I think it is good advice to contact
copyright owner and doesn’t defeat the objective of CC. Quite the
contrary. CC licence is geared to granting rights and reserving the rest
to the © owner. So in my experience © owners welcome
this. I agree it would defeat the object if we felt we had to do
this for every CC NC licenced work – but I don’t think that was
what you were intimating.
I have contacted CC licensors on numerous
occasions for a wider grant of rights and they have all been granted and haven’t
cost me any money.
Some of the problem at times is that there
is not sufficient contact information and the attribution applied to the CC
licence is not quite right either (no author details) – but hey –
that is another issue. I advise all CC Licensors to ensure they notify
users of the correct attribution with contact details (email for example).
Cheers Bernie
From:
Thomson, Simon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 24 July 2013 10:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Use of
My two penneth:
Can we argue to legitimately use NC in "education"? - Yes
probably, considering the charitable status aspect.
Should we be using NC? - Morally no. I think that we should avoid using
NC content wherever possible in order to promote a morally acceptable stance on
open content.
If you really need to use some NC
content then you could always contact the copyright owner for clarification? (I
know it partially defeats the object of CC licenses but if you want a clear
conscience it's potentially the only way).
Simon
From: Open Educational
Resources [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Thomas, Amber
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 24 July 2013 10:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Use of
Thanks all
My view on the table then:
universities should not reuse third party materials with the CC
NC clause in the courses they put on MOOC platforms.
This is only an edge case, but I think
it’s an important one in the ecosystem of open licenced materials in open
courses.
The risk of being challenged is very
low, so my advice to my own colleagues is not
because I’m risk averse.
If we don’t distinguish between
the CC clauses in our advice to people, the clauses turn to mush.
That’s my view. I reserve the right
to change my mind, but that’s how things look to me.
Additional question coming up to do with
a different clause, actually!
From: Open Educational Resources
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of
Sent: 24 July 2013 09:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Use of
I agree whole heartedly with Jason
and I think those that ‘rely’ on clarity all of the time are
not the people who should be charged with making decisions on taking their
businesses (whatever they are) forward. There is no such thing as zero
risk and those that seek it or rely on it hold up progress. Informed
decisions fine, deciding on an acceptable level of risk fine; requiring
100% clarity before making a decision? – no such thing.
Cheers Bernie
From: Jason Miles-Campbell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 24 July 2013 09:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Use of
“Clarity would be good.”
Clarity is one of my favourite
things. Along with whisky, and Girls Aloud. However, it needs to be
clear that decisions as to interpretation will also depend on appetite for
risk. Long live those who push the boundaries, and may they sometimes
reap rewards by doing so. For others, the safe path is preferred.
Users deciding on NC limits need to be able to make informed choices as to
risk, and I think that’s going to be as big an issue as finding areas of
‘certainty’.
Cheers,
Jason
From: Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Thomas, Amber
Sent: 24 July 2013 09:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Use of
Hi All
The thing I'd welcome clarification on is
how the provision of free content can be part of a business model, I think this
relates to Tony's point.
The MOOC scenario could be the opposite of the Oxfam scenario ...
Oxfam has a profit making subfunction that
subsidises the meta charitable aims.
What if a MOOC platform provider has a
free subfunction that enables the meta profit-making aims?
I'm not asking whether the MOOC provider
is ethical/good/right or not. I’m asking whether in good faith, the
university can use third party content licenced as
I think not. Clarity would be good.
If the free course = subfunction of a
profit-making objective, then the options for CC licenced content in MOOCs
reduce.
That might be fine and sensible.
But as others have said on this thread,
understanding OERs in relation to MOOCs is important in terms of the ethos of
our decisions. The distinction matters to folk like us, even if not to the big
scheme of things.
In particular, I'm still not sure I
understand the pay-with-your-data aspect of MOOCs. If MOOC platform providers
are building business models out of data, how does the NC clause work?
Amber
-----Original Message-----
From: Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tony.Hirst
Sent: 23 July 2013 17:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Use of
Couldn't I set up a MOOC platform with a
non-profit company (MOOCPlat Ltd, eg as a not-for-profit company limited
by guarantee) and a commercial assessment company MOOCass Ltd, and then offer
OERs through MOOCplat in a non-discriminatory way for
free-in-exchange-for-registration, then commercially sell assessment related to
the course through MOOCass?
Notwithstanding a lack of case law, I'm
sure the lawyers could figure out a CC license accommodating equivalent of a
double Irish with a Dutch sandwich?
________________________________________
Tony Hirst
Personal blog: blog.ouseful.info
Tel/SMS: +44 (0) 1908 652789
Lecturer in Telematics
Dept of Communication and Systems
The Open University
________________________________________
From: Jason Miles-Campbell
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Use of
Charitable status certainly doesn't
guarantee "non-commercial", however. For example, an
organisation might raise a surplus through commercial trade in order to fulfil
charitable purposes - Oxfam shops, perhaps?
