 We are going to be recording this session. So hopefully you've seen a pop-up about that. No one is obliged to have their camera on, et cetera. If you want to participate, but you don't want to be captured in any way in the recording, feel free to just put something in the chat. However you feel comfortable participating. So hopefully everyone's here for this session. You can see hopefully my slides are on the screen. Can I use this? Exploring Copyright and OER in Teaching and Learning. So before we proceed, I'll just do a brief introduction of myself. And then I will let my colleague who's co-presenting introduce himself. So my name is Stephanie Savage. I'm a librarian at UBC Vancouver. And I specialize in copyright and scholarly publishing. And I'm going to be doing sort of the copyright piece of this presentation today. And I will pass it over to Will to introduce himself. Hi, everybody. My name is Will Ingle. And I'm a strategist for open education initiatives at the CTLT in UBC Vancouver. And I will be taking on what I consider the more fun part of open educational resources on in the second part of the presentation. Yes, it's a cold hard truth that copyright is not everyone's favorite topic often. But nonetheless, I am here to offer support where I can. Okay, before we begin, I'd like to do talk a little bit about mixed announcements and some housekeeping. So I'd like to acknowledge first that at least virtually, and for myself, I'm in office today, this session is located on UBC's Point Great Campus, which is on the traditional ancestral and unceded territory of the Musqueam's people. Obviously we are virtually attending today. And some of you or many of you may be coming from different parts of the country. So if you would like to know about some of the resources to discover you're in this territory, please, check out native-land.ca and you can learn what territory you reside in. I always like to point out too, when it comes to copyright, indigenous ways of knowing and thoughts about intellectual property are not well represented in the copyright legal landscape. So we're gonna talk today about what you can and cannot do legally when it comes to copyright. That's not always the same as what you should or should not do when it comes to ethical practice, regardless of what copyright law says. So if anybody has questions about indigenous ways of knowing and relationships to copyright and reuse of content, I'm happy to have that conversation, although it's not a large part of what we're gonna talk about today. Now, this is just a really high-level overview of what we hope to cover today. So as I sort of indicated, I'll start with some considerations for UBC's copyright context for teaching and learning. Then we will talk about openness and what makes open educational resource open, different definitions of open. We'll consider the practicalities of working with people's content, so using other people's work in your work. And there'll be a little bit of information on support available through UBC to support you both from a copyright perspective but also from OER and creation perspective as well. One final note here about these slides. So this, in of itself, this presentation is sort of an OER. It is an open resource in the sense that we have assigned a Creative Commons license to it. I assume some of you are probably familiar with this terminology, but we'll talk more about open licensing later on. And that means that these slides are available for use and reuse and re-dissemination. Now, we'll talk more about this at the end, but I believe these slides will be distributed to you as well as participants and registrants to this session. So you will have these slides to refer back to and share as you like in the future. Now, just a little bit more about how you can contact me. I sort of consider this sort of a virtual calling card, if you will. This is, I'm easily findable, I guess, online, I would say through UBC's website, but here's my email. And I'll just make a special note about the two sort of websites or web spaces that I think are relevant from a copyright perspective and from my portfolio. So of course there is the copyright.ubc.ca website, which is sort of the home of copyright information at UBC and in the library. There are a lot of resources on this website and some might say too many, maybe a little bit overwhelming in terms of the level of content there, but it's a great place to start if you have questions about copyright. It has lots of information about how to find image sources that you know are free to use and copyright compliant, has information about user exceptions, has information that go beyond OER creation to do with your role as a teacher or as a student, as a graduate student, et cetera. So it's a great place to start if you have copyright questions. And I'll also just make a brief plug for the Skalcom website, which is sort of the other part of my portfolio. On the skalcom.ubc.ca website, you will find relevant information about open access publishing, open access publishing discounts and membership. So waivers to publishing fees, there's information about author rights, predatory publishing, or how to determine journal quality if you wanna publish somewhere new. And also a lot of information about open scholarship and sort of open approaches to teaching and learning beyond just OER creation, which we will focus primarily on today. Now I'm gonna just pause for a minute just to give you some time to write in the chat if you have any specific questions or if there's anything you are really hoping you would cover today. This is your opportunity to just put that in the chat just so I have a sense of what may be of interest so I can make sure to incorporate