Main Nav

Can anyone on the list provide examples where either: 1. A university is accepting, in a degree granting academic program (e.g. a B.S. in Biology) an course from an OCW project (e.g. Courcera, MIT OCW, OERu, Opencourseware Consortium, The Saylor Foundation, Udacity, etc.). That is, I am wondering if there are any examples of a traditional university (University of X) pointing their students to an externally developed, hosted, taught (assessed) OCW course and awarding credits for its completion toward a degree from the university (a B.S. in Biology from University X)? 2. A university teaching an externally developed, managed and hosted OER/OCW course directly (with a university based instructor), and upon successful completion awarding credit toward a degree (B.S. in Biology). Thanks, Patrick || |||| ||| || | | || ||| || ||| || | | ||| || ||| || Patrick Masson Chief Technology Officer, UMassOnline The University of Massachusetts, Office of the President 333 South St., Suite 400, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 (774) 455-7615: Office (774) 455-7620: Fax (970) 4MASSON: GoogleVoice UMOLPatMasson: AIM massonpj: Skype Web Site: http://www.umassonline.net Blog: http://www.umassonlineblog.com ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Comments

In the United States: I've been in conversation with Granite State and I know that they are currently developing a method for giving credit for free and open studies. Empire State is also looking into it, but I'm not sure how much work they've done in that regard.  Empire State College, Southern New Hampshire U, and Thomas Edison are all part of OERU as well.

In Europe there is a very promising program called OERtest. http://www.oer-europe.net/   A consortium of colleges and universities granting credit for OER studies.

I have a survey running with regards to US colleges and university's willingness to provide credit for OER. So far 8 institutions have replied. You can see the results here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgH8tvfSelnZdHByajMwa3U1UWtUdktBb2p4QzUwZUE#gid=0

I hope this is helpful.

Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie



From:        "Masson, Patrick" <pmasson@UMASSONLINE.NET>
To:        OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU,
Date:        07/06/2012 04:10 PM
Subject:        [OPENNESS] Examples of OER and OCW in for credit courses
Sent by:        The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv <OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>



Can anyone on the list provide examples where either:

1. A university is accepting, in a degree granting academic program (e.g. a B.S. in Biology) an course from an OCW project (e.g. Courcera, MIT OCW,  OERu, Opencourseware Consortium, The Saylor Foundation, Udacity, etc.). That is, I am wondering if there are any examples of a traditional university (University of X) pointing their students to an externally developed, hosted, taught (assessed) OCW course and awarding credits for its completion toward a degree from the university (a B.S. in Biology from University X)?

2. A university teaching an externally developed, managed and hosted OER/OCW course directly (with a university based instructor), and upon successful completion awarding credit toward a degree (B.S. in Biology).

Thanks,
Patrick


|| |||| |||     ||  | | || |||  || |||  ||  | | |||  || |||  ||
Patrick Masson
Chief Technology Officer, UMassOnline
The University of Massachusetts, Office of the President
333 South St., Suite 400, Shrewsbury, MA 01545

(774) 455-7615: Office
(774) 455-7620: Fax
(970) 4MASSON: GoogleVoice
UMOLPatMasson: AIM
massonpj: Skype

Web Site: http://www.umassonline.net
Blog: http://www.umassonlineblog.com
**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Hi Everyone,

At ESC's Center for Distance Learning, we are encouraging our designers to use OERs in our courses whenever possible--using them in our new course development, and replacing copyrighted materials with open resources in courses that are in revision. I am also working on a department policy to help guide our adoption of OERs.  With that in mind, I do have some questions with regards to the "share alike" licensing.  My thoughts in bringing this to your attention, and getting your feedback, goes beyond my institution. As more colleges and universities move to using OERs, I think it is important to get clarification, and some consensus, for without that I fear that the use of OERs will be frustrated and hinder adoption.

To make this less wordy, I'm going to use the term "image" to represent any OER. My understanding is that SA only applies to the image if I revise it in some way, or if I create a derivative work that includes that image (a collage for example). And I understand that perfectly from even my own perspective: if I create an image and put a CC-BY-SA license on it, then if you create something using my image, I want you to make it freely available to me.

But, what if I don't edit it at all. What if I use it in a course (not an open course, as few courses are open), would that be consider remixing? My understanding is that the CC-BY part of the license is what I follow in this case, and that I must provide attribution and acknowledgement that the image was published under a CC-BY-SA license and was shared openly--so that students will know that they can not create a derivative work or edit the image without sharing it openly.
Is this the case, or is it that it can't be used at all in a non-open environment? 

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie

--
********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Message from david.wiley@gmail.com

Ellen, First things first - IANAL. So your use case is: 1. You're inserting a BY-SA image, exactly as you found it (no remixing), into some text. and 2. That text has a different license, maybe even (C). The cultural norm / most common practice in this case is to include information about the BY-SA license in the image caption where you also provide attribution. For example, immediately below the image you would have some text like "Photo by David Wiley (link to original photo). Used under the terms of the Creative Commons BY-SA license." D
Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Hi Ellen,

An important question -- thanks for posting.

As with most things in life, there is a very fine line between doing things right (legal perspective) and doing the right thing (values perspective).

While fair dealing / fair usage may permit the inclusion of a CC-BY-SA image unaltered within an all rights reserved course, I'm not sure that this is aligned with the values or intent of the free culture.

Remember that the creator could have applied a CC-BY license which communicates the intent that the licencor does not have any problems with the artifact being included in an all rights reserved course.

Speaking personally, I place values and intent above legal mechanics, and would advise that you first contact the copyright holder to ensure that they are comfortable with reuse of a CC-BY-SA image within an all rights reserved course. Clearly the creator intended that the resource be used as OER and added the requirement that derivative works should be shared. I don't think that it is fair and reasonable to include an SA licensed resource in an all rights reserved course.

Wayne


Message from david.wiley@gmail.com

Ellen,

Your statement captures the problem nicely:

"And I understand that perfectly from even my own perspective: if I create an image and put a CC-BY-SA license on it, then if you create something using my image, I want you to make it freely available to me."

If I have written a few thousands words of original text, and then place your BY-SA image somewhere among those words, do you feel like I have created a derivative of your image? Do you believe that my embedding your image among my few thousand words justifies your image dictating the copyright status of my few thousand words?

I have a huge amount of respect for Wayne and want to follow his example in doing the right thing. However, it seems to me a bit foolish for the licensing status of 1% of a work to dictate the licensing status of the other 99% of the work. When all the words are original and you include an open image as illustration, those words are not a derivative of the image. In fact, you probably wrote them first and then went looking for a fitting image to include with the words. Since they are in no way derivative of the image, I don't understand why the SA terms of the images license would apply by either the "do things correctly" or the "do the right thing" test. In fact, I don't see why the BY SA image couldn't be included inside of a few thousand BY, BY NC SA, or even (C) words, as long as you clearly notify people of their BY SA rights with regard to the image. 

Wayne, help me out here - and i ask this question in sincerity. When I create original words, and after the fact find a fitting image to include with them, which happens to be BY SA, why is it "the right thing" for the image I discovered after the fact to dictate to me the way I should license my original words?

Genuinely wanting to understand,

D

On Jul 8, 2012, at 12:39 AM, Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Ellen,

An important question -- thanks for posting.

As with most things in life, there is a very fine line between doing things right (legal perspective) and doing the right thing (values perspective).

While fair dealing / fair usage may permit the inclusion of a CC-BY-SA image unaltered within an all rights reserved course, I'm not sure that this is aligned with the values or intent of the free culture.

Remember that the creator could have applied a CC-BY license which communicates the intent that the licencor does not have any problems with the artifact being included in an all rights reserved course.

