we do that, the last question that I shared with everyone on the panel, or the last thing I was
asking people to bring was maybe think about some kind of an experience
that you’ve had, a specific challenging
or interesting experience that you’ve had working
with open licenses. So, this is just very much open, no pun intended, in terms of your response. But I’m wondering if anyone on the panel has any experience that sticks out to you from your time dealing with
the nuances of open licensing that you think you’d like to share. – [Jennryn] Happy to jump in. So, I think one of the
challenging elements that I’ve seen in my previous job was not particularly around
the actions required for an open licensing requirement
within federal grants. I was, at the time, at the
stage department, working on federal grant requirements
for open licenses. So it wasn’t the actual
implementation or actions needed, but actually, the behavior change. So I think likely with
any behavior change, the biggest hurtle is
often that kind of initial, that initial mindset, and addressing the underlying
assumptions and mindset before change can happen. So, we found a lot of different stakeholders that felt threatened by change and by what loss it represented to them. So, I think one of the
quotes I really like is that change represents loss to someone. So, I think what we found was after months and months of work, actually with Cable and other folks in the open community at the time, we were getting nowhere with kind of the resistance against our work and kind of this larger work that we were a part of, creating a federal open
licensing playbook. Just a playbook, a set of guidelines for other federal
stakeholders to understand how they could open license, other cases of open licensing activity within the federal government and so on. The resistance to that in particular was so strong that the real takeaway for me was that much of the focus has to be on that kind of empathy and acknowledgement of loss for stakeholders
within the system. Or at least perceived
loss that they have, so. I’m not sure if that is clear, but the challenge for me anyway was more with the behavioral change and less with the actual open license. That part was easy. – [Kelsey] I saw that a lot too. There’s a lot of resistance from people because it’s a big change. And a lot of the challenge I had was sort of educating our faculty on what these licenses really are, and they’re not a threat. And they always wanted to choose the most restrictive one. And what’s been interesting is seeing somebody who really had no interest or was openly licensing their work but very restrictively, which they are free to do. And then a few years later, seeing them dive real deep into OER, and we have people trying
to develop VR psychology openly licensed stuff now. And it’s just that whole
transition on campus. – [Anali] Yeah I guess, I think some of the biggest challenges is finding the tension between, a lot of people that want to support open education and open access and want to make their content available, and they want to make content able to reuse it and reuse
it in different ways. But there is a definite concern
by a lot of academics that, look, I want to make this out there, but I am concerned about commercial entities coming
in and taking my work and then selling it and kind of ruining all this good contribution to the Commons that I want to make. And the noncommercial use does address that to some extent, but then it can also be
limiting in the kind of work. And same with the ShareAlikes. So sometimes it’s that tension. How do you pick the license that’s going to best suit your intention for giving permission
and access to your work? – [Matthew] Well, thank you very much, all three of you on the panel, for participating in this discussion and sharing your thoughts. I think that so far, based on some of the other very interesting discussions going on in the chat, somebody just asked whether or not the full text of the chat will be shared, and I will leave it up
to Una to determine that, but I think it would probably be fine. And so, there were some other discussions going on in there and some great questions and resources shared. So, thank you everyone for participating. This has been, I think, very interesting. Very enlightening in some ways. As promised, here is a list of some OER and licensing resources. Specifically, there are a few in here, when you look at the Creative Commons best practices for attribution, you can use the Open
Washington Attribution Builder, which is a really nice tool that you can use to kinda help you build the attributions if you need it. There’s all kinds of great resources on this page here that we
encourage you to check out and try to utilize. And finally, of course, or maybe not quite finally, but remember that there’s
conferences coming up, from the Open Education Conference to the OEC Global Conference. You can go to the website
under Get Involved to see about those opportunities. And if you are not on the
CCCOER Community Email, you do not have to be a member of CCCOER to join that email. And I will tell you that while you get maybe 15 to 20 extra emails a day, they are usually some of the most interesting emails you’re likely to get. Some really interesting discussions in the open education community take place on that list search. So, I do encourage you to
join the Community Email to stay informed and to also find out about new resources that folks are sharing
on a regular basis there. And we also have our blog
posts on the website as well if you want to check out some additional information about
projects and experiences from folks in the open
education community. And last, the shameless plug for the rest of our webinars
in this fall series. We’ve already done our
two so far, the first two, but we’ve got one on October 16th about Equity, Diversity,
and Inclusion in OER. Following that in November with a webinar focused on research studies, looking at the impact that
OER has on various metrics. And then at the end of the semester, we thought because of all
the great opportunities for conferences this fall, specifically the two that I mentioned, we will be focusing that final webinar on kinda doing a recap and providing some of our members a chance to reflect on their
experiences and presentations at those conferences. So, we do encourage you to register early and join us for those. And if you have any additional questions, feel free to contact, well, according to this slide, not me, but feel free to contact me if you want. Lisa Young and Sue Tashjian are the co-presidents of CCCOER. Una Daly’s the director and Liz is our support specialist. And thank you again for attending, and have a great day.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here