it as we go throughout. I always like to say with these presentations, yes, we have slides and we have content to get through but I am not here for myself, I'm not here to hear myself talk, I'm here to tell you what you would like to know. So if there's anything you would like to know, I'm happy to focus on that. So I'm just gonna pause for just a minute and see if there's anything that pops up in the chat. Okay, we have someone liking to know about using public, available pictures and teaching slides, absolutely. We can cover that. Sometimes it depends on what your definition of public is to start with but that's okay, we can certainly talk about that. Using YouTube videos and courses, sure, we can talk about that. So these questions in general, I would say are about you as a user of cooperative material. So certainly we can touch on these different types of content and how you can know when you can't use them and under what conditions. Appropriate way to mention the authors of images, the theoretical reference in our presentations. Okay, so this is for citation practices, attribution practices, we can talk about that. What is corporate, how do I know if I can use something? Okay, great. So yeah, so this is, I would say all of these questions, many of them are sort of up a type so we can make sure to cover the uses of content when we get to that part of the presentation. So a lot of that's already built in but for sure we will make time to cover these questions. So thank you for providing your questions. Okay, so let's get into sort of the meat of this copyright part. So we are gonna talk about copyright from the perspective of you as both a user and a creator. So copyright law, copyright in principle is meant to address these two roles. There are user rights in the copyright act and there are creator rights. And so big picture when we think about copyright law, what copyright is meant to do is it's really meant to strike this balance between the rights of those two groups. In media, sort of in day to day conversation we tend to focus on the rights of creators, worrying about infringement, someone's protecting their rights. And that is very important but as equally important are these rights of users. And sort of the rationale of the copyright act and copyright law is we wanna strike this balance between the power of both user and creator rights because we want to create an environment in which works will flourish and innovation as possible and we cannot create such an environment if we are too restrictive or too overly giving of rights to either of these sort of communities of users or creators. And similarly in the university context, I think we're both sort of, we're aware that we operate under both of these roles, right? So creators are often using the works of other people they're being informed by other people's ideas, they're wanting to bring that content into their own work. So we're always both creators and users. So these roles are both important to what we do. Okay, so I'm gonna start to talk a little bit about user rights. And again, I wanted to just note that this presentation is sort of framed from the perspective of creating OER. So some of the questions were more about using things and a teaching and learning sort of traditional classroom environment which we can certainly touch on. But as we'll see here, that audience piece is really important when we think about what we can do with works. So when I talk about OER in particular, I always want to make sure we're identifying the correct audience for the use case, right? So in some contexts, you may want to be using something in a classroom setting. So classroom setting is we're gonna think of a more controlled environment, sort of limited distribution. We are not putting things on the open web versus an open distribution, which is like we want as much dissemination as possible. We don't know where this work is gonna end up. We want to put it on the open web on the public facing website. And why it's really important to start with that distinction is because we rely on exceptions to copyright. We rely on best practice documents and copyright policy created by the university that is based off of what setting and context we're working within. So there are exceptions to copyright. For example, there are a whole subset of educational exceptions that specifically require us to be sort of within the classroom environment to use those exceptions. They are harder to apply and rely on in an open environment when we're talking about OER. So just to sort of weave in some of the questions about using content, like publicly available images in teaching materials, when we talk about using those in a classroom setting. So in slide decks that we may only distribute to students through Canvas, for example, or we may be showing them virtually on our screen in a virtual lecture. There are exceptions to copyright and there are best practices at the university that would sort of permit that copying. But that might not be as permissible in an open environment where we want to take these public images and we want to share them with potentially the whole world. Similarly with things like YouTube content, et cetera, any type of content really. You want to think about your use case and whether you're starting with closed dissemination or open dissemination will dictate a lot of the other things you can do with the content. So as I sort of alluded to, there are exceptions to copyright. These are often referred to as user rights and they permit users, so instructor, students, to make use of copyrighted works without needing to seek permission, which is the big thing here, right? So of course you can always try to get permission to do something