Speaking personally, I place values and intent above legal mechanics, and would advise that you first contact the copyright holder to ensure that they are comfortable with reuse of a CC-BY-SA image within an all rights reserved course. Clearly the creator intended that the resource be used as OER and added the requirement that derivative works should be shared. I don't think that it is fair and reasonable to include an SA licensed resource in an all rights reserved course.

Wayne


Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Hi David,

Foreword: I don't want to pollute the list by rabbiting on about free licenses, so if readers are not interested in these discussions -- hit the delete button now. For the record -- I dedicate this response to the public domain ;-).

I think these discussions highlight the nature of the transformation opportunities our organisations are facing in the open education space, namely a cultural shift from sharing to Learn to learning to Share, i.e. where an organisational culture of sharing (as a value) can contribute more to building a sustainable commons than individual ownership rights.    

For the purposes of this discussion, I would like to exclude the legal perspective. I do think there are reasonable grounds to include an unaltered image in a course which is published as all rights reserved  under fair usage / fair dealing assuming proper attributions.  However, if for example, a publisher like Flatworld Knowledge were to publish a textbook which is largely based on CC-BY-SA images from Wikimedia Commons under a CC-BY-NC-SA license, I don't think fair use should apply because of the amount of images reused that were intended for perpetual sharing to generate an exclusive economic right. As you know, the legal situation can be rather complex. 

Do I believe that embedding your CC-BY-SA image in my thousand words justifies a share alike provision for the derivative work?  Speaking personally, if your 1% SA gift helps me with my 99% text contribution -- the net result is that we both have a learning resource which is 100% free which is better for the commons than having the 99% locked down behind all rights reserved copyright. Moreover, I have the added advantage of honouring your wishes to share-alike while serving a larger social good. Our organisation is committed to sharing as a matter of policy - it is a value which drives everything we do. 

I think that it is a fair and reasonable request to honour the free choices and intentions of the creator when they apply a SA restriction, namely, that I share back as I have received in order to promote the future freedoms of a creative work (especially in the scenario where the derivative work intends to use a more restrictive license or will be locked down behind all rights reserved).  In this context I think that the notion of "dictating" a license is not well placed -- I prefer to think of this as the freedom of choice a user has when applying a license regarding how they would like their creations to be reused -- they are saying that "I want you to share so we can build the commons". The creator is not dictating what license you should use because you can choose not to use a SA artifact. 

I always assume that the creator took a purposeful decision when choosing the share-alike provision and I believe that we should respect that choice. (Remember, the creator could have licensed the image as CC-BY and has expressed a clear intention that they expect derivative works to be shared back to the commons.) If I don't like the share-alike requirement, I could find a suitable CC-BY image replacement, particularly if I want to lock down the resource under a more restrictive license. Alternately, I could contact the copyright holder and ask whether they are comfortable with the image being locked down behind all rights reserved. 

Many creators view the share-alike provision as a gift to the commons with the freedom for everyone to earn a living by reusing the resource. However, changing a level playing field where everyone has the right to earn a living from the SA artifact into an exclusive economic right is an abuse of the freedom given under the share-alike example imo.  

I am not arguing for exclusive use of the SA licenses for all OER, but suggesting that doing the right thing is to respect the freedom of a creator who wants us to share as we have received. 

Many of my creative works are dedicated to the public domain and I frequently use the CC-BY license. However, there are circumstances where I purposefully choose to apply the SA requirement. This could be as a result of remixing other SA resources into my own work to honour the choices of the original creator, or a decision to apply the SA provision for strategic reasons.  For example:

The OER Foundation subscribes to radical transparency and free cultural works approved licenses. We even develop our OER funding proposals transparently under open content licenses. It's a powerful model because our outputs are focused on building the OER ecosystem so that individuals and organisations have the freedom to build on our ideas. If an organisation can take our ideas to achieve sustainable OER models and they can produce the open outputs quicker, faster and better than the OER Foundation -- they should be the ones who succeed in securing the funding as we will all collectively benefit from OER sustainability improvements. 

When developing open grant proposals, I prefer to use the SA requirement to ensure that the outputs of our funding proposals will remain in the commons.  Let's say I generate an illustrative  graphic which conveys the concept of the logic model of "our" idea, and a "competitor" takes that graphic and embeds it in a funding proposal for an OER project which does not intend to use free licenses (eg CC-BY-NC), I would consider this an abuse of the freedom given because they are unwilling to share back with the open community and wish to retain economic rights from the ideas of others, thus depriving the sustainable growth of the global commons. 

David, you will remember the early days of the Khan Academy when Sal was still hosting his videos using the default Youtube license, effectively an all rights reserved license. We both lobbied Sal to apply an open content license and to his credit, he applied a CC-BY-SA license. Here in New Zealand at the time, we were building a national OER Commons for the school sector converting Khan academy videos into open and editable file formats and embedding these videos into OER lessons. Shortly after the Khan Academy received a large funding grant, an NC restriction was applied post hoc to all the Khan Academy videos. Did this signal a change in values? 

We know that a CC license is irrevocable, however it is impractical to determine which Khan videos were originally licensed under CC-BY-SA. Sadly, we can no longer embed the videos in the way we were remixing the material as we only use free cultural works approved licenses.  That said, it appears that Sal has no issue incorporating images from Wikipedia (default CC-BY-SA) into his videos and applying an NC restriction to enclose the resource. See for example, Natural Selection and the Owl Butterfly -- at about 2mins, Sal says that the images displayed are from Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Sal has not attributed the images properly so I can't trace whether these images were CC-BY or PD and not the default CC-BY-SA license of the Wikimedia foundation projects. Is this doing the right thing?

Similarly , in the early days of CK12 large amounts of CC-BY-SA text from Wikipedia were incorporated into CK12 text books when they were still using a CC-BY-SA license. There was a change in licensing policy at CK12 adding the NC restriction. I assume that CK12 has removed all text sourced from Wikipedia from their books due to the licensing incompatibility. 

This illustrates that the potential for what Stephen Downes calls enclosure is certainly plausible, even in the  non-profit sector as illustrated above. This is where resources which were intended to remain in the commons by choice of the creator are locked down under more restrictive licenses without the benefit of building the commons by sharing back derivative works.  

The values argument which underpins our work at the OER Foundation cuts both ways. For example, when we developed the course materials for the Open Content Licensing Course our collaboration took an open decision that the course should be licensed under CC-BY. As a result, all the images and resources remixed for this open course are licensed under CC-BY (no CC-BY-SA images.) There is one values-based exception -- namely the video from Eben Moglen  which is licensed CC-BY-SA. It would not have been appropriate, given Eben's extensive pro bono  work as legal counsel for the Free Software Foundation in promoting freedom, to request removal of the copyleft restriction on the video. Where we found video material which was not licensed under CC-BY which we felt was essential for the course, we contacted the original authors requesting that they re-license their work.

There is a wonderful example from Justin Cone, winner of the CC competition with his video "Building on the Past" which was originally licensed with an NC restriction. Kudos to Justin for removing the NC restriction and donating a video reflection on why he did this from a creator's perspective.  Sure, this involves extra work and time -- but the long term result is that any education institution can embed these course materials within their own courses, even as all rights reserved. We recognise that very few education institutions are going to adopt default CC-BY intellectual property policies in the near future and the OER Foundation believes it is more important for all educators to learn about open licensing even if the courses are all rights reserved.

As pressure increases on the for-profit publishing industry under the open model, I believe that it will be prudent for the open education movement to be squeaky clean regarding the licensing of the artifacts included on OER courses -- they will be watching us carefully ;-).

While this post may appear to be a tad esoteric, I think that if educators and organisations  interrogate the reasons why they participate in open education and reflect on the values which underpin these decisions, we can improve the OER ecosystem by an order of magnitude in a more sustainable way because we will be growing the base of a free education commons. 

