Copyright & Creative Commons Webinar

Uploaded by opencourselib on 09.03.2012


Female 1: Hello, everyone,
and welcome to the OCL Copyright Webinar
for the Open Course Library grant.
I'd like to introduce Greg Grossmeier to you.
He is the Education Technology and Policy Coordinator
for Creative Commons.
So thank you for doing this, Greg,
and I'm turning it over to you.
[no audio]
Greg: Thank you. thank you everyone for having me.
Um...I think this came out of a quick conversation
that Tom and I had when they were here at Creative Commons
for a grant meeting on a different grant, actually.
Um...and he thought that since I have a library background,
and I also work for Creative Commons,
it would be the perfect fit for a webinar with you guys,
and I think it will be. was a librarian
at the University of Michigan Library
before I joined Creative Commons.
In fact, I worked for the University of Michigan
School of Information before that, assume
since you guys are calling yourselves librarians,
you are actually ALA-accredited librarians.
[laughs] that's great.
I'm glad to hear that there are
such good resources available for this project.
You're not just having everyone do it by themselves.
There's actually
real, honest-to-God librarians helping 'em,
so that's a really great project.'m going to talk
about copyright and Creative Commons,
um...and how you guys can think about it
and know a little bit more,
so that you can answer all the questions
that your faculty are having or students are having
and be able to feel a little bit more confident
in the answers you're getting, hopefully. here's the outline.
Um...I'm going to do a quick overview of copyright
and then move into Creative Commons,
which is a system, which is, um...uses copyright.
And then, I'm gonna do a couple of plugs
for a couple of projects
that I'm either working on or working with
that directly relate to the work that you guys are doing.
And they deal with metadata.
So if you remember those classes in school,'s metadata for the Web for these two projects.
But anyways, we'll get to that in a second. first of all, a disclaimer.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. though I kind of play a lawyer during the day,
I give people advice on copyright licensing.
At the University of Michigan Library,
I was a copyright specialist,
um...which even though I didn't have a JD,
not that I was giving people, um...non-legal guidance
in their, um...thought processes about dealing with copyright,
or publishing, or things like that.
But at the end of the day, I'm not a lawyer,
and don't take what I say necessarily to the bank,
if you need to go to a lawsuit of something.
But...I'm not gonna lead you astray at the same time.'s copyright.
What is copyright?
So it comes from the U.S. Constitution.
So that's the clause which gives Congress the right
to make a thing known as copyright
and a thing known as patents.
The writings and discoveries are basically the two things
that they can give protection to--
copyright and patented stuff.
But what really is copyright? it's a bundle of rights--
is a good way to think about it.
It's kind's made up of a few different sticks,
if you want to think about it-- a bundle of sticks.
So one stick is the right to reproduce the work.
Um...the other stick is right to prepare derivatives,
the right to distribute the work or to perform the work,
the right to display the work, and the right to license
any of those previous sticks to anyone else.
Um...and...with those sticks, you can...
all those different things are what's protected by copyright.
Um...if you're thinking about dealing with something
that's protected by copyright,
you can think of it within those categories,
and you'll know more
about how the law works with that.
Um...but how do you get copyright?
Or more grammatically correct...
So original, obvious, you can't just copy something else.
That might be copyright infringement
or at least plagiarism,
um...which are two distinct different things.
One might be the other, but they might not be the same. must have some level of creativity.
So it can't just be something like 2 plus 2 equals 4.
There's no creativity in that.
Um...that's purely a factual statement.
There's no authorship,
so that is not protected by copyright.
And it also must be in a fixed medium,
so it has to be recorded somehow,
written down, um...on a napkin,
on a hard drive, on a piece of paper,
recorded on videotape or audiotape, whatever.
It can't just be ephemeral.
So me talking right now, if this...
if the recording button wasn't happening...
wasn't going on right now over collaborate,
my speech, my...the words I am speaking right now
are not protected by copyright.
But since it's being recorded,
that recording is protected by copyright.
And in the old days,
you used to have to put the little copyright symbol...
So there was actually a registry of copyright entries.
People would send a, um...registration
and pay the fee to the U.S. Copyright Office,
and there would be a stamp of approval
that, yes, you have copyright protection for your work.
Nowadays, you don't need to do any of those things.
Those are, um...known as the,
um...I can't think on the word...the formalities.
We got rid of those formalities
when we joined the Berne Convention,
which is an international copyright treaty
among many different countries around the world.
That kind of made a baseline requirement for copyright, all countries that signed on to it.
And one of the baseline requirements
is you don't need to do any of those things.
You don't need to register your copyright
or put the little c with the circle around it on the work. what that means is
if you were at the bar last night,
and you did a little doodle on the napkin,
that little doodle on the napkin is protected by copyright,
even if you didn't want it to be.
So copyright is automatic,
um...right at the instant... the instant it is recorded.