from a copyright holder, but oftentimes we would like to try to use things without seeking permission. So if we want to do that, we need to be making sure we're working within the framework of exceptions. So there are two sort of key areas of exceptions that are relevant to most of the work we do in an educational institution, fair dealing and then broader educational exceptions. So fair dealing is the most broad exception we have in the Copyright Act. It's similar to fair use, which is a US concept that many people have heard of before just because of our media diet, it gets sort of, it's in the media more frequently. Fair dealing is the Canadian equivalent or counterpart to this sort of principle. It's a broad exception. Now there are requirements, not everything is always fair dealing, right? So we do on the copyright.ubc.ca website have a lot of information about what would meet the requirements for fair dealing. So I won't go into too much detail, but what I will say here is that the first thing to consider is your use for an allowable purpose. So entertainment is not an allowable fair dealing purpose, but education is researches, private study, criticism and review. These are all allowable purposes and these are all purposes that are commonly happening in the university context, right? So for teaching and learning purposes, probably your copying is gonna be educational or for criticism and review for students, learning, et cetera. So you start with that purpose and then there are gonna be, there's a set of six fairness factors we look at determine is this fair? Is your use actually fair? And one of the key questions goes back to distribution. So again, if you're controlling distribution to only students in a classroom that's gonna lean more towards fairness. So again, we have documentation on the website that explains this in more detail and I'm here to help people with this type of question if they have questions like that. I won't talk as much about the other educational exceptions but just note that there's another whole basket of several exceptions that are applicable in an educational context. So there are exceptions that permit things like showing films in class like public performance in a classroom. There's a specific exception in the Copyright Act for that. There are exceptions related to teaching by telecommunications or like online learning. There's a lot of detail in the Copyright Act that actually outlines what can be done in certain contexts. And again, that's sort of my role is to be really familiar with these exceptions and help people employ them should they want to in their classroom. Okay, so copyright is hard. And as I sort of said earlier, it's often the thing people are the least excited about, especially when they're wanting to make an OER. It is like the thing that they have to do that they begrudge doing. So it's good to know to sort of start with what we know is high level usually always okay and not a problem. So one thing that we can rely on to be okay to do is to hyperlink or embed material. So someone had written in their questions about using YouTube videos. So this is helpful because YouTube, so YouTube does not permit you to download and then upload YouTube videos. You can do it sort of illegally with a third party's tool, but they don't permit that. You're not supposed to do that. But what they do permit you to do is to link to that content or to embed it. So embedding is like a sophisticated hyperlink. It actually looks like you've taken the content and moved it over to like a Canvas site or a website. But actually it's more of a, there's a connection remains between the YouTube posted content and where you put the copied the video. So it's not a true copy. Therefore we don't worry about whether or not copyright, copyright doesn't apply basically. It's not a copyright issue if you haven't actually copied anything. So you can always hyperlink or embed that. You can always use UBC license material. So I work in the library. We pay I think about $16 million a year these days to buy content for our community. You can always share that content in the classroom, share links, download PDFs, upload them in the Canvas. But again, this is a bit different in the open context for OER purposes. You may need to be more critical about your copying and reuse of content that the library has paid for for you to access. Similarly with things like things that you've personally paid for, right? Like you cannot scrape a Netflix movie. You have legal access to it because you have a license and an account with Netflix but you can't then take that and distribute it broadly online. Now you can always rely on using openly licensed content which is something that Wilson talked about more. And then the last thing you can always use is anything in the public domain. And just to clarify a little bit on that public domain does not mean things in the public realm. It actually means things for which copyright has expired. So copyright does not last forever. That protection is limited in term to it's still a very long term. It's the life of the author plus 70 years. So depending on what your area is, what your discipline is, this may or may not be that helpful but if you happen to be a medievalist or an art historian it may be really relevant to you that this copyright expires because you may be only interested in looking at the works of Michelangelo for example. It's good to keep that in mind that there are works that are free to use because they are no longer protected by copyright at all. So just to expand a little bit on that sort of public domain issue, this public domain supports the idea of copyright in the sense that we want to encourage innovation and creation. So when