Apology for the long post David -- and I know that you have intimate knowledge and understanding of these aspects. For me, I  joined the vocation of education to share knowledge freely. It is this vocational committment which helps me everyday in doing the right thing :-).


Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Additional search on the Khan Academy video and possible reuse of a copyleft image.

Did a quick search of "Owl butterfly" on the commons and found this image:


While I can't be 100% sure, it looks like the image remixed without any immediately obvious attribution by the Khan Academy video. The source image is licensed under the Art Libre license and adding the NC restriction to the resultant remix is not aligned with the requirements of the original license (Assuming its the same image.)

I hope this was an oversight by the Khan Academy, but illustrates how complex this remix stuff can be -- I think that in this example, it is reasonable to say that the image is now a derivative work.

Wayne 

  



Message from david.wiley@gmail.com

Wayne, Thanks for your very thoughtful response - that's why I love dialoging with you! I'm afraid I was unclear in my response to Ellen. You write, "I do think there are reasonable grounds to include an unaltered image in a course which is published as all rights reserved under fair usage / fair dealing assuming proper attributions," but this is not the situation I was imagining (but failing to communicate!). I've attached an image to more clearly communicate the situation I am imagining - and that I believe Ellen was asking about. I'm not suggesting that one use the BY SA image under a fair use / fair dealings exemption from copyright. I'm suggesting that, as in the attached example, it is possible to include an open image - including a notice of all the rights in the image that are available to downstream users - in a text that is licensed under an arbitrary, possibly different license. I think this usage is completely in harmony with your notion that "doing the right thing is to respect the freedom of a creator who wants us to share as we have received," because I'm sharing the image with others under exactly the same terms that the image's author shared it with me. I think the notion that "doing the right thing is to respect the freedom of a creator who wants us to share as we have received," goes both ways. If I want to create some text, and share it with the world under a BY license, there's no reason why embedding a properly attributed BY SA image in my text should convert my text to BY SA (note that proper attribution includes informing readers of their rights to reuse the image under BY SA). You go on to say that this demonstrates the viability of what Stephen Downes calls enclosure - "where resources which were intended to remain in the commons by choice of the creator are locked down under more restrictive licenses without the benefit of building the commons by sharing back derivative works." In the example I've attached, there is no derivative work to share back into the commons, because the original image is unaltered. And good catch on your most recent email re: Khan Academy, which "illustrates how complex this remix stuff can be." On a more philosophical note, and as we have discussed before, there is only one reason that remixing is complicated. ;-) I have always thought the primary purpose of open licensing should be to simplify the reusing, revising, remixing, and redistribution processes, removing all the friction in the current process so that everyone, worldwide, is free to engage in the 4R activities without fear of violating someone's copyright - or their license terms. I'm afraid that our current system of open licenses simply trades the friction of the traditional copyright system for an almost intractable complexity of open licenses with SA-like terms. But I know and respect your feelings on this topic, and don't expect to change your mind. D
Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Hi David,

Yeah -- when it comes to values, these things are about as clear as muddy water ;-)

With my work over the years with the Wikimedia Foundation I have come to learn that many creators are rather passionate about the copyleft provision and from their perspective and intent the copyleft provision would extend to the "surrounding" text. 

Speaking personally, when I am faced with this challenge, eg including an unaltered CC-BY-SA  image in a CC-BY resource, I prefer to consult with the original creator. But I'm old fashioned. 

Yes, I agree that one of the advantages of CC licensing is how we can save on the transaction costs associated with negotiating copyright reuse. In my case I prefer to ask for re-licensing under CC-BY in this scenario or take the time saving route of licensing the resultant work under BY-SA on the assumption that the share-alike means just that.   

I'm an optimist (because I can always cry later) and hope that discussion like this will encourage all educators to licensing their works under the most open options possible. That way we build the commons.

So it seems that doing the right thing will ultimately be determined by the user's own value structures. Not much new in this world hey? 

W.

David, Wayne, Ellen, and others,

I think we all benefit from this conversation from time to time.  I also embrace Wayne's point in hoping "that discussion like this will encourage all educators to licensing their works under the most open options possible. That way we build the commons."  I personally try to put CC-BY on about everything I do and encourage promiscuous reuse in any way that a new creator thinks is helpful. 

Software is a more complex domain, but we had this same conversation about eight years ago in "Of Birkenstocks and Wingtips" in EDUCAUSE Review.  Do rights vest wit hthe code itself so we can thus control the behavior of the grandchildren from the grave or do rights vest with the next creator to chose licensing for his/her creative work?  There are principled and meritorious arguments for both views.  In creating Sakai and Kuali, we chose to go with a non-viral, frictionless remix license that is similar to CC-BY in philosophy.

For content and software, I personally encourage us to enable as much frictionless remix as possible while still respecting proper attribution for components of creative works. 

--Brad




From: The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv [OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] on behalf of Wayne Mackintosh [mackintosh.wayne@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 2:19 AM
To: OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [OPENNESS] Question about CC-BY-SA

Hi David,

Yeah -- when it comes to values, these things are about as clear as muddy water ;-)

With my work over the years with the Wikimedia Foundation I have come to learn that many creators are rather passionate about the copyleft provision and from their perspective and intent the copyleft provision would extend to the "surrounding" text. 

Speaking personally, when I am faced with this challenge, eg including an unaltered CC-BY-SA  image in a CC-BY resource, I prefer to consult with the original creator. But I'm old fashioned. 

Yes, I agree that one of the advantages of CC licensing is how we can save on the transaction costs associated with negotiating copyright reuse. In my case I prefer to ask for re-licensing under CC-BY in this scenario or take the time saving route of licensing the resultant work under BY-SA on the assumption that the share-alike means just that.   

I'm an optimist (because I can always cry later) and hope that discussion like this will encourage all educators to licensing their works under the most open options possible. That way we build the commons.

So it seems that doing the right thing will ultimately be determined by the user's own value structures. Not much new in this world hey? 

W.

David, Ellen and Wayne, I have a question, and I wonder if it might help provide a distinction (hopefully not a distraction) here. Ellen's original question was "what if I don't edit it [an image] at all. What if I use it in a course...would that be consider remixing?" David followed with an example of adding a picture (grabbing any fitting image) to 1000 words of original text and wondered why the image would dictate the license. So might this come down to the use of the image as "clip art" versus an image used to enhance the understanding of the concept(s) described within the text (complimentary versus contributory)? As a former scientific illustrator for 10 years at UCLA I understand there are several types of relationships between artwork and graphics and the text they accompany. I think David is imagining a scenario where the image is an after thought to the text--typical Professor :-) However there are plenty of examples were the graphics or artwork carry the message and provide the foundation for the concept and enabling understanding--after all doesn't a picture have a 1000 words (typical artist)? The reason clip art exists is to provide readers with a graphic rest spot, breaking up the text into a more manageable (less daunting/boring) format. I think in this case (as David shows in his example), because the graphic is generic--applicable to any body of text or generally to any topic/concept, e.g. using a light bulb to convey the concept of bright ideas (http://bit.ly/PFxLnN )--here is no expectation by either the author or the artist that the two objects are married (now or forever), relying on one another to make a point, or because now combined, make another point. However graphics (charts, graphs, diagrams etc.) and artwork (illustrations, visualizations, models, etc.) are usually specific to the text and thus concepts. Indeed many times the text is included to explain the concepts illustrated through the artwork (http://bit.ly/PFyLZg.3..0l3j0i5l6j0i24.5524.6327.6.6630.5.5.0.0.0.0.135.... ). In this case the two objects (text and graphic) are married (now and forever). Only together associated with one another do they make sense and indeed may make a further point not possible without each other. This was always my goal when creating original work as a scientific illustrator. So does this sound right? If you are going to use an image (any image) to simply fill space, then the text and graphics can have different licenses because there is no expectation of continued use together--a dependency? If however, the image enhances the text (adds clarity) or, because of the two positioned together, creates a new concept, then the two licenses must align? Patrick || |||| ||| || | | || ||| || ||| || | | ||| || ||| || Patrick Masson Chief Technology Officer, UMassOnline The University of Massachusetts, Office of the President 333 South St., Suite 400, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 (774) 455-7615: Office (774) 455-7620: Fax (970) 4MASSON: GoogleVoice UMOLPatMasson: AIM massonpj: Skype Web Site: http://www.umassonline.net Blog: http://www.umassonlineblog.com ________________________________________ From: The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv [OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Mackintosh [mackintosh.wayne@GMAIL.COM] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 2:19 AM To: OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [OPENNESS] Question about CC-BY-SA Hi David, Yeah -- when it comes to values, these things are about as clear as muddy water ;-) With my work over the years with the Wikimedia Foundation I have come to learn that many creators are rather passionate about the copyleft provision and from their perspective and intent the copyleft provision would extend to the "surrounding" text. Speaking personally, when I am faced with this challenge, eg including an unaltered CC-BY-SA image in a CC-BY resource, I prefer to consult with the original creator. But I'm old fashioned. Yes, I agree that one of the advantages of CC licensing is how we can save on the transaction costs associated with negotiating copyright reuse. In my case I prefer to ask for re-licensing under CC-BY in this scenario or take the time saving route of licensing the resultant work under BY-SA on the assumption that the share-alike means just that. I'm an optimist (because I can always cry later) and hope that discussion like this will encourage all educators to licensing their works under the most open options possible. That way we build the commons. So it seems that doing the right thing will ultimately be determined by the user's own value structures. Not much new in this world hey? W.
Message from david@openintro.org

