Lecture recording: what does it mean to be open?
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•440 views
This document summarizes a lecture on open educational practices regarding lecture recording. It finds that many universities do not have clear policies on intellectual property rights and lecture recording. Policies vary in their approaches to consent, third-party copyright, and open access. The research recommends that universities adopt minimum standards for policies, involve staff and students in policy development, clarify responsibilities for managing risks, and provide copyright guidance and support for open educational practices. Further research is needed on the relationship between institutional culture and risk tolerance as well as engaging academic staff in debates around openness.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Lecture recording: what does it mean to be open?
Similar to Lecture recording: what does it mean to be open? (20)
More from Jane Secker
More from Jane Secker (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Lecture recording: what does it mean to be open?
- 1. Lecture recording: what does it mean to be open? Jane Secker, LSE and Chris Morrison, University of Kent @jsecker @cbowiemorrison @UKCopyrightLit OER17 Conference 5-6 April 2017
- 2. The research team Chris Morrison, University of Kent @cbowiemorrison Dr Jane Secker, LSE @jsecker Juliana Rios-Amaya,LSE Report available online
- 4. Is being open a ‘Risky Business’? Risky Business, © 1983 Geffen Pictures, Dir. Paul Brickman
- 5. Risky Business? Risky Business, © 1983 Geffen Pictures, Dir. Paul Brickman
- 7. The survey Survey devised by: Jane Secker, Chris Morrison, Philippa Hatch, Alex Fenlon, Charlotte Booth, Carol Summerside, Helen Cargill, Phil Ansell and Scott McGowan
- 8. The issues examined • Lecture recording & IPR (intellectual property rights) policies • Consent from individuals • Dealing with 3rd party copyright • Move towards open practice • Wider IPR issues Full report available at https://copyrightliteracy.org
- 9. 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
- 10. Academic consultation Figure 2: Did your institution consult widely with the academic community before introducing a policy or approach to lecture recording? (n=33)
- 11. Opt in vs opt out
- 12. 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)
- 13. 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)
- 14. 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)
- 15. Where are recordings stored? 6% 9% 12% 12% 64% 88% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% On any website, no password required Other On external web services (e.g. itunesU, Vimeo and You Tube) On personal computers and shared drives (e.g. University network, home PC,… On a password controlled VLE (e.g. Blackboard, Moodle etc) On the lecture capture service (Echo 360, Panopto etc) Figure 3. Where does your university permit captured lectures to be stored? (n=35)
- 16. 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
- 17. High level categories Appetite for risk Support and guidance Institutional control Open practice Comprehensiveness of approach
- 19. Findings Variety of approaches No clear models as yet Policy is not the same as practice Jisc guidance not widely adopted Support should be clear, helpful and practical Institutional culture of risk difficult to determine Open practice not widespread
- 20. Recommendations Minimum standards in lecture recording policy should be adopted Staff and students should be involved in policy development Responsibility for managing risk should be clarified Copyright advice and guidance should be provided Institutional policies should refer to ‘open educational resources’ and open practice far more
- 22. Further Research Relationship between institutional approach to risk and lecture recording Understand optimum involvement of academic staff in debates Exploring the impact of copyright guidance and levels of copyright literacy amongst staff Identify ways to engage with ‘open’ culture alongside concerns over academic identities
- 23. Further reading • Elmes, John. (2016) Universities ‘uncertain’ about lecture- capture copyright. Times Higher Education Supplement. 8 December 2016. Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/universities- uncertain-about-lecture-capture-copyright • IPAN (2016) University IP Policy: Perception and practice. Available at: http://www.ipaware.net/sites/default/files/IPAN_NUS_Univ ersity_IP_Policy_v11-2r_online-mainr_28jul16.pdf • Jisc (2015) Recording lectures: legal considerations. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/recording-lectures-legal- considerations • Rios-Amaya, Juliana, Secker, Jane and Morrison, Chris (2016) Lecture recording in higher education: risky business or evolving open practice. LSE / University of Kent, London, UK. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68275/ • 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
- 24. Image Credits Slide 1: Zero7/2One by Jan Jablunka CC-BY https://flic.kr/p/2j4gn8 Slide 3: Unsplash.com Slide 4-5: Images from the 1983 film ‘Risky Business’, used under S.32 Illustration for Instruction, © Geffen Pictures, Dir. Paul Brickman Slide 7: Contracts by NobMouse CC-BY https://flic.kr/p/7b8UG9 Slide 8: Camera operator setting up the video camera by jshawkins CC-BY https://flic.kr/p/7prerh Slides 17 and 20: Clip art Slide 22: Jane Secker Licensed under CC-BY Slide 24: © Facet Publishing https://ukcopyrightliteracy.org
Editor's Notes
