Slides used for NOVICE online workshop, 3 May 2011.
Anyone heard of, making, using, releasing OERs? Do you use PPT in learning and teaching? Other electronic resources? Have you posted teaching and learning materials you have created on to an institutional VLE? What about a website? Into a repository? Today, whether you are interested in OERs or not, I ’m going to show you three things you can learn really quickly, to improve your content in terms of risk, licensing and copyright. Because your resources could be out on the Internet now. And there is some simple good practice we can all adopt to place ourselves and our institutions in the best possible defensible position.
Of course many HEIs will already have some kind of institutional repository, but we had outlined an API toolkit in our original plan and as APIs to many web 2.0 services are so readily available nowadays, and because we had recently recruited a great developer, we decided to have a go at a mashup of a number of APIs. The idea was to be able to make the process of putting your stuff out there, and enabling people to find it, as easy as possible, using only one form and one one interface….. James has a proof of concept using Picasa, YouTube, Delicious and Twitter working so far. Some other services are proving a bit more tricky because of the time it take to process the files when uploading them – e.g. Slideshare but we are still working on it. We think its going to be useful for the Subject Centre anyway, and know that the CORE materials project in Liverpool has been doing something similar..
The background is a huge recent investment in the UK in Open Educational Resources. A one year project we were involved in was one of 29 in the HEFCE (www.hefce.ac.uk) funded UK OER pilot programme which ran March 2009 – March 2010 The projects were administered by the Joint Information Systems Committee (www.jisc.ac.uk)and the Higher Education Academy (www.heacademy.ac.uk). Phase 2 of OER is well underway, with an extra 4 millions being committed in a climate of austerity, thus representing a significant policy movement in favour of OERs in the UK.
There is emerging evidence that 50% of staff time/resources on preparation for teaching can be saved by engaging with OER This ercent blog post sets out come compelling evidence for students using OER and that an OER approach can save time and money. The OU has also published work which indicates that student engage with OER prior to enrolling on the course, and only enrol when they know they can pass – so OER can improve retention rates at University.
New teachers taking over courses can save time if they know they can reuse the materials created by their predecessor….
IPR is made up of Patents, Trade marks, Designs, and Copyright. This presentation focuses on Copyright as the most key IPR relating to OER. The others protect designs, functionality and appearances.
Copyright is typically split into OWNERSHIP and LICENCE. Anything which is EXPRESSED (drawn, written, documented) is automatically covered by copyright, whether the author wants it or not. Exceptions include where employees have signed over their rights to their employer. If you tell your friend about an idea that you have had in the pub, and they draw an image of it for you, then they will own the copyright.
Economic rights include the rights to financially exploit the creation, and moral rights include the right to have the author ’s name attributed on copies. Authors can (explicitly) waive, assign (as if to a publisher), licence or sell the ownership of their works.
Essentially if you re-use materials which are copyright to others then this counts as an INFRINGEMENT and the copyright holder may take you to court. If you re-use something that someone else has breached the copyright of then this is secondary infringement and is just as bad as the original offence. People often download un-attributed materials from the Internet thinking that they are safe to re-use; they are not.
There are occasions when you can copy copyright works, for example, if the copyright has expired, if it constitutes ‘fair dealing’, the work is covered by a licence or the author has given their permission (if you have permission then always cite the author and state ‘used with permission’).
To obtain permission then contact the author or their publisher (owner of the copyright).
Fair dealing does allow some rights to copy copyright works for specific purposes, however this is NOT an excuse for infringing another person ’s copyright. If in doubt, use materials which are licenced or ask for permission.
A licence is simply a legal statement saying what you can and cannot do with the copyright works. Some organisations (such as the Copyright Licencing Agency) use licencing schemes (standard legal clauses) which are well recognised. This makes it easier for owners to share, for users to understand the rules of use, and for both parties to observe protocol. Creative Commons provides some well-recognised licencing schemes.
Is this useful? Will you use these tricks? You can filter all Google content by usage rights
What we need is something that works alongside copyright and licensing regimens to give us something to evidence or give provenance to materials which required consent under data protection law, so that onward transmission sharing and reuse becomes easier, and we can open up more healthcare materials to use as OERs. Consent is a currently a barrier to open release as legacy materials can ’t evidence the consent status of clinical recordings – so we end up with non-commerical no-derivatives licenses as a default rather than a fallback position, where we can apply them. Everyone wants to use more open licenses but needs to be able to evidence consent.
