• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Getting a grip on Creative Commons Licences: Creative Commons Workshop, State Library of New South Wales, Sydney, 24 June 2013
 

Getting a grip on Creative Commons Licences: Creative Commons Workshop, State Library of New South Wales, Sydney, 24 June 2013

on

  • 2,751 views

Presentation on Creative Commons Licences to staff of the State Library of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, on 24 June 2013. Presentation explains Creative Commons licences and how they are used. ...

Presentation on Creative Commons Licences to staff of the State Library of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, on 24 June 2013. Presentation explains Creative Commons licences and how they are used. Presentation is designed for those in the GLAM sector.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,751
Views on SlideShare
2,751
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/rednuht/275062341/
  • Vast pool of CC licensed material available
  • http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/
  • “Search on Flickr with some magic"
  • http://labs.ideeinc.com/multicolr/
  • Searches across 10 million of the most “interesting” CC licensed images on FlickrCheck the particular licence
  • ‘Al Jazeera Announces Launch of Free Footage Under Creative Commons License’. Accessed 8 July 2010. Available from: http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/12166
  • http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Files_from_the_Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation
  • OpenCourseWare Consortium Toolkit: Maintaining Intellectual Property at http://www.ocwconsortium.org/en/community/toolkit/maintainingip
  • BY NC SA 3.0 US http://ocw.mit.edu/terms/#cc
  • See http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101436.htm and http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/26100
  • http://www.khanacademy.org/
  • http://www.khanacademy.org/about/tos#7
  • http://training.gov.au/Home/Copyright
  • SourcesHeather Morrison, ‘PLoS ONE: now the world’s largest journal?’, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics (blog), 5 January 2011, available at http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/plos-one-now-worlds-largest-journal.html. Glenn Otis Brown, ‘Public Library of Science’ (interview with Michael Eisen, co-founder of PLoS), CC News, 1 September 2005, available at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7038.PLoS License, http://www.plos.org/about/open-access/license/ (accessed on 1 February 2012). Jane Park, ‘An Interview with Frances Pinter of Bloomsbury Academic’, CC News, 20 October 2008, available at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/10100.
  • “The District Court interpreted the Artistic License to permit a user to ‘‘modify the material in any way’’ and did not find that any of the ‘‘provided that’’ limitations in the Artistic License served to limit this grant. The District Court’s interpretation of the conditions of the Artistic License does not credit the explicit restrictions in the license that govern a downloader’s right to modify and distribute the copyrighted work. The copyright holder here expressly stated the terms upon which the right to modify and distribute the material depended and invited direct contact if a downloader wished to negotiate other terms. These restrictions were both clear and necessary to accomplish the objectives of the open source licensing collaboration, including economic benefit. Moreover, the District Court did not address the other restrictions of the license, such as the requirement that all modification from the original be clearly shown with a new name and a separate page for any such modification that shows how it differs from the original. Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir.1976), the ‘‘unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the proprietor of the copyright.’’ Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief.”

Getting a grip on Creative Commons Licences: Creative Commons Workshop, State Library of New South Wales, Sydney, 24 June 2013 Getting a grip on Creative Commons Licences: Creative Commons Workshop, State Library of New South Wales, Sydney, 24 June 2013 Presentation Transcript

  • Professor Anne Fitzgerald Queensland University of Technology Creative Commons Workshop State Library of NSW Sydney 24 June 2013 © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia.
