LIDA103 General forum for open education, copyright and open licensing

[pangelos]

For any of you who are policy nerds like me and are interested in how international intellectual property rights and licensing concerns OER, you may like looking into the Open Education Policy Registry

Relaunching the Open Education Policy Registry

[uma]

Thank you @mackiwg for your concern to make me understand the terms and technology of toot, quote etc. to name a few…

[dolcott]

Wayne, I really liked the copyright case study - I think a couple more of these perhaps optional would be useful for students. Perhaps for those of us that are not lawyers, preapring our own case might be interssting in LIDA103 for more advanced version - you may already do this. A very good module.

[mackiwg]

Thanks Don (@dolcott)

Appreciate your feedback - thank you.

We would love to incorporate more case studies in LiDA103.

The copyright MCQ challenge is intended to move us in that direction. Learner generated content for future iterations and continuous improvement.

We’ve noticed that many of the learner generated case study questions (while good examples) tend to focus on local national copyright idiosyncrasies (understandably). Its not easy to generate a meaningful and interesting copyright case study that applies generically in a global copyright context. Perhaps the solution is to focus on a range of optional country specific case studies? That would be cool.

The power of open courses is the flexibility for iterative design. With each cohort the materials get better. Of interest, feedback from learners during this cohort have resulted in tweaks and corrections during this live cohort, for example fixing link rot, providing alternate video links for countries that don’t allow access to vimeo etc.

Looking forward to more case study options - If there are any copyright lawyers in this group, let us know. Having good legal eyes vet global case studies is a huge plus for ensuring quality.

[wanjikuwambugu]

Is there difference between open licensing and open education.

[mackiwg]

Thanks for your question.

Yes these are different concepts. In the context of this LiDA103 course, Open Education is used as an umbrella concept for referring to multiple dimensions of openness including: open access, free and open source software, open licensing, open textbooks, open policy, open educational practices, open business models etc.

Open licensing refers to the range of copyright licenses that provide the permissions for open content, for example the Creative Commons and the GNU Free documentation licenses.

Therefore, open licensing is a sub-element of the broader concept of open education.

[eanlee]

Hei Wayne, what is the term “ARR work” that is stated in the answer to quiz question 2 in the Remix 1 game of Remix Pathway? I might have missed its mention and definition earlier in the pathways.

[mackiwg]

It stands for “All rights reserved”, that is a standard “full” copyright work.

[eanlee]

Thank you, Wayne. It is so obvious now, and “all rights reserved” is also mentioned earlier within the same sentence (now that I return to it to comprehend the text). Sometimes it just gets over your head completely. By the way, in the following answer – I could be equally dumb again here – I suspect that the word “worked” (past tense) should be a noun, should it not?

[mackiwg]

Not a problem @eanlee

I’ve now defined the ARR acronym now - to avoid confusion for future learners. Well spotted - “worked” is a typo which has been fixed in the source wiki page.

When I next run the snapshot for the site - these fixes will be published. Thanks for your contributions to improve the materials. That’s how we work with OER .

[eanlee]

Hi Wayne

Completing the 4R learning challenge has been an edifying experience. I’ve gotten better at blogging and sharing my thoughts on the Creative Commons which is important to me because I would like to persuade my colleagues/friends to contribute to the open community of allowing our work flourish in a wider way. Lida103 is a gift.

In Start – 4R learning challenges, I would like to point out some areas for consideration:
https://course.oeru.org/lida103/learning-pathways/remix-game/start-4r-learning-challenge/
Under section Purpose, the instruction “The purpose of this learning challenges to:” threw me off a bit; reckon it may be “The purpose of this learning challenge is to:”
While we are at it, in the following text:
“Apply your knowledge of license compatibility among license types and how this impacts on the license your apply for the derivative works”
Looks like it should be “the license you apply”?
And for Task – 4R learning challenge
“1. Choose a concept or idea on which to base an interesting blog post to share with fellow learners. The topic for this blog post could be related to your studies or any area of interest. Think carefully: the nature of the topic you post may impact own the ownership of the copyright …”
“own” may be a typo – “impact on the …”?

