Main Nav

Hiya all, There is no ownership over the link to the resource; anybody can link to any resource (generally) and content owners cannot prevent the resource from being linked. Therefore a link to an NC resource does not violate the terms of the license, because it is not a use of the content, merely a reference to the content. In the same way, some of the CC-NC content I have authored is referenced in the bibliography of books that are printed and sold by publishers. This is in no way a violation of my license. Neither is a link, even if someone has to pay to see it. By the same token, a person who assembles a collection of links cannot assert ownership over the collection; it's data, like a list of phone numbers or addresses. Any person can create the same list of links, and offer it for sale or for free. (Note, I am not a lawyer, and results may vary in your particular jurisdiction, but this is how I see it). -- Stephen

Comments

I've had a few meetings with Brian Jacobs, CEO: https://www.panopen.com/#team_wrap

My understanding is that (a) PanOpen is still figuring out its business model, platform and services and (b) they are "not selling access to content, but to the platform and social networking within the platform."

I am still fuzzy on the model, so am not ready to give feedback yet on their use of CC licensed works.  I need to learn more about how their system / services / platform / access will work.

Recommend we (the open education community) ask Brian to host a public webinar / meeting so (a) PanOpen can present their latest thinking and (b) we can all ask questions.

Rory and others - what do you think?   I'm happy to reach out to Brian to make this happen...

Cheers,

Cable


Message from david.wiley@gmail.com

Rory, A few thoughts. First, on linking to NC OER. The terms of a CC license only apply to you when you're making uses of the content that are governed by the license (i.e., by copyright). You don't need a copyright holder's permission to link to their content. I can legally link to CNN or BBC even thought they're fully copyrighted, without their permission, because "link to" isn't governed by copyright. So the presentation of links to open content behind a paywall isn't subject to the terms of the CC license of the open content on the other end of the link. Consequently, I think a curatorial kind of service that did not make copies of content (or depend in any other way on the rights granted in the CC license) theoretically works behind a paywall. And yes, I also have some concerns about the Terms of Service, which currently seem unfriendly to the spirit of openness. However, I fully appreciate the difficulties of getting these things right, and believe that Brian is making a good faith effort to do so. Hopefully he will be amenable to Cable's suggestion about hosting a public webinar where we could ask questions and make constructive suggestions. And let me say that I sincerely hope that the conversation will be constructive, courteous, and professional - the field has a bit of a history of losing its civilization and descending into Lord of the Flies-like behavior on the topic of NC. David
Hiya all, There is no ownership over the link to the resource; anybody can link to any resource (generally) and content owners cannot prevent the resource from being linked. Therefore a link to an NC resource does not violate the terms of the license, because it is not a use of the content, merely a reference to the content. In the same way, some of the CC-NC content I have authored is referenced in the bibliography of books that are printed and sold by publishers. This is in no way a violation of my license. Neither is a link, even if someone has to pay to see it. By the same token, a person who assembles a collection of links cannot assert ownership over the collection; it's data, like a list of phone numbers or addresses. Any person can create the same list of links, and offer it for sale or for free. (Note, I am not a lawyer, and results may vary in your particular jurisdiction, but this is how I see it). -- Stephen
My understanding of their platform is to 1) disaggregate high quality open textbooks to make them editable by chapter, not unlike what Flat World Knowledge does --so unless the book has a No derivative clause,this is ok, right?--, 2) increase adoption of OER by making open textbooks highly visible to faculty members in an institution through a search tool, 3) develop an assessment ecosystem, similar to what publishers offer through their current platforms (MH Connect, Pearson Learn, etc.).

The charge would be on access to the platform and the added-value to open textbooks. I think the business case is to develop and charge for a MH Connect-like environment, without charging the student for the materials.

In any case, they are clear about where the books came from, and will live or die by the quality of their platform.

=====================================
Mathieu Plourde, MBA, Ed.D. Candidate
Project Leader, LMS/Educational Technologist
IT Academic Technology Services
ats.udel.edu
mathieu@udel.edu
Office: 302-831-4060
bit.ly/mathplourde
=====================================
IT Support Center: www.udel.edu/help
Sakai@UD Support and Training: www.udel.edu/sakai/training
Canvas@UD Information: www.udel.edu/it/canvas
=====================================


Hiya Rory & all, Quite right, if they are hosting the CC-NC content in their for-profit service, then they are violating the NC license. With some caveats: - they would be allowed to host excerpts from the content, under fair dealing / fair use - similarly, they would be able to host icon-sized images, for the same reason There might be other uses under fair use. But if what they're doing is (as suggested by one of Cable's posts) saying they're charging money for the platform and social services, but making the content available only after you've paid this fee, and if they are hosting the content, then it seems to me to be a violation of the NC clause. -- Stephen