  • This session …  Copyright  What Creative Commons (CC) is  Overview of how CC is being used in various sectors  Government  Education  Research  Creative industries  Future directions for CC © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Copyright  Governed by the Copyright Act (Cth)  No registration required  Copyright exists automatically once criteria in the Act are satisfied  Copyright protects original expression  Not ideas, information or facts  But the form in which those ideas, information or facts are expressed © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Generic 2.0 ‘take the old machine’ by Angelo González, http://www.flickr.com/photos/21251150@N04/5291456294 Photographs, paintings, images, sculptures…(artistic works)
  • Generic 2.0 ‘I Giovani e la Musica’ by Super UbO, http://www.flickr.com/photos/14443853@N07/5362778675 Music, sound recordings, radio broadcasts…
  • Generic 2.0 ‘Apollo 11 Video Restoration Press Conference / Newseum’ by NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre, http://www.flickr.com/photos/24662369@N07/3726614425 Films, Videos, Theatre, TV broadcasts…(cinematograph films, dramatical works, television broadcasts)
  • Blogs, books, articles, essays… (literary works, published editions of works) Generic 2.0 ‘_MG_0318’ by Zitona, http://www.flickr.com/photos/zitona/5021203226/
  • Compilations of data… ("literary work" includes: … a table, or compilation , expressed in words, figures or symbols – s 10, Copyright Act 1968) ) Generic 2.0 ‘_MG_0318’ by Zitona, http://www.flickr.com/photos/zitona/5021203226/
  • Copyright as a bundle of exclusive rights  For example, for literary, dramatic and musical works the rights are to:  reproduce in material form  publish  publicly perform  communicate to the public in electronic form  transmit;  make available  make an adaptation or translation  control rental, where work is a computer program or is reproduced in a sound recording: s 31(1) © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Copyright in the digital environment  When we use digital technology, we automatically reproduce content and thereby enter the copyright “zone”,  because digital technology needs to reproduce material so it can be played, run or even viewed.  Copyright has been further extended to protect  Broader range of subject matter – e.g. computer programs  Broader range of rights – e.g. right to communicate electronically to the public  Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) (eg encryption/anti- copying devices) applied to control access or copying;  Electronic Rights Management Information (ERMI) © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Copyright In a nutshell…  copyright automatically applies to a lot of material  the exclusive rights of the copyright owner are very broad  remedies for infringement are strong and enforcement is effective (through civil and criminal actions)  exceptions are limited (e.g. fair dealing) available Which means that.....  the consequences of infringement will deter use/reuse unless it is clear that the use is permitted © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Generic 2.0 That time of year again… by Etwood, http://flickr.com/photos/etwood/231364920 legal advice (s43) research or study (s40) criticism or review (s41) parody or satire (s41A) reporting of news (s42) Fair dealing Unless the law provides otherwise…
  • Copyright  General rule = You need permission/licence to do anything within the scope of the copyright owner’s rights (economic or moral rights) unless the law provides otherwise (eg where there is an exception permitting that use)  express permission to use should be obtained  importance of clear statement of permitted uses  any other rights/obligations (other than copyright) also need to be considered © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Copyright licensing – traditional practice  “All rights reserved” (or, at least, most rights reserved)  Use requires prior permission from the copyright owner unless within an exception to owner’s rights (e.g. fair dealing) under the Copyright Act  Negotiating terms is cumbersome, time consuming, expensive – inefficiency means high transaction costs  Has led to multiple non-standard licences  Problem of “orphan” works – no identifiable copyright owner from whom permission may be obtained  Arose from pre-internet era - not geared to the immediate and global nature of the internet © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald. ©all rights reserved
  • ©all rights reserved
  • Creative Commons
  • Creative Commons  a standardised system for licensing the use of copyright materials  a suite of 6 standardised licences  available in 3 forms: plain english (summary); legal code and machine-readable code  Each licence grants baseline permissions to users to use copyright material  that is, to copy, publish, distribute in digital form, publicly perform  whether the whole or a substantial part of it  on specified, standardised core conditions © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Copyright licensing – with CC licences  Based on copyright  Only some rights reserved  Relatively short, simplified, standardised licences which provide permission in advance  BUT  do not cover all possible kinds of permissions – other kinds of permissions will have to be negotiated  Do not contain detailed provisions covering all relevant aspects of the law  Must be read in the context of copyright law (legislation & judgments) and often other relevant bodies of law (e.g. private international law – “jurisdictional” issues and applicable law)  Also have to be read in context of other relevant “information” laws notably privacy (data protection), security, and interception of communications (telecommunications) - See Chang v. Virgin Mobile USA, LLC, 2009 WL 111570 (N.D.Tex. January 16, 2009) © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Creative Commons IS NOT…  anti-copyright Creative Commons IS…  Based on copyright  A copyright licence (permission)  A new way of managing copyright  A set of licences that are free for everyone to use © 2012 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Baseline permissions  Fundamental baseline rights granted by all CC licences:  Reproduce  Distribute  Publicly perform  Additional baseline permission granted in four of the six CC licences to create derivative works and  Reproduce  Distribute  Publicly perform the derivative work © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald.