Hi David, Wayne, and all, here is my two cents:

Speaking generally (exceptions are plenty), SA content creators are not asking for money as repayment for using their content. The non-monetary price they set when their SA content is directly contributing value is that the new product adopts the same SA license. And whenever content is being used, it is adding value. (This is a truth by contradiction: if the content isn't adding value, then why was it added?) If this "repayment by licensing" is not possible or reasonable, then contact the SA content creator and ask for a waiver. Many are happy to grant one when it is clear how the content will be used. If s/he is not, then the appropriate choice seems to be either pay the price for using the SA content (license the final product under the SA license), or remove the SA content from the final product.

While it takes a long time and a lot of skill to arrange 1000 words in an interesting and meaningful way, it also takes a long time and a lot of skill to generate a high-quality photo or graphic. I've spent several hours adjusting a single high-quality statistical graphic. My wife (a graphic designer) will spend hours tweaking a single image or graphic to perfection. Images should not be taken for granted as a small contribution to a final work, even if they consume much less area than the surrounding text.

This is my opinion on the spirit of SA licensing, which probably has no legal relevance.

Best,
David

- - -
David Diez
OpenIntro


Hi Everyone :) ,

I think this is a very important topic, and illustrates many of the problems that happen when institutions want to use OERs (as opposed to producing them).  And, I do agree that increasing the use of the  CC-BY license would be helpful, however that then eliminates restrictions on derivative works and those derivatives are what I think is most important.  If I freely license my work, so you can use it, then if you create something using my work, I expect you to also make it freely available to me. If you use my work, I don't care if you make my work available freely (it is already freely available). Simply credit it back to me (BY) and it remains open and free regardless of how you license your work.  Your license, in no way at all, impacts my work. If you make a profit off of it, that would be another thing, but that's a different license. (NC)    I hope in the future, there are two SA licenses: one for those who only want an image used in content that is available under the same license, and one that requires the SA only if it is altered or is used in a derivative work.

With regards to Khan Academy, what is interesting is that Khan's license states

"7.2 License Restrictions. The Licensed Educational Content is intended for personal, non-commercial use only. Without limiting the foregoing, the Licensed Educational Content may not be used, distributed or otherwise exploited for “commercial advantage or private monetary compensation” under the Creative Commons License unless otherwise agreed in writing by Khan Academy. Without limiting the generality of the terms of the Creative Commons License, the following are types of uses that Khan Academy expressly defines as falling outside of the definition of "non-commercial":
3.        (c) providing training, support, or editorial services that use or reference the Licensed Educational Content in exchange for a fee; "

We take this to mean, since we charge a fee for our courses,  we can not include Khan videos in our courses without violating the copyrights of the videos.

And to make matters more complicated, as you may or may not know that in Perfect 10 vs Google, the US Court of Appeals ruled that inline linking of copyrighted images is not a violation of copyright--at least in Google's use of them.  However copyright laws state that each case is considered independently of others as each case has its own circumstances. Clearly there is much muckiness around these things.

At any rate, I believe that when an image is used to support academic content directly, that is as Patrick puts it " the two objects (text and graphic) are married (now and forever)" couldn't some of that  be considered fair use--depending on how it is used.  I couldn't access Patrick's second link so I couldn't really see how the image he was referring to was being used.  

...so glad for this conversation.

Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie



From:        "Masson, Patrick" <pmasson@UMASSONLINE.NET>
To:        OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU,
Date:        07/09/2012 09:55 AM
Subject:        Re: [OPENNESS] Question about CC-BY-SA
Sent by:        The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv <OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>



David, Ellen and Wayne,

I have a question, and I wonder if it might help provide a distinction (hopefully not a distraction) here. Ellen's original question was "what if I don't edit it [an image] at all. What if I use it in a course...would that be consider remixing?" David followed with an example of adding a picture (grabbing any fitting image) to 1000 words of original text and wondered why the image would dictate the license.

So might this come down to the use of the image as "clip art" versus an image used to enhance the understanding of the concept(s) described within the text (complimentary versus contributory)? As a former scientific illustrator for 10 years at UCLA I understand there are several types of relationships between artwork and graphics and the text they accompany. I think David is imagining a scenario where the image is an after thought to the text--typical Professor :-) However there are plenty of examples were the graphics or artwork carry the message and provide the foundation for the concept and enabling understanding--after all doesn't a picture have a 1000 words (typical artist)? The reason clip art exists is to provide readers with a graphic rest spot, breaking up the text into a more manageable (less daunting/boring) format. I think in this case (as David shows in his example), because the graphic is generic--applicable to any body of text or generally to any topic/concept, e.g. using a light bulb to convey the concept of bright ideas (http://bit.ly/PFxLnN )--here is no expectation by either the author or the artist that the two objects are married (now or forever), relying on one another to make a point, or because now combined, make another point.

However graphics (charts, graphs, diagrams etc.) and artwork (illustrations, visualizations, models, etc.) are usually specific to the text and thus concepts. Indeed many times the text is included to explain the concepts illustrated through the artwork (http://bit.ly/PFyLZg.3..0l3j0i5l6j0i24.5524.6327.6.6630.5.5.0.0.0.0.135.529.3j2.5.0...0.0.FhIE6S54dMU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=60148e9d3b1bb674&biw=1040&bih=627 ). In this case the two objects (text and graphic) are married (now and forever). Only together associated with one another do they make sense and indeed may make a further point not possible without each other. This was always my goal when creating original work as a scientific illustrator.

So does this sound right? If you are going to use an image (any image) to simply fill space, then the text and graphics can have different licenses because there is no expectation of continued use together--a dependency?  If however, the image enhances the text (adds clarity) or, because of the two positioned together, creates a new concept, then the two licenses must align?

