1.
October 2010 cc: by--sa
Open Educational Resources:
IPR, copyright and licensing –
what’s the difference?
Dr Trevor Bryant Senior Lecturer, Division of Medical Education,
University of Southampton
Dr Megan Quentin-Baxter Director, Higher Education Academy
Subject Centre for Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
Nicola Siminson Jorum’s Community Enhancement Officer,
Manchester Information and Associated Services (MIMAS)
Sharon Waller Senior Advisor, Higher Education Academy
www.medev.ac.uk

2.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
2
Outline of the session
• Intellectual property rights (IPR)
• Copyright
– Ownership
– Licensing including Creative Commons
– Exemptions
– Consent as distinct from IPR
• Experiences of using and contributing to OER
– Using and contributing to OER
– Institutional policies
– Experiences and reflections
• Discussion and panel
www.medev.ac.uk

3.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
3
Intellectual property rights (IPR)
• There are four main types of IP rights
– Patents protect what makes things work (e.g. engine parts,
chemical formulas)
– Trade marks are signs (like words and logos) that
distinguish goods and services in the marketplace
– Designs protect the appearance of a product/logo,
from the shape of an aeroplane to a fashion item
– Copyright is an automatic right which applies when
the work is expressed (fixed, written or recorded)
• Copyright, Design and Patents Act, 1988
• Copyright arises automatically when an original idea (author
uses some judgment or skill) is expressed/created
– www.ipo.gov.uk
www.medev.ac.uk

4.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
4
Who owns copyright?
• 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.)
– Original literary works such as novels or poems
– Original dramatic works such as dance
– Original musical works, i.e. the musical notes
– Original artistic works such as graphic works (paintings,
drawings etc.), photographs and sculptures, including sound
recordings, performance, films and broadcasts
– Typographical arrangements of published editions
• An exception is an employee who creates a work in the
course of their employment (employer owns)
• www.cla.co.uk
www.medev.ac.uk

5.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
5
What rights does a copyright owner have?
• A copyright owner has economic and moral rights
• 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
• Owners can waive, assign, licence or sell the
ownership of their economic rights
• Moral rights can be waived (but not licenced or
assigned) and include the right to
– Be identified as the author
– Deny a work (that an author did not create)
– Object to derogatory treatment of the work
• www.cla.co.uk
www.medev.ac.uk

6.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
6
Copyright infringement
• 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
– Copy it and/or issue copies of it to the public
– Rent or lend it to the public
– Perform or show it in public
– Communicate it to the public
• Secondary infringement may occur if someone, without
permission, imports, possesses or deals with an
infringing copy, or provides the means for making it
• Material found on the internet is subject to copyright
• www.cla.co.uk
www.medev.ac.uk

7.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
7
Exceptions
• You may copy copyright works if
– Copyright has expired (e.g. for literary, dramatic, musical or
artistic works = 70 years from when the last author dies)
– Your use of the work (which must be acknowledged) is fair
dealing as defined under the 1988 Copyright Designs and
Patents Act (UK)
– Your use of the work is covered under a licensing scheme that
you and the copyright holder have subscribed to
– The copyright owner has given you permission
• www.copyrightservice.co.uk
www.medev.ac.uk

8.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
8
Obtaining clearance to use copyright material
• For permission to copy, contact the copyright owner in
writing and specify
– The material you wish use (title, author name etc.)
– The exact content to be duplicated (i.e. page numbers)
– The number of copies you wish to make
– How the copies will be used (i.e. for an event, course work)
– Who the copies will be distributed to (i.e. students)
• For most published works this will be the publisher
• Permission is needed for each and every purpose
• Fees may be charged to copy the item, or for
administering the request to copy the item
• www.cla.co.uk
www.medev.ac.uk

9.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
9
Fair dealing
• Your use of the work (which must be acknowledged) is
fair dealing as defined under the 1988 Copyright
Designs and Patents Act (UK)
– Research and private study
– Instruction or examination
– Criticism or review
– News reporting
– Incidental inclusion
– Accessibility for someone with, e.g. a visual impairment
• There is no simple formula or % that can be applied –
instead use licenced materials, or ask for permission
• www.copyrightservice.co.uk
www.medev.ac.uk

10.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
10
Using licenced works
• A licence (a set of rules) describes how copyright items
may be used by others
• Licensing schemes (such as Creative Commons) that
both authors (owners) and users can access for free
– If both sides observe the rules then both parties are instantly
protected
– Owners licence others to use their content
– Users obey the terms of the licence
– Creative Commons provides different licences that can be
combined together
– Policies can be developed to guide owners what licences to use
www.medev.ac.uk

11.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
11
www.medev.ac.uk
Creative Commons: creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

12.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
12
www.medev.ac.uk
Flickr search.creativecommons.org

13.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
13

14.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
14
Consent as distinct from IPR
• Defined by the principles in the Data Protection Act
1998 and Human Rights Act 1998
• Recognises the need for more sophisticated
management of consent for recordings of people (stills,
videos, audios, etc.)
– Teachers (academics, clinicians, practice/work based learning
tutors, etc.)
– Students and ‘product placement’ (branded items)
– Role players/actors/performers/hired help (including recording
crew)
– Patients/patient families/care workers/support staff/members of
public in healthcare settings (sensitive personal data)
– GMC review of the guidelines for consent/patient recordings
www.medev.ac.uk

15.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
15
Consent as distinct from IPR
• Proposing a “Consent Commons”
– A human subject version of Creative Commons
– Accepts a basic human right to refuse their image/voice
appearing and, where they have previously consented, their
right to withdraw their consent
– Would work like Creative Commons in that you hallmark
material with the consent status and when consent needs to be
reviewed (if ever)
– Has levels of release (e.g. Closed; ‘medic restrict’; review
[date]; fully open)
– Terms of the consent needs to be stored with/near the resource
www.medev.ac.uk

16.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
16
Policies, disclaimers and risk
• In order to safeguard yourself against litigation for
copyright or data protection (consent) violation
– Have a policy/disclaimer
– Clearly publish your policy and keep it up to date
– Train your staff in the use of the policy
– Follow your policy (do what you say you will do)
• You may also want a disclaimer (use xxx at own risk)
• Actively manage your risks
• Take out liability insurance
www.medev.ac.uk

17.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
17
www.medev.ac.uk
JISC www.jisc.ac.uk/aboutus/copyright.aspx

18.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
18
www.medev.ac.uk
Good practice compliance table (managing risk)
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.
October 2010 cc: by-nc-sa

19.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
19
Institutional policy recommendations
• That authors should ‘hallmark’ all their content with CC
licences e.g. CC ‘by’ (attribution only)
• Consent everything-even where ownership and
patient/non-patient rights appear clear, and store
consent with resource
• Review institutional policies against good practice
• UK HE enters a dialogue with publishers to increase the
potential for re-using upstream copyrights
• Have sophisticated ‘take-down’ policies
www.medev.ac.uk

20.
October 2010 cc: by-sa
20
Attribution and disclaimer
• This file is made available under a Creative Commons
attribution share alike licence.
• To attribute author/s please include the phrase “cc: by-
sa Megan Quentin-Baxter, October 2010,
http://www.slideshare.net/meganqb/copyright-and-
consent-briefing-for-open-educational-resources”
• Users are free to link to, reuse and remix this material under the terms
of the licence which stipulates that any derivatives must bear the
same terms. Anyone with any concerns about the way in which any
material appearing here has been linked to, used or remixed from
elsewhere, please contact the author who will make reasonable
endeavour to take down the original files within 10 working days.
www.medev.ac.uk