things fall into the public domain they're available to be reused and this can spur on new creations. So we can get the masterwork pride and prejudice and zombies as a result of the natural sort of expiration of copyright. One sort of caveat to public domain is to keep in mind that not all countries have the same copyright term length. It varies between countries. Many countries have a life plus 70 which is what we have now. The States does, most of the EU does but it is possible that you can have a work that's public domain in Canada but not in another country and that may complicate your ability to use that work if you want to distribute it on the internet where it theoretically is sort of simultaneously published everywhere. Again, these are more complicated questions that are things we could talk about if people had specific questions. I just want to take up, Garrett has a comment here. Is it dependent on the birthplace of the author or the source of the borrower? So we're talking about like use of works or public domain. Yeah, so public domain is different from country to country so it does depend on where the author is from or where you're from when you're borrowing it. That's a good question. So in general, it's about where you are when you're borrowing it. So copyright law pertains to like the country of the use. However, I will note that there is sort of a common copyright principle called the rule of the shorter term and what that means is if the work has fallen into the public domain in the country of its publication. So say, let's say just for argument's sake the US had a copyright term of life of the author plus 50. If something was in the public domain in the States by an American author, people in other countries are not required to extend protection beyond that even if their own law would dictate that there would be extra protection. So this gets a bit, again, against everything's more complicated than it first appears, but we sometimes rely on this rule of the shorter term to use things that maybe, yeah, are in the public domain in their home country. We don't have to give extra protection in Canada just because we belong to a term. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, I'm looking at my time. I'm trying to be conscious of leaving time for Will here, but we wanna talk a little bit about copyright from the perspective of creators now. So basics for creators of copyrighted and protected materials, not just your role as a user. So one thing that gets asked about occasionally is sort of the status of ownership of materials that are produced sort of by employees or people affiliated with the university, right? So broadly speaking, we can lump people into these three buckets of faculty, students and staff. And so there's, I won't maybe initially just read everything on the slide, but faculty retain, tend to retain copyright in their teaching and learning materials and in their research materials. So this is, I would say, big picture. This is unique, the sort of within the sort of standard copyright world of ownership of copyright of employees content. So generally speaking in copyright law, employers own copyright in employees work. That is the default standard. However, in academic circles, in academia, we have sort of evolved this new model in which faculty retain their own copyright. And that has to do with reasons of academic integrity and autonomy for faculty in the research that they do. That's sort of part of the history of that. There are exceptions to this even in the university where faculty wouldn't own their copyright. So there are policies, and actually I should update the policy numbers that are outdated. Legal counsel changed the policy numbers. This was like not policy ED anymore, it's like policy 2D or something. So apologies that the wordings or the labels are wrong, but there are situations in which for example, the university has given you money or if you have the possibility of commercializing an invention that the university then does have a stake in that work. So I can't just say 100% always, faculty retain copyright in their materials, but generally speaking, in most cases, that's the default. Students similarly retain copyright in their work as a student, all of their assignments in their thesis and dissertations as well. They're free to do what they want with those materials. They can take their thesis and publish it as a book after the university has no control or ownership over that content. However, students are often also employed by the university either directly or through faculty members, through grant funding to be RAs, et cetera. So those relationships are a bit different if a student is also an employee, their work as an employee may belong to the person that hired them, which would be the faculty member or the department, et cetera. One of the complications here with ownership of copyright in the university context is like, who is the university? So if staff, the work of staff belongs to the university copyright-wise, who can exercise those rights? There is no mystery university. So in practice, how this operates is the person who assigned the work would be the person who can sort of dictate the sort of the use of that work or a department, perhaps, maybe responsible, maybe the copyright holder, just because we don't have a centralized body that sort of manages copyright for the university. So I often get questions about this, people from publishers, external to UBC will come to me as the copyright office asking me for permission to reuse faculty work or departmental-created works. And I always say, no, we don't do that. You have to speak to that department directly. So I would just say that these, on the one hand, this