  • Core Conditions Attribution (BY) – attribute the author, and no false attribution This applies to all CC licences Non Commercial (NC) – no “commercial use” (as defined) No Derivatives (ND) – no changes allowed to original work Share Alike (SA) – changes allowed, but new work is to be distributed under the same licence as the original work * ND and SA cannot be used together © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Licence combinations © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald.
  • CC BY  Core condition:  Attribution (BY) – attribute the author, and no false attribution  Baseline Rights:  Reproduce  Distribute  Publicly perform  Create derivative works (and reproduce, distribute and publicly perform the derivative work) © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Human-readable summary
  • “Legal Code”
  • http://creativecommons.org/choose/ Machine-readable code
  • http://creativecommons.org/choose/
  • CC operates as a direct licence, from copyright owner to user © 2012 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Attribution (BY)
  • Attribution (BY)  Copyright notice - Keep notices that refer to the Licence or Disclaimers  Name of author and other Attribution parties  Source and Title of the work  Licence URL/hyperlink  In a Derivative Work, identify the changes made to the original  No suggestion of endorsement  “In a manner reasonable to the medium you are using”
  • Non Commercial (NC)
  • Non Commercial (NC)  “Commercial” defined as meaning “primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation”
  • No Derivative Works (ND)
  • No Derivative Works (ND)  “Derivative Work" means material in any form that is created by editing, modifying or adapting the Work, a substantial part of the Work, or the Work and other pre-existing works.  Derivative Works may, for example, include a translation, adaptation, musical arrangement, dramatisation, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be transformed or adapted…
  • Share Alike (SA)
  • Share Alike (SA)  Clause 4B(a) Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Australia:  You may only Distribute or publicly perform a Derivative Work if You apply one of the following licences to it:  i) this Licence;  ii) a later version of this Licence with the same Licence Elements (such as Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Australia); or  iii) a Creative Commons Unported licence or a licence from another jurisdiction (either this or a later version) that has the same Licence Elements; or  iv) a Creative Commons Compatible Licence. (* note this last option is not available in CC BY NC SA 3.0 Australia)
  • CC BY SA Most of Wikipedia's text and many of its images are dual- licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) The small print: “ Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details ....” Information for text contributors to Wikimedia projects To grow the commons of free knowledge and free culture, all users contributing to Wikimedia projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re- distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use is attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute applies to any derivative works. Therefore, for any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For compatibility reasons, you are also required to license it under the GNU Free Documentation License. Re-users can choose the license(s) they wish to comply with. Please note that these licenses do allow commercial uses of your contributions, as long as such uses are compliant with the terms. As an author, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, b) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) through a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.)
  • How do people use CC?  Licensing out: use CC on copyright materials you create  enable others to find your material online through using the standard search engines; give permission to others to lawfully use your material (eg copy, on-distribute, post to a website, value add, mashup  e.g.  Repositories – Wikipedia, Flickr, YouTube  Institutions/Organisations – ABC, Al Jazeera  Licensing in: use copyright materials created by others that are licensed under CC  enable you to find their material online through using the standard search engines; give permission to you to lawfully use their material eg copy, on-distribute, post to a website, value add, mashup e.g.  students using CC material from Wikipedia in their projects  teachers using Open Educational Resources (OER) licensed under CC  In either case, the scope of re-use will depend on which CC licence selected
  •  Creative Commons, The Power of Open, available at http://thepowerofopen.org/, licensed under CC BY, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. CC licensed material
  • “Visitors to this website agree to grant a non- exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.”
