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 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!