The instant it is put in that fixed medium,
it is protected by copyright.
There is no delay.
So what does copyright protect?
It protects... also does not... but it does not protect...
As long as that data... I forgot about scientific data,
is made up mostly of facts.
And also useful articles.
Useful articles are protected by patents.
Um...that's on a different set of intellectual property law.
So how long does copyright protection last for?
Right now, it is life of the author plus 70,
um...for individual works.
For works that are made for hire--
things that are owned by a corporation--
those are 95 years after the date of publication.
Um...but who knows, in the next few years,
we might see an extension to copyright
as soon as, you know, Mickey Mouse gets close
to falling into...or rising into the public domain.
After that...after the term of, um...copyright is expired,
things become into the public domain.
Public domain being a very specifically defined thing
here in the U.S.
Um...this is a concept that is actually not universal.
There is not the term "the public domain"
in all countries, but in the U.S.,
it is the status of a work
as being not protected by copyright of any sort.
There is no copyright protection for it.
So what is in the public domain?
So things before 1923, um...are pretty much--
as long as they were published-- in the public domain.
Things between 1923 and 1963,
well, that's this huge, gray area.
That depends on whether or not they complied
with those formalities that I spoke of before
in the U.S. Copyright Office.
And then, in that time period between '23 and '63,
um...the term of copyright had been changed a couple of times.
So it depends on when it was published,
and how long that copyright lasts for,
and if they renewed their copyright,
because in that time, there was a 28-year...
close to 28-year renewal.
So there's a bunch of this... it depends for that time period.
Basically, if you come across something in that time period,
you got to do a little bit of sleuthing.
I've tried to do this a few times for a few works.
And it's not the easiest thing,
because you would think that the U.S. Copyright Office,
which is at the Library of Congress,
would have a database... an electronic database
of all copyright registrations in their records,
but they do not.
Unfortunately, the only system that can search those--
unless you go there and physically look at the books
or paid someone to go there and to look at the books--
is using, ironically enough,
Google Book Search scans of copyright registry books. you''re, um...basing your analysis
off of OCR text, which isn't always the safest.
But regardless, that's the situation you're in.
And then, the third category
is works authored by the federal government.
So things that are produced by the federal government, federal government employees
during their course of work are not protected by copyright.
That is exclusively laid out
in the U.S. Constitution and in the copyright acts--
in the Constitution and in the copyright act--
um...and that ensures that everything
that is produced by the federal government
by your tax dollars are available to all equally.
Now, there are certain situations
where the U.S. government can hold copyrights to works.
Where if they contracted out to a third party,
and that third party traded that work,
there's a copyright in that work.
Because, know,
Lockheed Martin produced a writing.
And that writing is protected by copyright,
because Lockheed Martin wrote it.
But then, it gets transferred to the U.S. government.
So there's some gray area there, but as long as it's authored
by a federal government employee during their work,
then it's in the public domain. that are not in the public domain,
or things that are still protected by copyright,
so published after 1963,
pretty much is not in the public domain.
It's protected by copyright.
And between '23 and '63, obviously,
is that gray area began.
And then, state and municipal works.
In the U.S., the states and municipalities
do not have the same exemption to copyright
as the federal government.
I think... I keep thinking
there's one city in, I think, is Oregon
that decided that their works are in the public domain,
but it's by far the exception.
The rule is pretty much all state and municipal works
are protected by copyright.
Um...let's see here... get rid of the slide there.
So right, that brings me to Creative Commons.
So...Creative...or copyright is kind of confusing. can be really
when you just get down into the weeds of it.
So Creative Commons strives to clarify...
clarify some of that confusion., they, uh...a nice representation
of the current world of media creation. is, you know, a few people
taking photographs, making movies,
um...writing a book, playing music, and a dinosaur.
Um...and back in the old days, right,
before there was visual stuff,
you could make a painting, you know, create a painting,
um...hang it on your wall, give it to a friend,
or sell it for some money.
But now, obviously, in the digital age,
you can do all three at the same time.
You can print it out and hang it on your wall.
You can print out a copy and give it to your friend.
You can print out another copy
and sell it to someone for some money.
Um...and...but once someone receives that work from you,
that...they cannot do what they want to with it,
because it's protected by copyright
or restricted by copyright.
They are limited in the actions they can take,
and that applies to all types of works--
all types of creative works--
music, videos, writings, and all that kind of stuff.
Um...the things that I elucidated before
about, um...what's protected by copyright,
and that's where Creative Commons comes in.
When authors want to tell others how they want them
to be able to use it or not use it. we provide a suite of licenses.
I'm sure you all notice there are six main licenses
that you can apply to your work.
Um...the...there are...the six licenses are listed right there.
I'll go through those different modules one by one.
So the first module is attribution,
which means you can do what you want to.
Just give me attribution-- cite your sources. know, you used my work, so just give a link back to me.
Tell the world that you used my work.
