Creative Commons V4.0 for Education (new)

No notes for slide

In 2013, we launched version 4.0 of the CC license suite and it is ready for anyone to use now to apply to their educational resources or other creative works.But what does that mean? What’s new in 4.0 that wasn’t there in 3.0? And just as importantly, what has stayed the same so that you don’t have to worry about changes to licenses you weren’t expecting? Lastly, I’ll go over some examples of organizations and institutions who have already upgraded to the 4.0 version of whatever license they were using.

So first things first – we have version 4.0 now. What does that mean? What does it mean to have new versions of the license suite?

So in order to understand why we version, you have to understand Creative Commons’ mission. CC’s mission statement is clear – we develop, support and steward legal and technical infrastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing, and innovation. The legal and technical infrastructure that we are talking about here is our suite of copyright licenses and public domain tools. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/But the point is that because we are the legal stewards behind these licenses and tools, we work to update and improve them over time to make sure that they are doing their job in the current digital landscape, which as you can imagine is constantly changing, especially with regards to copyright laws not to mention the pace of technological change.

So to make sure our licenses and public domain tools are up to date, Creative Commons has been versioning them since we first launched it in 2002. And you can see here the different versions launched at various intervals – 1.0 in 2002, 2.0 in 2004 up through 3.0 in 2007 and 4.0 last year.= Why versioning is important =So I mentioned a bit on the last slide about why Versioning is important, but I want to re-emphasize that here, with a few additional points. Versioning is really a core responsibility of license stewardship, because:(as I mentioned) the Law and technology keeps changing – for example, think about privacy before and after the Internet!But what’s more, the Usage of our licenses keeps growing, certainly since 2002 the number of CC licensed works has grown exponentially, and this results in many more and diverse stakeholders when it comes to our licenses, also known as license adoptersAnd lastly, we can’t predict the future. Because we are not fortune tellers, we do have to continue versioning the licenses every so often to adapt to this growing and diverse base of users and to anticipate significant changes to the law and technologyLong story short: Version 4.0 is the most up to date version of our license suite yet, and it was designed in consultation with many, many legal experts from around the world to account for and anticipate all these changes!For speaker and further interested audience members: we have this detailed chart explaining the differences between all the versions: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions---- For most lay education audiences, stop here ----= Examples of whenversioning was needed =(only dive into if relevant to audience, eg. open ed advocates might be interested; educators don’t need to know this)1.0 – 2.0: CC learned a lot its first year in existence, and with experience came recognition that adjustments were needed relatively soon after launch of 1.0. Among other thingsno demand for the non BY licenses in the original suite of 11 licenses; took the opportunity to drop those from the 2.0 suitedropped affirmative representations and warranties on the part of licensors, to bring us in line with what other providers of free content were doing. We recognized (and encouraged then as well as today) that licensors can offer warranties with or without a fee where those are sought. This is a common model throughout the open publishing landscape, and one embraced by the open source community as well.other important changes: improving the attribution requirement, addressing music-related issues including how the CC licenses work with collecting societies, and introducing compatibility between ported versions of BY-SA.2.0 to 3.0: second major upgradeendorsement: concern by licensors that when others reused their works, the licensor endorsed those uses through attribution statements. Introduced “no endorsement” provision, introduced provision requiring removal of attribution when requested and reasonably possible, and clarified moral rightsinternationalization-related issues: the generic license was one in the same as the US license, wanted to change that by creating a more international license using international terminology to ease adoption issues; other issues also were in play, including the need to harmonize still further treatment of moral rights. compatibility: other major issue was compatibility with other copy-left or ShareAlike licenses. Recognized problems associated with having incompatible silos of content that could not be remixed; introduced a provision that would allow CC to declare other licenses sufficiently compatible such that content could be remixed between them and licensed under one or the other license easily.

Essentially, this is the crux of the matter. We worry about the details so you don’t have to.Especially because we want you to continue using our tools to share your knowledge and creativity with the world, which results in greater (and ultimately, hopefully, universal) access to education.