  • http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/ 260 million of 8 billion photos licensed under CC
  • http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/
  • http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/
  • http://www.zoo-m.com/flickr-storm/
  • http://labs.ideeinc.com/multicolr/
  • http://labs.ideeinc.com/multicol r/
  • http://labs.ideeinc.com/multicol r/
  • AUSTRALIA
  • Geoscience Australia - Landsat 8 data  Landsat 8 satellite launched in early 2013 - GA is making the satellite images publicly available free of charge, under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Austalia licence (CC BY) to facilitate legal reuse of the images  Jeff Kingwell, Section Leader of GA’s National Earth Observation Group : © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald.. Our experience is that using the Creative Commons Attribution Licence – which is the default licence for GA information – makes the data more useful and easier to apply. For example, to help the Indonesian government to monitor forest management, GA supplies Landsat data from a number of foreign data archives. Since we can apply the same licence conditions to each data source, the information is much more useful and easier to share and reuse. Example of a Landsat 7 image, CC BY 3.0 Au © Geoscience Australia
  • AUSTRALIA
  •  2010 Federal Budget Papers licensed under CC Attribution 2.5 Australia  2011 and 2012 Federal Budget Papers under CC Attribution 3.0 Australia
  • Commonwealth Government’s Statement of IP Principles (2010)  11.(b) Consistent with the need for free and open re-use and adaptation, public sector information should be licensed by agencies under the Creative Commons BY standard as the default.  An agency’s starting position when determining how to license its public sector information should be to consider Creative Commons licences (http://creativecommons.org.au/) or other open content licences.  Agencies should license their public sector information under a Creative Commons licence or other open content licence following a process of due diligence and on a case-by-case basis.  Before releasing public sector information, for which the Commonwealth is not the sole copyright owner, under a Creative Commons BY standard or another open content licence, an agency may need to negotiate with any other copyright owners of the material. © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald.
  • Australian Government IP Manual and Guidelines on Licensing PSI (2012)  Australian Government (Attorney General’s Department) released two documents (under CC BY 3.0 Australian licence) which implement the Government’s Statement of Intellectual Property Principles for Australian Government Agencies:  Guidelines on Licensing Public Sector Information for Australian Government Agencies; and  Australian Government Intellectual Property Manual (“IP Manual”).  Chapter 9 of the IP Manual (which deals with “Sharing and Granting Public Access to IP”) makes it clear that PSI should be released free of charge under a CC BY Australian licence by default.  Refers to our CC and Government webpage for more detailed information. © Anne Fitzgerald 2013. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence.
  • Australian Government Attorney General’s IP Guidelines and IP Manual (2012)  In 2012, the Australian Government released two documents which implement the Statement of IP Principles for Australian Government Agencies:  Guidelines on Licensing Public Sector Information for Australian Government Agencies;  Australian Government Intellectual Property Manual (IP Manual).  Both documents are available on the Attorney-General’s Department website under the CC BY 3.0 Australian licence.  Attorney General’s IP Manual makes it clear that PSI should be released by default free of charge under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) Australian licence by default. (Chapter 9 - “Sharing and Granting Public Access to IP”)  Agencies are now required to make licensing decisions about whether to use Creative Commons licences (or other open content licences) when publicly releasing their PSI. © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald.
  • Queensland IP Principles (2011)  Queensland Government IP Principles (revised 2011) endorse the use of CC licences and specify that the CC BY licence is the default licence, to be applied as a first choice unless there are clear indicators that the default licence is inappropriate in the circumstances: Clause 1.3: Creative Commons licensing of government copyright information  In assessing the appropriate licence to apply to public information, the Government Information Licensing Framework (GILF) mandates that: (a) agencies license their public sector copyright information using the Creative Commons least restrictive licence (i.e. the Attribution BY licence) as the default licence of preference following a process of due diligence assessment on a case-by-case basis. However this least restrictive licence may not always be the appropriate licence to use. © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald.
