[Oer-community] On-line education is using a flawed Creative Commons license

Thu Nov 29 03:20:35 MST 2012

Hi All,

In my experience, contacting the original copyright holder is
time-consuming and a pain – if you can get in touch with him / her at all.
If that person works at an education institution or similarly large
organization, and the legal department gets involved – one might as well
forget about using the content – and seek it elsewhere or start from
scratch.

Is there a possibility that materials could have dual licenses from the
get-go – like people who hold dual citizenship. They understand there are
bound by different rules for different countries – even though they are the
same person.

For example, for my resource, I originally assign or tag it as both: CC-BY
& CC-BY-NC. This could send a signal to the person and/or institution who
wants to use my resources (original or remixed) that I am open to having
the conversation about a possible “commercial” use of these resources.

In a way, this comes down to a “what’s in it for me” argument. When I share
/ publish resources under CC-BY, I know that I am contributing to the
larger community AND that derivative works are similarly licensed. If I
share/publish materials with an NC-restriction, it doesn’t mean that I an
not open to a ‘commercial use’ of my works, it just means that if these
works are to be used in a commercial way, I would want some form of
compensation – whether individually, or my organization or governing body
benefits in some way.

BTW: I’m with Mark – it’s a fascinating discussion – and both (and all)
perspectives are of value – this healthy tension keeps the OER movement
moving forward, and includes many voices than would otherwise be the case.

