Mar 262012
 

This afternoon I’m here at the University of Edinburgh Business School in George Square to see Professor John Lee, of ESALA, Edinburgh College of Art and School of Informatics giving his inaugural lecture Learning Vicariously with Rich Media.

This is a liveblog and so all the usual caveats apply about typos, errors, etc. Please do comment below if you have any corrections you’d like to add.

We are being introduced to the lecture which celebrates the appointment of Professor John Lee to the post of Personal Chair of Digital Media. John works across both the School of Architecture and Informatics and blends those areas of expertise effortlessly. His interests include areas of design and cognition in design and learning and he has devised a method in order to film events and seminars by students so that they can be viewed again to reflect and engage that lecture which seems to have application across the university. And now over to Professor John Lee.

So this might be a confusing title on various levels so I will be coming back to that on various levels. I’ll start by talking about rich media, what they are and why we don’t make better use of them. Then I will be talking about vicarious learning, a topic that I and a number of other people have been working on for quite a while. And I’ll be talking about how this interacts and connects and can exploit rich media and technology for learning. I’ll talk about the system mentioned in the introduction, YouTute. And then I will talk about some further possible applications and future directions.

Rich Media Resources
What do I mean by that? Mainly audio and video really. Obviously there are many other types of media one might work with but I’m really interested in media which may be available, especially on the internet, media we can engage with. Audio and video are key but these media can be augmented by various other types of information – but they may be augmented by links, say to each other, or other forms of information or data. So annotation is a form of linking of media to other data. Tagging and cross referencing can be included. Commentary and discussion can be included. And there are a wider variey of internet resources that they can be connected to.

So when I talk about rich media I mean video, perhaps audio, but with these sorts of associated materials. And really rich media are not very common. The potential exists for exploiting these far more than they are being used at present, particularly in education. I think it would be useful to develop the potential for using these in a far more substantial sort of way. So I will not just be talking about my work in the past but also how we may use this sort of research to take forward these media in more fruitful ways.

Examples of rich media include YouTube which includes lots of less well known functionality such as annotation. So if we look at the video “hug the world” for instance we can see text and hotspots throughout the video. And those hotspots link to completely other videos. That is potentially quite useful type of thing that could be exploited, for instance in education. But they don’t seem to be widely used. You don’t see that many videos that use this functionality in videos on YouTube. Even those using video in teaching tend not to use these.

YouTube Preview Image

The other thing we see now is the capture of University lectures in video – like this one. Most lectures in Informatics, many others across the University and tools like iTunesU collate collections of videos of lectures. But it seems to me that these are not easy to use collaboratively or creatively. Looking at this video – it happens to be me lecturing – we can see indexes into the video automatically provided by seeing when the image changes. You can jump to various points in the lecture or a point where something is discussed in the notes. There are various different things one can think of that you could link to. So there is a useful layar on top of the lecture here – that’s quite a useful layar of rich media. So we can watch the video and move around it but we can’t do much else with it, we cant take pieces of that video and use them somewhere else for instance. The technical barriers seem overcomeable but something is stopping people making more creative use of this sort of video.

So I think we need new models of how to do this. Models of reusing materials in elearning is hardly a new topic. The old models are based on teacher-led creation of “learning objects”. There are standardised systems for development and re-use but they have never really become ubiquitous. You can find all sorts of collections of these but people don’t really use them that much. I think that’s partly because they are not always that easy to use but also because they tend to be built by teachers and particular ways that teachers think. Quite often teachers differ on these things. So often you find that University teachers have a strong tendency not to reuse other University teachers’ materials.

But i think we need to move away from that model and towards a kind of learner led recruitment of materials – from the web in particular. Learniers can search and discovery materials, to rework those materials and to share and collaborate around these materials to achieve search and discovery. And this is where we can see improvements. And technology can assist with the recruitment process here. So Google can help, the semantic web can help. But also within rich media there are opportunities opening up – such as the automated indexing of a lecture video. But there is more we can do as that’s just quite a simple example. But perhaps we can look at the speech in the video, at what’s happening in the video, what’s on screen to automatically interpret rich media.