So, since Version 4.0 is our most up to date license. Here’s what is new in 4.0!

There’s a lot. Many things are new and improved 4.0, but these are the changes that matter the most to you in the education space. First of all, the licenses are easier to navigate. And if something designed by lawyers is easier to navigate, that’s never a bad thing.

This is the new human readable deed we launched with the 4.0 licenses. It accurately conveys information required by all versions of the licenses and it is more human readable than ever before! If there are terms that you don’t understand or that need more explaining, all you have to do is click on it and a pop-up appears! These pop-ups explain things further in very simple terms.I’m going to paste in a link to the deed here so you can play around with it yourself: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/So there you go, feel free to click around and ask me any questions at the end.

Now on that deed, if you click on the very first link to the actual license, you’ll be taken to the full page of legalese.If you read the actual license (which we suggest for all first time licensors), which is a legal document, you’ll see that it’s been better organized as well, with a definitions section -- and that it has been split up into sections that make much more sense. For example, the Attribution & Marking section is all in one place now, as opposed to in 3.0 where it was scattered about and a bit harder to find.

In addition to better navigability and readability, Version 4.0 is better suited for today’s international landscape. Anyone, anywhere should be able to use and apply our licenses to share educational and other resources without having to worry about country-specific laws. We’ve had over 10 years to learn about the local laws in over 60 jurisdictions through or 270 member affiliate network.

And we drew on this experience in the process of developing 4.0. We’ve worked closely with our international network of affiliates – including countless other experts and stakeholders to make 4.0 the most internationally enforceable set of Creative Commons licenses to date. So we feel in confident in saying that the 4.0 licenses are ready-to-use around the world.Because we worked with lawyers around the world, the new licenseshave improved terminology that’s better understood worldwide. With the release of 4.0, we’re also introducing official translations of the CC licenses, so that users of CC-licensed material can read and understand the complete licenses in their local languages.Note: Once launched, add slide on what official translations are and how one can tell if the legal code has been translated. For reference, see first official CC0 translation into Dutch: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/42397.

A third change, is that now we address some rights outside of the scope of copyright. I know what you’re thinking -- Just when you thought copyright law itself was complicated enough, you find out that there are rights outside the scope of copyright!Well they do exist, and we can’t change reality, so we decided to deal with them in 4.0. Especially because some of these rights can complicate the reuse of CC-licensed material. Version 4.0 addresses this challenge by identifying categories of rights that could interfere with reuse of CC licensed material. Accounting for these and other rights will will make it easier for users of CC licensed works to use the work as intended by the licensor. Again, long story short, we worry about the details so you don’t have to.

Another category of rights are moral rights. Also publicity, privacy, and personality rights. These are either outside of the scope of copyright law or more accurately, independent of the economic rights that copyright bestows on authors. Moral rights in particular exist most everywhere except the US and a few other countries except in some very limited circumstances.Version 4.0 makes it clear that the licensor waives these rights where possible to the limited extent that it is necessary for you to reuse the content as intended by the license.

So practically speaking, what does that mean? So here’s an example. Let’s say you find a photo that a teacher has taken of herself that she has licensed under CC BY 4.0. You want to use that photo in a publication like a year book. Do you have to worry about her publicity rights when it comes to reusing it?Nope, not as long as you follow the terms of the license. Since she took the photo of herself and then licensed it under CC BY 4.0, she waived any publicity rights to the limited extent that allows you to reuse the photo under the CC BY 4.0 license. You would just have to make sure to give proper attribution and all of that!One thing to keep in mind though is that the licensor can only waive this category of rights if s/he has them! Remember that others may have rights in the work that the licensor does not have the right to give away, for example, if the teacher had taken a photo of herself + of a few of her students, the students may still have publicity rights that the teacher is not allowed to license away.

Ok moving on to the fourth improvement to Version 4.0 – common-sense attribution! And anything with common-sense in front of it means it is easier and simpler to do.