- With an increasing call for open practices in the higher education sector, we present findings from a survey of copyright, intellectual property (IP) policies and lecture recording (Rios-Amaya et al, 2016). We explore what open means in the context of automated lecture recording systems. The survey was completed by 33 institutions across UK HE and 11 lecture recording, copyright and IP policies were analysed. The findings reveal some of the tensions that open practice creates with regards to copyright and IP issues, and highlight the challenges of changing cultures in HE. Lecture theatres are traditionally private spaces, so opening these spaces up presents some specific challenges, of which copyright and related rights are a fundamental component. Issues such as whether permission is obtained from academic staff, the ownership and control of the intellectual property rights (IPR) which arise in the recording of a lecture and the inclusion of third party content that is subsequently copied and redistributed, are all potentially contentious. Jisc (2014) 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 major 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) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. 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 Jisc recommending that they should. 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 do not to ask for individual consent from those being recorded. One of the key findings was that most recorded lectures are currently restricted so that they are only accessible to those within their institution. Concerns about copyright and IP were cited as one of the major barriers to making the recordings open. The paper explores some of the contradictions that arise, for example requiring lecturers to obtain permission for the use of third party content as well as advising them to rely on fair dealing exceptions (for which no permission is required). 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. Many institutions (63%) try to give helpful examples to support lecturers interpret fair dealing, 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. However several institution indicated that they might follow different processes if they were to make their recordings open, or to use them in a MOOC. For this to happen we argue there needs to be a culture change in HE so that ‘copyright literacy’ is embedded across HE as part of developing digital capabilities. Supporting open practice inevitably means tackling difficult issues over copyright and providing timely support to staff. References Jisc (2014) Recording Lectures: legal considerations . Available at: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/recording-lectures-legal-considerations Rios-Amaya, Juliana, Secker, Jane and Morrison, Chris (2016) Lecture recording in higher education: risky business or evolving open practice. LSE / University of Kent, London, UK. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68275/
- Lecture theatres are traditionally private spaces, so opening these spaces up presents some specific challenges, of which copyright and related rights are a fundamental component. Issues such as whether permission is obtained from academic staff, the ownership and control of the intellectual property rights (IPR) which arise in the recording of a lecture and the inclusion of third party content that is subsequently copied and redistributed, are all potentially contentious. Communication to the public – what does that mean? Case of UC Berkeley having to remove all their recorded lectures because they were not accessible…. So many issues to consider to shift people to being open – it’s not just about opening the door and letting people look in. Include something about how open practice is being encouraged but if all you do is record a lecture then this is not shifting towards openness.
- Can you include third party content is an important issue.
- 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
- Very few are made available on a site without a password. Additionally half allow the recordings to be downloaded but half only allow them to be streamed.
- Open practice was all about whether Creative Commons licences were being used on the recordings or if staff were encouraged to use material under CC licences (e.g. images)
- The chart on the left shows: the institutions that provide a higher level of support for copyright advice, have a tendency towards open practice and higher levels of appetite for risk. Arguably, institutions that are more open often are in a stronger position because they have considered copyright and IP issues in line with the development of open practices, however further evidence would be needed to back up this point. The chart on the right shows: it is possible to observe that there are three institutions with a high level of institutional control and high level of comprehensiveness of approach
- These findings are particularly interesting to consider in the context of risk-management and attitudes towards open practice. However several institution indicated that they might follow different processes if they were to make their recordings open, or to use them in a MOOC.
- Might have to mention a certain Copyright the Card Game here….. Copyright literacy is key Also return to the point about fear and how games are good for this. Jane to add picture from Leeds event or similar You don’t want open practice to become a compliance issue – rather than something that teachers choose to do it. The most important thing is to educate them so they can make choices – policies and rules are not the answer
- For this to happen we argue there needs to be a culture change in HE so that ‘copyright literacy’ is embedded across HE as part of developing digital capabilities. Supporting open practice inevitably means tackling difficult issues over copyright and providing timely support to staff.