Is this useful? Will you use these tricks? You can filter all Google content by usage rights
A cross the UK staff and students are already uploading teaching and other materials to the Internet/web, especially to social networking sites. Failure to follow best practice doesn ’ t mean that you can ’ t do it, it just means that you need more insurance. If you have deep pockets and have little conscience you can put materials up, and wait for lawyers to get in touch. The ‘ best practice compliance ’ table developed in the OOER project was developed to assist institutions to understand how their policies measured up, in order to safeguard themselves from litigation brought against them, and also to establish their own rights in relation to their own copyrights. It is intended as a guide only and legal advice should be sought by those wishing to adopt good practice risk-management policies.
The best way to safeguard yourself and your organisation against copyright infringement is to develop appropriate policies, advertise the policy clearly, train everyone in how to implement it, and follow it. For example, if you have a policy which says that ‘this material has been produced to the highest possible ethical standards and anyone with any concerns should contact xxx in writing after which the offending material will be removed within 10 working days pending investigation’. Then if someone contacts you, do what your policy says. Alternatively, you could just increase your annual insurance premiums to give you greater liability insurance in case of a breach (more on risk in a moment). Together with policies you could also use disclaimers: ‘the material provided on this site has been checked according to xxx however no warranties express or implied…’
This is an example of a HEFCE disclaimer on the JISC website.
One of the conditions of the funding was that we release everything under CC licences. One of the main characteristics of an Open Educational Resource, is that it has an open licence attached to it. These work in addition to existing copyright, which is made up of 2 parts: ownership and licensing. The copyright part deals with ownership – Creative Commons deals with the licensing part, making explicit to users which they can do with the resource and under what circumstances. You always retain IPR. Creative Commons is the licensing regime we were required to apply, but its not the only one. There are others. CC has a range of licenses with varying degrees of which you are allowed to do, and whether or not you can make commercial use of materials. The simplest is attritbution only, the most restrictive is attribution-noncommerical-noderivatives. There are very good reasons you may choose that license – such as if you have material containing data which would be sensitive out of that particular context. We also had to tag everything with ukoer, and deposit materials or metadata into Jorum Open, the national repository at www.jorum.ac.uk Thinking about licensing is something we should be thinking about with all of our resources whether they are going into an open repository or not. If they are being uploaded into a VLE, or if you are distributing them by email, it is likely they are being reshared via email, social networking etc.Making the use of the material and understanding what can and can ’t be done with a resource is therefore essential to all of us. CC makes it easy.
In our field – healthcare education there is a third thing we should be thinking about. If there are people in our resources, if they contain any recordings – video, audio, photographs – we need to additionally think about consent. I am not going to focus on this today, but it is useful to know that there are another couple of pieces of work going on around consent and making this explicit too – email me if you want more details on this, or I can come back another time to talk to you specifically about that. I was at a meeting yesterday which is bringing together experts to put together a set of principles and a code of practice around consent, and in our OER2 project, PORSCHE, we are working with CC UK and others to put together some ideas around a Consent Commons to complement Creative Commons – making consent in resources.
What are the issues of consent in the veterinary world?
While copyright is an automatic right, data protection is better described as a set of principles. Arising from the perspective of patient consent (patient data is classed as ‘sensitive’ under the DPAct1998) for patient materials used in teaching, we argue for additional tools to support consent from people. When creating open educational resources copyright doesn’t quite go far enough to recognise the rights of people who are represented to be respected (whether they have copyright or not). Representation could be a photograph, voice or video recording, data set or patient story. For example, if a person has agreed for their photograph to appear in your open educational resources (they are a student, a member of staff, an actor, etc.), and they pass away, what do you do if their family asks you to take down the OER? (What you are legally required to do may be different to what you would choose to do, in principle). Therefore you are essentially operating ‘policies’.
Is a human consent version of a Creative Commons licence applicable in the vet world? Would enable much more sophisticated recognition of the role and rights of people (whether they are the ‘creators’ or not) to be treated fairly and with respect. We need new technologies to support the implementation of Consent Commons – such as the ability to inform users that a resource has been updated or ‘taken down’.
JW The OOER project recommended just getting consent – and then we are clear. SH We feel this is something we should all be doing anyway – in the same way we collect and store consent for treatment and research. And in the same way as we reference in publications. It should be as easy and as embedded in practice as that. Its about good practice which is easy and practical to implement. It ’s about covering our backs and trying to think further down the line – making the consent status clear for other users who may use this recording in a different way. What a consent license could do is make the patients rights clear alongside the owner ’s rights.