In 4.0, Attribution requirements have been aggregated and greatly simplified, with more flexibility built in such that the attribution requirement is subject to a “reasonable to the means, medium and context” standard. So for example, one reasonable way to satisfy the attribution requirement is with a link to a page that lists all the required attribution information.Note: This was assumed reasonable under 3.0, but made explicit in 4.0.

So here’s a practical example. Let’s say you create a video about the History of ___ and you can’t attribute all of your sources in the video itself because, well, it’s a video, and no one would be able to read it all anyway in a few seconds. Now you can simply include a link to a page that lists all the credits of the CC licensed works that you used.

To help you out, we revamped our best practices for attribution guide with examples by medium.The link is displayed here, but I’ll paste into the chat.. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Best_practices_for_attribution .. And you can take a quick look. Please note that these best practices are not new for 4.0, but we thought that 4.0 was a good opportunity to make our guide simpler and more clear. So please do visit this link for best practice examples and details, but if you want a quick reference acronym, we recommend using “TASL” when attributing authors of CC licensed works – which stands for Title Author Source License. So Title and Author are self-explanatory; Source means link to the original work where you accessed it on the web; and License means the name of the license, for example CC BY or Creative Commons Attribution, and a link to the license. The link is very important because that’s how people who don’t know what Creative Commons is know what they can and can’t do with a work.

So here’s a best practice example – let’s say you assembled a textbook consisting of open educational resources from various sources. Here’s what a common sense attribution page might look like at the end of that textbook.

You can see that it can be as simple as listing the title, source (link to the original content), name of the author, and link to the license for each third party work included in the textbook.

Another change to attribution in 4.0 is that if you modify a CC-licensed work and use it – you just need to indicate that you modified it along with your attribution. This makes it easier for downstream users to know that it was changed from the original. This is new in 4.0 because in 3.0 and prior versions, you only had to note this if you had created an adaptation. But now you don’t have to worry about if your change was big enough to constitute an adaptation – no matter what modification you make, just note it. This makes it easier for educators to tell the original from your version.----Extra notes for presenter: If a reuser modifies the work in any manner (other than trivially small ways), they have to indicate that. With 3.0 and prior versions, this was only required if an adaptation had been made. Upside for educators is that easier to tell if what you're reusing has been changed, and because a link back is required to the original if supplied, it makes it alerts those downstream that they may want to go back and look at the original.

So here’s an example. You use another teacher’s lesson plan almost verbatim – because it’s so great – but the classroom activity is not so great. So you decide to replace it with your own activity. And you want to share that resource back with the world on your blog saying – look what I just did. Simply note that you changed it so that people who access your version of the resource will know the difference. Even better: note specifically that you replaced the classroom activity, but that everything else is still the other teacher’s work, and people who access your version of the resource can easily tell your contribution for the other teacher’s.

Here is a sample attribution for that lesson plan that you would put on your blog.

Ok, on to #5. Anonymity if desired! That sounds kind of ominous, but it’s not really.

All it means is that.. You can ask to have your name removed from any version of your work, and your request has to be granted because the license says so.So this isn’t exactly new to 4.0. Version 3.0 included a provision that allowed a licensor to request that a user remove the attribution from an adaptation, if she did not want her name associated with it. But Version 4.0 definitely makes it more explicit, and it also expands that provision to apply not only to adaptations but also to verbatim reproductions of a work. So 4.0 now accounts specifically for situations where licensors wish to disassociate themselves from uses of their works they object to, even if their work hasn’t been modified or published in a collection with other works.One thing to remember though that this provision is not automatic. You would have to contact the person using your work and and ask to have your name removed. The difference with 4.0 is that it’s made much more explicit that the user is required to comply with your request if reasonably practicable.

So here’s an example – you draft a white paper, or lesson plan, or whatever other resource. You want people to build on it and give feedback, but you don’t want to be credited for the work until it’s final. You can ask to have your name removed from any drafts redistributed online – and those users would have to comply with your request if reasonably practicable.