Patrick

|| |||| |||     ||  | | || |||  || |||  ||  | | |||  || |||  ||
Patrick Masson
Chief Technology Officer, UMassOnline
The University of Massachusetts, Office of the President
333 South St., Suite 400, Shrewsbury, MA 01545

(774) 455-7615: Office
(774) 455-7620: Fax
(970) 4MASSON: GoogleVoice
UMOLPatMasson: AIM
massonpj: Skype

Web Site: http://www.umassonline.net
Blog: http://www.umassonlineblog.com
________________________________________
From: The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv [OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Mackintosh [mackintosh.wayne@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 2:19 AM
To: OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [OPENNESS] Question about CC-BY-SA

Hi David,

Yeah -- when it comes to values, these things are about as clear as muddy water ;-)

With my work over the years with the Wikimedia Foundation I have come to learn that many creators are rather passionate about the copyleft provision and from their perspective and intent the copyleft provision would extend to the "surrounding" text.

Speaking personally, when I am faced with this challenge, eg including an unaltered CC-BY-SA  image in a CC-BY resource, I prefer to consult with the original creator. But I'm old fashioned.

Yes, I agree that one of the advantages of CC licensing is how we can save on the transaction costs associated with negotiating copyright reuse. In my case I prefer to ask for re-licensing under CC-BY in this scenario or take the time saving route of licensing the resultant work under BY-SA on the assumption that the share-alike means just that.

I'm an optimist (because I can always cry later) and hope that discussion like this will encourage all educators to licensing their works under the most open options possible. That way we build the commons.

So it seems that doing the right thing will ultimately be determined by the user's own value structures. Not much new in this world hey?

W.

Greetings Open Colleagues:

I’ll stay away from the “spirit of sharing” or the intent of the licensor in this post, and focus on what the Creative Commons (CC) licenses actually say with regard to “adaptations” and “collections.”

 

Scope of SA:  The SA provision is triggered when an adaptation is made.  Adaptation is defined by applicable copyright law, but as a general matter is a work based on another work.  In the absence of the creation of a derivative or adaptation, there is no requirement that licensees license derivatives under the same license terms.  While laws do vary, for the most part our experience is that courts will not find an adaptation unless the work itself is modified in some respect.  Reproducing the work in whole whether alone or alongside other separate and independent works (such as in a collection) is not an adaptation.


Additionally, our licenses specifically exclude uses that constitute a "fair use" or other limitation on the reach of copyright.  So reproducing even snippets or otherwise using an SA licensed work in a way that is such a use will not trigger the ShareAlike condition.  This might include (depending on circumstances), excerpting phrases from a work for inclusion in test questions and similar.


Here are a few CC FAQ links you might find useful:

Warm regards,

 

Cable


Cable Green, PhD
Director of Global Learning



Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Hi Cable and open educators

Creative Commons, understandably,  does not offer legal advice.  Anyway, an open and hypothetical question.

A corporate entity uses a compelling image licensed CC-BY-NC-SA, unaltered and duly attributed on the landing page of their website which carries a number of revenue generating advertisements.

Would this be OK?

Speaking personally - -I would not take the risk and first clear this reuse scenario with the copyright holder.

Thoughts?

W






Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Hi Ellen, 

Correct -- in fact, 7.3 of the Khan Academy TOS clarifies their interpretation of NC with no uncertainty:

"7.3 Non-Commercial Use. Whether a particular use of the Licensed Educational Content is “non-commercial” depends on the use, not the user.
....
(b) As another example, a non-profit entity’s use of the Licensed Educational Content in connection with a fee-based training or educational program is NOT “non-commercial” and is not permitted.
"

So let's create alternatives where it is permitted :-).

W

Message from david.wiley@gmail.com

Wayne,

I think this example violates the NC clause. But how does this shed light on our SA discussion? Sorry to be thickheaded.

D  

Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

David,

I think the NC example sheds light on the question of reusing an image without adaptation within a particular reuse context. 

Similarly, would reusing an SA image without adaptation in a non-SA context, eg an all rights reserved course violate the share-alike requirement?

Note, that I'm not taking any position on the appropriateness of using the copyleft provision for OER. That's a different philosophical argument relating to whose freedoms (content or user) is favoured. 

I'm particularly interested in the nuances and thoughts of using an image which is not adapted and properly attributed within a reuse context where the resultant work is licensed with an "incompatible" license.  

W

Message from david.wiley@gmail.com

Ok, now I'm following. I think your NC example violates the license because the NC clause governs both the image as-is and all derivatives. Even though it is unadapted, the NC clause still dictates how the original image can and cannot be used. The usage you describe seems to be commercial, hence this seems like a license violation. I think Ellen's SA example does not violate the license because the SA clause only activates when you create a derivative work, and I don't believe that embedding an unaltered image in a body of text creates a derivative of the image. This seems to be the key nuance we need to understand - does embedding an unaltered image in a new context constitute the creation of a derivative work of the image? If you feel it does, then Ellen's example violates copyleft when that new context is not also licensed BY SA. If you feel this use does not create a derivative of the image, then Ellen's example is legal. Right? David
Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Yep -- agreed on the rational that the NC violates the license because of the context of reuse.

I'm not an international IP expert, but within Commonwealth countries the intent of the creator  will play an important role when taking decisions in these grey areas -- e.g whether the creator of an SA work requires all downstream use to be shared. 

My suggestion is that judicious use by an education institution of a CC-BY-SA image under the provisions of fair dealing / fair usage provides an additional but "legitimate" justification of reuse than the licensing provisions themselves in a non-SA reuse context.  The challenging issue is the intent of the creator in applying the copyleft provision. 

If my intent as a creator is that reuse means share-alike, the fair dealing/usage angle for an education provider may provide the avenue for re-usage irrespective of whether the resultant work is considered a derivative work or not.

Thinking of creative ways to improve reuse -- that said, I'm not a lawyer.  

W
 

Message from david.wiley@gmail.com

"The challenging issue is the intent of the creator in applying the copyleft provision." Completely agreed, just as the challenging issue for the NC license is the intent of the creator in defining noncommercial. Both these provisions significantly complicate reuse, limit the other OER they can be remixed with, and make reuse / revise / remix / redistribute legally risky for the end user, since the end user can almost never know the creator's intent in these regards. There is, of course, a plain and simple way to license things that does not introduce these complexities, legal risks, and restrictions on what OER can be remixed with what other OER. The question we must ask is, what is the actual (as opposed to theoretical) cost to the commons when people use a BY license instead of an SA license? How does this cost compare to the cost of the inadvertent violations (or the opportunity costs of cautious people choosing not to reuse at all) caused by the ambiguity of the SA clause? Rather than us opining all the time (and I realize I'm one of the worst offenders), there should be an empirical way to make reasonable estimates of these costs and have a data-informed conversation about our choices. D
Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

David,

We agree, the more open and fewer restrictions the better for mainstream adoption of OER in the formal sector. Personally, I would like to see the attribution requirement return as an option rather than a requirement for all CC licenses. But we work with the tools we have.

I also agree that in education we must reflect on the actual cost to education and that the "cost" includes the opportunity cost for society and the commons associated with learners who will not have the privilege of a post-secondary education.  OER provides a viable and sustainable solution in responding to this challenge. (Hence my earlier focus on doing the right thing -- If we are clear about why our organisations engage in open education -- the rationale for applying unnecessary restrictions dissipates.)

Sadly, the majority of OCWC courses are CC-BY-NC-SA, which at a practical level may as well be all rights reserved. A huge cost which stalls organic growth of the commons and opportunities to provide free learning opportunities for all students worldwide. For example, the OER Foundation would not be able to integrate the majority of OCWC courses in our effort to provide free learning opportunities because cost-recovery for assessment services would be considered  "commercial" by many of these so-called OER providers :-(.

I think the CC data is showing signs that the trend is towards free cultural works approved licenses - -so that's progress. 

While data is a powerful catalyst to inform systemic change -- the time lag deprives millions of learners from access to education. I figure that we should just go ahead and do it - -That said, I'm fortunate in that I work for an organisation that subscribes to free cultural works licensing as a matter of policy and we can move forward rapidly.