So we can move away from passive consumption and use rich media to support activity, reflection, construction in an inquiry-led processes and to support the development of distributed collaborative learning through social networking. In particular what learners need to be able to do with these materials is to get engaged with these materials in some way. And we need to enable this engagement for distributed learners – they may be distributed geographically, distant learners, or they may be distributed in a more social sense. But tehse learners may be those that it can be difficult to get engaged in the learning process. And one of the things we’ve looked at in the past is using engaging learners through vicarious learning…

So what is vicarious learning? Well it’s learning from exposure to the learning experiences of others – e.g. students learn by watching other student’s problem solving in class. e.g. mast classes, design crits, etc. So this is where students discuss a problem and there is an audience – that might be a small or a large audience. Even without active participation vicarious learning arises from active listening and watching, it’s not just observational learning but active listening and watching, but it differs from observational, it’s not solely about observing expert performance. So the audience doesn’t just watch passively, but may not be part of the dialogue, but they are an active part of the process. So it’s somehow based on access to the learning process.

And vicarious learning is something that is perhaps done using technology. For instance a learner can watch another person engaging in a learning process.

We had a research project that aimed to attack this problem, this was some time ago. This was work with several collaboratoes funded by ESRC/EPSRC with Terry Mayes, Jean McKendree, Richard Cox, Keith Stenning, Finbar Dineen. And the project focused on capturing dialogue around specific problems – so in such a dialogue the process is exposed. These dialogues would be rated for the quality of learning content, matched to specific needs of learners, implies use in a controlled perhaps “intelligent” environment, which was difficult, and often based on “task-directed discussion” (TDDs) – which don’t always arise in tutorials.

The outcomes of this work kind of highlighted things like the benefit of exposure to student-student discussion. We were able to comapre these with tutor-student instruction, so if the tutor expounding material to students it was much less valuable to the students than a discussion in which the students perspective on the material was highlighted. If students discussed the material one found out how they were processing and understanding it. And students found watching “strugglers” most useful of all, though an uncomfortable thing to view.

The vicarious learning was effective in promoting reflection/discussion. And there seemed to be both cognitive and social benefits. And impact especially from modelling of dialogue skills and empathi identification with other students. There was less clear cut evidence for “domain” learning but there was potential importance for distance learning (and others), and it was an aid to “enculturation” into a disciplinary framework – exposure to the language and culture is harder to do in distance contexts on the whole. c.f. Laurillard, Schon etc.

Another collaborative project, VL-PATSy, funded by ESRC TLRP and working witH Richard Cox, Susan Rabold, Rosemary Varley, Julie Morris, Kirsty Hoben.

There was already a system called PATSy used with trainee speech therapists for diagnostic practice/training. This might include video, medical history, test results etc. These kinds of things could be augmented with other resources. And we augmented the materials with vicarious learning materials – TDD-based dialogues and interventions based on sophisticated student model. It was fairly effective but it was complicated and expensive to construct – it was a major 3 year project to set up and to repurpose it would also have been complicated and expensive. So we thought it might be more fruitful to try another approach.

So this other approach was around the idea of recycling stuff. Collating video recordings, of tutorial groups for instance. Then make these videos available to other learners – either automatically or manually by topic. And students could customise through selecting and annotating those videos. This is the idea which has become, with funding through the Principal’s eLearning Fund, “YouTute”. For this project we had Susan Rabold, Neil Mayo, Jon Oberlander, and Stuart Anderson involved.

So the idea was to recycle tutorial activity, captured on video. And then students would themselves be responsible for highlighting the useful aspects of these. We thought the effects might be enhanced if learners could edit the videos to pick out specific points, to annotate the videos to highlight issues, to rework the content for deeper learning. So looking at a capture of the main prototype system – this includes various video clips, notes from the session, topic and tags etc. This is an old version from perhaps four years ago but you can see we can view video of the whiteboard, we can see the tutorial roomm and we can see a camera looking at the smartboard. The students can actually use this to relive the tutorials in some sense. Either tutorials they were involved in, or those they weren’t involved in but on a topic they are looking at.

One of our undergraduate students, Marcin Bot, suggested a redesign of the system – a more student friendly interface intended here, bigger buttons, access to segments of video etc. But he didn’t feel this material was easy to rework particularly. This interface does help you access shared “tutes” (or create new ones) – these are the nuggets of tutorials on particular topics etc.