Ok, on to the final change… #6 30 days to correct license violations. This is a good thing!

So basically, before Before Version 4.0, if you didn’t follow a CC license condition correctly, you automatically lost all your rights to continue using the CC-licensed work under the license. This worked well in practice (eg. not many disputes that we know of arose), but in theory you could lose all your right permanently and not notice, especially in cases where you might have just made an honest mistake. So with Version 4.0, we introduced a 30 day cure period, or window, where a user can correct her mistake and get her rights automatically reinstated. This means that under 4.0 your rights under the license are automatically reinstated if you correct your mistake within 30 days of discovering the violation (either on your own or because the licensor or someone else has told you about it). This cure period resembles similar provisions of other public licenses and it really does better reflect how licensors and licensees resolve compliance issues in practice. It also assures users that – if you act quickly– you can continue using the CC-licensed work without worry that you may have lost your rights permanently.It’s also important to note that, if you miss this window, because you got busy due to some significant life event, you can still regain your rights under the license if you get the licensor to expressly grant you permission again. So all is not lost because you didn’t meet the deadline!Note: Just because you correct the violation doesn’t mean the licensor may not have a claim against you (the law is complicated after all), but it should make your case easier!Icon: CC BY 3.0 byLuboš Volkov; http://thenounproject.com/term/window/20953/

So here’s an example. Let’s say you forgot to give credit to the author of a CC licensed textbook. You discover that you forgot this attribution after you publish your curriculum online. Instead of permanently losing reuse rights to the textbook, you just have to correct your mistake by adding the attribution within 30 days of discovering your mistake and your rights are reinstated automatically. Woohoo!Icon: CC BY 3.0 byLuboš Volkov; http://thenounproject.com/term/window/20953/

So – that was a lot of stuff we went over. Here’s a quick recap.

Version 4.0 is improved because it is…

So we’ve gone over what’s new in 4.0, but we also want to assure you that there are No substantive changes around many of the features that have worked well, which means that you don't have to worry about becoming familiar with new conditions. So here are some things that have not changed

(for better or for worse) NonCommercial has stayed the same, so whatever you were able to do before with an NC licensed work you can continue to do so. Nothing about the definition has changed, so if you hated back then, you can continue to hate it….Extra presenter’s notes:Does my use violate the NonCommercial clause of the licenses?CC's NonCommercial (NC) licenses prohibit uses that are "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or monetary compensation." This is intended to capture the intention of the NC-using community without placing detailed restrictions that are either too broad or too narrow. Please note that CC's definition does not turn on the type of user: if you are a nonprofit or charitable organization, your use of an NC-licensed work could still run afoul of the NC restriction, and if you are a for-profit entity, your use of an NC-licensed work does not necessarily mean you have violated the term. Whether a use is commercial will depend on the specifics of the situation and the intentions of the user. In CC's experience, it is usually relatively easy to determine whether a use is permitted, and known conflicts are relatively few considering the popularity of the NC licenses. However, there will always be uses that are challenging to categorize as commercial or noncommercial. CC cannot advise you on what is and is not commercial use. If you are unsure, you should either contact the rights holder for clarification, or search for works that permit commercial uses. In 2008, Creative Commons published results from a survey on meanings of commercial and noncommercial use generally. Note that the results of the study are not intended to serve as CC's official interpretation of what is and is not commercial use under our licenses, and the results should not be relied upon as such.

But the good news is that it’s consistent with version 4.0, so you can continue to use NC licensed resources as you have been doing.

The no endorsement clause still holds. This clause doesn’t give users permission to attribute you in a way that suggests you endorse or support their use of your work. All users must still be careful not to imply any sponsorship, endorsement, or connection with youwithout your permission.So this clause in addition to the changes I mentioned earlier regarding anonymity (or removal of your name when requested)And users having to indicate if they modified your workReally makes 4.0 pretty robust in terms of making sure that you’re not associated with any unwanted uses of your work.