is straightforward, but in practice, it can often be more complicated. There are also disciplinary and academic sort of practices that come into play here in terms of assumptions being made about ownership over content. So often faculty members will sort of let their RAs or their GAAs exercise copyright over the things that they produced, even if technically that faculty member would be the owner of copyright in it. So you may have to have conversation around this because there may be differing practices that go sort of beyond just what's written in the policy. So what I guess I would say in the end here is especially when using student work, when in doubt always when they're asking for permission, even if sort of they are an employee, because there's also power dynamics. There's a lot of things that play, right? And these sorts of relationships on campus. And so we want everyone to feel good about this and have a clear sense of what's going on. So occasionally I will get questions from people who feel like there may be being, maybe not bullied is maybe a strong word, but maybe they don't feel like they were, they are having, they have the autonomy to sort of exercise their rights in their work, for example. So these are good things to have conversations about. Now the last thing I'm gonna touch on before I head over to Will is just a little bit about author rights. So author rights I sort of consider to be this sort of in the center of the Venn diagram between my work as a corporate librarian and my work as a scholarly communications librarian. So author rights are the rights that an author has in their work. Typically in this context we're talking about academic publishing here. So we're typically thinking about publishing our research in this context. And they are the rights typically that people negotiate away when they interact with publishers and they engage in the publication process. So often sort of the default publishing system that we operate within the scholarly publishing system anyways is that when you want to publish your work in a journal, you're asked to sign an agreement and you give the copyright away. So in the copyright act when we talk about the rights of creators one of the rights of a creator is to assign their rights to someone else. And this is really common in a lot of different contexts it's very common in academic publishing. So what that means essentially is that if you assign your copyright to the publisher you no longer own those rights you no longer have the right necessarily to share your work to share your articles with your students to post a copy of your article on your departmental website, et cetera. Oftentimes publishers aren't gonna come after you for this but technically you've lost those rights. And so we just like to encourage people to really think about what their rights are in their work from the beginning what it means to give them up and what rights they retain for the future. So this is one of the ways in this comes up is if you wanna make an adaptation of your work you wanna turn something that you've published now into an open resource or you wanna use it your teaching in a way that you maybe no longer have the rights to. Another way this comes up is some people they'll publish in the subscription journal but then they would like to disseminate their article freely for anyone to read. So they might wanna post it to the library's institutional repository which is sort of like an open database of faculty and student publications. You may not have the right to do that anymore because you've given the right to the publisher. So these are the sorts of things that's important to think about that being a creator is a set of rights and also responsibilities to a degree. So I just encourage people to be aware of what their rights are in their work and to think about that when they enter into these agreements. Okay, Terrence on policy 81. Oh, okay, so I didn't talk on I can touch on that briefly before I move on. So policy 81 is the teaching and learning policy. Again, the name has shifted now. I can give you the broad strokes of what it is but you should look into it if you're curious. All of the policies are posted to the university council's website. That's where you can actually read all the policies. So essentially the policy I think has two parts. It says basically if you've created a teaching resource. So say you have a slide deck or a test bank that you created for your course but you're gonna share it with your department or your colleagues say there's 12 sections of a course and you're all sort of working collaboratively. If you make that resource available to the department through like posting it to a shared repository, for example, then you're sort of granting the university permission to disseminate it to make it available to other people. So I don't wanna say you give up rights in your work but you grant a license to the university to use it in a certain way. I think another part of that policy may also have to do with when the university has given you resources to make things. So for example, there are certain grants you may be awarded by the university. The university may give you resources like access to lab equipment or whatever. If they've made this material investment into the creation of the work, then they may have some rights over that work in the end. These policies are, they're broad and there's a lot of room for interpretation. So if you ever have questions about the policy or the scope of a policy, feel free to get in touch with me but also I would say definitely feel free to get in touch with the faculty association or colleagues in your department. Sometimes there needs to be a bit of negotiation in terms of how