  • Premier’s message at http://data.qld.gov.au/about  “So that people using our data can do so effectively, agencies must provide it in a standard way. Agencies will:  follow metadata standards  apply clear licences (preferably open licences such as Creative Commons)  assess and advise of data quality  outline any limitations on data use.”
  • http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/
  •  In 2009 the Al Jazeera Network launched a repository of broadcast quality footage under a variety of CC licences  Initial focus was on footage of the conflict in Gaza, which was released under a CC BY licence.  The aim of allowing the broadest possible reuse (including commercial use) was to make people more aware of these issues as well as profiling the Al Jazeera Network throughout the world.  See Al Jazeera CC Repository at http://cc.aljazeera.net/
  • http://pool.abc.net.au /
  • http://pool.abc.net.au/content/pool-special-conditions- use
  • ABC “80 Days that Changed our Lives”  To celebrate ABC’s 80th anniversary , ABC released 22 files capturing historic moments on Wikimedia under CC BY-SA  first collection of broadcast “packaged” footage released to Wikimedia Commons under a free license
  •  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
  • Wikimedia  “What is Wikimedia Commons?  Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone, in their own language. It acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, …  Launched on 7 September 2004, Wikimedia Commons hit the 1,000,000 uploaded media file milestone on 30 November 2006 and currently contains 13,546,116 files and 106,660 media collections. …  Unlike traditional media repositories, Wikimedia Commons is free. Everyone is allowed to copy, use and modify any files here freely as long as they follow the terms specified by the author; this often means crediting the source and author(s) appropriately and releasing copies/improvements under the same freedom to others. The license conditions of each individual media file can be found on their description page. The Wikimedia Commons database itself and the texts in it are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. More information on re-use can be found at Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia and Commons:First steps/Reuse.”  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Welcome
  • OER and MOOCs
  • The concept of “OER”  The OECD defines OER as:  ‘digitised materials  offered freely and openly  for educators, students, and self-learners  to use and reuse  for teaching, learning and research. OER includes learning content, software tools to develop, use and distribute content, and implementation resources such as open licences.’  OECD, “Giving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of Open Educational Resources”, OECD, Paris, 2007, at p 38, available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/7/38654317.pdf. © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Reuse, remix, distribution are at the heart of OER  The OpenCourseWare Consortium identifies the relevant acts that need to be able to be performed with OER as:  Reuse: using the work verbatim;  Rework: altering or transforming the work;  Remix: combining the verbatim or altered work with other works; and  Redistribute: share the verbatim work, the reworked work, or the remixed work with others. © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • MOOC ≠ OER  David Wiley: “There are a number of reasons why the term MOOC is a misnomer. - Many MOOCs are massive but not open (e.g., http://www.udacity.com/legal/) - Many MOOCs are open but not massive (e.g., http://learninganalytics.net/syllabus.html) - Many MOOCs try very hard not to be courses (e.g., http://cck11.mooc.ca/how.htm) … Bonus complaint: The MOOCs which are “massive but not open” pose a special threat to the future of OER, but no one seems to be paying attention… Before long the general public will feel that “free” is good / innovative enough, and no one will care about “open,” permissions, or licensing. The good has once again become the enemy of the best. And how to you wage a PR war against “the good?”  ‘The MOOC Misnomer’, 1 July 2012, http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2436 © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program (TAACCCT): US $2 billion in funding provided under federal education fund to create OER resources for use in community colleges P062311PS-0339 by The White House (US Government Work) http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5937200216
  • TAACCCT  The first round of grants (Wave 1) awarded nearly $500 million in 2011, and the second round (Wave 2), announced on 27 February 2012, will make another $500 million available to eligible higher education institutions.  Wave 1 - materials produced must be distributed under a CC BY licence.  Wave 2 - the CC BY license must also be applied to modifications made to pre-existing, grantee-owned content using grant funds. © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • California digital textbooks project  Legislative implementation of OER policy  In September 2012, California Governor Jerry Brown signed two bills providing for the creation of free, openly licensed digital textbooks for the 50 most popular lower-division college courses offered by California colleges.  A crucial component of the California legislation is that the textbooks developed will be made available under the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY). © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Khan Academy
