What else is around?
Looking at other OER repositories
...with a focus on IPR guidance
– (original starting point: what guidance for
depositors currently exists relating to IP in
existing repositories?)
– Based on first part of
“StoneWorkingPaper.doc” (on HumBox
basecamp)
• Lots of different kinds...
EdShare
• An institutional repository “locked in” by
password (U of Southampton)
• Terms & Conditions hand over all IP rights
to University “unless otherwise clearly
marked”
• So what use as a template for us?
• EdShare includes different levels of
access (“Viewing Permissions”)
EdShare
• “Just me” “Selected users” “School/Unit”
“University” or “World”
• If “World”, anyone can download the resource
• Descriptions (i.e. metadata) of all resources are
visible via Google
• “This then generates requests from all over the
place to ask colleagues to share things – even
when they have not made the resource visible”
Jorum
•
•
•
•
Restricted to UK HE & FE community
The contributors are institutions
Deposit Licence is 20 pages long
“The licensor hereby grants to HEFCE a
non-exclusive royalty-free perpetual
licence” so HEFCE can do anything it likes
(charge access fees, grant sublicences...)
So, a very different beast, BUT
• Loads of useful help e.g.
– Jorum Contributor Guidance Materials: Rights
http://www.jorum.ac.uk/docs/pdf/Rights_Guidance.pdf
– 2 forms of guidance for contributors
• Quick Ref Guide
• Step by Step Guide (includes compulsory “Rights Holder
Info” section)
• The message: Seek alternatives to 3rd party stuff
when possible!
And Jorum is changing
• This year (2009-10) Jorum2, a three tier
thing:– JorumOpen (creators and owners willing to
share content worldwide)
– Jorum Education UK (UK education sector
under terms of Jorum UK licence)
– Jorum Plus – special requirements not
catered for in above – “typically involving
restricted terms and conditions” (3rd party
restrictions, institutional login...)
OpenLearn
• Made the decision to make all their course
materials freely available, so, clear
distinction between:• LabSpace
– learners can, within stated limits, deposit
anything or rework and remix OU materials for
others to use
• LearningSpace
– “quality assured” – OU takes responsibility
OpenLearn
• OU retains the copyright for its course materials,
though extracts may be made under licence
• CC BY-NC-SA, Attribution Non-Commercial
Share Alike – is the licence of choice for
LabSpace
• Contributors wishing to translate OU materials
and have them appear in the LearningSpace are
invited to do so, subject to a “more formal
agreeement”
Non-UK and International:Open Courseware Consortium
• Over 200 institutions from Afghanistan,
Spain, Vietnam...not just USA
• They have to publish “under the
institution’s name materials from at least
10 courses in a format that meets the
agreed-upon definition of an
opencourseware.”
• CC BY-NC-SA, Attribution NonCommercial Share Alike
Open Courseware Consortium
• OCW “Toolkit: Making the Case” section
contains useful info for contributors,
faculty, admin
• Presentations designed to allay the fears
of:– Higher Administration
– Mid-level Administration
– Faculty
– Information Technology team...
Dutch OpenER
• “Over the period 2006–2008, the Dutch
Open Universiteit Nederland conducted an
experiment in which Open Educational
Resources (OER) were offered in an effort
to bridge the gap between informal and
formal learning and to establish a new
style of entry portal to higher education
with no barriers at all.”
• Changed attitudes – great success
Dutch OER workflow
As in USA, it’s not assumed rights checking
will be done by contributor
Reproduced with permission of Robert Schuwer
Connexions
• Rice University
• Similar to HumBox – ““small knowledge chunks ...that
can be organized as courses, books, reports, etc.”
• CC licence basic: CC-BY – Attribution (maybe reflects
recent concerns about “non-Commercial” element?)
• No mention at all of Rights information in the 202 page
PDF Connexions Tutorial and Reference
• Site Licence: “Neither the Connexions Project nor Rice
University undertakes any obligation to review or monitor
any content submitted to the Repository and shall not
have any responsibility or liability in connection
therewith.”
