Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-au - Re: [ccAustralia] CC licenses in education- a case study

cc-au AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-au mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Phil Long <longpd AT uq.edu.au>
  • To: "cc-au AT lists.ibiblio.org" <cc-au AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [ccAustralia] CC licenses in education- a case study
  • Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:31:31 +1000

Leigh: Thanks very much for this. I think it's important to separate the legal from the social and ethical questions.  I didn't meant to make work for you ;-)  I'll go through these carefully and contribute to the conversation with my response. In general, I'm very supportive of your concern about aligning the message with the behavioural intent of open sharing.  The suggestion offered earlier about trying influence the CC license choice of the ALTC and whatever its successor(s) will be is something that merits concerted attention.  

I appreciate the effort you've made to summarise this.  I'll try to respond in kind.

Regards and have a good weekend.

phil


Professor Phillip D. Long, Director, Centre for Educational Innovation and Technology
Level 4, Building 78, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane,
Queensland 4072, Australia, Phone: +61 07 3346 6283, Email: longpd AT uq.edu.au

On 11/03/2011, at 1:12 PM, Leigh Blackall wrote:

Well Phil, I've spent 20 minutes going through some of the responses. I've consolidated remarks down to 5 outstanding issues as consequences. I haven't gone through all responses, but its enough for the time I had now:

The contradiction, hypocracy and wider disconnect in the message of the video:
Tama encouraged educational media producers, even students to use more liberal licenses, but was left high and dry by the producers of this video, looking slightly hypocritical as a result.  (Me, 6 March)
 
as an Australian, I'm embarrassed to see my educational institutions so miserly with their offerings, so unwilling to be generous, so unashamed in their commercial thinking, and so high minded as to want to restrict remix, and just so out of step with the academics speaking on their video, and the more progressive thinking around all this (Me, 8 March) 
 
I honestly don't think I am alone in this perception, but I am so far alone on this list however. Take it or leave it. 

The question of what constitutes commercial use remains unanswered I think
The Non Commercial restriction prevents me loading it to other commercially sustained video sharing sites (Me, 6 March)
  • If I load a copy to a server that requires subscription payments to access, such as most ERA ranked journals, is that commercial use? 
  • If I load a copy to a university library server that required a student to pay or commit to paying fees before obtaining login to access, is that commercial use?
  • If I load a copy to a site that runs Pay Per Click advertising and other revenue streams associated with the video, is that commercial use?
  • If I load a copy of the video into interactive media I'm producing and plan to license for fees, is that commercial use?

Creation of derivatives is restricted
The No Derivative restriction prevents transcriptions, translations, sub titling, or maybe even copying it into an open standard format. (Me, 6 March)
  • OK, Elliot resolved my uncertainty on the last point, but it remains a question of whether or not I can transcribe, translate, subtitle, or even add clarifying captions, or local context information
On the otherhand, that's exactly what I hoped this would foster - creative mashups that allowed this material to be leveraged... The ND clause... I have to agree, [is] unncessarily restrictive. (Phillip Long 7 March)

The question of whether these restrictions are appropriate
how does the College, with a pretty high percentage of funding from Australian taxes, justify these restrictions? (Me, 6 March) 
  • Tama passed this to ALTC who he said required this license and attempts to negotiate otherwise were rejected
"We in fact had no choice in the matter. The ALTC stipulated the licence we had to use as part of the contractual agreement. All their projects must use this licence. We even had to stick to the older 2.5 licence rather than the newer 3.0 licence. I used the 3.0 originally, but got into trouble for it! " (Tama quoting Simon McIntyre, 8 March)
 
For me, it remains a question as to why ALTC, COFA or their copyright advisers my not have reflected or been challenged on whether this restrictive license is appropriate for public projects, especially in light of the Gov's recommendation for CC By, but more importantly the trends over the past 4 years. Ok, perhaps I'm just impatient, or expect too much from Australian copyright advisers to remain up to date with trends and current events in their field.

The ND clause is indeed a heavy handed way of preventing that, and I have to agree, unncessarily restrictive. (Philip Long 7 March)
 
I hope COFA and ALTC don't become some sort of benchmark of good communicative practice with this, which is why I feel a need to call them on it (Me, 8 March) 

The prevention of use in free cultural works projects
the NC restriction prevents me taking a copy and placing it on sites that only support Free Cultural Works, such as Wikimedia Commons and all the learning projects associated to that. (Me, 8 March)
 
One practical issue I'm aware of is that CC by NC ND would be too restrictive for uploading and re-using in Wikimedia Foundation projects. (James Neill 11 March)


 

Yes, James repeats the one I've mentioned:

Restricted from loading to Wikimedia Commons or any other project that only accepts Free Cultural Works for which Creative Commons uses an endorsement stamp on the licenses CC By and CC By SA. I'm not sure how many projects there are that only accept free cultural works, but it would be in the hundreds, such as all the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikiversity etc).. then there's Wikieducator, then there's a huge number of small educational projects on Wikispaces.com, and a number of educational institutions making a point of engaging only free cultural works.

No remixing into other published works
No sampling audio or images out into other published works
No edited version published




On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 1:16 PM, James Neill <james.neill AT canberra.edu.au> wrote:
One practical issue I'm aware of is that CC by NC ND would be too restrictive for uploading and re-using in Wikimedia Foundation projects.


On 11/03/2011 1:09 PM, Phil Long wrote:
Leigh - you'll have to fill in the blanks as to your reference to repeating "the long list of consequences we've mentioned here." i looked at the trail of comments to this discussion but didn't find the references to which yiu referred. Are this consequences real or hypothetical? Please forgive the apparent naievity of my question but I've found it a bit of a challenge to navigate between what appear to me to hypothetical risks and cases that have actually tested them.

Regards,
Phil


Sent from my iPad

_______________________________________________
the mailing list for
Creative Commons Australia
affiliate of the Creative Commons international initiative

to send to this list email cc-au AT lists.ibiblio.org
to unsubscribe, visit http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-au



--
--
Leigh Blackall
+61(0)404561009
skype - leigh_blackall
leighblackall AT gmail.com
http://leighblackall.blogspot.com
<ATT00001..txt>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page