1. Publish and be damned? Real issues of copyright and IPR when publishing open educational resources in the humanities Erika Corradini and Oren Stone HumBox Digital Rights Officers University of Southampton HEA Annual Conference University of Hertfordshire 22-23 June 2010

2. Whose intellectual property? Institution/individual conflict is unlikely to be a problem – Creative Commons licences surrender the “important” rights leaving nothing to fight about and only third party material as “the problem” – But their use is dependent on previous agreement between institution and individual

3. How does it work out in practice? How OER learning spaces in UK and the world generally approach IPR

4. EdShare at the University of Southampton An institutional repository “locked in” by institutional password Terms & Conditions hand over all IP rights to University “unless otherwise clearly marked” Original aim: to make resources “hidden” on local Virtual Learning Environment visible to other possible users within University But EdShare includes different levels of access (“Viewing Permissions”)

5. EdShare “Just me” “Selected users” “School/Unit” “University” or “World” If “World”, anyone can download the resource Descriptions (i.e. metadata) of all resources are visible via Google “This then generates requests from all over the place to ask colleagues to share things – even when they have not made the resource visible” Resource contributors have the choice of assigning any Creative Commons licence to their work

6. OpenLearn Open University made the decision to make all their course materials freely available Clear distinction between:- – LabSpace Learners can, within stated limits, deposit anything or rework and remix OU materials for others to use and – LearningSpace “ quality assured ” – OU takes responsibility

7. OpenLearn OU retains the copyright for its course materials, though extracts may be made under licence Creative Commons “ Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike ” is the licence of choice for LabSpace Contributors wishing to translate OU materials and have them appear in the LearningSpace are invited to do so, subject to a “ more formal agreement ”

8. The JISC-funded subject OER repositories (like HumBox) Between April 2009 and April 2010, JISC and the Academy supported:- – 7 institutional projects – 8 individual projects – 14 subject projects All projects faced broadly similar issues “IPR in OER” Assembly, Southampton, December 2009 UK has highest proportion of centrally funded OER sharing initiatives

9. Jorum Up until 2009-10:- – Was restricted to UK HE & FE community – The contributors were institutions – Deposit Licence 20 pages long – “The licensor hereby grants to HEFCE a non- exclusive royalty-free perpetual licence” so HEFCE could do anything it liked (charge access fees, grant sublicences...)

10. Jorum2 – different levels of “openness” JorumOpen (released 19 January) Jorum Education UK (released Spring 2010) Jorum Plus - in progress

11. Jorum Plus For resources and groups of users with special requirements not catered for in the JorumOpen or Jorum Education UK licensing regimes “typically involving restricted terms and conditions” (3 rd party restrictions, institutional login, departmental login...) E.g. Medical resources

12. Jorum Education UK Equivalent to pre-2009-10 Jorum Restricted to UK education sector under terms of Jorum UK licence

13. JorumOpen Creators and owners are willing to share content worldwide Only UK education sector members can create resources But anybody in the world can download them Jorum Deposit Chooser helps you decide where to go JorumOpen depositors have a free choice of all six varieties of Creative Commons licences

14. Rest of world: Otago Polytechnic (New Zealand) Uses WikiEducator as platform to deliver courses Recently switched to supporting free and open access to material, based on a NZ Creative Commons licence – “ but with options to restrict a resource if it is needed ” The policy vests ownership of intellectual property (IP) in the creators

15. Otago Polytechnic: background Sought legal expertise to help draw up an initial framework to put out for consultation According to this, Otago Polytechnic owned copyright of material developed at the institution. Reactions:- Staff: “ You ’ re not owning my thinking! If that ’ s the case, I ’ ll do what ’ s required for my job and do my really creative thinking at home! ” Students: They ’ d do what was required to get a qualification, but would keep their best work to themselves because they wanted to be able to set up their own companies to develop their ideas after they finished study.

17. Connexions Began with Rice University – now a 16 partner consortium Contributions are licensed with the most basic Creative Commons licence (Attribution) There is no mention at all of Rights information in the 202 page PDF Connexions Tutorial and Reference Site Licence: “ Neither the Connexions Project nor Rice University undertakes any obligation to review or monitor any content submitted to the Repository and shall not have any responsibility or liability in connection therewith. ”

18. Dutch OpenER “ Over the period 2006 – 2008, the Dutch Open Universiteit Nederland conducted an experiment in which Open Educational Resources (OER) were offered in an effort to bridge the gap between informal and formal learning and to establish a new style of entry portal to higher education with no barriers at all. ” 1 Changed attitudes – great success 1 Schuwer, Robert and Mulder, Fred(2009)'OpenER, a Dutch initiative in Open Educational Resources',Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning,24:1,67 — 76

19. Dutch OER workflow As in USA, it is not assumed rights checking will be done by contributor Reproduced with permission of Robert Schuwer