So this was quite a useful resource. We worked with it for several years whilst funded to do that. And some useful observations came out of that process. In particular that it was especially good for students who had failed the exam – they found it very useful for revising when away from Edinburgh. That seemed to be very useful for them. So I think this system could be taken forwaerd and developed. And improved with individualised tute collections, more developed social networking model, more interactive virtual editing of tutes, integration with recorded lectures, more streamlined collection and back end process etc.

So, I just wanted to finish by going back to the idea of really rich media. It’s not really new. There is plenty of work on mashup and remix culture. There are things like iMovie, the Open Movie Editor, Diver (stanford) – this was developed in Stanford and it’s quite a nice idea, it allows you to focus in on parts of videos, on some elements of a video and share that, jumpcut.com – used to allow you to edit online, it was purchased by Yahoo! and subsequently disappeared. But recently a thing called Adobe Premiere Express lets you do something similar – an online video editor. That’s the sort of thing we should pay more attention to but this is proprietary and probably expensive [note from Nicola here: YouTube does also include the facility to edit video online now].

So in future I’d like to see the development of integration of these sorts of ideas with learning systems – I have an EU proposal in train at the moment. I’d like to see improved automated annotation of video – recent and current work in Informatics on segmentation etc, using speech and/or image processing. And we could see this applied elsewhere, such as in schools, such as work with Tom Kane of a local company called Prescience Communications. So recently I’ve been working with Tom’s project and playing with the idea of a sequence of clips which you can move through, capturing the feel of jumpcut.com. This ability to personalise media in different ways would be useful for schools students in particular.

Q&A

Q1 – Richard Coyne, ESALA) Seems to me there is an issue of professional presentation or lack of. These days you have kids recording themselves in their bedrooms with great charisma, great thought of setting. Does a lack of professsionalism in these environments matter?

A1) I don’t think it does. So this work here is bringing external organisations into schools – in this case it was a discussion of the classification of films. It seems to me the important thing there is the quality of the discussion. The visual presentation isn’t neccassarily a concern. So we had a top quality of speaker here, these are the things that matter really. Exactly how the film appears isn’t neccassarily the first consideration here. If part of the discussion itself is

Q1) You and I might think that but what about the poeple this is directed at, the audiences.

A1) Well we’ll find out. It seems to me that students and audiences etc. it seems to me that audience are hugely accepting of varying quality of recordings. That first content on iTunesU you’d have very mixed quality filming, discussion of tutorial arrangements etc.

Q2 – Simon Higgs, BPA) Play, we all know how important play is in early learning but presumably it is also very important in vicarious learning and I was wondering how this relates to rich media learning and virtual worlds and games as a rich media space for vicarious learning.

A2) Certainly many people have looked at games and learning, Serious Games etc. In the rich media context I’m not familiar anything specific on this but in this area it certainly seems to be important, mashing up materials is about learning and about play at the same time, there would be an inevitable element of play that would be motivating in that activity. But how one seeks to exploit that more actively I’m not sure.

Q2) I think Richard’s comment about design is important there.

A2) Yes, you might be right. And one of the things that Marcin altered our design was to perhaps make it more playful.

Q3) I wanted to ask about incentives. Often things are most successful around examinations – so we get huge downloads of materials near exams, Youtube is heavily used then etc. What do you think you would need to incentivise wider use of these things? How do you reward students for co-producing materials that have high production values perhaps?

A3) One way of incentivising students is to give them some sort of credit for doing something, so that was one possibility that we considered at one point, that we could built some of these activities into their assessment. I would like to think that just the idea of sharing and co-create these things between each other, that this would be a resource to be their own in their own way would be motivating in itself. But I think it’s an unsolved problem really in this area generally, as to how to get those online activities of community to work properly and then stop working – they fizzle out, people drop out of the activity. But that is an interesting and unsolved problem in elearning I think.

Q4) On that point it seems to me that this seems to be something we would develop top down, that we’d need to develop special systems for this. Don’t you agree that this idea of students learning together and sharing artefacts is commonplace and is happening almost in a bottom up way, with people following each other on Twitter and so on.

A4) I agree to some extent but it’s patchy. I think with better tools and better context we could help them to do that. I think with things like Twitter and specific Facebook groups etc. these things exist but they are isolated phenomena to some extent.

Q5) Some of your interfaces are very media rich, how easy is it to divide attention when you have that going on – notes, lecture video etc. What’s important here?