  • Khan Academy – Terms of Service 7. Licensed Educational Content.  7.1 …Unless otherwise indicated, all Licensed Educational Content is the property of Khan Academy or its subsidiaries or affiliated companies and/or third-party licensors and, subject to the terms and conditions of these Terms, is licensed to You under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License (available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc-sa/3.0/us/) (the “Creative Commons License”). … © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Blackboard xpLor  xpLor is a new cloud-based learning object repository that will work across the various learning management systems (LMS) in use at educational institutions  Objective is to dissolve content boundaries between LMS’s and institutions so that instructors can more easily share, discover, and reuse course content.  xpLor has CC licensing options - instructors and institutions can create, share, and build on each other’s CC-licensed content through the same interface.
  • Blackboard xpLor – CC BY default
  • Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002)  The literature that should be freely accessible online is that which scholars give to the world without expectation of payment. Primarily, this category encompasses their peer-reviewed journal articles, but it also includes any unreviewed preprints that they might wish to put online for comment or to alert colleagues to important research findings.  There are many degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. By "open access“ we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to:  read  download  copy  distribute  print  search, or  link to the full texts of these articles  crawl them for indexing  pass them as data to software or  use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.  The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited. http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read. © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Open Access publishing: the Green and Gold roads  Green OA  Authors retain rights to their work  make their articles (usually in the form of “accepted manuscripts”) available through institutional repositories or personal websites – check OAK List for publisher’s policy on this: http://www.oaklist.qut.edu.au/  QUT ePrints – eg “Open Content Licensing: Cultivating the Creative Commons” (2007), Sydney University Press and QUT ePrints - http://eprints.qut.edu.au/6677/ - licensed under CC BY NC ND 2.5 Licence - > 8,000 downloads, ranks 15th in QUT ePrints  QUT Law and Justice Journal/QUT Law Review (from 2013): licensed under CC BY – see https://ljj.law.qut.edu.au/  Gold OA  OA that is provided by a publisher, i.e. the article is published immediately under OA conditions by the journal publisher.  may be funded in different ways - certain publishers may require the payment of a fee by the author to make the work available under OA. © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Gold OA consistent with CC  PloS One (OA journal, reportedly the world’s largest scholarly journal by volume)  Public Library of Science (PLoS) is a non-profit organisation ‘dedicated to making the world’s scientific and medical literature a freely available public resource’.  PloS applies CC BY licence to all works it publishes  Research monographs published by Bloomsbury Academic (commercial publisher Bloomsbury Publishing’s academic branch)  Content made available online under a CC BY-NC licence (in addition to publishing in print and e-book format and offering print-on-demand copies).  Frances Pinter, Publisher of Bloomsbury Academic explains:  ‘[o]ur business model is simple. We may lose some print sales because of free access, but we will gain other sales because more people will want the print edition’.  Jane Park, ‘An Interview with Frances Pinter of Bloomsbury Academic’, CC News, 20 October 2008, available at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/10100. © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • ANU’s IP Policy (1 July 2010) http://policies.anu.edu.au/policies/intellectual_property/policy Part 4 - Section 14. "Open Content" Licensing by [Staff] Member 14.1 …. A [Staff] Member who Creates copyright matter which is owned by the University is granted a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive licence in respect of the copyright to grant licences to third parties over the copyright matter: (a) being an open content licence of the form maintained by the Creative Commons Corporation; or (b) being an open source licence in respect of Software, of the form maintained by the Open Software Initiative or the Free Software Foundation; or (c) in any other form of open content licensing determined from time to time in writing by the Vice Chancellor. © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • QUT’s IP Policy: Scholarly works (22 June 