Um...and all the licenses have that requirement to it.
There's also the noncommercial module,
which technically means only I can make money from my work. can't use my work in a commercial matter.
Um...then, there's this concept of no derivatives,
so that means you can share my work,
you can make a copy of it,
but you can't make a derivative of it.
You can't make changes to it.
You can't take my dinosaur painting,
kill my dinosaur,
and scribble all over it in the sky.
But what that also means is people can't take
your dinosaur painting and improve it either.
So it prevents, um...negative effects to your works,
but it also prevents positive effects to your works.
So that's one thing to keep in mind there.
And then, there's this concept,
or there's the last module of share-alike.
And that means that if you, um...take my work,
and you make modifications to it,
I don't want you to be able to license it differently.
I don't want you to take my work that I have
under an attribution share-alike license
and all of a sudden restrict other people from using it
and applying a no-derivatives license to it.
So you can think of it like this
from the, um...kind of a genealogy way
where the source painting there down at the bottom
is the painting that I shared with the world.
And if you go to the right and up a little bit,
someone took that painting then and made a modification to it.
And that new modification... that new painting
that was based off my painting
is also under attribution share-alike.
And then, if you go to the top-right again,
someone takes a derivative of that.
That new derivative is also under the same license,
and it does that forever.
So it kind of ensures the freedom of the work--
ensures the license stays with the work no matter what. if you take those four modules,
and you mash 'em together, you get six licenses.
And that works out, I promise.
And it's easy to think about those licenses on a spectrum.
So here, you have
the some rights reserved spectrum, basically.
On the far left-hand side, you have the public domain,
so no copyright.
There's no protections.
Do whatever you want.
No holds barred.
On the far right-hand side, it's all rights reserved. must ask for permission to do pretty much anything--
unless it's covered by fair use, but that's a gray area as well.
So in-between there, though,
there was nothing for the longest time.
It was either no holds barred or ask for permission
every single time you do something.
So Creative Commons stepped in
and provided those six licenses that fills that gap.
So our least-restrictive license is the attribution-only license,
and then attribution share-alike,
and then attribution noncommercial,
and attribution noncommercial share-alike,
attribution no derivatives,
and noncommercial no derivatives.
So that's kind of a good way to think about that.
And for OER projects, really only want
to stick to the first couple, maybe few. obviously don't want to use something
that's under a no-derivatives license,
because that means that you can't, for instance,
translate it or make simple modifications
to better adapt to your own students' learning. you have a textbook that, um...needs to be...
you know, know, so that the obvious use case
is translated to a different language.
That can't happen.
A translation is a derivative,
and if it's under a no-derivatives license,
it can't be translated.
Um...also other things
just like taking excerpts from a few different textbooks,
because they all teach something in a very similar way
as to how you know your students are best learning...
or at least a subset of your students
are best learning this topic, you know how your students learn.
And you're taking the best, little snippets
from a few of 'em,
and you try to make your own new textbook.
Well, you can't do that if those source textbooks
are under a no-derivatives license.
So if you're trying to contribute to the OER world,
we--being Creative Commons-- highly recommend
using the attribution-only license,
which, actually, I believe your grant has that requirement.
So you guys are A-OK.
You guys are pretty much doing
everything I know is pretty much right
from what you're doing, job.
Uh...I right,
the licenses come in three layers. can see here, the machine readable,
the human readable, and the legal code.
So the most important one, kind of, is the legal code.
Um...this is the thing which gives the licenses their teeth--
their actual legal standing within the court of law.
Um...this is a contract that, binding.
It's been syndicated over a few times
throughout the world.
So the licenses have been found to be valid.
But it's also about four or five pages
when you print it out.
So...and just like all contracts and licenses,
it has special terms, and weird definitions,
and things like that that people...
normal people don't necessarily understand
or want to take the time to understand.
That's why we created human readable deeds
of all of our licenses.
We've summarized that legal code.
Unfortunately, we have to have that legal code so complex,
because that's just the way
that the world, unfortunately, works in copyright.
Where you have
if we mention all these various different things,
and if you don't, you run a risk of not being a valid license.
So the license is long,
but our human readable deed summarizes all that. for here, the attribution-only license,
it says you are free to share, and you are free to remix,
as long as you give attribution.
And then, there's, you know, the general understandings
that, you know, there's a waiver.'s... does not apply
to things that are in the public domain.
It doesn't apply to other things,
like fair use or publicity rights.
And you know, various simple summarization of the legal code.
And then, behind that even, there's metadata.
So we provide a way to describe our licenses
thus that search engines or other crawlers
and Web systems out there can understand in a real sense
what the license permits or does not permit.
So here's an example of some HTML that uses RDFa,
which is a micro... or a metadata format,
uh...which basically, you know,
incorporates some Dublin Core terms.
You can see span property, dc:title.
Um...dc stands for Dublin Core.
So the Dublin Core term title-- this is a beautiful sushi.
Dublin Core term creator-- it's created by Ulrich.
Um...Dublin Core, date-- it has that date.
But then, also down here, there's a cc:license.
So in the Creative Commons names space, there's a license,
and that license URL points to the license
which this work is available under.
So what does this do, basically?
So you have on the left-hand side here
what browsers normally see, right?
They see headline, subheadline, italics,
some body text, and a few links.
They just know there are links.
They don't know anything about those links.
But what humans see
when they read a webpage, for instance, on an article,
they see title, author, publication date,
the article content, and then some tags,
and then copyright license.
Humans understand when they see that,
'cause they can see parts of the English language.
But if we use metadata to describe
that English language thus that the machines can understand it,
then we can start to do really interesting things
along the lines of text mining and other things,
which we haven't even thought of yet. I guess I'm gonna pause right there and wait and see
if there are any questions
about Creative Commons or copyright
before I move on to some of the metadata topics.
So...raise your hand
or do whatever you need to do to ask a question.
[no audio]
It looks like Alana has a question.
Go ahead.
Alana: Yeah, there's a couple, um...
Trea's also asking you to talk about fair use.
But I had a question specifically about the coding...
and this may be better directed to, Tom.
I notice he hasn't joined us yet.
Um...I'm just wondering about whether you recommend
that any content that's created include those...those HTML tags.
[no audio]
Greg: Yeah, so, um...I'll get into a little bit more specific
metadata terms for educational use.
But the basic term... the license term...
anything that you guys create, or are tagging,
or are publishing...republishing through this program,
I would highly recommend that you use the metadata terms,
including the license term.
Just so when other people are out there looking
for high-quality OER resources, they know to...
they know that your work is available under that license,
um...and there's no question.
And the search engines can find it for them.
Um...and I'll actually expand on that answer a little bit
during the LRMI section.
And Trea, yeah, fair use.
So...fair use is kind of, um...a touchy subject,
especially for someone who not only is not a lawyer,
but even if I was a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer. use, um...the...
in the very beginning, is a case-by-case basis.
Um...the situation and the very case-specific facts
play a huge role in determining
if something is a fair use or not a fair use. I can...I should've included that in my slide--
some I didn't.
Let me just pull up my slides from my own crib notes
while I'm talking about it.
Uh...da, da, ta-da.
Let's see.
Um...what would be a good one?
I have some notes here
that I use when I talk about fair use.
Right,'s the...107 section
of the U.S. Copyright Law.
And it's basically thought of as a balance to copyright law, law gives creators of the work
a monopoly on that work-- is how you can think about it.
Only they are able to do derivatives,
make copies of it, share with other people,
license the things to other people,
all those...the bundle of rights that I have listed out before.
Only the copyright owner... or the copyright holder
can do those things.
So they have an effective monopoly on it.
But fair use is the balance to that monopoly.
So monopolies are almost inherently bad.
We know that from history.
The U.S. Constitution... the drafters knew that.
There should be effective balances to every monopoly.
This is why we have antitrust law,
so the antitrust law for copyright is fair use.
Um...and...some of the things to think about
if you're trying to determine
if your use might be a fair use or not.
There's actually a four-factor test.
The first factor being the nature of the original work.
So whether that original work is factual or creative
is kind of a spectrum you can think about.
So the example I gave before
about something that's not protected by copyright
being 2 plus 2 equals 4.
That is completely factual,
and there's no authorship or creativity expressed there.
But if I was doing a description
of how a molecule behaves under certain conditions, right.
From a very factual thing that I just observed from nature,
um...yes, there's a little bit of authorship
and creativity there that might warrant copyright protection
from my short description of that,
but it's mostly factual.
So if the original work is more factual,
then the other extreme would be, like, a novel,
something completely made up, um...creative work.
Um...if it's more factual versus creative,
then you're more likely to be a...your work...
or your use being a fair use.
The second factor is the purpose of the use,
so whether or not your use, to put this. you use the work.
So if you are, um...going to be...just simply copying it
and making without paying for another version,
then that's not as potentially fair
as if you were making a new derivative of it
that incorporates a huge amount of other cultural works,
and you make a transformative use, right.
Like, you took, um...a good example would be,
um...what is the...oh...what was that new novel I think
was based off "The Scarlet Letter,"
which is like
"The Scarlet Letter and Zombies,"
or something like that.
Where they took a work,
and they completely transformed it
to be a work about zombies as opposed to Civil War politics.
And that's a lot more transformative
than just making a simple copy.
The third factor is amount of the original work.
So if you use make a full-on copy of it
versus making, you know, a 5% copy of it,
it's more likely to be a fair use
if you use less of it than more of it.
And then, the last factor
is the effects on the market of the original work.
So if what you're doing
reduces the ability of the original author
to extract money from their work,
then it's less likely to be a fair use
and more likely to not be... to be copyright infringement.
Now, one thing to keep in mind, though,
is this is a four-factor test, and even if one of 'em...
like even if you made a 100% copy of a work,
that does not mean it's necessarily not a fair use.
Um...when a judge sees a fair...
a copyright case in front of them,
and they need to do a fair use analysis,
they look at each one of these factors
practically independently.
And it's not like they have
like a plus 1, minus 1, minus 1, plus 1,
and they add 'em together,
and they see if it's a fair use or not.
It's just a little bit more artistic interpretation there.
But it' don't want to say, you know,
if you do one, then you're totally lost.
Or if you do the other, then you're completely okay.
Um...because it really just depends
on every single, specific case
and the facts associated with that case
with everything that's different, basically. can't even talk about textbooks in general,
unfortunately, 'cause the market for these different textbooks
are completely different.
Difference in, um...different textbooks
on more factual versus creative, etc., etc.
[laughs] that at all help,
Tria, with fair use?
I can talk a little bit more
about, um...some notable fair use cases
and what it means for academics, if you would like that.
[no audio]
Well, with the silence, I'll just go on then. I hope that answered your question.
And again, if you have any more specifics about fair use,
especially in this project-- Open Course Library Project--
I would recommend... I mean, I don't know,
um...what the official statement is from your project managers,
but I would assume that you do not want to rely
on a fair use analysis
on whether or not you're going to include
a certain work in your open course. would also recommend staying away
from depending on fair use,
especially attempts within the OER
if you're sharing this work with others.
Their fair use analysis
is not the same fair use analysis that you make.
They are completely different than you.
They have a different set of purposes and uses
they're gonna make of that work.
So you''s better for them
and for people consuming OER in general
to avoid using works under a fair use analysis,
just because it muddies the water,
and it makes OER almost back original
to needing to figure out on a case-by-case basis
if what you want to do with it is legal or not.
So...there's my five minutes-- maybe a little bit more--
on fair use.
to, um...Rose's question about publishing,
um...or I guess maybe it was Alana's question,
about publishing your content with metadata terms.
So there's this new project that I'm working on called
"Learning Resource Metadata Initiative"--or LRMI for short--
that is addressing that very question, actually. in, um...I think it was last May
about Google, Bing, and Yahoo!,
and a couple of other search engines got together,
and they started this project collaboration called
"," which basically addresses the problem
of the varied number of metadata standards
that are out there on the Web right now.
So there's RDFa, there's microformats,
there's tons of different versions of microformats.
And people are using these different metadatas, schemas,
in different, not necessarily consistent, ways.'s kind of a jumbled mess
when you look at it on a Web scale
the way that Google does.
So when Google indexes the Web, they want to be able
to understand a little bit more about that page
using the metadata on that page.
But if people aren't doing it consistently,
or using the terms incorrectly,
or using metadata terms they don't even know about,
then they can't extract that information.
So they tried to solve this problem
the way that Google, and Bing, and Yahoo! like to do,
and they like to set a new standard. set a new standard.
It's called
It's a microdata standard, if that means anything to you.
It's basically a way of embedding
those metadata terms into the HTML of the page, you're describing the works. that came out, though,
there were no education-specific terms in their schema.
It was a pretty big schema.
There were a lot of terms included,
but it addressed mostly the uses for the commercial world.
Things like, you know, hair salon,
or opening business hours, or the price of something,
or how many comments there are on a blog post,
or how many ratings there are, things like that.
There weren't any specific terms for the educational community
that would really help us. got a grant cosponsored
between the Gates Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation--
we being the Association of Educational Publishers,
plus Creative Commons.
So the Association of Educational Publishers,
for those that don't know, it's the big ones.
There's Pearson, McGraw-Hill, um...all those guys--
the big textbook publishers out there.
Um...we're working together on this metadata initiative.
You might think it's a little bit weird,
or odd bedfellows, but, makes sense.
Because if we have a metadata schema
that is only really used by the open community,
then that's not really useful.
Or if it's only used by the commercial community,
then it's not really useful for everyone.
We wanted a metadata standard that's useful for everyone--
um...everyone in education.
So that's why these two partners are actually...
that it makes a little bit of sense.
Um...we balance the needs
of all members of the educational community. are also, I guess I could...right.
One of the main advantages of LRMI right now, will be... so by the way,
it'll be released, hopefully, in the next month.
We are...we just proposed it to for inclusion.
We have some conversations started
about them adopting our terms.
That will happen, hopefully, in the next few weeks. of the main wins for what LRMI provides users
is a way to align content to competencies.
We also have other terms,
like how long it takes the average student...
or a normal student to complete the work.
Or what type of educational content it is.
Is it a textbook, is it a presentation,
is it a syllabus?
Those kinds of metadata terms.
But also, we have a competency metadata term,
which allows you to say something
like this work aligns to this competency,
or teaches this competency, or assesses this competency,
or requires this competency.
And competencies, as we know,
um...are becoming, I guess, all the rage
in both the good sense and the bad sense in the U.S.
with the Common Core of being adopted by most states.
So for those that are unfamiliar with it,
Common Core are a set of national competencies
that describe various, um...skill levels
or competencies for students.
So they have two different subjects right now--mathematics,
and then English literature is the second one.
And it's things like
being able to multiply two single-digit numbers,
so it kind of breaks it down at that level.
So you can say this chapter and textbook
teaches students how to multiply two single-digit numbers.
And it goes from K through 12, basically.
So it covers a lot of mathematics,
especially that is important not only for K to 12 students,
but also, um...undergrad, and community colleges,
and university students,
because it applies to calculus, and algebra,
and things like that.
The basic math skills that, um...most students need
wherever they're in education.
So...the combination of these new Common Core Standards
that all states will be using
and all content will really need to be aligned to.
Because now states,
when they're doing their acquisitions
of the textbooks and content,
they need to show... they need to prove
that this content that they're buying
enables their students to learn the various competencies
that are required of them.
So the publishers and producers of that content
are really gonna be sure that they can describe their content
in a way that says, yes,
this content applies to these 20 competencies.
And you know when you buy this textbook, for instance,
that your students will... or that we promise
that it will enable them to learn these 20 competencies.
So this really is beneficial for the OER world,
almost more so than the commercial world in a sense
that now we can search all the great OER content out there
that applies to a single concept.
So it's really difficult right now
when you search, for instance, Google for Calc 1.
I mean, Calc 1 is a huge subject,
and there's various parts of it.
And it'd be great if we could figure out
what are the best pieces...
or the best pieces for your students--
your specific students-- on how to teach them Calc 1.
And if you can find all those resources
in a very, uh...systematic and...and normalized way,
then you'll be much better off
when you're building your new courses
or releasing your courses,
so that others can find the content that will help them. that's my pitch for LRMI.
It also works really well with this project
from the Department of Education called the "Learning Registry."
This is a Department of Education project,
which is basically the email servers of educational metadata.
So what they want to do... what they've done
is provided the plumbing--
the parts that you don't really wanna see
but that need to be there--
to allow publishers, and creators, and consumers
to share metadata about content.
So it's not actually sharing the actual content.
It's sharing the metadata of the content. one of the best use cases--
the way to think about this-- is if your LMS...
I think, um...maybe you... I think you guys use ANGEL.
If you're...if ANGEL had a system
where you could search the learning registry for whatever.
You can have a general key word search,
or you can use some of the LRMI terms.
So you can limit it by competencies,
or you can even limit it by how many teachers said they used it
in their class of community college Math 101,
or whatever it is, right, um...intro to math course.
You can ask it for all these different bits of information,
and then it'll spit back to you, um...information
about the content that comes up for those search queries.
And then, it'll obviously be a URL
on where you can get that content.
So for the OER context, it makes a lot of sense
if you can now not only learn the facts about something,
but also the usage information about something.
So if also ANGEL, for instance, allowed professors
to click a little checkbox that said,
"As I create courses and include content in here,
share that information with the learning registry."
Just, you know, the initions of the classroom, right.
So what that information would be is things
like this professor thought that this content,
and this content, and this content
both taught students something about basic math.
And now, that information
is fed back into the learning registry,
and there's the couple plus 1s there
for that content for basic math.
And then, if you have a bunch of professors
all sharing this information
about how they use their resources,
when someone else needs to look up how to teach basic math,
you can sort by how many professors
in the state of Washington have already used this.
And if there's, you know, obviously one thing
that's bubbling towards the top,
that's probably pretty useful for you
in the state of Washington.
Or if you want to look for only stuff
that is taught by community colleges,
um...or so it's only taught by universities,
or what have you,
you can really do some amazing search capabilities on that.
And hopefully, it enables for the faculty
to do really, um...faster content creation
and course creation when they know a little bit more
about the content that they can provide.
Right, this is a little blurb about learning registry
I should've pushed forward a little bit earlier.
So we're coordinated with the LRMI project.
One of the lead on the learning registry
is actually on the LRMI working group,
so we're in pretty constant conversation.
We're good friends, so that works really well. with that, um...I think I covered four pretty big areas.
So how copyright, Creative Commons, and metadata
can apply to education
and make this whole OER world a little bit more sane.
[laughs] Is what I hope.
Any questions?
Female 1: Uh...Greg, there were a couple of questions
in the chat box.
One from Quill, and then another one from Susan.
Can you see those?
[no audio]
Greg: Yeah, I'm sorry. chat wasn't scrolling down.
I was curious why no one was chatting while I was talking.
[laughs] So...right.
I've got a fair use,
and then...let me scroll up here and look at those real quick.
"On clarifying at the beginning of your talk
"when you defined useful articles
"as something that was outside of the copyright.
"And you were talking about what I would commonly call
"an invention rather than a creative work.
Is that a good way to define it?"
Yeah, that's, um...that's kind of how, um...the law talks
about the distinction there. a useful article is something
that has been invented by someone
or possibly even just discovered by someone
that is protected by a patent.
So you have everything from how to make a great new chair--
something that's been invented-- to, um...even, unfortunately,
in my opinion... my personal opinion,
um...jeans can be patented,
even though they're just discoveries.'s...there's that distinction there.
Basically, I don't know enough about patent law
to really get into the specifics
about with what is patentable and what is not, necessarily.
Um...just know that it is a huge and murky area.
And those lawyers even get paid more than copyright lawyers.
[laughs]'s something
to add there.
So Susan, um... "Greg, a CC-BY license
"does not mean the material cannot have a copyright.
"A copyright indicates the attribution
"does not restrict the use
as long as the copyright holder then licenses under a CC-BY."
Right, exactly.
That's a very good point.
Creative Commons licenses don't actually work
unless the work is protected by copyright in the first place.
So you can't apply a Creative Commons license
to Shakespeare's work.
That stuff is in the public domain.
It's not protected by copyright.
The license doesn't even apply.
It's pretty much null and void. you can't restrict something
that's in the public domain like that.
So many times, actually, on...
to answer your question a little bit more,
you'll see on Web pages or other documents,
it'll say, uh...c with a circle, 2012, Greg Grossmeier,
or at least in those terms,
and the Creative Commons attribution license.
Pretty much just like what you typed out there.
So that's exactly accurate, and that's totally okay.
If that's how you guys are marking off your material,
that's...that's 100% great.
That's actually a little bit better
than just saying this material is available
under a Creative Commons attribution share-alike license,
because you're giving a date that it was published
and who it was published by,
the name of the author, which is important information.
Maybe not this year, but in 80 years
when it's potential that that work is in the public domain,
you'll know that this work was published in 2012.
Thus, in or, you know,
I guess it's 70 years after I died,
so whatever year that's gonna be,
um...that could be in the public domain.
So that's really good information to put there.
More information, always better.
Any other questions?
[no audio]
Female 1: Also, the librarians for the project
are online as well,
and so if you have any questions for us,
feel free to ask as well.
[no audio]
Greg: Yeah, I guess I know just enough
about the OCL project to promote it.
[laughs] Um...and also, you know,
just to get me in trouble, basically. guys... the stipulation is that
each course can only require the students to purchase $30,
I think it is, in textbooks or in course materials.
Thus, a way to make that happen...
to make students be able to only spend $30 on course materials,
you're looking for OER materials
that are applicable to that course. that's awesome.
And then, you're making the courses...the content
kind of the, um...uh... the completed courses
that you've created under that stipulation
publicly available under the attribution-only license.
So I guess my question is
when you're going out there looking for material,
um...what kind of limitations are you putting on yourself
for what can be included with that?
Are you only limiting yourself
to stuff that's under a Creative Commons license,
or are you also allowing people
to include things that are free
but not, um...under a Creative Commons license?
[no audio]
Female 1: We're doing, I think, a little bit of both.
We're also going out... things that aren't licensed
under Creative Commons, um...we're often just...
go asking...finding the owners of copyright
and asking for permission for things as well.
So it's really pretty mixed.
Would the rest of you agree with that?
[no audio]
Female 2: Yeah, I've gotten permission from copyright owners
to distribute their works for the purposes of this class.
And they still maintain full copyright on the work,
but allowing us to distribute
and allowing students access to the material.
[no audio]
Greg: That's great.
That's actually really awesome that you are, um...going back
and contacting copyright owners
and asking for permission like that.
Um...and enabling them to see that their content
is actually really useful and would be really useful
in a less-restrictive way.
Hopefully, they get the hint.
But that's awesome even if you just get their permission
just for your one course.
So a student had a question about the HathiTrust suit.'s really funny, because I...
when I worked in the University of Michigan Library,
I was the project manager
for the Orphan Works Project for the HathiTrust,
which if you read the lawsuit
that the Author's Guild has against the HathiTrust
was kind of one of the main sticky points that they had.
They were really upset about the Orphan Works Project.
For those that aren't aware, orphan works are works
that are protected and restricted by copyright,
but you can't find the copyright owner
who holds that copyright anymore.
So copyright doesn't just disappear
when the person disappears or when their heirs disappear.
So you could theoretically be in a situation
where no one has a legal right to hold the copyright to a work,
but the work is still restricted by copyright.
So even if you wanted to ask permission, you couldn't,
no matter how much research you did.
So we--we being the University of Michigan--
were trying to find a way
to quickly identify possible orphan works,
and, um...we instituted a plan.
And we did that.
And we hadn't yet opened up any works,
but we released a list of works
that we thought were potential orphans.