A5) It’s a good question here. The interface I showed to the online lecture, often you don’t need the picture of the lecture, that’s probably not what students will watch, mainly they will focus on the main screen, probably the smartboard. Sometimes you want to see what’s being pointed at. The audio and main presentation screen are the main thing.

Q5) And diver with it’s zoom in?

A5) Yes, I’d like to built that in. None of these things are terribly hard to do. It’s not hard to code these things. It’s interesting in a way to me that we don’t see more being done with them.

Q6) I was quite interested in your comment about students learning more from struggling students – what going on there – is it that they make their process more obvious? is it about comparing your own understandings?

A6) Some of all of those. You benefit from seeing correction, from comparing understanding. It seems to me there is something quite useful about the affective side of this – empathy draws them in to focus on the solution in a way that a tutor with a blackboard wouldn’t do.

Q7) It seems emplicit in the name rich media that these are good, these are rich! But I find I use video as little as possible – I’ll see it if there isn’t a paper that they’ve written. I’d love to think that students watch me lecturing on video as the best medium but I’m not convinced that that’s not as valuable as looking the same thing up in a textbook.

A7) That’s fair, not all media needs to be rich. There are a lot of situations in which various elearning tools are in use where a blackboard might be equally effective or better. I’m not saying these are the only or always the best way to do education but they do have a value. But they do have a value for distance learners and it seems to be that seeing video of an experience is useful for those that were not there in person. It’s an attempt and not totally supplant other types of approaches but to make the best use of them that they can.

Q8 – Bruce Currie, formally of the Digital Design course) Enlightenment philosophers defacing images of god, the modern version of which might be the Taliban defacing images of Buddha in response to which it has been suggested that laser projections of Buddha to build peace. Do you see students using rich digital media to solve big world problems?

A8) I don’t know, I hope they may.

Mar 092012
 

I am just about to take part in the RSP webinar on Web 2.0, Creative Commons Licenses and Orphan Works being run by Prof. Charles Oppenheim.

This is the first free RSP – Repositories Support Project – webinar and we are just hearing an introduction from Nancy Pontika. The webinar is being recorded and both the PowerPoint and the webinar recording will be available online after the event. For that reason I’ll just be taking summary notes here and linking to the recording when it goes live.

Charles is now beginning here. This talk is based on one to the UK Electronic Information Group – it was one of two and we will be having a second webinar on the other title as well. He assumes those listening are

Charles is using a definition of Web 2.0 from Wikipedia – I note that Time Berner-Lee calls Web 2.0 “a piece of jargon” – which is fair enough to the extent that it is all built from existing technology. The key difference is the interaction between users.

There are some novel copyright issues here though. There are multiple collaborative players, and related to that, it is often international with contributors all over the world. In many web 2.0 situations few of the people involved know about or care about copyright – indeed Charles says some of them have contempt for copyright.

Copyright does have provision for jointly owned works: this is where the work is jointly owneed when more than one person has collaborated in the work’s creation and it is impossible or difficult to distinguish who contributed what. So an email thread may be jointly owned for instance but usually they would be a set of smaller singly owned copyright. But something like Wikipedia is clearly jointly owned – many contributors editing each others work. But the problem is that when you have something jointly owned any one party, any one contributor has a veto – they must all agree to the licensing of the outputs. No reply to a request also has to be taken as a veto. And that point actually extends to copyright in general. When you ask to use material there are three possible answers: yes, no, and no answer. Only a “yes” means you can use the material. So if 9 out of 10 copyright owners approve reuse of material but the tenth does not then that material cannot be reused.

The lifetime of copyright in most work is typically 70 years after the last of the joint owners have died. It could be a very very long time. So if any of you are involved in Web 2.0 tools it would be good to have terms and  conditions that do allow appropriate licensing for their material.

Other issues with web 2.0 is the difficulty of policing such sites – so on something like YouTube there are many many content owners and only some motivated to police that. Again Charles says that many Web 2.0 users have contempt for copyright. And he also draws us to the notion of “Vicarious Liability”, which means that things done by employees/students may have legal repurcussions for the employer/institutions, who may not have been aware of what was going on – and that applies to everything, not just Web 2.0. The risk is high in Web 2.0 because of the risk of copyright infringement.