SH We would like to propose a consent commons to work alongside or with creative commons as a way of demonstrating due diligence in dealing with issues of consent and using patient data sensitively in learning and teaching with specific reference to being able to share.
These are only a few of the many recommendations, but they are the ones which we want to highlight to you . We really need institutions to use CC licences on their works, to clarify exactly who owns what and how it may be used. Institutions frightened of giving away the ‘crown jewels’ may be perfectly happy with releasing up to 75% of a module or programme (which may still be useful to others). To protect ourselves and our colleagues into the future we need sophisticated searching (reputation based materials) and take down policies. We would like to know that staff can be rewarded for getting involved in this, as contributors and users of other people’s resources. We also had many recommendations for JorumOpen (the national repository) who we were working with to implement as many as we can.
If thinking about new content the following tools may be of interest.
There is definitely an appetite for change There are more and more tools to help make sharing openly easier and easier. Creative Commons licensed content is awesome, but attributing it properly can be difficult and confusing. The first rule for re-using openly licensed content is that you have to properly attribute the creator. There are specific requirements for what needs to go into that attribution, but those requirements can be confusing and hard to find. The solution: A simple tool everyone can use to do the right thing with the click of a button. That’s why we’re building Open Attribute, a suite of tools that makes it ridiculously simple for anyone to copy and paste the correct attribution for any CC licensed work. These tools will query the metadata around a CC-licensed object and produce a properly formatted attribution that users can copy and paste wherever they need to.
You can use the Xerte online and desktop tools to create your own learning objects which can then be uploaded into for example Blackboard
GLOmaker is another easy to use set of tools to help you create sophisticated content easily for sharing.
Is this useful? Will you use these tricks? You can filter all Google content by usage rights
On the website you can find reports, the toolkit – version 3 will be significantly better in terms of the single interface, and available in November 2010. You can find information about OER2, PORSCHE and ACTOR projects, and find an increasing number of case studies – about 10 so far, though we have done about 60. Do get in touch with us and follow us on Twitter…..
Novice online workshop_may_2011
NOVICE online workshop: sharing learning and teaching resources Suzanne Hardy and Gillian Brown Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine 3 May 2011
ISSUES <ul><li>What do we need to think about when considering sharing resources? </li></ul>
Issues <ul><li>Copyright and IPR </li></ul><ul><li>Licencing </li></ul><ul><li>Consent </li></ul><ul><li>Local HEI policies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Who owns what? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Any agreements in place? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who is right person to ask? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Firewall/authentication </li></ul><ul><li>Can’t stop sharing – so how do we mitigate against risk? </li></ul>
Sharing openly is good <ul><li>50% </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk/ourwork/oer/value/ <ul><li>Public money </li></ul><ul><li>Transparency and accountability </li></ul><ul><li>Equality of access </li></ul><ul><li>Increased utility </li></ul><ul><li>Increased applications & better retention </li></ul><ul><li>Recent blog post: It turns out students do use OER and it does save time http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/learningtechnology/2011/02/08/it-turns-out-that-oer-does-save-time-and-students-do-use-them/ </li></ul>
<ul><li>MEDEV ’s value statement for the project shows some of the benefits of developing open educational resources. These include: </li></ul><ul><li>enhancing the quality of learning and teaching resources </li></ul><ul><li>financial benefits </li></ul><ul><li>benefits for institutions, and collaboration between institutions </li></ul><ul><li>potential advantages for student recruitment, satisfaction, and retention </li></ul>OER: Benefits www.medev.ac.uk/ourwork/oer/value/
One of the benefits of being explicitly ‘open’ is that it removes the need for people to ask before re-using stuff. Without it, everything boils down to ‘am I allowed to do this?’ type question and many forms of re-use will stop at that hurdle because the costs of getting the answer are too great Andy Powell comment on David Wiley’s blog http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1735
Intellectual property rights (IPR) <ul><li>There are four main types of IP rights </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Patents protect what makes things work (e.g. engine parts, chemical formulas) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trade marks are signs (like words and logos) that distinguish goods and services in the marketplace </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Designs protect the appearance of a product/logo, from the shape of an aeroplane to a fashion item </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Copyright is an automatic right which applies when the work is expressed (fixed, written or recorded) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Copyright, Design and Patents Act, 1988 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Copyright arises automatically when an original idea (author uses some judgment or skill) is expressed/created </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>www.ipo.gov.uk </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
Who owns copyright? <ul><li>The owner of the copyright is the person (or persons, if jointly owned) who created/expressed it, i.e. the author (writer, composer, artist, producer, publisher, etc.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Original literary works such as novels or poems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Original dramatic works such as dance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Original musical works, i.e. the musical notes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Original artistic works such as graphic works (paintings, drawings etc.), photographs and sculptures, including sound recordings, films and broadcasts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Typographical arrangements of published editions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>An exception is an employee who creates a work in the course of their employment (employer owns) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>www.cla.co.uk </li></ul></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
