Development of Creative Commons licenses

["headphonica free music netlabel" <contact AT headphonica.com>]

to be precise, MITE sees "institutional uses" as commercial uses, NOT
"educational uses" in general.
they specify institutional use as being commercial:
"Institutional use is deemed to be commercial use when the materials are
downloaded en masse, stored on institutional servers, or otherwise
incorporated into institutional resources (including learning-management
or student-information systems) or distributed directly via institutional
channels."

And further on they say:

"In keeping with this interpretation, MITE encourages all individual
(e.g., students, teachers, general public) use of the materials on
HippoCampus, subject to the terms of this Creative Commons deed. MITE
offers licenses for use of its materials (such as those seen on
HippoCampus) by institutions."

Which does in fact not mean preventing schools from using the material,
but encouraging them to download the materials from their site
(HippoCampus) while offering other licenses for other uses.


Martin
c/o headphonica



> The idea of an education specific license was discussed almost 10
> years ago. See the archives at
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-education/. I think all the
> reasons we agreed the license would be a bad idea then are at least as
> true today.
>
> There are some NC users in the community that see educational uses AS
> commercial uses. Again, see
> http://www.montereyinstitute.org/license/license.html for the
> following example: "MITE understands that the Noncommercial (NC)
> restriction on this Creative Commons license precludes institutional
> use of the materials, including by governments, corporations, public
> entities, and businesses, whether for-profit or non-profit." If you
> read the entire language, it is designed specifically to prevent
> schools from using the materials. This is an existing use case for the
> NC clause by one of the more important collections of educational
> materials in the community (e.g., one of the only providers of OER
> content for AP courses).
>
> I hope everyone who is interested in seeing the NC clause become more
> specifically defined will carefully study the results of CC's research
> on the NC clause and the recommendations from that report -
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127
>
> David
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Heather Morrison <hgmorris AT sfu.ca> wrote:
>> Thanks for your comments, Andrew - my comments below.
>>
>> On 2012-05-08, at 11:26 AM, Andrew Rens wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 May 2012 12:46, Heather Morrison <hgmorris AT sfu.ca> wrote:
>>> As a reminder, proposals for NC 4.0 can be found on the wiki. It might
>>> be helpful to move discussion forward to refer to the proposals on the
>>> wiki, or to create new ones for discussion.
>>> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial
>>>
>>> My proposal to clarify noncommercial addresses a number of the
>>> questions coming up in discussion in recent days (from my viewpoint).
>>> Does anyone have specific feedback on this proposal?
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a trend for the Open Education Community to use CC By for open
>>> educational resources. For example Connexions uses CC By. Siyavula, the
>>> most successful open school textbook project in the world uses CC By.
>>
>> A local open educational repository offers only the CC-BY license. The
>> largest community that actively participates in this service gets around
>> this by placing NC licenses on the actual works.
>>
>>>
>>> The explicit reference to education in a future non-commercial license
>>> would divert some licensors from using CC By resulting in fewer free
>>> culture licensed works.
>>
>> This is speculation. It may also be the case that some creators of
>> educational resources would be more likely to use CC licenses. Or that
>> both scenarios will happen.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> NC Proposal No. 12 (Heather Morrison): NC Proposal No.12 Define NC to
>>> specifically allow educational uses. "(f) NonCommercial means not
>>> intended for re-sale or re-use of the Licensed Work for private
>>> monetary compensation (for example, as a means to attract advertising
>>> revenue). For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the
>>> Licensed Work by digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial
>>> provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection
>>> with the exchange. For the avoidance of doubt, educational use -
>>> teaching and learning - is Noncommercial, and permitted by this Public
>>> License, while including the content in a package intended for sale to
>>> educational institutions for profit is Commercial, and prohibited by
>>> this Public License.
>>>
>>>
>>> This would replace the problem of defining non commercial with the
>>> problem of defining educational use or 'teaching and learning'.
>>>
>>> Is that either teaching or learning, or must both teaching and learning
>>> take place?
>>> Is that intended to be auto-dicactic use?
>>>
>>> Is use by British American Tobacco for in house training teaching and
>>> learning?
>>>  Is use by Kaplan.com teaching and learning?
>>> Is use by  Pearson incorporates the work into a textbook that it sells
>>> is that still educational use?
>>
>> No, according to the language of this proposal:  "provided there is no
>> payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange".
>>
>>> What if Harvard incorporates the work into a cousepack that it sells to
>>> its students, is that teaching and learning?
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>> And if Harvard sells the coursepack to all comers is that taching and
>>> learning?
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>> If I use the work on my blog that also earns ad revenue and I deem my
>>> blog to a teaching blog then is that permitted?
>>
>> Something that is "deemed to be a teaching blog" suggests that it is not
>> in fact a teaching blog. If the primary purpose is ad revenue, than no,
>> this would not be permitted.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Under NC #8 someone commented: "In educational use, I often want to
>>> have CC-NC licensed materials printed through print-on-demand
>>> companies. It is unclear whether this is commercial or not, since the
>>> printing company is certainly making a profit."
>>
>> This is potentially a very important point. There is a business model
>> that involves free to read online, but the service makes its revenue
>> through such means as print-on-demand. I'd like to see this addressed,
>> but not sure the best way to do so. Suggestions?
>>
>>>
>>> It us unclear whether "including the content in a package intended for
>>> sale to educational institutions for profit is Commercial" permits use
>>> of print on demand or not.
>>>
>>> This proposal does however avoid license proliferation.
>>>
>>> Web-based or other discovery services that rely on advertising revenue,
>>> such as search engines, may use advertising IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR
>>> SERVICES in connecting searchers to this content; this does not
>>> constitute commercial use of the content. Advertising that constitutes
>>> exploitation of the content for commercial purposes, such as
>>> advertising inserted into a derivative, advertising that readers are
>>> forced to watch before viewing the content, creating the impression of
>>> sponsorship, or advertising that implies that the creator endorses the
>>> advertised product, constitutes commercial use and is prohibited by
>>> this license."
>>>
>>> I would also like to point to NC Proposal No. 9 (Brian Carver), to:
>>> "Create a new CC license, NC-EDU, that prohibits non-commercial uses,
>>> but allows educational uses".
>>>
>>> 1. This will result in  license proliferation.
>>>
>>> 2. There is a trend in the OER community to use CC By licences,
>>> Connexions uses CC By and Siyavula, the most successful open school
>>> textbook project uses CC By.
>>> If a specific education licence were created this would divert some
>>> licensors from CC By thus resulting in fewer Free Culture works.
>>>
>>> 3. An education license is likely to suffer from the same marketing
>>> problem as the development license, potential licensors thought that
>>> the license was intended for use by developing countries, rather than
>>> by anyone who wanted to allow use in a developing country. CC
>>> ultimately deprecated the development license. Licensors intent on
>>> preventing what they believe to be commercial use of their works would
>>> think that educational institutions should use the educational license.
>>>
>>> 4. This would raise the difficult issue of coherently defining
>>> education.
>>>
>>> Both 12 and 9 address a desire for NC without impeding educational use.
>>> The main difference between the two approaches is that one creates a
>>> new license (#9), while the other clarifies the NC definition (#12).
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> Heather Morrison
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List info and archives at
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>>> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>>>
>>> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
>>> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
>>> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew Rens
>>>
>>> ex africa semper aliquid novi (http://aliquidnovi.org)
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List info and archives at
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>>> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>>>
>>> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
>>> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
>>> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> List info and archives at
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>>
>> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
>> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
>> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>