20. OpenCourseWare Consortium Over 200 institutions from Afghanistan, Spain, Vietnam...not just USA They have to publish “under the institution’s name materials from at least 10 courses in a format that meets the agreed-upon definition of an opencourseware. ” The Creative Commons licence used is: “ Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike ”

21. Open Courseware Consortium OCW “Toolkit: Making the Case” section contains useful info for contributors, faculty, admin Presentations designed to allay possible fears about sharing on the part of:- – Higher Administration – Mid-level Administration – Faculty – Information Technology team

22. Open Learning Initiative (Carnegie Mellon) Two paths - “ Academic Courses ” and:- Open & Free courses – no fees, set start/end dates, or enrolment... – no access to an instructor, graded exams, feedback, or credit/verification...

23. Summary Many totally open repositories exist Most institutions have “bought in” to the idea of sharing Many are developing two tier open/restricted systems to safeguard core content in relation to institution’s enrolment and awarding functions UK central initiative (Jorum) has recognized the value and functionality of that multi-tier approach

24. What’s the difference? Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ Copyright http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy.htm

25. Resources and their owners Who owns what? – Copyright law protects the person who owns the creation/the tangible product (not the idea!) etc. – Licence: what owners let you do with their materials (less restrictive than copyright law) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ Who are the ‘owners’? – Institution (owns employees’ teaching resources) – Employees (may have agreed differently with institution) – Students (author/actors: check institution’s policy) – Third parties – Para-academic bodies/agencies – …

26. CC licences: -Allow to use and repurpose content without asking for permission -Encourage ‘openness’ and interaction between the teaching and learning communities (and within them) -Encourage good practice but -Need to be compatible with materials owned by third-parties It’s all about the community

29. Looking at resources: Prior to publishing resources in Open Sharing, creators/depositors may want to review them and clear them of any third-party copyright: Does your resource contain materials produced by other people? If yes, do you hold permission to use those materials? Can CC licences co-exist with materials protected by copyright? How do they get along? How can risks of infringing copyright be monitored, managed and reduced? http://humbox.eprints.org/167/

30. Does your resource contain materials produced by third parties? Have you obtained permission? Third-party materials licensed to resource developers need to be attributed and may not be subject to CC licences Permissions can be obtained by the project’s IPR/copyright Team, on provision of source details by the resource developer, but is this model sustainable? Students grant permission to use/make available their materials by signing an agreement (depends on institutional policy) What if permission CANNOT be obtained? Your resource is copyright clear Find alternative copyright- clear material Ask the IPR/copyright team for advice to work problems around What actions have you taken to assess and reduce risks? UPLOAD TO HUMBOX NOYES NO Permission is required from the copyright owner, UNLESS the material is: in the public domain; a ‘fair dealing’ exception: Criticism and Review; Non-commercial research and private study; Educational purposes within a university’s premises (in VLE or real teaching environs) etc.

31. At what stage of the resource-creation process permission should be asked to use third-party materials? What to do when permission has been given? – Embed in metadata – Keep track of actions taken and details of permissions given – Other? Permissions

32. Reducing risks 1.Establish and acknowledge ownership and report details on resource e. g. © Owner, publisher, year of publication, and all details that may be of help to find the original resource 2.Embed resource in a context (e. g. ppt and word documents, metadata description, handouts etc.) clearly indicating the purpose for which it is used, for example: criticism and review; not for profit playing of music; non-commercial use of resource 3.Use only ‘small’ portions of third-party materials 4.When in doubt about ownership try and link to external source 5.Monitor numbers of resource downloaders/viewers (when possible) 6.Consider having a view-only policy for resources containing third-party materials for which permission to repurpose was not obtained 7.Embed in your project a notice and take-down policy 8.Letter of apology (though this is unlikely to be a long term policy) 9.…

33. Some resources Intellectual Property Office http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ Web2Rights project http://www.web2rights.org.uk/ University of Southampton http://www.calendar.soton.ac.uk/sectionIV/ipr.html JISClegal http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/ http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/ManageContent/ViewDetail/tabid/243/ID/1150/OER--Legal-Matters--Webcast-- 051109.aspxhttp://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/ http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/ManageContent/ViewDetail/tabid/243/ID/1150/OER--Legal-Matters--Webcast-- 051109.aspx (Webcast-OER legal matters, 5 November 09) Jorum deposit tool http://deposit.jorum.ac.uk/mod/resource/type/mrcuteput/uploader.php OpenLabyrinth http://labyrinth.sgul.ac.uk/openlabyrinth/mnode.asp?id=qwnw2gcf4jesnqajxhq1rx7jzqajxhq Open Courseware Consortium http://www.ocwconsortium.org/

34. ‘If I was starting an OER project today, I would use resources created tomorrow’ Jason Miles-Campbell JISClegal