As I type the title of this week's blog I almost can almost hear the sound of looming musical notes playing in the background.
Copyright...a word which has so much meaning, brings about controversy and seems to be understood and viewed by in vast differences by people and cultures.
This week, after immersing myself in the various assigned readings, and as my participation in the course 'Open Educational Resources' offered by the University of Manitoba, I am asked share my thoughts on Copyright.
Particularly, to comment on whether "the preponderance of different types of licenses making it easier to reuse resources, or is it adding another layer of complexity which in effect works to place a barrier on using OER?"
It seems to me that once one delves deeply into this topic it becomes apparent that there is no easy answer or solution to any poised concerns. We have the challenges brought on by individuals in society offering differing perspectives and then this is compounded once copyright is viewed from the perspective of various cultures (as described by Marco Fioretti in the article 'The Tragedy of Commons').
Perhaps, and as we might already know, what works in the western culture does not always relate or resonate with eastern ones.
In the section License from this week's assigned readings the following is stated: "The legal aspects of an OER project can be daunting..." Indeed, and well put! The words local expert, legal department and consultation follow in this paragraph.
As a noob to the world of OER do I think that copyright is too complex? Definitely! I was amazed to learn that material published in Wikipedia would not compatible with material published in WikiEducator (thereby not allowing its resources to be combined). Ummm...great thinking?
I found it informational to read David Wiley's account of how the “Libre License League” deleted material posted by students on Wikibooks because of incompatible license violation. It seems that LLL has a inextinguishable drive to promote their views that the GNU license is superior to that of the Creative Commons licenses. Here I learnt also that GNU licenses are mainly geared towards software whereas the Creative Commons licenses are aimed at websites, articles, and educational material.
An ideas is poised this week. What if, and to simplify the situation, only two categories: were available for copyright: copyrighted work (which has to be cleared) and public domain (which which is free to use).
The initial flaw in this is that seems to be overly simplified does not allow for the complexities that varying opinions will bring to this issue. In using the Creative Commons licenses one can still choose from various options in how he or she will license his or her work. In addition to the baseline features authors can choose from various options allowing themselves to exercise greater individuality in how they distribute their own work. This is described by Brian Fitzgerald in the article: Open Content Licensing (OCL) for Open Educational Resources.
There is no doubt more to be said, however, (and as much as my understanding of this topic will allow me to state), the issue of copyright is best addressed by licenses which allow for flexibility and options for the publisher. At the same time this is limiting for some. Steps can be made towards a more welcoming environment (for new OER members) once the existing licenses merge (for example: GNU and Creative Commons).
An interesting blog post Jon.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your concerns regarding more regimented licencing options.
Another consideration when it comes to incompatible licences, particularly in terms of re-use and adaptation is that it is largely relevant only for the cases where you plan to change the work or subsume into something else, thus requiring republishing. All (I believe) open licenced materials can be linked to. This obviously does not afford anywhere near the sort of flexibility you may want, but you can link to an existing body of work that is licenced differently, and then add (in your own work) customisations that can overlay the linked work. So for example, you could change the examples used in the link to something more contextual and include that in your own work (for which you also own and can licence as you see fit). This obviously is not as convenient as having the content changed inline, but still can be a way to work out the limitations of the incompatible licences.
Thanks Damien for the suggestion. That is an excellent way to approach the situation.
DeleteI agree with your overall statement concerning the notion of simply using copyright generally or public domain. It would not provide[for some at least] enough flexibility. With our increased ability to create content comes an increased demand for flexible licensing schemes. As individuals we could manage this using existing copyright law but it requires answering individual usage requests and the subsequent variations in those requests.
ReplyDeleteThe inclusion of additional licensing schemes like Creative Commons also encourages knowing. If I have options and want to employ them then it might be important for me to know a little more about copyright and licensing generally. As a former teacher and current instructional leader I think this knowing should be extended to students. An understanding of copyright should definitely be part of any digital citizenship learning agenda.