- Randy

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Wayne Mackintosh <
mackintosh.wayne at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi David (& Brian)
>
> I agree that pointing a student to an NC licensed textbook in a course
> which charges tuition would not violate the NC restriction because the
> contractual relationship is between the student and the copyright holder of
> the NC work.
>
> However, in the OERu context when we remix a variety of open content
> resources to develop independent study materials which become the core
> learning materials, this defence would not hold for OERu courseware because
> the resultant work would constitute an adaptation<http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Does_my_use_constitute_an_adaptation.3F>.
>  OERu partners are free to adopt OERu courses in parallel mode where the
> course is used for full-tuition students (as well as the tuition-free OERu
> learners.)  In this scenario, there will be a contractual relationship
> between the full-fee paying students and the university based on NC
> materials which have been remixed and re-licensed. The payment of fees may
> not align with the intent of the copyright holders of the original NC works.
>
> This is not a theoretical supposition. This week, I have been working with
> colleagues at the University of the South Pacific, an OERu anchor partner
> and regional university "owned" by 12 Pacific Island states.
>
> The first OERu prototype course is a first-year level course in Regional
> Relations for Asia and the Pacific<http://wikieducator.org/Australia%27s_University_of_Southern_Queensland_launches_the_first_OERu_prototype>,
> which was developed by the University of Southern Queensland. As you will
> appreciate, a course like this is of prime interest to the University of
> the South Pacific.  I ran a practical demonstration and installed the
> AST1000 <http://wikieducator.org/AST1000> course on the local USP LMS in
> 3 minutes. This illustrates the power of the open model -- a full course,
> installed in 3 minutes which can be offered to full-tuition students at USP
> without spending a cent on course development costs! The pedagogy of the
> course has been designed in a way which would not require
> re-contextualisation.  This is an attractive proposition to universities
> who would like to diversify curriculum without incurring capital
> development cost.
>
> The OERu university network has adopted a principle of engagement to only
> use free cultural works approved licenses for the core materials hosted by
> the OER Foundation to minimise the litigation risks associated with using
> NC licensed materials where service fees may apply. Stephen Downes (btw
> Stephen -- my name is not "*McIntosh" *let's get the attributions
> correct. Getting you back for a Freudian slip calling you Steven in an
> email a few years ago when you politely corrected me * ;-) *)* *highlights
> the risks of enclosure. This is a material and costly risk for open
> education. * *However, the NC restriction is not sufficient to protect
> against the risk of enclosure in my view.
>
> By way of example, one of the nominated courses for OERu prototype
> development was an Introduction to Management course. The best source of
> materials we could find for remix, was a Flat World Knowledge publication
> with an NC restriction. We took a decision to stall the development of this
> nomination because we could not find a free cultural works approved
> alternative. In hindsight this was a smart decision, because the text will
> now be enclosed not too mention the grey areas associated with the
> definition of non-commercial.  Sure, a CC license is irrevocable, but the
> intent of FWK is becoming clearer -- and I doubt whether they would approve
> of OERu's intended use of these materials.
>
> As the "disruptive innovation" (don't like the term that much) index
> increases in higher education, we need to be more alert to the potential
> risks associated with innovations which may change the landscape. Take
> Stephens objections to the OERu model charging cost-recovery fees as an
> example, and he is the friendly guy who works in the non-commercial arena
> promoting free learning. Consider the future challenges and litigation
> risks when open education starts challenging the "business" models of
> conventional universities and the commercial education sector. We need to
> be squeaky clean.
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM, David Wiley <david.wiley at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Brian,
>>
>> The answer to your question is no, charging tuition for a class that
>> uses an NC licensed textbook does not violate NC. I'm trying to keep
>> my contributions on this open, so I've posted the actual response on
>> my blog - Tuition is a Movie Ticket, OER are Popcorn
>> (http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2618).
>>
>> This is nothing but publisher FUD and we simply need some case law to
>> put this argument to bed. But you will never see a publisher litigate
>> on this issue because they know they will lose, and for their trouble
>> will have paid the legal fees necessary to establish the case law that
>> undercuts their FUD.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Brian Lamb <brlamb at mail.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> > I am finding this discussion on the NC clause to be provocative and fun
>> to
>> > read.  I find points made on both sides worthy of consideration. I am
>> > confused by this point of comparison by Rory:
>> >
>> >
>> > RORY>>> Not true. NC does NOT prevent commercialization. It encourages
>> it.
>> > Private companies want the exclusive right to distribute so they
>> license it
>> > directly from the author a la Flatworld.  NC promotes and supports
>> > commercialization. People in Canada have free access to water. Others
>> bottle
>> > it and people pay for it. The fact that some companies choose to sell it
>> > does not make water unfree. Granny can bottle her free water and sell
>> it.
>> > Others can take the free water and use it gratis.
>> >
>> >
>> > ...Water is free you can use if as you like or you can sell it. NC
>> > restricted content limits the selling option to one person.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In most places I've been, water is a publicly regulated commodity.
>> "Granny"
>> > either pays a water bill, or helps support a public utility through her
>> > taxes. She can bottle her free water and sell it, but if she were doing
>> it
>> > on such a scale that it exceeded a reasonable personal usage, she would
>> > likely face legal sanction. In places where water is scarce, water
>> rationing
>> > is common.  And I would hope corporations or individuals would not be
>> > permitted to engage in commercial activities that endanger the careful
>> > management of a limited and valuable resource - whether by polluting
>> it, or
>> > by excessive use (or control) of it.
>> >
>> > On another note, have y'all read this post by Mike Caulfield?
>> >
>> > http://hapgood.us/2012/10/31/coursera-cc-nc-and-ocw/
>> >
>> > Turns out the application of an NC license does not absolutely forbid
>> all
>> > commercial use for all time. "A CC-NC license is not a blood oath; the
>> > license holder can negotiate exceptions."  Wow, who knew? But we would
>> have
>> > to talk to each other. And this mailing list just demonstrates how much
>> > educators hate to talk to one another.
>> >
>> > Finally, can somebody tell me if an NC license forbids reuse by
>> non-profit
>> > public education institutions that charge tuition? Seems like a fairly
>> > simple question, but I've heard authoritative responses that wholly
>> > contradict each other on that point. If such basic definitions of use
>> are
>> > this unclear, I suspect we will not find consensus on this discussion.
>> >
>> > Though again, I am enjoying following the debate. Thanks to all the
>> > participants.
>> >
>> > Brian
>> >
>> > Brian Lamb
>> > Director, Innovation
>> > Thompson Rivers University
>> > Kamloops, BC, Canada
>> > (On leave from UBC)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Oer-community mailing list
>> > Oer-community at athabascau.ca
>> > https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/listinfo/oer-community
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oer-community mailing list
>> Oer-community at athabascau.ca
>> https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/listinfo/oer-community
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Wayne Mackintosh <http://wikieducator.org/User:Mackiwg>, Ph.D.
> Director OER Foundation <http://www.oerfoundation.org>
> Director, International Centre for Open Education, Otago Polytechnic
> Commonwealth of Learning Chair in OER, Otago Polytechnic
> Founder and elected Community Council Member, WikiEducator<http://www.wikieducator.org>
> Mobile +64 21 2436 380
> Skype: WGMNZ1
> Twitter <http://twitter.com/#%21/Mackiwg> | identi.ca<http://identi.ca/waynemackintosh>
> Wikiblog <http://wikieducator.org/User:Mackiwg/Blog>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oer-community mailing list
> Oer-community at athabascau.ca
> https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/listinfo/oer-community
>
>

-- 
________________
*Randy Fisher, MA *(Fielding)
*Organizational Performance, Learning & Evaluation*

1. Education Specialist, Information and Communications Technology Council
(ICTC) <http://www.ictc-ctic.ca>
2. Co-Founder, Ottawa Learnery <http://Learnery.org>

**Open to consulting, mentoring and coaching opportunities.

 +1 613.722.5577 (EST, GMT - 5) - home/office
+1 613.899.0475 (EST, GMT - 5) - cell (seldom on, I do not check messages
frequently)

*Free E-Book*: Visit:
www.CommunityEngagementExpert.com<http://www.communityengagementexpert.com/>

Skype: wikirandy
LinkedIn Profile<http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=112703&trk=tab_pro>
Wordle <http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/3991918/Randy_Fisher_-_Experience>
Yoga Flowers.ca <http://www.yogaflowers.ca>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/private/oer-community/attachments/20121129/b7ff3fa7/attachment.html 