these policies are interpreted. Okay, so the last thing I will say before I hand it off to Will is that we have copyright law, we have the UBC's policy, we have jurisprudence and case law and this all informs the information I have about copyright and the information I give people about copyright, but we do not have black and white yes or no answers to a lot of different aspects of copyright. There is always or often some aspect of risk tolerance and risk assessment involved when it comes to copyright and that doesn't matter if we're talking about an open environment, OER creation or if we're talking about using something in a classroom. The risks may be very different but they're rarely zero I guess if you're not asking permission in particular, right? So I just wanna say, it's just I sort of like to say that there's always gonna be that element to this and my sort of role is not to tell people yes or no, you can or cannot. It's to tell you what the risks are, how whether this meets our policy or not when things do not fall within their policy with our policy does not mean that you cannot do them. It means that you need to critically evaluate the risk and I will help you assess the risk essentially. So just for example, I have this picture here of something called the next Rembrandt which is actually becoming more relevant since the AI is a bigger, bigger question all the time. So there's lots of areas emerging areas of copyright concern that we just don't have law yet about at all, there just is no law. So we really don't know what to do. So the next Rembrandt is a project where scholars sort you know, fed all of Rembrandt's prior paintings into an algorithm and then the machine produced this next Rembrandt. So basically using Rembrandt style, it produced a painting in the style of Rembrandt. So what is the copyright status of this? Is it protected by copyright? If so, who owns copyright in it? Would that be the programmers who built the AI tool? Would it be the scholars who sort of like built the corpus of images that would be fed into the tool? We have principles in the law that sort of guide us to what is likely to be the case but we don't have clear answers on all of this stuff. So that's another thing too. There's a lot of cutting edge aspects to copyright, text and data mining, et cetera, that again, I'm happy to have conversations with people about and try to give them best practices but there's just not always answers sometimes to these types of questions. And that's sort of just the reality of the slow pace of copyright law and change. And on that less than helpful note, I think I will wrap up and pass it over to Will and I will stop sharing so he can start sharing. Great, so thanks stuff for that, that really in-depth overview of copyright. I'm just gonna take a moment to just share my screen. So stuff's really talked a lot about sort of like what copyright law is and how it applies to teaching and learning. And we've talked a little bit about like, you're out there, you're creating course content, what can you use? And she talked a little bit about the public domain and educational exceptions to copyright law, things like hyperlinks and bed codes are always okay to use your own work as the creator. It's always okay to use that in a teaching learning environment, but it's also always okay to use openly licensed works. And I'm excited to talk about that piece of it. And one way we've been referring to openly licensed work is open educational resources or OER, which is a pretty common term. So I'm gonna be talking a little bit about what is an openly licensed work and what does it mean for something to be open? But before we get started, I wanted to just take a minute to ask you, what does open actually mean when we talk about open in the context of teaching and learning or open around educational materials or scholarly materials? I'm just gonna drop a quick link to a Mentimeter in the chat or you can scan the QR code. But if you go to this Mentimeter, I'll just quickly capture your thoughts and generate a word cloud. With that, I'm just gonna pop up the word cloud. So accessible for all free reusable on license, these are great. Perfect, no restrictions on license available. Awesome, these are all fantastic definitions. I'm just gonna pop back to my slides for one sec. So those were fantastic answers. And often, as we saw in this case, many people think that open really means free as in free of cost. And it definitely does mean that. It can also mean free from restrictions. And this is an example that I like to use. A museum can have free access days. So this means that anybody can go into the museum on those days and they don't have to pay to go inside. They can go in, they can learn from the artifacts and the collections. And they can really take in a lot by going in. However, within the museum, they're gonna often and almost always are restrictions. So you can't rearrange the exhibits to put them in a better context that matches your experience or helps you learn from them. You can't copy or draw upon the art or even take a piece with you. And often there's security guards there that will prevent you from doing any of that. So in the digital world, there are the idea of open access, but there also are the idea of security guards and restrictions. And these can be things like copyright, digital rights management, or locked in formats. And so open can often be thought of as a spectrum. And there's many different ways to think about open. And there's no necessarily a right or wrong way to think about it. So these are some of the things I like to think about open can mean free of cost. So definitely that free is important. It can also mean that sort of removal of barriers