Successfully reported this slideshow.

Lecture capture: Risky business or evolving open practice

2

Share

Loading in …3
×
1 of 22
1 of 22

More Related Content

Similar to Lecture capture: Risky business or evolving open practice

More from Jane Secker

Related Books

Free with a 14 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 14 day trial from Scribd

See all

Lecture capture: Risky business or evolving open practice

  1. 1. Lecture capture: risky business or evolving open practice Jane Secker, LSE and Chris Morrison, University of Kent @jsecker @cbowiemorrison @UKCopyrightLit ALT-C Conference 6-9th September 2016
  2. 2. Risky Business? Risky Business, © 1983 Geffen Pictures, Dir. Paul Brickman
  3. 3. Risky Business? Risky Business, © 1983 Geffen Pictures, Dir. Paul Brickman
  4. 4. What? Why? How? When? Survey devised by: Jane Secker, Chris Morrison, Philippa Hatch, Alex Fenlon, Charlotte Booth, Carol Summerside, Helen Cargill, Phil Ansell and Scott McGowan
  5. 5. The issues • Lecture recording & IPR (intellectual property rights) policies • Consent from individuals • Dealing with 3rd party copyright • Wider IPR issues Full report coming soon from: https://ukcopyrightliteracy.wordpress.com
  6. 6. Yes - my institution has a written policy 29% No - my institution has no policy or documented approach to lecture capture 31% Sort of - my institution has a documented approach to lecture capture but it is not expressed as a single formal policy 40% Does your institution have a policy covering IPR issues with lecture recording? (N=33) Headline findings
  7. 7. Academic consultation Figure 2: Did your institution consult widely with the academic community before introducing a policy or approach to lecture recording? (n=33)
  8. 8. Opt in vs opt out
  9. 9. Individual consent
  10. 10. Responsibility for 3rd party copyright The lecturer would be expected to observe copyright and can apply to the Copyright Clearance Service for advice. 3% 9% 18% 21% 94% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% School Administration Staff Other E-learning / VLE team Compliance Officer / Team Lecturer/presenter Figure 8. Who takes responsibility for rights issues with content included in lectures? (n=33)
  11. 11. Dealing with third party copyright issues 7% 20% 30% 50% 50% 53% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% They must not upload recordings including third party content to the VLE or similar Other They should rely on openly licensed / Creative Commons materials only They must edit problematic content themselves They must always seek permissions for third party content They can rely on fair dealing exceptions Figure 10. What advice do you give to lecturers using third party content? (n=30)
  12. 12. Responsibility for third party copyright Yes 3% No 83% No Answer 14% Figure 11. Do you, or any one else in the university, review lecturer recordings to identify content that is not permitted under UK copyright law or university licences? (n=33)
  13. 13. Making staff aware of copyright issues 9% 18% 33% 73% 73% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% They are not made aware of these issues It’s in the staff terms and conditions They are provided with advice as part of staff induction / training Information is on the website They are provided with advice as part of agreeing to use the lecture recording system Figure 9. How are staff made aware of copyright issues that might arise in recording lectures? (n=33)
  14. 14. Wider IPR issues • Automated processes easier, but awareness of IPR is low (IPAN, 2016) • Variety of attitudes to IPR/risk – what’s acceptable? • Different issues for some disciplines • Is lecture capture different to other VLE use? • Lecture capture is too new to be considered in some policies • General academic resistance to lecture capture
  15. 15. Policy analysis • Examined 11 institutions • Compared with Jisc guidance as a benchmark • Looked only at what was provided (some policies are behind registration walls) • Created 5 higher level and 12 lower level categories
  16. 16. High level categories Appetite for risk Support and guidance Institutional control Open practice Comprehensiveness of approach
  17. 17. Emerging patterns
  18. 18. Interim findings • Variety of approaches • No clear models as yet • Does good policy = good practice? • Support needs to be clear, helpful and practical • Institutional culture of risk could be explored further • Open practice not widespread
  19. 19. Next steps • Full report to be published soon! • Talk to Jisc / ALT about improving the current guidance • Need for flexible approach to help devise policies that support institutional culture and open practice • IPRs need to be considered as part of wider policies and academics need to be on board
  20. 20. Further reading • IPAN (2016) University IP Policy: Perception and practice. Available at: http://www.ipaware.net/sites/default/files/ IPAN_NUS_University_IP_Policy_v11- 2r_online-mainr_28jul16.pdf • Jisc (2015) Recording lectures: legal considerations. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/recording- lectures-legal-considerations • Secker, J. & Morrison, C. 2016. Copyright and E-learning: a guide for practitioners, Second Edition. Facet Publishing, London. pp. 103-105. • Secker, J., Bond, S., & Grussendorf, S. 2010. Lecture Capture: rich and strange, or a dark art? LSE Research Online. Available: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29184 https://ukcopyrightliteracy.wordpress.com
  21. 21. Image Credits Slide 1: Zero7/2One by Jan Jablunka CC-BY https://flic.kr/p/2j4gn8 Slide 2-3: Images from the 1983 film ‘Risky Business’, used under S.32 Illustration for Instruction, © Geffen Pictures, Dir. Paul Brickman Slide 4: Contracts by NobMouse CC-BY https://flic.kr/p/7b8UG9 Slide 5: Camera operator setting up the video camera by jshawkins CC-BY https://flic.kr/p/7prerh Slides 14, 15, 18 and 19: Clip art Slide 20: Facet Publishing https://ukcopyrightliteracy.wordpress.com