Moral rights allow the author “Paternity right” – but you must assert that. If you do then you are the author of that work and your name must also be associated with that work. You also have a moral right to protect yourself from “false attribution” where that could damage your reputation etc. More importantly there is also “derogatory treatment” – a protection for using your work in any way that misrepresents you, quotes you out of context etc. Note that moral rights cannot be assigned to someone else. But they can be waived. Moral rights are very important in a Web 2.0 environment – you need to identify authors, to make sure you quote them appropriately etc.

There are also Performers Rights – these cover things like musical performances, dances, acting, lectures, etc. You must ask permission before making or reproducing copies of the performance – and the performer can choose whether or not to grant that. A podcast is a recording of a performance. To give you an example of a case at loughborough – a professor in an engineering department sent Charles a video on YouTube that was prefaced by a comment “the world’s worst lectuer” – it was a clip taken in a lecture on a mobile phone, showed some of the audience. It wasn’t a great lecture but that’s not the point, this infringes his performers rights. I replied that yes, it is infringing your performers rights as only you can give permission to record (except in the case of a student with a disability to use for their own studies), and certainly you shouldn’t add it to YouTube before getting permission!

If this all alarms you then help is at hand – there are a whole set of webpages from the Web2Rights project, a JISC funded project (http://www.web2rights.org.uk/) to help people with legal problems associated with Web 2.0. It’s such a good resource that it’s useful for any legal and copyright issues around Web 2.0 or other digital  information. It includes a ToolKit that gives all kinds of background information. It can help you look at all sorts of IPR and Licensing Issues. And the whole website is provided under a Creative Commons licence. You can use, adapt, remix, rebrand etc. as useful. You can implement policies in your institution etc. You just need to attribute the source. There are tools for Library and Information Services staff and policy teams.

That site also looks at Risk Management. In general copyright is all about managing risk. You have to be proportionate and pragmatic – be diligent and reasonable. You may be happy to take a low risk, but if something is very high risk you probably will not want to do that. Strategies should reflect and be reflected by employer policies – some organisations are much more risk averse than others. You also need to educate your users about copyright and avoiding infringing behaviour. If you do find you receive a complaint on infringing copyright then most importantly you must respond and take some sort of action – don’t ignore it or do nothing.

To mitigate risk you need to make sure you have mechanisms to take down content and do this whenever you receive a complaint. Then you should look at whether the claim is substantiated or not – it may be that you put the content back again, that may just require you to attribute the content, or there may be a fee for use, or it may be that it has to be removed. You should apologise as appropriate, have a rapid take down procedure and be aware that organisations usually have insurance that may help with charges/royalty fee issues.

So, onto Creative Commons. Lets start with a reminder of how you can copy under normal copyright law. There are exceptions within the copyright law – use for fair dealing, ability to make a single copy etc. Secondly you can use material where the owner has explicitly waived copyright – or has given a Creative Commons or similar free licence. Or you can buy a licence from the copyright owner or someone who acts on its behalf – Copyright Licensing Agency, ERA licence for television recordings etc. But I’m going to focus on Creative Commons.

A reminder of what a licence is, the copyright owner or his/her/its authorised representative (licensor) grants licensee rights to do certain restricted acts. In return fees are (often) paid. Terms and conditions are imposed – you must follow them, or be in breach of the licence and may be infringing. If you have a paid-for licence than you may be covered by indemnity – so the licensor should deal with any claims for infringing in theory. One of the most important licences is Creative Commons.

Firstly there is a website for Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/. If something has a CC licence then you may copy that content at no charge as long as you attribute creator. There may be other limitations which we will come back to. CC licences apply to text, sound effects, music, images, moving images, most any electronic format. To find licences materials there are many sources – Google, Google Images, Mediahub (for HEIs and FEIs only), Flickr, YouTube, much of the content on Google Scholar as well. Many of the Wikimedia (including Wikipedia) materials are on CC licences. In many cases you find these materials through advanced search options. But BEWARE! many people share things under CC that they are not entitled to so you must exercise common sense. So if you find a clip of a recent football match or a BBC programme on YouTube and it says it is CC licenced then it’s pretty unlikely the person who uploaded that has the rights to share that. Be sensible.