So here’s a practical example. A teacher’s methods who you don’t exactly agree with uses your lesson plan in their class. They can’t say that you support their use or indicate in anyway that you endorse them.

The operation of ShareAlike has not changed. The ShareAlike condition is still only triggered when you derive or adapt the licensed material. This means that if you adapt a CC BY-SA 4.0 licensed work, you must apply the same CC BY-SA 4.0 license (or later version; for example if we come out with V5.0 I the future) to your adaptation. The license you apply is called the adaptor’s license.This SA condition is not triggered when you include the work unaltered in a collection. = Background info for presenter = http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_4#ShareAlikehttp://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/ShareAlike#ShareAlike_scope

No. If you are creating a powerpoint presentation (like this one) and you want to include a CC BY-SA 4.0 licensed photo, unaltered, on a slide, it does not mean that you have to license the entire presentation under the same CC BY-SA 4.0 license. You are still free to license your presentation how you like, as long as you give proper attribution to the photo’s author (making it clear that the photo is not yours and licensed differently from the rest of the presentation) and abide by the other terms of the license. For attribution best practices, recall our examples from (Slides 21-26) and see http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Best_practices_for_attributionNote for presenter: The answer is no about 99.5% of the time. However, it is theoretically possible to have used a photograph unaltered with other material in a way that could be said to be an adaptation. See http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#What_is_an_adaptation.3F for more details.

Ok, so that’s 4.0 in a nutshell!But why should youupgrade and start using 4.0? Well here are some major organizations and institutions that are adopting 4.0 now to help convince you.

The Public Library of Science has moved to 4.0. For those of you unfamiliar with PLOS, it is a nonprofit science and medical publishing venture that provides the world with high quality and high profile journals under the CC By 4.0 license. It runs on the open access model, which means that plos journals are immediately available online with no charges for access and no restrictions on redistribution or use as long as the author and source are attributed as specified by the CC By 4.0 license.

Newer Open Access access journal models have also adopted 4.0 such as PeerJ.

Peter Binfield, the cofounder of PeerJ, firmly believes that Open Access publishing is the future of academic journal publishing. And that once “all academic… “He says “We were pleased to see the license updated to 4.0 and were quick to adopt it.”---Read http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/41983 for ref.Peter Binfield, Co-Founder, says:“We firmly believe that Open Access publishing is the future of the academic journal publishing system. With the current trends we see in the marketplace (including governmental legislation; institutional mandates; the rapid growth of the major OA publishers; and the increasing education and desire from authors) we believe that Open Access content will easily make up >50% of newly published content in the next 4 or 5 years. Once all academic content is OA and under an appropriate re-use license we believe that significant new opportunities will emerge for people to use this content; to build on it for new discoveries and products; and to accelerate the scientific discovery process. We regard the CC-BY license as the gold standard for OA Publications. Some other publishers provide authors with “NC” options, or try to write their own OA licenses, but we have a firm belief in the CC BY flavor. If there are many different OA licenses in play then it becomes increasingly difficult for users to determine what rights they have for any given piece of work, and so it is cleaner and simpler if everyone agrees on a single (preferably liberal) license. We were pleased to see the license updated to 4.0 and were quick to adopt it.”

The NWP Digital Is website for educators also upgraded to 4.0 with the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. This website is an emerging and open knowledge base created and curated by its community of educators. Educators share resources, collections, reflections, inquiries, and stories about what it means to teach writing in our digital and interconnected world.The NWP says that they have “adopted a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International license in order to better support creative sharing and distribution of content.”