Cheers,
Jason
Jason Miles-Campbell | Manager | Jisc
Legal | T 0141 548 2889 | E [log in to unmask]"
target="_blank">[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Jisc Legal, a Jisc Advance service,
is hosted by the
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Lorna Campbell
> Sent: 23 July 2013 17:08
> Subject: Re: Use of CC NC licences
within UK F/HE - can we reach consensus?
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> That's an interesting point regarding
universities charitable status. Is that not
> changing though?
>
> Cheers
> Lorna
>
> On 23 Jul 2013, at 16:54, T.Coughlan
wrote:
>
> Hi Nick,
> "We're still public sector of
course" - but as most
> isn't there an equal argument for
saying we're third sector?
>
> Charitable status and NC seem to me
to be happy bedfellows. We play by the
> rules of charitable status (more or
less), so why shouldn't NC be included as
> part of the package?
>
> Lorna - yes, it's a good idea to air
these issues!
>
> Tony
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheppard, Nick [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 23 July 2013 16:42
> To: [log in to unmask]"
target="_blank">[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Use of CC NC licences
within UK F/HE - can we reach consensus?
>
> I think many folk in HE have a knee
jerk reaction to NC and become
> apoplectic at the thought of the
grubby commercial sector using our OER for
> commercial gain! (We're still public
sector of course :-!)
>
> I probably shared that view myself
not so long ago but would now argue for
> the lowest barrier licensing
possible.
>
> I'm not sure I'm clever or
politically literate enough to think through the
> implications but I've have similarly
lively discussions on twitter around the
> neo-liberal agenda that has
contributed to normalising CC-BY for research
> such that it can be mandated by RCUK
(to much teeth gnashing of course.)
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Lorna Campbell
> Sent: 23 July 2013 16:29
> To: [log in to unmask]"
target="_blank">[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Use of
>
> Hi there,
>
> Earlier today there was a short but
lively discussion on twitter about the pros,
> cons and ambiguities of using the CC
NC licence in academic contexts. I'm
> sure many of your will be aware of
the complex issues that this raises,
> particularly with regard to whether
or not education is regarded as a
> commercial activity. If
anything, these issues have become more pressing
> with the advent of commercial MOOC
providers such as FutureLearn. Trying
> to define "commercial"
"non-commercial" and even "education" in global
> terms is a difficult task if not
impossible task, however our twitter discussion
> this morning led David Kernohan to
ask if it might be possible to define what
> these terms mean within the context
of our own community, i.e. UK F/HE.
> So what do you think, is there any
mileage in trying to agree how and in what
> context the CC NC licence can be used
appropriately within UK Higher and
> Further Education? What are the
chances of us being able to reach a
> consensus? Would it be useful
just to air the issues? Let us know what you
> think!
>
> Cheers
> Lorna
>
> --
> Lorna M. Campbell
> CETIS Assistant Director
> Email:
> l<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]"
target="_blank">[log in to unmask]<mailto:orna.m.ca<mailto:[log in to unmask]:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask]:[log in to unmask]"
target="_blank">[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]:[log in to unmask]>>
> Skype: lorna120768
>
>
> To view the terms under which this
email is distributed, please go to
> http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm
> -- The Open University is
incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an
> exempt charity in
> 038302).
>
> --
> Lorna M. Campbell
> JISC CETIS Assistant Director
>
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]:[log in to unmask]:[log in to unmask]"
target="_blank">[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]:[log in to unmask]>>
> Phone: +44141 548 3072
> Skype: lorna120768
>
> The
> number SC015263.
-- The Open University is incorporated by
Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in
var new_nav = new function() {};var x;var old_navigator = window.navigator;for (x in navigator) {if (typeof navigator[x] == 'function') {eval("new_nav." + x + " = function() { return old_navigator." + x + "();};");} else {eval("new_nav." + x + " = navigator." + x + ";");}}new_nav.userAgent = "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_3) AppleWebKit/534.55.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1.3 Safari/534.53.10";new_nav.vendor = "Apple, Inc.";new_nav.platform = "MacIntel";window.navigator = new_nav;
var new_nav = new function() {};var x;var old_navigator = window.navigator;for (x in navigator) {if (typeof navigator[x] == 'function') {eval("new_nav." + x + " = function() { return old_navigator." + x + "();};");} else {eval("new_nav." + x + " = navigator." + x + ";");}}new_nav.userAgent = "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_3) AppleWebKit/534.55.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1.3 Safari/534.53.10";new_nav.vendor = "Apple, Inc.";new_nav.platform = "MacIntel";window.navigator = new_nav;
To view the
terms under which this email is distributed, please go to
http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm |