OMG the Only way is Ethics (part two) Being: Open, Creative Commons & IPR

Enhancing Employability via Community Challenge

OMGTOWIE pt. 1 can be accessed at storify.com – please search UCBCCC then stories

This work is licensed by Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Sharealike (CC-BY-NC-SA).

http://tinyurl.com/d4gt9ou

… so we need ‘bigger and better’ mouths?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/electricsky

Trust?

Use Blipfoto etc. for whatever purpose you choose.

With an account you can create and share playlists

The University of British Columbia and the first ‘known’ edupunk teaching project?

New ways of being for traditional academic sources…

Thanks to data from wikipedia

Thanks to data from youTube

The Creative Commons Revolution

One of the foundations behind the drive towards openness in the contemporary world has been the Creative Commons licensing system.

“Creative Commons began providing licenses for the open sharing of content only a decade ago. Now more than 400 million CC-licensed works are available on the Internet, from music and photos, to research findings and entire college courses.” (The Power of Open, 2011)

Copyrighted music and YouTube• The situation with YouTube is that there is still no general permission to

include copyright protected music within a video. However, YouTube have an arrangement with the big recording companies/rightsholders that where copyright-protected material is discovered within adverts, the rightsowner may choose (entirely at their choice) to do any of the following:

• Disable the video and have it removed• Disable the audio, leaving the video intact• Disable only the bit of the audio which is the copyright music• Include advertising as an pop-up on the video, and take the revenue from

such• Include a pop-up giving details of the copyright music• Do nothing

Remember advert breaks?

Fighting the law?• There are going to be multiple rights associated with “I Fought The Law” –

a firm of Glasgow solicitors wanted to use a short clip of The Clash’s recording of it, and after tracking down all the rights (in the song, the lyrics, the performance and the recording), it would have cost somewhere in the region of £8000 to clear the rights. They decided not to use it.

• Where the resource contains a link to the YouTube video, the greatest risk is likely to be the video being removed at the request of one of the rightsholders. Likewise in the case of an embedded player (which is simply a fancy form of linking). However, if the video is actually going to be ripped and included in the resource, there is the not insigificant risk of one of the rightsholders requiring its removal (and from all copies of the resource made by users) – which would carry a reputational risk as well as a legal one.

As clearing the rights is probably going to be unrealistic, there are two recommended

approaches:

1) The first is to look around YouTube to see what other videos use the track, and to see what’s happened to them. If there are only recent uploads, that would suggest a rightsowner is requiring infringing videos to be taken down. If there are videos including the track going back several years, then you might get some indication as to what the rightsowner has been requiring (no action, removing the audio, blanking the offending ‘bit’, or including advertising).

The fact that the video for What is Crime? has been up for several years is some answer, though as it is a cover version, YouTube’s automated copyright music spotting software might not have found it yet (“Content ID”) – but you never know when it might be flagged up. There is always some risk that the video may be removed or altered in future.

Alternatives?2) The second approach is to change the music to something non-infringing. On the one hand, this isn’t too difficult as there isn’t any talking over the music etc; on the other, it’s hard to think of a similar ‘iconic’ piece of music which would be available copyright cleared. Sonny Curtis, the songwriter responsible for I Fought the Law, is still alive and well, so it is going to be in copyright for some time to come.

3) A statement of ‘fair use’ would be evidence of reasonable care and a diagnostic tool for assessing IPR has been made available by JISC for the OER community:

Trust me – this is a really good resource. There are templates for consent statements etc. as well as expert advice for IPR/copyright stuff.

Please ask, share, tag, curate …

• p.johnson@blackburn.ac.uk

• To find out more, search for UCBCCC on sites such as: delicious, youTube, pbworks, slideshare, twitter, storify, prezi and others that have probably not yet been invented.

• Open education is for everybody.