Researching the future is not easy. However, we also know that the absence of empirical data on the future doesn't mean tomorrow isn't going to happen ;-).

Onwards and forwards in creating the waves for the future of free education -- those of us who have been playing the open game for a while will be best positioned to ride these waves of the future. One advantage with open -- we won't exclude anyone from joining us in the mainstream adoption of OER at all education institutions.

W




Hi Wayne,

I'm wondering in there have actually been statements from OCWC members that "the OER Foundation would not be able to integrate the majority of OCWC courses in our effort to provide free learning opportunities because cost-recovery for assessment services would be considered  "commercial" by many of these so-called OER providers"? The reason I ask is this: the courses of the OER Foundation are in fact free and open, aren't they? The assessment piece, as I understand it, is an option and not truly connected with the courses themselves (it's a service much like other colleges offer as PLAR)?.  If you can not use them, how will it work for schools who allow students to do self-study, and offer credit by examination? What about PLAR credit for students who've completed a course themselves and have a portfolio of work?  Are the fees for those not for the assessment piece?



Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie

-----The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv <OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> wrote: -----
To: OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
From: Wayne Mackintosh
Sent by: The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv
Date: 07/10/2012 03:13AM
Subject: Re: [OPENNESS] Question about CC-BY-SA

David,

We agree, the more open and fewer restrictions the better for mainstream adoption of OER in the formal sector. Personally, I would like to see the attribution requirement return as an option rather than a requirement for all CC licenses. But we work with the tools we have.

I also agree that in education we must reflect on the actual cost to education and that the "cost" includes the opportunity cost for society and the commons associated with learners who will not have the privilege of a post-secondary education.  OER provides a viable and sustainable solution in responding to this challenge. (Hence my earlier focus on doing the right thing -- If we are clear about why our organisations engage in open education -- the rationale for applying unnecessary restrictions dissipates.)

Sadly, the majority of OCWC courses are CC-BY-NC-SA, which at a practical level may as well be all rights reserved. A huge cost which stalls organic growth of the commons and opportunities to provide free learning opportunities for all students worldwide. For example, the OER Foundation would not be able to integrate the majority of OCWC courses in our effort to provide free learning opportunities because cost-recovery for assessment services would be considered  "commercial" by many of these so-called OER providers :-(.

I think the CC data is showing signs that the trend is towards free cultural works approved licenses - -so that's progress. 

While data is a powerful catalyst to inform systemic change -- the time lag deprives millions of learners from access to education. I figure that we should just go ahead and do it - -That said, I'm fortunate in that I work for an organisation that subscribes to free cultural works licensing as a matter of policy and we can move forward rapidly.

Researching the future is not easy. However, we also know that the absence of empirical data on the future doesn't mean tomorrow isn't going to happen ;-).

Onwards and forwards in creating the waves for the future of free education -- those of us who have been playing the open game for a while will be best positioned to ride these waves of the future. One advantage with open -- we won't exclude anyone from joining us in the mainstream adoption of OER at all education institutions.

W




Ellen,

Thank you very much for sharing the spreadsheet with us!

If this research is ongoing, would you mind sharing the URL to the Google form? I would like to post this to our Facebook page and Tweet about this in hopes of getting more participants to share information on the topic. 

Also, is the form and resulting data licensed as CC BY?

Thanks!

--Robin 

Florida Virtual Campus
850-922-3107
*Twitter: twitter.com/#!/robinldonaldson 

From: Ellen Marie Murphy <Ellen.Murphy@ESC.EDU>
Reply-To: "OPENNESS@listserv.educause.edu" <OPENNESS@listserv.educause.edu>
Date: Friday, July 6, 2012 5:02 PM
To: "OPENNESS@listserv.educause.edu" <OPENNESS@listserv.educause.edu>
Subject: Re: [OPENNESS] Examples of OER and OCW in for credit courses

In the United States: I've been in conversation with Granite State and I know that they are currently developing a method for giving credit for free and open studies. Empire State is also looking into it, but I'm not sure how much work they've done in that regard.  Empire State College, Southern New Hampshire U, and Thomas Edison are all part of OERU as well.

In Europe there is a very promising program called OERtest. http://www.oer-europe.net/   A consortium of colleges and universities granting credit for OER studies.

I have a survey running with regards to US colleges and university's willingness to provide credit for OER. So far 8 institutions have replied. You can see the results here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgH8tvfSelnZdHByajMwa3U1UWtUdktBb2p4QzUwZUE#gid=0

I hope this is helpful.

Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie



From:        "Masson, Patrick" <pmasson@UMASSONLINE.NET>
To:        OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU,
Date:        07/06/2012 04:10 PM
Subject:        [OPENNESS] Examples of OER and OCW in for credit courses
Sent by:        The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv <OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>



Can anyone on the list provide examples where either:

1. A university is accepting, in a degree granting academic program (e.g. a B.S. in Biology) an course from an OCW project (e.g. Courcera, MIT OCW,  OERu, Opencourseware Consortium, The Saylor Foundation, Udacity, etc.). That is, I am wondering if there are any examples of a traditional university (University of X) pointing their students to an externally developed, hosted, taught (assessed) OCW course and awarding credits for its completion toward a degree from the university (a B.S. in Biology from University X)?

2. A university teaching an externally developed, managed and hosted OER/OCW course directly (with a university based instructor), and upon successful completion awarding credit toward a degree (B.S. in Biology).

Thanks,
Patrick


|| |||| |||     ||  | | || |||  || |||  ||  | | |||  || |||  ||
Patrick Masson
Chief Technology Officer, UMassOnline
The University of Massachusetts, Office of the President
333 South St., Suite 400, Shrewsbury, MA 01545

(774) 455-7615: Office
(774) 455-7620: Fax
(970) 4MASSON: GoogleVoice
UMOLPatMasson: AIM
massonpj: Skype

Web Site: http://www.umassonline.net
Blog: http://www.umassonlineblog.com
**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Hi Robin,

You can access the form here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dHByajMwa3U1UWtUdktBb2p4QzUwZUE6MA#gid=0

Yes, the data is openly licensed. I planned to create an interactive web page, so that prospective students would be able to plan a path to credentialing, but if someone else wanted to do that and provide the link to it (or work with me on a joint project) that would be great!

Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie

-----The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv <OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> wrote: -----
To: OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
From: Robin Donaldson
Sent by: The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv
Date: 07/10/2012 10:37AM
Subject: Re: [OPENNESS] Examples of OER and OCW in for credit courses

-->
Ellen,

Thank you very much for sharing the spreadsheet with us!

If this research is ongoing, would you mind sharing the URL to the Google form? I would like to post this to our Facebook page and Tweet about this in hopes of getting more participants to share information on the topic. 

Also, is the form and resulting data licensed as CC BY?

Thanks!

--Robin 

Florida Virtual Campus
850-922-3107
*Twitter: twitter.com/#!/robinldonaldson 

From: Ellen Marie Murphy <Ellen.Murphy@ESC.EDU>
Reply-To: "OPENNESS@listserv.educause.edu" <OPENNESS@listserv.educause.edu>
Date: Friday, July 6, 2012 5:02 PM
To: "OPENNESS@listserv.educause.edu" <OPENNESS@listserv.educause.edu>
Subject: Re: [OPENNESS] Examples of OER and OCW in for credit courses

In the United States: I've been in conversation with Granite State and I know that they are currently developing a method for giving credit for free and open studies. Empire State is also looking into it, but I'm not sure how much work they've done in that regard.  Empire State College, Southern New Hampshire U, and Thomas Edison are all part of OERU as well.

In Europe there is a very promising program called OERtest. http://www.oer-europe.net/   A consortium of colleges and universities granting credit for OER studies.

