[Oer-community] On-line education is using a flawed Creative Commons license
Cable Green
cable at creativecommons.org
Thu Nov 29 10:52:27 MST 2012
I mistakenly left out a word below:
- If you want "derivative works [to be] similarly licensed" you'll need
to use one of the Share-Alike (SA) licenses, e.g. CC BY
SA<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>.
CC BY does not *require* derivative works be licensed under the same or
similar terms.
Cable
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Cable Green <cable at creativecommons.org>wrote:
> Hi Randy:
>
> I have inserted few comments below re: how CC licenses work.
>
> Cable
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Randy Fisher <wikirandy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 is fine - the copyright holder is allowed to dual-license. From
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>
> - *All CC licenses are non-exclusive -- creators and owners can enter
> into additional, different licensing arrangements for the same work at any
> time, a practice known as dual-licensing. Note, however, that once
> granted, CC licenses are not revocable in the absence of a breach, and even
> then the license is terminated only as to the particular licensee.*
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> - Important note: if you dual-licensed your work CC-BY and CC-BY-NC
> (as noted above), the licensee / user may choose to use the work under
> *either* license. That is, a person or institution who wishes to use
> your CC BY licensed work for commercial purposes may do so without
> additional permissions from you.
>
>
>
>>
>> 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 you want "derivative works [to be] similarly licensed" you'll
> need to use one of the Share-Alike (SA) licenses, e.g. CC BY SA<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>.
> CC BY does not require derivative works be licensed under the same or
> similar terms.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> - Creative Commons has a CC+ protocol that may be useful for this
> scenario: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCPlus
> -
>
> *CC+ is a protocol providing a simple way for users to get rights
> beyond the rights granted by a CC license. For example, a work's Creative
> Commons license might offer noncommercial rights. With CC+, the license can
> also provide a link by which a user might secure rights beyond
> noncommercial rights -- most obviously commercial rights, but also
> additional permissions or services such as warranty, permission to use
> without attribution, or even access to performance or physical media.
> *
>
> *The CC+ architecture gives businesses a simple way to move between
> the sharing and commercial economies. CC+ provides a lightweight standard
> around these best practices and is available for implementation
> immediately. *
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oer-community mailing list
>> Oer-community at athabascau.ca
>> https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/listinfo/oer-community
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Cable Green, PhD
> Director of Global Learning
> Creative Commons
> http://creativecommons.org/education
> http://twitter.com/cgreen
>
>
--
Cable Green, PhD
Director of Global Learning
Creative Commons
http://creativecommons.org/education
http://twitter.com/cgreen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/private/oer-community/attachments/20121129/c595aad7/attachment.html
More information about the Oer-community
mailing list