There are a number of CC licence types. The base line type is to copy and disseminate the work without changes and as long as you give attribution (CC-BY). So you can use the content but must give the author/licensor credit. You may also find that work has a CC-BY-NC licence – you may only use work for Non-Commercial purposes – there have been court cases here, with glossy magazines using images for instance where the author has had their licence breached and must be paid damages. You may fine that you have a CC-BY-ND licence – this means there may be No Derivatives. Or a CC-BY-SA – this means you must Share-Alike – you must share anything you do with an item under the same licence term.

CC licensed work is very useful – for presentations, for teaching materials, etc. And it’s a great way to share your own work with others.

Now, onto Orphan Works. These are anything that is in copyright but you cannot identify or trace the owner so cannot get permission to copy/permission. This is a growing problem, especially with uploading of content online. A likely solution in the future would be to use licences where funds are put in a pot for rights holders to claim – so you pay a fee and that fee is kept so that if the copyright owner comes forth they can be awarded some money from that pot of money. A big question arises here – in the majority of cases the owner will not come forward in which case the money will build up and how can that be dealt with?

The EU has issues a draft Directive on Orphan Works along these lines but it only covers text and some limited film works. It may not get passed but will certainly take a long time to come into force even if it does. Meanwhile Hargreaves has made some proposals likely to occur earlier and which are a bit more wide ranging. That is the current (vague) legislative position here.

Believe it or not even ancient works (e.g. a cuniform tablet) are still “in copyright” if they have just been found. Again Hargreaves has recommendations there. Obviously from a risk management perspective that would be a low risk issue though.

Hargreaves is a professor at Cardiff University who David Cameron asked to look at copyright law. He has recommended a new exception for orphan works for non-commercial use, with licensing bodies to administer (perhaps Copyright Tribunal). He also suggested the lifetime of copyright for unpublished or anonymous/pseudonymous works to life of author plus 70 years, or 70 years from data of creation. He does recommend requirement for a “diligent search” – before paying a fee to the licensing centre – but it’s not clear what the criteria for such a search would be . And it’s not clear what happens if someone comes forward as an author – they will get fees for prior use but can they block future use for instance?

And there is suggestion of a Possible Extended Collective Licensing schemes – so that colelcting societies c overing a majority of rightsholders in their media can offer licenes for c oprying materials not currently in their repertoise. And this could potentially include orphan works. OR there could be a special Orphan Works Licensing Agency.

Finally the IPO is to develop plans for a “copyright opinions service” in early 2012 for anyone, perhaps specifically/only educational institutions worried that they might be infringing. But this may not happen, the IPO are not keen on it. And there was to be a White Paper with proposed legislation in “Spring 2012” but it will be much later than that and Orphan Works may or may not be included as the independent photographers groups really don’t like the orphan works part of Hargreaves recommendations.

Q&A

Q1) In terms of vicarious responsibility – surely the employer isn’t responsible for all actions of employees and students and what they do in their personal lives?

A1) It must somehow be related to their employer responsibilities. If a student it’s about using the organisations facilities. So as an employee my personal conduct isn’t in scope. But if I do something at home related to my work role then that would be in scope. And if I do something personal on work computers the organisation can be liable. And with students it’s clearly about facilities. So it must be related to role, or use of facilities supplied by the institution.

Q2) Where do you draw the line between performance or conversation caught on camera – does the law differentiate?

A2) The law doesn’t differentiate exactly. But the law see performance as something that involved pre-planning. So improvised Jazz, some have argued, isn’t pre planned – though I’m not sure I agree. Lectures and concerts are clearly pre planned, schedules etc. There was a case the other day of someone who had created diagrams and graphs and had put them on camera as part of the talk – the question was whether those diagrams etc. enjoyed performers rights. I’m not at all sure. So there is a debate whether football recording infringes performance rights – the moves are not planned! But a conversation… well a pre planned interview would have performers rights but a chance conversation might not qualify.

Q3) Is there a list of organisations that are particularly copyright sensitive and will chase you always?

A3) There are some that usually persue: the film industry, the music industry, some publishers such as John Wiley, Ordnance Survey (happy to grant licenses but don’t do something without those or outside the terms. Some subject areas are dodgy such as business – you have various tests, questionnaires to measure personality or ability to negotiate or stages in marketings etc. and the copyright owners of those are very aggresive. The Honey and Mumford Test is a good example. Sheetmusic is aggresive. Andrew Lloyd Webber is very aggressive. No master list though.