[mackiwg]

Hi @eanlee

Well spotted and thanks for reporting those typos

Fixed and published to the live course site

[eanlee]

Hii Waye
In Dimensions of Openness, the resource ‘Made with Creative Commons’ contains an article on Cory Doctorow by Sarah Hinchliff Pearson that features NC SA and NC ND Creative Commons licenses side by side – does that mean the article uses dual licenses?
I’d understood that these two types of licenses could not be mixed.
What are your thoughts on this?
https://course.oeru.org/lida103/learning-pathways/dimensions-of-openness/open-business-models/
The Licences:

made-with-cc.pdf

[mackiwg]

Hi @eanlee

Apology for late reply - I missed this post.

You are correct, you can’t remix NC SA and NC ND. The layout used in the Made with CC book is a little confusing.

The book authored by Stacey and Hinchliff Pearson is licensed as CC-BY.

I think the use of license logos on individual business profiles were intended to show what licenses these businesses used rather than the license of the profiles. If you read the article featuring Cory Doctorow, you will see that he used NC ND for the first book then NC SA for the next one.

Of interest, in the case of an edited collection of works, it is possible for individual chapters to carry different licenses because this is not a remix. However, Made with CC book is not a collection, so that doesn’t apply in this case.

[naleen]

@Prasad

prasad weerasinghe

Welcome, we all are newcomers, at least once upon a time.

[eanlee]

Thanks, Wayne … your explanation makes it crystal clear for me. I’ve checked the other profiles, and you are right, the CC buttons ARE the licence types of Creative Commons that the profiled business applies – separately and accordingly – to their products/services. It didn’t occur to me, and again I have to count on you to point that out.

@mackiwg

in the case of an edited collection of works, it is possible for individual chapters to carry different licenses because this is not a remix. However, Made with CC book is not a collection, so that doesn’t apply in this case.

Your concluding point is most interesting because it touches on an issue about the remix that remains a conundrum to me.

I have learned that in copyright law the distinction between adaptations (derivative works, remixes) and collections (which may include remixes?) is one of the most ambiguous, varying between jurisdictions, and presenting situations in which the differences are clear, but also several scenarios that are ambivalent.

In the case that a national jurisdiction does not define adaptations and collections, it could follow then that a resource (for example, a publication) that contains various materials (i.e. images and text) with SA licenses can be regarded as a collection (does “edited” or not make a difference here?), and unlike an adaptation, the collection may not need to be relicenced in the same way that the source materials are, meaning the publication could use any licences, or even be copyrighted.

[mackiwg]

Hi @eanlee,

If the original work has not been altered in any way, it would not be an adaptation / remix. This is a good rule of thumb, albeit a conservative approach. As long as you can clearly identify the work reused, cite and adhere to the conditions provided by the license for the work - that’s fine.

In the case of an edited work comprising different chapters with different licenses, typically the copyright holder has determined the license for the work (including any editorial revisions), so this is not an adaptation.

Hope that helps.

[eanlee]

Thank you @mackiwg
I will follow that rule of thumb suggested by you; thanks for the clarifications – they do help me see the distinction in a clearer way.

[eanlee]

Hi @mackiwg
While revising my knowledge on the Creative Commons by going through the pathways quickly, I came upon this statement and wonder if it is still valid:
https://course.oeru.org/lida103/learning-pathways/creative-commons/anatomy-of-a-cc-license/
“At the bottom of a Commons Deed (“human-readable” version), you will find a link to the legal code which is the full license.” When I look at a Commons Deed, it appears that the legal code is actually embedded in the hyperlinked word, “llcense”, in the sentence “This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license” which is at the top of deed (under the title) rather than at the bottom. Is the link to the legal code at the bottom of some Commons Deeds?

[mackiwg]

Hi @eanlee

You are correct, since the LiDA103 materials were authored, Creative Commons have changed the layout of the license deed shifting the link to the legal code.

Thanks for reporting - I have revised the materials to accommodate this change. Another good example demonstrating the value of OER - we can update materials quickly ;-).