Connexions has also upgraded to 4.0. For those of you unfamiliar with Connexions, it’s a platform that hosts OER in two formats: modules, which are like small "knowledge chunks," and collections, which are groups of modules structured into books or course curricula. All Connexions content is defaulted undera Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Earlier I mentioned that version 4.0 is better for databases. The Paleobiology Database has adopted CC BY 4.0 for its database after a year of community feedback and discussion. It is one of the largest compendia of fossil data assembled to date and includes an international group of more than 150 contributing scientists. The database has more than 280,000 taxonomic names and nearly 500,000 published opinions on the status and classification of those names. ---Read https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/41216 for background.Short blurb: One of the largest compendia of fossil data assembled to date is the Paleobiology Database (PBDB), founded in 1998 by John Alroy and Charles Marshall. The PBDB has since grown to include an international group of more than 150 contributing scientists with diverse research agendas. Collectively, this body of volunteer and grant-supported investigators have spent more than 9 continuous person years entering more than 280,000 taxonomic names, nearly 500,000 published opinions on the status and classification of those names, and over 1.1 million taxonomic occurrences. After a year of community feedback and discussion, the Paleobiology Database has taken the decision that “All records are made available to the public based on a Creative Commons license that requires attribution before use.” The Paleobiology Database is now licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License.

And here’s something fun, Honda released 3D data for the exterior designs of several of its concept model cars under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Here’s the link to the website: http://www.honda-3d.com/ where you can peruse the dif models. ---Read https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/41895 for ref:Auto manufacturer Honda released 3D data for the exterior designs of several of its concept models under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial (BY-NC) license. From the press release:With the data downloaded from the website “Honda 3D Design Archives,” Honda’s concept models can easily be replicated by a household 3D printer, which is becoming more popular in recent years. By offering data of its concept models, which embody the spirit of “Honda Design,” Honda offers opportunity to enjoy a simulated experience of Honda’s “art of manufacturing.”You can view the designs on the new Honda 3D site or download them in STL. Since the designs are licensed under BY-NC, anyone can share, modify, and remix them noncommercially. Now that these designs are in the wild, it will be cool to see who mods them in unexpected and creative ways.Puyo Concept Imageby Honda / CC BY-NC 4.0

And there are many more working on adopting or moving to 4.0. Probably many we don’t know about as well.We’d love you to keep us informed of them. Here’s the link to the CC wiki where we’re sort of keeping track: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0_adoptions. Feel free to add your own project or resource once you’ve upgraded to 4.0!

We made it easy for you!

Our license chooser tool has been upgraded, too! You can simply visit creativecommons.org/choose and select a license the way you’ve always done and the html code is generated automatically for you. Simply copy and paste the code into yourweb page. Other options for marking the CC license on your work are outlined at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking_your_work_with_a_CC_license. We revamped these best practices as well in conjunction with the launch of 4.0.

So here is the big takeaway that I hope you get from this webinar..

That version 4.0 is improved and better for governments, public sector information, databases, but especially for education. And that you should use it!

And with that said, This slidedeck is licensed under .. you guessed it! Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. This means you can reuse, remix, and redistribute it as long as you attribute Creative Commons!Now.. Questions?Please keep in mind that Creative Commons and the double C in a circle are registered trademarks of Creative Commons in the United States and other countries. Third party marks and brands are the property of their respective holders.

Guagua Community College Library at Guagua Community College Library
thank you so much po madam
3 years ago Reply

Are you sure you want to Yes No

Your message goes here
Patricia Díaz Charquero , Abogada, Docente en: Instituto de Computación/Facultad de Ingeniería- UdelaR, CFE /ANEP y MEC at Creative Commons Uruguay
Thank you Jane!, I wil traduce it to spanish and share on slidshare.
:-)
4 years ago Reply

Are you sure you want to Yes No

Your message goes here
Goutama Bachtiar , Advisor, Consultant, Investigator, Auditor, Content Producer | ISACA & PMI SME, SABSA & NIST WG, MF Fellow, ITABoK Co-Author at Gerson Lehrman Group
Found it fruitful. Thanks for sharing, Jane!
4 years ago Reply

Are you sure you want to Yes No

Your message goes here
Jacqui Cyrus , Assistant Professor at University of Guam
Thank your for sharing.
-j-
4 years ago Reply

Are you sure you want to Yes No

Your message goes here

Creative Commons V4.0 for Education (new)

Jane Park

Creative Commons V4.0 for Education (new)