Q4) Do performer and moral rights apply to work undertaken for your employer?

A4) You cannot assign your moral rights but if you create something for your employee duties there simply are no moral rights – so lecture notes here for instance. Performers rights are always retained by the individual not with the institution whether or not that is part of your employee duties. So an employer cannot on insist on recording an employees duties. So a university cannot insist on podcasting your lectures for instance. However even though legally in the right there may be plenty of reasons to approve such recording but these rights always remain your own.

Q5) For repositories can CC licences be accepted or must they always be checked?

A5) I did say you need to be sensible.  But you need to check that third party material is not in that material. And as an author I could have assigned copyright to a publisher… it’s a bit of a risk management approach. I would suggest that you need to get each academic when they submit, or when they first submit to the repository to sign a statement that they have the right to deposit anything going into the repository – a useful prompt for the depositor and this allows the institution to show they have tried to ensure compliance.

Q5) What is your liability for something that you have used that someone else CC licensed but is infringing?

A5) If it’s obviously infringing then you are probably liable. But it’s about how reckless you are. If you think that the CC licence is valid, it’s taken in

Q6) CC-BY-NC – does this mean you can’t sell the work, or that it can’t be used by a commercial organisation. And would a university be intentded a commercial organisation? Would a prospectus to attract students who make money for the university be a commercial use?

A6) It’s about direct or indirect money making usage. So a commercial organisation could use a CC-BY-NA item for non commercial purposes – an internal presentation, an intranet etc. But a prospectus would be a commercial use.

Q7) Non commercial is not the same as non profit…

A7) Certainly. You don’t need to make a profit to be commercial. A charity sharing a booklet that you charge for, even if it’s loss making, would be commercial.

Q8) We publish a photo with a non commercial licence and someone uses it on their blog. Their blog run ads and the blogger claims that it is non commercial as ads cover running costs.

A8) That’s a very grey area indeed. That may be a case to talk to the original copyright owner to ensure there are no objections.

Q9) CC licences for research papers: I read there are formulas for different licensing of materials like GNU, BSD, and CC for artworks. I do not think that these are appropriate for scientific articles – do you agree? What CC licence is appropriate for research papers? What does NC or ND mean in this context?

A9) CC isn’t just for artworks certainly. There are different and more appropriate licenses for software, CC isn’t designed for that. But articles wise I see no reason why a CC-BY-ND-NC licence wouldn’t be appropriate for research articles.

And that’s the last of some really interesting questions. The next webinar is on the latest changes to UK Copyright Law and registration will open up in a few weeks time.

 March 9, 2012  Posted by at 11:41 am LiveBlogs Tagged with: , ,  1 Response »
Mar 082012
 

Yesterday, as I was down in London amplifying and liveblogging the JISC GECO project event Geospatial in the Cultural Heritage Domain – Past, Present, Future I was delighted to see some of the liveblogs I’ve posted here in the past getting a little love.

My post on the Digital Scholarship Day formed sufficient record that Andrew Prescott, Professor of Digital Humanities at King’s College London, was able to draw upon it to discuss the issues raised at the day and has written his own, excellent, Digital Riff where he thinks about and discusses infrastructure for the Digital Humanities. Digital Scholarship and the Digital Humanities are in a really interesting phase of development and practice right now so this piece is well worth a read as is Melissa Terras’ blog on all things DH (and much more besides).

This morning I was even more delighted to see this very blog – and particularly the LiveBlog posts – recommended in a post on the Slainte: the Information & Libraries Scotland blog  which is run by the Scottish Library and Information Council (SLIC) and the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals in Scotland (CILIPS). The post entitled “Passion for the Profession can be expressed in many ways” which discusses the virtues of professional use of social media in response to a discussion triggered by CILIP chair Annie Mauger’s “Deprofessionalisation and the blogosphere” post. It seems to be part of a really interesting debate about the nature of professional personas and communication – which extends far beyond the library sector. And it’s a great honour indeed to be considered recommended reading!

I’ve been thinking for a while that a post with some hot tips and tricks for liveblogging might be useful and these mentions seem  to reinforce that so do keep an eye on this blog for a wee how to soon.

 March 8, 2012  Posted by at 1:01 pm Week In the Life No Responses »