I have a survey running with regards to US colleges and university's willingness to provide credit for OER. So far 8 institutions have replied. You can see the results here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgH8tvfSelnZdHByajMwa3U1UWtUdktBb2p4QzUwZUE#gid=0

I hope this is helpful.

Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie



From:        "Masson, Patrick" <pmasson@UMASSONLINE.NET>
To:        OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU,
Date:        07/06/2012 04:10 PM
Subject:        [OPENNESS] Examples of OER and OCW in for credit courses
Sent by:        The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv <OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>



Can anyone on the list provide examples where either:

1. A university is accepting, in a degree granting academic program (e.g. a B.S. in Biology) an course from an OCW project (e.g. Courcera, MIT OCW,  OERu, Opencourseware Consortium, The Saylor Foundation, Udacity, etc.). That is, I am wondering if there are any examples of a traditional university (University of X) pointing their students to an externally developed, hosted, taught (assessed) OCW course and awarding credits for its completion toward a degree from the university (a B.S. in Biology from University X)?

2. A university teaching an externally developed, managed and hosted OER/OCW course directly (with a university based instructor), and upon successful completion awarding credit toward a degree (B.S. in Biology).

Thanks,
Patrick


|| |||| |||     ||  | | || |||  || |||  ||  | | |||  || |||  ||
Patrick Masson
Chief Technology Officer, UMassOnline
The University of Massachusetts, Office of the President
333 South St., Suite 400, Shrewsbury, MA 01545

(774) 455-7615: Office
(774) 455-7620: Fax
(970) 4MASSON: GoogleVoice
UMOLPatMasson: AIM
massonpj: Skype

Web Site: http://www.umassonline.net
Blog: http://www.umassonlineblog.com
**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

I've been following the whole conversation with much interest, but this point about Khan Academy's videos confused me, because it didn't really correspond with what I know to be acceptable, even encouraged (by KA), uses of KA videos in courses, even when tuition is charged for those courses

So I went right to the source--my wife, Beth Harris, is dean of art and history at Khan Academy (it's not just math anymore! :-) ).  Beth confirmed what I had understood, and then went right to the source and double-checked with folks at Khan Academy.  She got this answer:

===================
In general, anyone is allowed to use the website offerings www.khanacademy.org without issue, as long as there is not a charge specific to using the resource (for example, if a tutor charges $20 per hour per student without Khan Academy but $30 per hour with Khan Academy, that breaks the noncommercial clause).  

Refer to our FAQ which outlines the details for folks who would like to use our materials apart from the website - 
Can my company/website use Khan Academy materials: http://khanacademy.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/439122 
==================

From that link from the FAQ:
"As an example, the use by a for-profit corporation of our content for internal professional development and/or training of its employees is “non-commercial” as long as that corporation does not charge its employees for such use."

So to Ellen, and others, if you want to use Khan Academy videos in your courses, for which you charge a fee, it's completely fine and does not violate the license at all, as long as there is not a specific charge for the videos themselves. It doesn't matter that you charge a fee for the course, only that you don't charge a separate fee for viewing the KA videos--those are free and have to remain free.  But you can include them in a fee-supported course, or site, as you wish.

Hope that helps.  Beth says she is glad to answer other questions herself, or pass them along if necessary.  And I'm still very interested in the overall discussion!

Joe

-- 
Joseph Ugoretz, PhD
Associate Dean
Teaching, Learning and Technology
Macaulay Honors College - CUNY
35 West 67th St.
New York, NY 10023
212.729.2920

On Jul 10, 2012, at 2:00 AM, "Wayne Mackintosh" <mackintosh.wayne@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

Hi Ellen, 

Correct -- in fact, 7.3 of the Khan Academy TOS clarifies their interpretation of NC with no uncertainty:

"7.3 Non-Commercial Use. Whether a particular use of the Licensed Educational Content is “non-commercial” depends on the use, not the user.
....
(b) As another example, a non-profit entity’s use of the Licensed Educational Content in connection with a fee-based training or educational program is NOT “non-commercial” and is not permitted.
"

So let's create alternatives where it is permitted :-).

W

My friend Wayne is correct - CC cannot offer legal advice ;)

That said, Creative Commons is asked this question all the time. We've stated in the past that posting NC content on ad-supported blogs / websites is not necessarily a violation of the NC term, but that it's clear there would be cases where it went too far.

Here's our FAQ:  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Does_my_use_violate_the_NonCommercial_clause_of_the_licenses.3F

Backing up Wayne's suggestion of better to ask the Copyright holder to be safe, our FAQ suggests: "If you are unsure, you should either contact the creator or rightsholder for clarification, or search for works that permit commercial uses."

And here is a blog post on this topic: http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-02-07-n77.html  that might also be helpful.

Cheers,

Cable


Thanks Joe. Good to know.

Ellen



-----The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv <OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> wrote: -----
To: OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
From: Joseph Ugoretz
Sent by: The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv
Date: 07/10/2012 05:23PM
Subject: Re: [OPENNESS] Question about CC-BY-SA

I've been following the whole conversation with much interest, but this point about Khan Academy's videos confused me, because it didn't really correspond with what I know to be acceptable, even encouraged (by KA), uses of KA videos in courses, even when tuition is charged for those courses

So I went right to the source--my wife, Beth Harris, is dean of art and history at Khan Academy (it's not just math anymore! :-) ).  Beth confirmed what I had understood, and then went right to the source and double-checked with folks at Khan Academy.  She got this answer:

===================
In general, anyone is allowed to use the website offerings www.khanacademy.org without issue, as long as there is not a charge specific to using the resource (for example, if a tutor charges $20 per hour per student without Khan Academy but $30 per hour with Khan Academy, that breaks the noncommercial clause).  

Refer to our FAQ which outlines the details for folks who would like to use our materials apart from the website - 
Can my company/website use Khan Academy materials: http://khanacademy.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/439122 
==================

From that link from the FAQ:
"As an example, the use by a for-profit corporation of our content for internal professional development and/or training of its employees is “non-commercial” as long as that corporation does not charge its employees for such use."

So to Ellen, and others, if you want to use Khan Academy videos in your courses, for which you charge a fee, it's completely fine and does not violate the license at all, as long as there is not a specific charge for the videos themselves. It doesn't matter that you charge a fee for the course, only that you don't charge a separate fee for viewing the KA videos--those are free and have to remain free.  But you can include them in a fee-supported course, or site, as you wish.

Hope that helps.  Beth says she is glad to answer other questions herself, or pass them along if necessary.  And I'm still very interested in the overall discussion!

Joe

-- 
Joseph Ugoretz, PhD
Associate Dean
Teaching, Learning and Technology
Macaulay Honors College - CUNY
35 West 67th St.
New York, NY 10023
212.729.2920

On Jul 10, 2012, at 2:00 AM, "Wayne Mackintosh" <mackintosh.wayne@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

Hi Ellen, 

Correct -- in fact, 7.3 of the Khan Academy TOS clarifies their interpretation of NC with no uncertainty:

"7.3 Non-Commercial Use. Whether a particular use of the Licensed Educational Content is “non-commercial” depends on the use, not the user.
....
(b) As another example, a non-profit entity’s use of the Licensed Educational Content in connection with a fee-based training or educational program is NOT “non-commercial” and is not permitted.
"

So let's create alternatives where it is permitted :-).

W

Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Hi Ellen,

There would be no issue in using OCWC materials which use the NC restriction in the following scenarios:
  • Learners work independently through OCWC courses of their choice and then present themselves for PLAR assessment at any of the OERu anchor partners.
  • Courses which use a pedagogy of discovery (What Jim Taylor calls free range learning -- see for example.) as in the case of the Asia and Pacific relations course where learners find their own OERs to complete e-Learning activities.  
Unfortunately, we cannot legally  remix materials which use the NC restriction into OERu courses as the OERu partners have agreed to free cultural works approved licenses (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA or PD declaration / CC0) for the course resources we produce in the network.  That said, I optimistic that most OCWC partners would consider requests to re-license for OERu remixing purposes  -- particularly since any OERu value additions will be freely available for reuse by OCWC institutions. 

