Dear Scott, Andy and Phil
Thanks for your comments on the JORUM licence model.
Most of JORUM's materials, at least in the first instance, will be owned by
institutions and not individuals, because they have been grant-funded by
JISC and other funding bodies. Under the terms of these grant letters,
ownership definitely rests with the institution and not the academic.
I am posting below an explanation of the licensing model provided by JISC.
I have asked JISC to comment on the other points that you have raised, as
the points that we gave on this list as reasons for using the contract
licence at the outset of the service rather than CC licences have been given
to the JORUM project team by JISC. I understand that the solicitor advising
HEFCE and JISC is also working with the CC-UK team.
JORUM is owned by HEFCE, a neutral body acting on behalf of all the UK
FE and HE funding bodies and the community. In August 2005, JORUM will
be launched offering access to the FE and HE community to
publicly-funded project outputs and any collections of quality assured
learning materials owned by institutions or other public bodies that
have been kindly donated. These materials can be downloaded by
individual staff, once their institution has subscribed, and used in
support of learning and teaching within the institution.
They can be repurposed, modified and aggregated.
Depositing institutions will be required to sign and return a licence
that says who is authorised to deposit on their behalf. The
individual(s) depositing on behalf of the institution will be asked to
complete metadata fields asking for IP owners. Each object exported will
contain the content,
plus metadata file giving details of IP owners and permissions.
This secure licensing model is enabling 3rd party rights holders to gain
confidence in permitting repurposing of their resources for use in
learning and teaching and for sharing. As this confidence grows and
publishers and other rights holders begin to see what we are doing and
the potential for increased use of their resources, we hope that we can
progress to a more open deposit system.
Uncertainties within institutions regarding ownership of learning
materials produced by staff prevent HEFCE from allowing individual
deposit of repurposed materials in JORUM in the near future. However,
JISC is working with HEFCE and other bodies to offer guidelines to
institutions on managing IPR and ensuring that staff are aware of their
rights and responsibilities. JISC is also committed to offering a
programme of education and awareness raising to the community through
its outreach and support services, including Regional Support Centres
and JISCLegal.
Regarding Phil's comments, the institution signs one Deposit Licence
Agreement that then covers all deposits made by that institution. Each
project team/departmental team that wants to submit content to JORUM needs
to provide a Schedule of Depositors that has to be signed by someone
representing the institution (this is to ensure that the institution is
always aware of any materials going into JORUM). However, should individual
project/departmental teams wish to add names of depositors and have already
submitted a Schedule, they can do this by means of a second Schedule that
does not need to be signed by someone representing the institution.
Institutions that wish to take the JORUM service sign a Repository Licence
Agreement, which works very much like other JISC services. This must be
signed by someone on behalf of the institution.
Contributing to JORUM and using JORUM are two separate legal agreements with
HEFCE, and institutions do not have to be both contributing and using
institutions, although we hope that they will - over time - be both.
Best wishes
Moira
===============
Moira Massey
EDINA Learning and Teaching Co-ordinator
EDINA UK National Datacentre
St Helens Office
St Helens College
Room F12
Newton Campus
Crow Lane East
Newton-Le-Willows
Merseyside
WA12 9TT
Tel: 01744 623816
Fax: 01744 623816
Email: [log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Powell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: legal metadata and resource discovery
> I agree with Scott. I do not understand where the idea that CC is only
> applicable for "individual - individual" contracts comes from? Where in
> the CC licence does it says this? The licences explicitly use language
> such as
>
> "Licensor" means the individual or entity that offers the Work under
the
> terms of this License."
>
> Note the use of 'individual or entity' rather than just 'individual'.
>
> Ditto, the comment about CC being appropriate for materials in the "public
> domain". As far as I can tell, CC is explicitly *not* for materials in
> the public domain. At the point of choosing a CC licence, you explicitly
> have to choose between a CC or a public domain licence.
>
> As far as I recall, the major difference between the JORUM licence and CC
> licences is that it has to be explicitly signed (i.e. signed on paper by
> an institution) and that it restricts usage to 'educational' use (from
> memory - I might have got this wrong).
>
> The signing bit means that the JORUM licence simply will not work in the
> Web-centric way in which the CC licences work (where licences are accepted
> implicitly without an actual signature being provided) :-(
>
> Andy.
>
> On Fri, 27 May 2005, Scott Wilson wrote:
>
> > Hi Kenny,
> >
> > A few personal observations on the JORUM approach inline below:
> >
> > On 27 May 2005, at 00:25, Kenny Baird wrote:
> >
> >> Dear All.
> >>
> >> An interesting development from Yahoo!. Just to summarise JORUM's
approach
> >> to Creative Commons licences, we cannot use them for the following
reasons:
> >>
> >> * Where materials are owned by institutions - and the majority of the
> >> material in JORUM will be owned by institutions - CC is not appropriate
> >> because it is based on an individual - individual contract.
> >
> > So we are making the assumption that anything that a member of an
academic
> > institution creates is the copyright of the institution, not the
creator? Are
> > there guidelines or precedent here?
