Hi All

Just wanted to say what a useful and illuminating discussion! I work with
a group of art colleges in London and this question does come up at times.
I think the argument Cable advances is the right one for that context (and
context is key) and it plays a part in making the educational commons a
richer place with more possibilities. So those choices of CC licence make
sense to me - a kind of 'doorway' to a sort of philosophical / ethical
position and of course business opportunities -the 2 are not mutually
exclusive :-)

In the art scene itself there is a history of 'appropriation' that is
relevant to the discussion - see this wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_(art)

Thanks and All the Best

John

On 15/03/2013 10:17, "Martin Poulter, ALSPAC, University of Bristol"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Hi Gabi,
>I agree with Cable's response, but wanted to add:
>
>"in the case of film or other creative works [...] the author does not
>want 
>the original resource to be modified."
>
>Yes, it's often the case that authors don't want their work modified. But
>what creates social value, rather than meeting one person's preference?
>The 
>author isn't the only stakeholder. Innovative uses, almost by definition,
>can't be anticipated.
>Franz Kafka wanted all his manuscripts burnt when he died. Since his
>request wasn't carried out, we have classics of literature (and other
>works 
>such as films) that we wouldn't otherwise have.
>
>"I also suspect, based on the evidence that I'm aware of, that multimedia
>OERs are generally not edited by re-users anyway, and so including items
>that are CC-BY-ND licensed would not be perceived as a
>significant restriction by most people."
>
>Again, you're right, but what follows? Almost anyone with a computer has
>the technical ability to edit videos, but most people don't. So the
>remaining tiny proportion do, and those edited videos might be seen by a
>greater audience, might illuminate or challenge the intellectual content
>of 
>the original, and might be valuable in other ways. The author isn't the
>final authority on the most productive, informative of educational use of
>their work because they don't have infinite imagination- no one does.
>
>From people having their media edited in ways they might not themselves
>agree with, we have a huge amount of modern culture: satire,
>documentaries, 
>music, images... So non-derivative restrictions aren't minor and there
>are 
>plenty of people who will say that CC shouldn't even offer ND licences.
>
>Cheers,

-- 
Scanned by iCritical.