Editor's Notes

  • Slides 1-5 – Chris
    Slides 6-13 Jane
    Slides 14-21 Chris

    This paper presents findings from a recent survey on institutional attitudes towards intellectual property issues (IPR) and lecture capture. It was completed by copyright and e-learning support practitioners from 33 institutions across the UK higher education sector. The findings are particularly important as many institutions look to encourage open practices, however they reflect the on-going tension surrounding copyright and IPR issues. These issues include whether permission is obtained from the academic staff, the ownership of recorded lectures and the inclusion of third party content in lectures that is subsequently copied and redistributed.
     
    In 2010 Secker et al., (2010) examined staff attitudes to lecture capture and concerns about copyright and IPR were cited by several academics. Jisc (2010) produced guidance on the legal considerations of lecture recording highlighting the importance of copyright, however, this survey is the first research to be undertaken since changes were made to UK copyright law in October 2014. The amendments widened the educational exceptions to copyright, specifically Section 32 (Illustration for Instruction) and Section 30 (Quotation, Criticism and Review). The survey collected data about how different institutions might be interpreting these exceptions with regards to lecture recordings.
     
    The paper illustrates a mixed picture with regards to institutional policies. For example 31% of institutions have no documented approach or formal IPR policy for lecture recording despite recommendations that they should (Jisc, 2010). Only 29% of respondents have an institutional IPR policy with the remaining 40% having an informal, less well-documented approach. In addition to this nearly half of institutions (45%) did not consult widely with the academic community before introducing lecture capture. Meanwhile 45% of institutions have taken the decision not to ask for individual consent from those being recorded.
     
    The paper will explore some of the conflicts that arise, for example requiring lecturers to obtain permission for the use of third party content as well as advising them to rely on copyright exceptions. In most institutions (94%) lecturers are expected to take responsibility for all rights issues. Even though this responsibility is shared with others, ultimately the lecturer often has to make decisions about which content to include. The majority of respondents (63%) try to give helpful examples to support lecturers make fair dealing choices, but leave the ultimate decision up to them. Only 3% actually monitor recordings to see if uses of copyright material are permitted under law. These findings are particularly interesting to consider in the context of risk-management and attitudes towards open practice.
     
    The findings are being used to develop good practice guidelines for institutions, which will be presented. The paper concludes by sharing the authors’ on-going work to embed copyright literacy into institutional practices as part of digital capabilities and open practices.
  • Earlier research I did (a lit review) did not highlight copyright or IPR as an issue or concern amongst lecturers although it had been cited in my own institution when the policy was implemented and later when there was a discussion over changing from opt in to opt out.

    What did we want to find out? What are the issues?
    Why did we do the research? – to find out what people were doing about the new exceptions – illustration for instruction and use of images in lectures
    How did we do it? A survey open to all HEIs made available on LIS-copyseek and to the heads of e-learning – caveat small scale
    When – it was distributed in February 2016 – we had 33 respondents – the issue being two institutions sent in two different responses! Interesting in itself!

  • Some of the issues are:
    Lecture recording policies and statements about IPR – what do they say?
    Lecture recording and consent from individuals – including guest speakers and students (Opt in vs opt out policies)
    Dealing with third party copyright issues – use of the new and existing copyright exceptions, advice given to staff
    Overall approach to lecture recording as part of wider IPR issues in an institution

    Lecture recording and IPR policies
    Analysis of formal written policies
    Ownership of the resulting outputs
    Consent from individuals
    Performance rights and moral rights
    Dealing with guest speakers and students
    Dealing with third party copyright
    Wider issues related to IPR in the institution
  • 31 % do not have a policy or documented approach to lecture recording
    40% sort of have one

    Only 29% have a written policy
  • 31 % do not have a policy or documented approach to lecture recording
    40% sort of have one

    Only 29% have a written policy
  • Varying practices and IP / copyright policies
    A lot of grey areas
    Where policies exist not always clear how are they implemented in practice
    IPR relates to wider issues of institutional culture which this study doesn’t examine
    Further findings to be published soon…...

    I am thinking here about saying something about how the opt in (responsibility often with the lecturer) and opt out (taking more interventionalist approach, having policies / guidelines better organised – in one place) approaches create differences in approach to copyright as well.

    Policy analysis in progress – looking at:
    Is there a single document or website dedicated to lecture recording?
    Have a specific statement about IPR and lecture recording
    Is IPR of recorded lectures owned by the lecturers/presenters?
    License vs Assignment
    Reference to performance rights
    Reference to moral rights
    Makes clear an opt-in / opt-out approach to lecture recording
    Who is responsible for 3rd party copyright?
    It provides specific advice on how to handle third party copyright
    It provides specific regulations for students, staff and others
    There is a takedown policy directly referring to recorded lectures
    It provides advice on using content under copyright exceptions
  • ×