or access barriers. And this doesn't only include costs, but can also include things like needing to create a password or an account or even some resources may require the use of proprietary technology. So if you want to work with the content, you have to have access to that technology. It can also mean this idea of reuse. So I'm gonna be talking about reuse a lot. So this is the use of open copyright license that allow for legal reuse and modification of something. It can also mean sort of the digital accessibility. So this is the idea is something's not able to be used by all people as it truly opens. So if you have a textbook and you publish it openly, but you haven't done the work to make it accessible, if somebody with a vision impairment can't actually use that textbook, is it open for them? And then there's the idea of connection. And this is how do we engage? How do we create community? How do we work and develop networks around our teaching learning? And how do we engage students in sharing their knowledge and sharing their contributions to learning and contributions to knowledge in a broader context? So all of these things can be part of open when we talk about open. But specifically around open educational resources or OER or openly licensed materials, there is a definition and these can be seen as teaching learning resources and they can include everything, full courses, course materials, textbooks, videos, software and really any other tools, materials or techniques that are free of cost and access barriers which also carry legal permission for open use. And generally this permission is used through an open copyright license which allows the user of that material to use, adapt and share the resource anytime and pretty much anywhere. So OER is really a great strategy for course content. It saves time and money, so online versions are free and there's no need to like buy access codes. There's no expiration dates with the content so students have the ability to retain that content. Instructors have the ability to retain that content. You can circulate it among an unlimited number of students. There's no need to gain permission or pay to use or copy or distribute it. And one really important thing as an educator is it can be used, edited or adapted without fear of copyright infringement. So you can change it to suit your curriculum needs, your teaching methods, your student needs and then most importantly, open materials are often available in a variety of formats. So open textbooks can be printed, they can be downloaded as PDFs, they can be downloaded as EPUBs, they can be read online often. So that variety of formats is useful for a universal design of learning. So students may have different methods or different strategies for using content that is in the different format that's more useful for them. And we've been talking a little bit about free and I do just want to talk about why free and why affordability is an important feature. So every year the UBC Vancouver Student Society, the AMS does a survey and they do look at the cost of teaching and learning materials for their students. And the last survey was done in 2022 and they found students are roughly spending $1,200 per year on textbooks and other course resources. This is up significantly from the previous year and again, inflation is hitting sort of all sectors but it's also hitting the textbook and educational materials sector. And to put that in context, the same survey found that roughly 30% of undergraduate students at UBC Vancouver are specifically not buying the textbooks or resources specifically due to cost. They have questions to ask for other reasons why they're not buying it, but 30% of respondents said that they're not buying the textbooks due to cost. And I would say this number has held up as long as I've been at UBC and I've been reading this survey. So roughly 25 to 28 to 30% of our students are often not able to access the materials due to cost. And to me, that becomes less an affordability issue and more of a teaching and learning issue. So if we know our students aren't accessing the materials and we want them to be successful in the course, then there's really a barrier to them that to me accounts sort of a reflection of do we really need these materials and how do we get make sure our students are able to access them. So going back to thinking a little bit about what is an open educational resource, I like to turn back to David Wiley who was an early scholar in open educational resources and open education in general. So David Wiley formatted this sort of framework, what he called the five Rs of open content. And these were the five Rs that said the more these Rs are embedded within the content, the more open that content is. So the first R was the right to retain. And this was the right to own, make copies and control copies of the content. So if I have a textbook that's online, can I download it? Can I put a, can I keep it? Will it not go away? So often terms, students are now renting textbooks or renting access codes or getting access codes to online platforms for their education materials and they don't always have the ability to retain that content. So if they wanna go back and look at it six months after the course is gone or course is over there, that content is often gone. There's the right to reuse. This is the right to use the content in a wide range of ways. Can I use that textbook in a class? Can I distribute it in a study group? Can I post parts of that textbook on my course website or can I reference charts or images from it in a video? There's the next right is the right to revise and this is the right to adapt, adjust or modify the content itself. So if I have that textbook, but