And just releasing that list
was enough to annoy the Author's Guild,
and they brought suit.
Um...but to answer your question directly,
"Does that affect the OCL?"
Not at all.
Nothing that you all are doing should be affected
by either the Author's Guild versus HathiTrust suit,
or the Author's Guild
and the American Association of Publishers
versus Google suit. that's kind of the overarching lawsuit right now
is the publishers and the Author's Guild
are suing Google over simply scanning the works
and making the Google Book Search Program.
Um...both of those are ongoing suits.
They're not gonna be decided this year even.
It's gonna be awhile, um...but you can...
if you're looking for content that's in the HathiTrust
from the University of Michigan in that database, can still do that, and you can...
The only stuff that the HathiTrust makes open
for Web viewing is content that is in the public domain
or that we know we have the rights to make open.
So things in that category are content that, for instance,
the University of Michigan Library Publishing Department
has published.
So the University of Michigan Library publishes journals,
journal articles, and books, and things like that,
and we know that those works we have the rights to make open.
So even within the HathiTrust, those are open.
Thus, so basically summarizing, if you find anything
in the HathiTrust that you can access,
and you can view in full view, that stuff is okay for you. can...I would recommend downloading a copy
of, you know, for instance, a public domain book,
or textbook, or whatever it is.
If you find something that's useful,
just so that you have a copy of it,
um...and not saying that the HathiTrust
is ever gonna go away.
It's actually most likely, even if the lawsuits go badly,
it probably won't go as badly
as to completely destroy the HathiTrust.
So it will always be there as a resource,
but, um...better safe than sorry to have a copy of the stuff
that you want to use year after year.
Um...yeah, I hope that answers your question.
[no audio]
Female 1: Okay, are there any other questions
either for Greg or for the project librarians?
[no audio]
Greg: You're very welcome, Amy.
Have a good class.
[no audio]
Female 1: So Greg, do you want to address the question
about, um...the...the question that Susan had
about the independent author's filmmakers
releasing materials to us?
Um...and a question
of whether that decreases any commercial rewards.
Susan, I just want to share one of my experiences
in requesting permission for some online films
that we were using for the drama class.
Um...these were African examples of, like, African,
um...acting African... traditional African theater.
And, um...and of course, this may not be the case...
may not be the case with everyone,
but they were, um...seemed very excited
about having, um...their materials exposed to audiences
that they may not previously have known of
through the course...
through this Open Course Library project.
So, um...hopefully, um...that that will be the response.
[no audio]
Greg: Yeah, the only thing I could add to that is that's...
it's really a case-by-case basis
for all these producers of content.
We had a kind of a similar example a few years...
Um...the similar example there is
at the University of Michigan, we have Ojibwe professors
that are really keen on sharing their content they've created.
All their videos and things like that.
So they see it as a plus for them.
But then, of course, you have, for instance, like,
a filmmaking class or a, studies class,
um...they're gonna be probably talking about works
that are protected by copyright from big-name publishers
or something of the sort.
And that's just not a way that...
you're probably just not gonna be able to get that content
available for free for those students,
especially not under an open license.
And that's just a, you know, a harsh reality.
I would encourage people to create
the open license film class, studies class,
though that probably won't happen anytime soon.
Um...but, uh...yeah, can...
I would be completely honest
with the people that you're talking to
about licensing their content.
Um...if you're asking them
for permission to license their work
under a Creative Commons license,
they need to be fully aware of that and agree to it.
If you're just asking for permission
to share their content to the students, you know,
or the terms of the permission that you're asking for.
As long as they're made aware of it and agree in good faith,
and there was a meeting of the minds,
as we like to say. um...then, you're okay.
Um...I wouldn't, obviously, try to mislead anyone
just to make their stuff more open.
[no audio]
Female 1: Right on.
Um...thanks, Greg.
Unless there's any other questions,
I just wanted to thank you for taking the time
to meet with us online and share all
of this really, really awesome, good information.
[laughs] And yeah, we maybe
emailing you with questions.
[no audio]
Greg: Awesome, you are very welcome.
Um...and yeah, my email is always open.
And maybe...I may have a few days away, sometimes,
but, um...feel free to email me.
I didn't put my email there just for show.
Please, please feel free to contact.
And keep up the good work, and I'm excited to be involved
in whatever little way I can with this great project.
So thank you.
[no audio]
Female 1: You're welcome.
And so, everybody, we're gonna...
when we are done recording,
we're gonna email out the link to everybody, this, um...this meeting.
Unfortunately, we were, actually,
[laughs] I think we did probably start
about five minutes earlier than 9:30,
but, we'll be able to...
those of you who came in a little bit late
should be able to catch those...
those five minutes on the recording.
Thanks, everyone.
[no audio]
Greg: I'm just gonna say thank you again and good-bye.
I'm gonna sign off now, so it looks like you guys
are gonna have a quick, little librarian's discussion.
Take care.