> >
> > it seems contrary to this quote (emphasis mine):
> >
> > "Creative Commons applauds efforts by universities to make scientific
and
> > scholarly research more widely available by adopting policies that
encourage
> > faculty to retain some publication rights and to exercise those rights
to
> > post their research in open digital repositories. Creative Commons
offers a
> > range of public licenses that facilitate the free exchange of
information
> > over the Internet while leaving some control in the hands of authors and
> > their publishers. Some publishers, such as the Public Library of Science
and
> > BioMedCentral, require authors to adopt a Creative Commons license so as
to
> > ensure maximum public access to cutting-edge scientific research. Other
> > Creative Commons licenses may be better suited to authors who retain
only
> > partial rights to their work. Through its Science Commons
division,Creative
> > Commons also is developing technological tools that make it easy to
deposit
> > research articles into digital repositories." -
> > http://science.creativecommons.org/literature/ccoastatement
> >
> >> * There is no provision in CC for database rights which need to be
clearly
> >> stated for JORUM as a collection of community-owned resources.
> >
> > That seems dubious. Flickr manages it. Besides, I thought the submitter
still
> > held copyright on the resource, not JORUM. "Database rights" sounds to
me
> > like access policy, not usage rights, and should be part of the access
> > control system, not the license. CC doesn't do the job of XACML, and
your
> > license shouldn't either.
> >
> >> * CC has been created for materials held in the public domain rather
than
> >> in
> >> repositories with restricted access like JORUM.
> >
> > I completely disagree. Usage rights are completely orthogonal to the
access
> > management mechanism in place, if any. See also above re: BioMedCentral.
> >
> >> *Our JORUM licence is based on English law, as agreed with all the
funding
> >> councils. CC has Scottish as well as English versions, so there is the
> >> potential for confusion when working across the UK.
> >
> > That doesn't sound like a justification for a new license. You don't
reduce
> > the confusion of having two sets of legal wordings of one license, by
adding
> > a second completely new license with its own legal wording!
> >
> >>
> >> * The CC-UK organisation itself does not recommend that CC licences are
> >> used for materials held in repositories and plan to point to the JORUM
> >> licence, which is a contract licence, and other emerging licences, as
> >> alternatives.
> >
> > *sigh* more complexity for the user, and more silos with different
licenses.
> > Where exactly is the user benefit here? We're just getting to the stage
of
> > people understanding CC, and we go and create a special
> > just-for-things-in-educational-repositories-in-the-UK-only license.
> >
> >>
> >> * Recent debate on the CC-UK mailing list has suggested that, where
> >> materials are genuinely owned by academic staff and repositories are to
be
> >> used, recommended practice could be for academics to license their
> >> materials
> >> to their institutions to manage on their behalf. This would mean that
> >> individually-owned materials could be deposited in JORUM, using the
current
> >> JORUM licence, by the institution on the individual academic's behalf.
> >> JISC
> >> is prepared to provide a licence template enabling individuals to
license
> >> their materials to their institutions.
> >
> > Grief. Do I have to go through this rigmarole with my institution every
time
> > I blog something or upload a powerpoint presentation somewhere? Isn't it
> > easier just to copy-and-paste a CC license as-is? I think I'd rather
license
> > my own stuff directly using CC than give all rights to my work to my
> > institution.
> >
> > To be honest, I think we'd be better off if institutions licensed the
> > copyright on works to their creators, on the proviso they attach a CC
> > license, than the reverse.
> >
> >>
> >> All the best
> >> Kenny
> >>
> >> Kenny Baird
> >> Metadata and Technical Support Officer
> >> EDINA
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This message was written in a character set other than your own. If it
is
> >> not
> >>> displayed correctly, click here to open it in a new window.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Andy Heath said "Well copyright and trademark notices may not be
> >> interesting
> >>> ... unless you're a lawyer of course Tom."
> >>>
> >>> But have you tried this?
> >>> http://search.yahoo.com/cc
> >>>
> >>> It's a beta search engine that checks for particular types of creative
> >>> commons licences. I can "Find content I can use for commercial
purposes"
> >> OR
> >>> "Find content I can modify, adapt, or build upon". I can imagine this
> >>> building and building, especially if JORUM used CC licences
> >>>
> >>> Simon Grant said " ... there is no point in trying to standardise the
> >>> attributes that are recorded about something;
> >>> one may as well (or better) use generic search tools (Google etc.
etc.)
> >> that
> >>> operate in ever more subtle ways.
> >>>
> >>> Is this a subtler way? Legal metadata thats highly searchable. The
> >> publisher
> >>> gets to express their rights and the searcher gets to make use of
them.
> >>>
> >>> Interesting ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Amber Thomas
> >>> Project Leader
> >>> JISC DEL: Promoting Use of Shared Content in the West Midlands
> >>> Bredon 76
> >>> University College Worcester
> >>> Henwick Grove
> >>> Worcester
> >>> WR2 6AJ
> >>>
> >>> email: [log in to unmask]
> >>> mobile: 07913 842421
> >>> http://www2.worc.ac.uk/wm-share/
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> Andy
> --
> Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
> Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
>
|
