tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post459809931279048117..comments2024-03-29T00:45:37.176-07:00Comments on eLearning Technology: Creative Commons Use in For-Profit Company eLearning?Tony Karrerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-55624835740542155182010-03-22T07:47:20.048-07:002010-03-22T07:47:20.048-07:00Christy - thanks for your comment. Valuable stuff...Christy - thanks for your comment. Valuable stuff.<br /><br />Can you somehow cache CC-SA content for use as linked materials? My claim would be that making a copy of it and making it public is a good way to ensure that it's available to your internal course.<br /><br />And it's interesting that linking content (maybe even images) is okay, whereas embedding is not.<br /><br />Makes it pretty fuzzy.<br /><br />What do you think this means for OER/OCW content?Tony Karrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-62002651707944177682010-03-20T23:23:33.048-07:002010-03-20T23:23:33.048-07:00I had a conversation with an IP attorney a few yea...I had a conversation with an IP attorney a few years ago about some of these issues. IANAL, but here's my understanding based on that conversation and a lot of my own research:<br /><br />* Linking to other content is OK as long as you don't put it within a frame. Even <a href="http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/IP#8" rel="nofollow">deep linking is acceptable</a>; the precedent of the Ticketmaster case and others make that fairly clear.<br />* If you republish content on your own site as a for-profit entity, pretty much the only content you can safely use is CC-By.<br />* That said, CC doesn't remove fair use rights. Quoting two sentences from a 20-page CC-NC-SA resource is fine. Ethically, you should still attribute it (although copyright law doesn't prevent you from plagiarizing 2 sentences).<br /><br />Putting CC-By-SA content (such as Wikipedia articles) behind your firewall isn't in the spirit of the license. An attorney is likely to tell you to avoid it so you can avoid being sued. If you're going to publish your own version of the content under a CC-By-SA license <strong>and make it publicly available</strong>, that's another issue.<br /><br />I wouldn't use a CC-NC Flickr image for internal training at a for-profit company, personally. Unless you're willing to argue that you're developing training that provides no financial benefit to your company and zero ROI, the training is helping make a profit. That's a commercial use, IMHO. <br /><br />Ditto for the SA question. If you put an image in a course, I think you're "building upon" it and need to make your course available under a compatible license. Your solution of breaking part of out and sharing just one section would work though.<br /><br />Of course, you can always ask permission for a particular item if you really want to use it. If you're in the gray area and you ask the owner, you may just get their permission. As you pointed out, the NC clause is especially gray, and individual content creators may have different ideas on what that means. I tend to be pretty conservative in assuming that "for-profit company = no NC content without explicit permission." But individuals may be happy to see their content reused anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-2401879343767659382010-03-12T04:35:34.463-08:002010-03-12T04:35:34.463-08:00Faraz - first, it appears that the resources in qu...Faraz - first, it appears that the resources in question are not under a Creative Commons license.<br /><br />Also, assuming that it was an NC license, then my guess is that Tutor.com is directly making revenue from the use of the material. It would probably not fly around that. Just like SkillSoft likely can't sell a course that directly embeds NC license material.<br /><br />But this does put a laser like focus on the whole issue of framing vs. linking and that people perceive those quite differently. <br /><br />To you last point, if you are dealing with an NC license, trying to "monetize" the resulting content is going to be problematic. You are best to be really safe and provide links to the NC materials where students would go back onto a completely separate site that has a similar license. That could be the original or a derivative that you've created. But there would need to be clear separation.Tony Karrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-14051208036315192692010-03-11T14:47:36.984-08:002010-03-11T14:47:36.984-08:00Here's a recent case study related to this top...Here's a recent case study related to this topic. <br /><br />Tutor.com got in trouble for using open courseware on its site in a 'framed' browser. I've not used their service but it sounds like during a paid tutored service, a tutor can point a student to free open courseware resources...which the student browses while in the tutor.com browser window.<br /><br />I can see how the argument can be made that tutor.com was making money off this free resource. Here is the link to this story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/02/15/framing <br /><br />would love to know your thoughts.<br /><br />To me, the question is is there a way to leverage open courseware resources to create derivative works which are value added enough where its fair to monetize the derivative work...with of course clear attribution to original content owners?Faraz Qureshihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05043817644391149840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-58825465787630534172010-03-11T13:59:35.954-08:002010-03-11T13:59:35.954-08:00Paul - thanks for weighing in. I'm trying to ...Paul - thanks for weighing in. I'm trying to get more expert help on this one. <br /><br />That said, I'm wondering if there isn't opportunity to make use of large chunks of SA material where you create a new (derivative work) that you essentially just link to within something that is proprietary to you company?Tony Karrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-27552383351660502662010-03-11T11:54:28.821-08:002010-03-11T11:54:28.821-08:00Thanks for posting this extension of that OC discu...Thanks for posting this extension of that OC discussion.<br /><br />I know in my current workplace, such a license would be out of the question, at least on anything technical. This alone would preclude the company from going down the open content road, unless it was for skills development at a general level, or specific to the professional capacity of a particular team from a field-based perspective. So in this particular case they would want to deploy internally only; no ShareAlike.<br /><br />As far as attribution goes, the company would be willing to enforce that standard I think.<br /><br />I'm no legal expert either so I can't dig into this language very far at all. Have you turned up any blogs that talk about open source license, copyleft, and so on? I found this <a href="http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/347" rel="nofollow">one</a>.Hope it is helpful.Paul Angilerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04806213503008876743noreply@blogger.com