Nick Morgan wrote:
> Re: Flickr
>
> The problem for educators with Flickr and the other photo/video sharing
> services, is that many authorities use their filtering software to
> prevent access to such sites. There's a lot of images featuring naked
> bodies, or bits of them, on such sites; most authorities want to make
> such stuff impossible to access at least on school equipment.
I realise that this can be a problem -- I've always thought that locking down
websites is not the proper (or easily maintainable solution). I know
schoolchildren who are more than capable of setting up proxy servers via the
linux servers they've set up at home. (But I know some weird schoolchildren,
your mileage may vary!) Basically, there is *always* a way around any such
restrictions, so I've always felt it is better not to use them and police in a
different way. But I don't teach children, so I've not had to worry about it. ;-)
There would be nothing stopping a teacher, however, downloading a whole set of
images (of, for example, a particular place) and then making those available to
the children to use. So such sites are still valuable for teaching, even if it
is the teachers who are accessing them, not the students. But my real point was
to remind people (when possible) to openly license the items they place on the web.
Best,
-James
>
> Nick
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: elearning projects group: museums and galleries, libraries and
> archives [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James Cummings
> Sent: 27 July 2006 10:21
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Image Banks for Schools
>
> Roger Broadie wrote:
>> Colin,
>>
>> Your phrase 'copy for classroom use only and without infringing
>> copyright at all' is not as simple as it sounds. You do go on to say
>> 'that pupils can use in their own work' but this also cannot be taken
> as a simple statement.
>> What pupils need to be able to do is dis-aggregate content completely,
>
>> even down to using parts of images. Then they need not just permission
>
>> to copy but permission to completely re-purpose in whatever way they
>> like (as long as moral rights of original creators are respected, e.g.
>
>> images not being associated with material damaging to the reputation
> of the creator.).
>> Then on top of this, only being able to publish their work in the
>> classroom is very restrictive in these days of the Internet and
> learning platforms.
>> They need permission to re-publish images in their work, to important
>> constituents such as family or peers they are working with
>> collaboratively, who are possibly in schools in other countries.
>>
>>
>> If you compare this statement of requirement with the terms and
>> conditions in the small print in museum/gallery/library/archive
>> websites, you will find a considerable mis-match.
>
> I suggested to Colin offline that he might want to consider mentioning
> www.flickr.com particularly because of the issues you mention here.
> These are photos from the public, but many have been Creative Commons
> licensed. This means that schoolchildren (as others) have free access to
> millions of images that are properly licensed for their use. See
> http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/ and of course
> http://www.creativecommons.org/ for more information.
>
> For example there are currently some 1,886,041 photos on flickr that are
> licensed as CC Attribution. This means that they only have to provide
> attribution as to who took the photo, but are free to chop it up, re-use
> it, and even sell it commercially! The real benefit of this is that
> schoolchildren learn to *cite* the resources they use. This is
> something that most British schoolchildren haven't mastered by the time
> they get to (and in many cases
> through) University. So teaching them to credit the people whose
> resources they use is a very very good thing.
>
> In addition to the CC+by photos, flickr has 2,418,957 which are licensed
> as CC Attribution Non-commercial (so they are allowed to make derivative
> works based on the images as long as they say who took the photo and
> don't sell it).
>
> And 4,970,696 photos on flickr are CC Attribution Non-commercial
> Share-A-Like (so they are allowed to make derivative works based on the
> images as long as they say who took the photo, don't sell it, and in
> turn license it as
> CC+by+nc+sa, thus making the freedoms inherent in the photo licensing
> CC+by+nc+hereditary.)
>
> There are 1,315,594 which are CC Attribution Share-A-Like (so they are
> allowed to make derivative works based on the images as long as they say
> who took the photo, and in turn license it as CC+by+sa, but are allowed
> to sell it if they want).
>
> There are also many private websites that have properly licensed their
> images.
> For example, I have a family website filled with thousands of holiday
> snaps which are all licensed under a creative commons license.
>
> The problem is that museums/galleries/libraries/archives have a vested
> interest in maintaining image reproduction as a revenue stream so are
> unlikely ever to use such useful licensing as creative commons. But,
> for the resources you create privately (or at work if your institution's
> IPR policy allows), I would urge everyone to properly consider licensing
> their work. Putting it up on the web isn't enough, it is still
> defaultly under copyright and we aren't allowed to use it if you don't
> also license us to do so.
>
> -James
> --
> Dr James Cummings, Oxford Text Archive, University of Oxford James dot
> Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk Ask me about free long-term
> preservation for your electronic texts!
>
|