2011) http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/D/D_03_01.jsp 3.1.5 Ownership of copyright  In accordance with general law principles noted in section 3.1.4 above, QUT as an employer is the owner of copyright where the work is created by staff members in the course of their employment. QUT’s ownership of copyright applies to both academic and professional staff. Assignment of scholarly works  Provided that QUT does not have contractual obligations to a third party which would prevent QUT effecting such an assignment, QUT assigns the right to publish scholarly works to the creator(s) of that work. The assignment is subject to a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive licence in favour of QUT to allow QUT to use that work for teaching, research and commercialisation purposes and to reproduce and communicate that work online for non-commercial purposes via QUT's open access digital repository. © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) policy on access to research publications and data  Revised policy, effective 1 July 2012, mandates that:  any publications arising from an NHMRC supported research project must be deposited into an open access institutional repository within a twelve month period from the date of publication.  http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/media/notices/2012/revised- policy-dissemination-research-findings © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Australian Research Council (ARC) Open Access policy  Effective 1 January 2013  Any publications arising from an ARC supported research project must be deposited into an open access institutional repository within a twelve (12) month period from the date of publication  Requirement subject to legal or contractual obligations (i.e. restrictive publishing contracts which prohibit/do not allow for open access)  http://www.arc.gov.au/applicants/open_access.htm
  • ARC Funding Rules for Discovery Projects commencing in 2013 Clause 21: Material Produced under this Agreement, Publication and Dissemination of Research Outputs  21.3 The ARC will support publication and dissemination costs as per clause 7.8 of this Agreement. The ARC strongly encourages publication in publicly accessible outlets and the depositing of data and any publications arising from a Project in an appropriate subject and/or institutional repository.  21.4 The Final Report must justify why any publications from a Project have not been deposited in appropriate repositories within 12 months of publication. The Final Report must outline how data arising from the Project has been made publicly accessible where appropriate.
  • Validity and enforceability of CC licences Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, 2008) - “Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. …. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition.” © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Validity and enforceability of CC licences Curry v Audax (2006) (Netherlands)  Adam Curry uploaded photos to Flickr under a CC BY NC SA licence  The photos were copied and reproduced in a magazine sold commercially in The Netherlands  Court held there was no permission to use the photos - as this was commercial use – only Non Commercial was licensed © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald.
  • Why use CC licences?  Other standardised licences e.g. UK Open Government Licence (OGL) are not fully internationally recognised  Permits international platforms (collaborations and contributions across various sectors)  No other standardised licence has an equally supportive and viable central organisation  CC applies to all government and non-government copyright material (except software)  CC uses icons (which have gained full international recognition and which are not language specific)  CC’s licence metadata / digital code is embedded, making it machine-readable, searchable & retrievable  CC provides for a clear statement about the source of the data (attribution/provenance) – increased user confidence © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • Advantages of using CC  Discoverability and retrieval of CC materials by search engines (CC machine readable code)  Explicit statement of re-use rights: information provided upfront to users about what they CAN do with the material  Standard, internationally recognised icons depict the licence conditions – surmounts language barriers  Facilitates legal re-mix and re-use of CC-licensed materials  Identification and attribution of the creator/owner of the licensed material  Licences have been held to be valid and enforceable by courts © 2013 Anne Fitzgerald..
  • CC Australia  More information at www.creativecommons.org.au  Twitter: @ccAustralia @eduCCau @govCCau  Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ccAustralia  Professor Anne Fitzgerald  Publications: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Fitzgerald,_Anne.html  Twitter: @AnneMFitzgerald CC & Government Guide: Using Creative Commons 3.0 Australia Licences on Government Copyright Materials Anne Fitzgerald, Neale Hooper & Cheryl Foong (2011) http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38364/ http://creativecommons.org.au/sectors/government