MERLOT
• Currently c. 20 institutions in the USA,
collaborating with c. 20 African Universities in
MAN (MERLOT Africa Network)
• Membership mix: Individual Members,
Institutional Partners, Corporate Partners
Editorial Boards
• “Author-Owners of MERLOT reference materials
are urged to select from Table 2, the license
most appropriate to their preferred use of online
materials”
• In practice, mostly BY-NC-SA but some BY-NCND (peer reviews, member comments)
Otago Polytechnic (NZ)
• Uses WikiEducator as platform to deliver
courses
• Recently switched to supporting free and open
access to material, based on the NZ CC BY –
“but with options to restrict a resource if it is
needed”
• Single institution, so no online guidance about
submission for us to steal (it’s already there!) –
but interesting background:-
Otago Polytechnic (NZ)
• Sought legal expertise to help draw up an initial
framework to put out for consultation – according
to this, Otago Polytechnic owned copyright of
material developed at the institution. Reactions:• Staff: “You’re not owning my thinking! If that’s
the case, I’ll do what’s required for my job and
do my really creative thinking at home!”
• Students: They’d do what was required to get a
qualification, but would keep their best work to
themselves because they wanted to be able to
set up their own companies to develop their
ideas after they finished study.
Open Learning Initiative (CarnegieMellon)
• Two paths - “Academic Courses” and:• Open & Free courses
– no fees, set start/end dates, enrolment...
– no access to an instructor, graded exams,
feedback, or credit/verification...
– Licenced using CC BY-NC-SA
– No IP guidance visible on the site (because all
courses written at Carnegie-Mellon?)
Finally...other JISC-funded
OERs like HumBox
• C-Change in GEES
• Organising Open Educational
Resources(SC-MEDEV)
Blog
already
authors’
context
• Skills
forbetrays
Scientists
(SCconcerns
Physicalover
Sciences)
of re-use – something HumBox authors have already
• Core-Materials (SC UKCME)
expressed. Solution....???
• TRUE (SC Economics))
Talk of development of a depositor tool which
automatically checks IPR aspects of the resource
being uploaded
It would have
to do
something like
this...
Responsibilities: individuals
or institutions?
•
Do HumBox contributors have ownership
rights over the materials that they
produce and use for teaching at their
institution? Or, how long is a piece of string?????
Usually not - local agreements may allow them
a share in the profit from them....
“The basic legal situation for all IPR is that anything created by an employee
in the course of his or her employee duties automatically belongs to the
employer unless there is some contract to the contrary. In the case of
patentable inventions, the law also requires that should the patent result in
income for the employer, then some equitable income-sharing scheme be set
up with the employee. Curiously, there is no equivalent to such laws for other
types of IPR, such as copyright. One crucial aspect is the wording in bold
above. If someone creates something, even if done in work time and using the
employer’s facilities and equipment, that was not part of his or her normal
employee duties, then the default position is that the employee owns the IPR
in that creation and not the employer. It should also be noted that if custom
and practice in the past has been that the employer has chosen not to enforce
its legal ownership of IPR from its employees, then a Court may decide there
was implied waiver of ownership by the employer that was in place and
continues to be in place.” (Draft Institutional IPR Policy Statement for SCA
Members and Other Organisations across the Public Sector)
“Under the Act, the author is the first owner of any copyright,
subject to the classic exception for employees. Thus, if the work
is created during the course of employment, the employer owns
the copyright. This is the starting point. Universities would seem
to own much of the work created by their employees, subject to
any agreement to the contrary (or perhaps implied custom). This
of course requires that there is an employment relationship. If
not, the author is the first owner.” (Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) in Networked e-Learning)
“In the higher educational sector it has been the custom and
practice that copyright in articles and monographs etc
(publications) belong to the author. Copyright in teaching
materials has not really been an issue until recently with the
advent of the digital storage of learning materials. Many
institutions may not have any provisions for this in their contract
clauses.” Ibid.
Responsibilities: individuals
or institutions?
•
What is the role of the institutions that
employ contributors? Do institutions care
about staff’s educational materials? Are
institutions protective?
I don’t have an answer to this one.
Some evidence for a
positive response
• The largest number of government-assisted OER
projects is sited in this country
• In other countries it may sometimes be more difficult
(check out OCW presentation designed to allay the fears
of Higher Administration)
• At Southampton, Research and Innovation is “on our
side”
• Most UK managers aware of the usual arguments for
sharing resources (showcasing, publicity, increasing
reputation of institution, benefits outweigh possible
income loss)
• ...but are they as aware as they should be that their
institution IS its teaching and research staff, rather than,
say, the sum income it can gain from international
students or commercial research contracts?