What rights does a copyright owner have? <ul><li>A copyright owner has economic and moral rights </li></ul><ul><li>Economic rights cover copyright owner acts, including rights to copy the work, distribute (e.g. making it available on-line), rent, lend, perform, show, or adapt it </li></ul><ul><li>Owners can waive, assign, licence or sell the ownership of their economic rights </li></ul><ul><li>Moral rights can be waived (but not licensed or assigned) and include the right to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Be identified as the author </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deny a work (that an author did not create) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Object to derogatory treatment of the work </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>www.cla.co.uk </li></ul></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
Copyright infringement <ul><li>It is an infringement of copyright (in relation to a substantial part of a work) without the permission or authorisation of the copyright owner, to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Copy it and/or issue copies of it to the public </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rent or lend it to the public </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perform or show it in public </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communicate it to the public </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Secondary infringement may occur if someone, without permission, imports, possesses or deals with an infringing copy , or provides the means for making it </li></ul><ul><li>Material found on the internet is subject to copyright </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>www.cla.co.uk </li></ul></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
Exceptions <ul><li>You may copy copyright works if </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Copyright has expired (e.g. for literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works = 70 years from when the last author dies) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Your use of the work (which must be acknowledged) is fair dealing as defined under the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patents Act (UK) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Your use of the work is covered under a licensing scheme that you and the copyright holder have subscribed to </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The copyright owner has given you permission </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>www.copyrightservice.co.uk </li></ul></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
Obtaining clearance to use copyright material <ul><li>For permission to copy, contact the copyright owner in writing and specify </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The material you wish use (title, author name etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The exact content to be duplicated (i.e. page numbers) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The number of copies you wish to make </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How the copies will be used (i.e. for an event, course work) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who the copies will be distributed to (i.e. students) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For most published works this will be the publisher </li></ul><ul><li>Permission is needed for each and every purpose </li></ul><ul><li>Fees may be charged to copy the item, or for administering the request to copy the item </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>www.cla.co.uk </li></ul></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
Fair dealing <ul><li>Your use of the work (which must be acknowledged) is fair dealing as defined under the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patents Act (UK) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Research and private study </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instruction or examination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Criticism or review </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>News reporting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Incidental inclusion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accessibility for someone with, e.g. a visual impairment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>There is no simple formula or % that can be applied –instead use licenced materials, or ask for permission </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>www.copyrightservice.co.uk </li></ul></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
Using licenced works <ul><li>A licence (a set of rules) describes how copyright items may be used by others </li></ul><ul><li>Licensing schemes (such as Creative Commons) that both authors (owners) and users can access for free </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If both sides observe the rules then both parties are instantly protected </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Owners licence others to use their content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Users obey the terms of the licence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creative Commons provides different licences that can be combined together </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Policies can be developed to guide owners what licences to use </li></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
www.medev.ac.uk October 2010 cc: by-nc-sa Good practice compliance table (managing risk) Explanation Risk of litigation from infringement of IPR/copyright or patient consent rights Action 3 Institutional policies are clearly in place to enable resources to be compared to the toolkits. Low. Institution follows best practice and has effective take down strategies. Institution able to legally pursue those infringing the institution ’ s rights. Periodically test resources against policies to keep policies under review. Keep abreast of media stories. Limited liability insurance required. 2 Compliance tested and policies are adequate in most but not all aspects to allow the compliance of a resource to be accurately estimated. A small number of areas where policies need to be further developed for complete clarity. Medium. Ownership of resources is likely to be clear. Good practice is followed in relation to patients. Take down and other ‘ complaint ’ policies are in place and being followed. Review those areas where developed is required, possibly in relation to e.g. staff not employed by the institution e.g. emeritus or visiting or NHS. It may be that a partner organisation requires improvement to their policies. Some liability insurance may be necessary. 1 Compliance tested but too few policies available or insufficiently specified to allow the compliance of any particular resource to good practice guidelines to be accurately estimated. Medium. It is unlikely that the ownership and therefore licensing of resources is clear. Resources theoretically owned by the institution could be being ripped off. Collate suite of examples of best practice and review against existing institutional policies. Follow due process to amend and implement those which are relevant to the institution. Take out liability insurance . 0 Compliance with the toolkits unknown/untested. Compliance has been tested and materials failed to pass. High/Unknown. Risk may be minimal if resource was developed based on best practice principles. Institutional policy status (ownership, consent) is unknown. Establish a task force to test some resources against institutional policies; then follow 1-3 below. Take out liability insurance.