W


Hi Wayne,

Thanks for the reply, but I'm still a little confused--and it's probably just that I'm misinterpreting something. Are you saying that you can not legally use them because the partners have agreed not to use them, or because the OCWC says you can't use them?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 10, 2012, at 11:48 PM, "Wayne Mackintosh" <mackintosh.wayne@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

Hi Ellen,

There would be no issue in using OCWC materials which use the NC restriction in the following scenarios:
  • Learners work independently through OCWC courses of their choice and then present themselves for PLAR assessment at any of the OERu anchor partners.
  • Courses which use a pedagogy of discovery (What Jim Taylor calls free range learning -- see for example.) as in the case of the Asia and Pacific relations course where learners find their own OERs to complete e-Learning activities.  
Unfortunately, we cannot legally  remix materials which use the NC restriction into OERu courses as the OERu partners have agreed to free cultural works approved licenses (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA or PD declaration / CC0) for the course resources we produce in the network.  That said, I optimistic that most OCWC partners would consider requests to re-license for OERu remixing purposes  -- particularly since any OERu value additions will be freely available for reuse by OCWC institutions. 

W


Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Hi Ellen,

The OER Tertiary Education Network, the partnership of accredited universities, colleges and polytechnics implementing the OERu initiative are directed by our core principles of engagement. 

One of these principles is that all new resources developed by the OER university will be licensed under Free Cultural Works approved licenses.

So what we are saying is that our network will be operating within the licensing frameworks of the copyright holders who have produced the OERs we are planning to use, with the understanding that there are legal ways in which individual learners can study using open access materials, including those which use the NC restriction.  However, everything the OERu partnership produces will subscribe to the principles of Free Cultural Works approved licenses. This also includes the requirement for us to use open file formats for the materials we produce.  

This is closely related to David's well-founded advice  to minimize the transaction costs associated with the 4Rs by preferring the most open of licenses without unnecessary restrictions. So for example, the Asia and Pacific relations course, one of our prototypes  is licensed under a CC-BY license. 

The rationale informing the OERu principles of engagement are both values-based and strategic:
  • The OERu network will honour the Universal  Declaration of Human Rights which includes the right to earn a living. We will not deny the right to earn a living by the OERs we produce. 
  • The OERu model generates a number of new "business" opportunities for the formal education sector, and  we respect the autonomy of individual OERu anchor partners to build sustainable models of OER engagement while providing more affordable access to post-secondary education on a global scale. 
Cheers
Wayne

Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Hi Joseph,

That's good news. Are you in a position to encourage the Khan Academy to update their terms of  service on their website?

I've just checked again, Section 7.3 of the contractual terms of service reads as follows:

"7.3 Non-Commercial Use. Whether a particular use of the Licensed Educational Content is “non-commercial” depends on the use, not the user ... 

(b) As another example, a non-profit entity’s use of the Licensed Educational Content in connection with a fee-based training or educational program is NOT “non-commercial” and is not permitted."

There appear to be inconsistencies with the terms of service and the use case scenarios you highlight.

Would the Khan Academy be prepared to adopt a CC-BY license or revert back to Sal's earlier license of CC-BY-SA?

Wayne




I will certainly pass the word. The last thing they want is to confuse people to the point where the videos don't get used!

Joseph Ugoretz, PhD
Associate Dean
Teaching, Learning and Technology
Macaulay Honors College
City University of New York

On Jul 11, 2012, at 6:25 AM, "Wayne Mackintosh" <mackintosh.wayne@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

Hi Joseph,

That's good news. Are you in a position to encourage the Khan Academy to update their terms of  service on their website?

I've just checked again, Section 7.3 of the contractual terms of service reads as follows:

"7.3 Non-Commercial Use. Whether a particular use of the Licensed Educational Content is “non-commercial” depends on the use, not the user ... 

(b) As another example, a non-profit entity’s use of the Licensed Educational Content in connection with a fee-based training or educational program is NOT “non-commercial” and is not permitted."

There appear to be inconsistencies with the terms of service and the use case scenarios you highlight.

Would the Khan Academy be prepared to adopt a CC-BY license or revert back to Sal's earlier license of CC-BY-SA?

Wayne



Hi Wayne,

I hope you will forgive me for pressing for clarity, it's just that it's still not clear to me what you are saying in regards to OCWC--whether it is OERu's choice not to use OCWC materials or whether it is a violation of their license and if so, why.

What I think you are saying below is that you can not use OCWC materials because OERu is going to publish its courses using a Free Cultural Works license and that that license is not compatible with the license on OCWC materials. I think you are also saying that the OERu foundation has agreed not to use materials that have an NC license on them.  Is my understanding about this correct?

Additionally, I am still very unclear about this: "...the OER Foundation would not be able to integrate the majority of OCWC courses in our effort to provide free learning opportunities because cost-recovery for assessment services would be considered  "commercial" by many of these so-called OER providers."  Are you saying that the Terms of Use policies by most of the OCWC courses prohibit OERu's use because you charge a fee for assessment?


Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie



From:        Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wayne@GMAIL.COM>
To:        OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU,
Date:        07/11/2012 12:57 AM
Subject:        Re: [OPENNESS] Question about CC-BY-SA
Sent by:        The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv <OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>



Hi Ellen,

The OER Tertiary Education Network, the partnership of accredited universities, colleges and polytechnics implementing the OERu initiative are directed by our core principles of engagement. 

One of these principles is that all new resources developed by the OER university will be licensed under Free Cultural Works approved licenses.

So what we are saying is that our network will be operating within the licensing frameworks of the copyright holders who have produced the OERs we are planning to use, with the understanding that there are legal ways in which individual learners can study using open access materials, including those which use the NC restriction.  However, everything the OERu partnership produces will subscribe to the principles of Free Cultural Works approved licenses. This also includes the requirement for us to use open file formats for the materials we produce.  

This is closely related to David's well-founded advice  to minimize the transaction costs associated with the 4Rs by preferring the most open of licenses without unnecessary restrictions. So for example, the Asia and Pacific relations course, one of our prototypes  is licensed under a CC-BY license. 

The rationale informing the OERu principles of engagement are both values-based and strategic:
  • The OERu network will honour the Universal  Declaration of Human Rights which includes the right to earn a living. We will not deny the right to earn a living by the OERs we produce. 
  • The OERu model generates a number of new "business" opportunities for the formal education sector, and  we respect the autonomy of individual OERu anchor partners to build sustainable models of OER engagement while providing more affordable access to post-secondary education on a global scale. 
Cheers
Wayne

Close
Close


Annual Conference
September 29–October 2
Register Now!

Events for all Levels and Interests

Whether you're looking for a conference to attend face-to-face to connect with peers, or for an online event for team professional development, see what's upcoming.

Close

Digital Badges
Member recognition effort
Earn yours >

Career Center


Leadership and Management Programs

EDUCAUSE Institute
Project Management

 

 

Jump Start Your Career Growth

Explore EDUCAUSE professional development opportunities that match your career aspirations and desired level of time investment through our interactive online guide.

 

Close
EDUCAUSE organizes its efforts around three IT Focus Areas

 

 

Join These Programs If Your Focus Is

Close

Get on the Higher Ed IT Map

Employees of EDUCAUSE member institutions and organizations are invited to create individual profiles.
 

 

Close

2014 Strategic Priorities

  • Building the Profession
  • IT as a Game Changer
  • Foundations


Learn More >

Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good™

EDUCAUSE is the foremost community of higher education IT leaders and professionals.