Policies, disclaimers and risk <ul><li>In order to safeguard yourself against litigation for copyright or data protection (consent) violation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Have a policy/disclaimer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clearly publish your policy and keep it up to date </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Train your staff in the use of the policy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Follow your policy (do what you say you will do) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>You may also want a disclaimer (use xxx at own risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Actively manage your risks </li></ul><ul><li>Take out liability insurance </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
Consent as distinct from IPR <ul><li>Defined by the principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 and Human Rights Act 1998 </li></ul><ul><li>Recognises the need for more sophisticated management of consent for recordings of people (stills, videos, audios, etc.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Teachers (academics, clinicians, practice/work based learning tutors, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students and ‘ product placement ’ (branded items) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Role players/actors/performers/hired help (including recording crew) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Patients/patient families/care workers/support staff/members of public in healthcare settings ( sensitive personal data) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>GMC review of the guidelines for consent/patient recordings </li></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
Consent as distinct from IPR <ul><li>Proposing a “Consent Commons” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A human subject version of Creative Commons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accepts a basic human right to refuse their image/voice appearing and, where they have previously consented, their right to withdraw their consent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Would work like Creative Commons in that you hallmark material with the consent status and when consent needs to be reviewed (if ever) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Has levels of release (e.g. Closed; ‘medic restrict’; review [date]; fully open) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Terms of the consent needs to be stored with/near the resource </li></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
Consent everything-even where ownership and patient/non-patient rights appear clear, and store consent with resource
consent commons Consent Commons ameliorates uncertainty about the status of educational resources depicting people, and protects institutions from legal risk by developing robust and sophisticated policies and promoting best practice in managing information.
Finding openly licensed resources online <ul><li>Open Educational Resources: practical tools to help mitigate risk </li></ul>
Things to do today: good practice with resources for learning and teaching (OER is irrelevant) 3
1 Using the Xpert to find resources, including images, sounds and videos
cc: by Least restrictive Most open Most reusable This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered, in terms of what others can do with your works licensed under Attribution.
Drop down gives HTML or plain text options to copy into your resource
‘ digital professionalism’ embodying good practice <ul><li>Open Educational Resources </li></ul>
Institutional policy recommendations <ul><li>That authors should ‘hallmark’ all their content with CC licences e.g. CC ‘ by ’ (attribution only) </li></ul><ul><li>Consent everything-even where ownership and patient/non-patient rights appear clear, and store consent with resource </li></ul><ul><li>Review institutional policies against good practice </li></ul><ul><li>UK HE enters a dialogue with publishers to increase the potential for re-using upstream copyrights </li></ul><ul><li>Have sophisticated ‘take-down’ policies </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
Accredited Clinical Teaching Open Resources (ACTOR) Partners: University of Bristol, University of Cambridge, Hull York Medical School, Newcastle University, Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry. Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org #ukoer #actor #medev www.medev.ac.uk/oer/ cc: by-nc By Maxi Walton http://www.flickr.com/photos/maxiwalton/898138774/
Pathways for Open Resource Sharing through Convergence in Healthcare Education (PORSCHE) Seamless access to academic and clinical elearning resources contact: email@example.com www.medev.ac.uk/ourwork/oer/ #porscheoer #ukoer #medev cc: by Tony the Misfit http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonythemisfit/2580913560/
The Higher Education Academy OER pages: www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/teachingandlearning/oer/ The JISC OER pages: www.jisc.ac.uk/oer The OER InfoKit from JISC InfoNet: openeducationalresources.pbworks.com The OER Synthesis and Evaluation Report: www.caledonianacademy.net/spaces/oer/ The JISC Legal IPR Toolkit: www.web2rights.com/OERIPRSupport/index.html References
Attribution and disclaimer <ul><li>This ppt file is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike version 3.0 unported licence . </li></ul><ul><li>Please include the following phrase ‘Suzanne Hardy and Gillian Brown, 3 May 2011, NOVICE online workshop’ </li></ul>