it turns out I'm teaching my course in French this year, can I translate that textbook or chapters from that textbook into French? Do I have that right to do that? There's the right to remix and this is the right to combine the original revised content with other content to create something new. And there's an example I always like to use at UBC where an instructor took parts of a neuroanatomy textbook and parts of a psychology textbook and he made a brain and behavior textbook that sort of fit how they were teaching the course. So they created something new out of two existing resources. Then finally, there is that right of redistributing. This is the right to share copies of your original work, your revisions or your remixes with others. For example, that brain and behavior textbook, can I give copies of it to my class? Can I share it with a friend? Can I post it online? So how these rights get embedded into content or into educational materials are through Creative Common Licenses. We've talked a little bit about licenses and a license can really be thought of as sort of a legal way to give permission for somebody to do something or use your work. So the brief history of Creative Common Licenses is as the internet took off, it made it really easy to share resources online. And lots of people wanted their work to be reused. They wanted their images or their course content to be used by other people and they would put it up on the internet. However, at the same time, copyright laws across the world were kind of recognizing this or copyright, or governments were recognizing this across the world that copyright was being undermined by sharing on the internet and they went to make copyright laws a lot more strict and stringent, making it actually, even though it was technically easy to share, it was legally more difficult. So sort of out of this understanding, Creative Commons was born and it's an international nonprofit organization whose mandate is to make it easier for creators to share their work or build upon the work of others consistent within copyright. So they created these permissions that indicate how people may use this work. So as educators were creating content all the time, we can put a Creative Commons license on our work and it tells people how they can use our work. And it's important to note, Creative Commons licenses are not an alternative or an exception to copyright, but they are one way for copyright owners to distribute their work within an illegal copyright framework. So in a way, Creative Commons licenses are a form of copyright permission to allow others to use, distribute, and build upon your work. And they give creators more control on determining how the work is shared or used. So Creative Commons have specific conditions that they can be used under. So these are the main conditions that are applied in Creative Commons licenses and they're kind of mixed in a variety of flavors. So the first is attribution and this lets others distribute, remix, and adapt and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as they credit the original creator. And this is the most accommodating sort of condition that can be made. And it's pretty common in academia for us to always give attribution to other people's work. So it's something that is baked into the Creative Commons license and something that is important to do when you're using other people's work. There is the no derivative work. And this means that the work can only be used as is. So if that textbook that I wanted to use had a Creative Commons non-derivative work, I could reuse that textbook, redistribute it, but I couldn't remix it or revise it. I couldn't translate it into French. I would have to use it exactly as the creator intended. There's the share alike clause and this means that you can revise or remix it, but if I revise or remix it, it has to be used or it has to be licensed under identical terms. So if I use that textbook example and I translate a copy of it into French, my French edition of that textbook cannot be shared except under the same copyright terms as the ones I use, the same Creative Commons terms as I use. So I can't restrict the copyright and say the French version is only copyrighted to me and nobody else can use it. I have to make it open and part of the comments as well. And then there's non-commercial and this means it can't be used commercially. And I'll just say that this means generally the use of the work, not who's using the work. So for example, UBC, we're pretty non-commercial so we can generally use non-commercially or we can generally use works that are non-commercially licensed and are teaching and learning. I can take that textbook and put it in my classes and distribute it, but I can't sell it in the bookstore. So that, if it had a non-commercial license, it's the non-commercial applies to how the work is being used. One quick question is, because most Creative Commons licenses have this attribution requirement, how do we do an attribution? And I'll just say an attribution is not necessarily the same as how we do a citation. An attribution should provide information on who created the work, who was the author of the work, what's the title of it, what is the source? So where did you find this open license work and then what copyright license are you using it under? So this is an example of a picture of a kitten. It's got the title, it's linked to the source where it comes from. It has the link of the user who created it and then it has the CC by 4.0 which is a shorthand code for the license. And why this is important is it allows me to click on this and then I can actually read the deed of the license. And they've done a really nice job of making this very explicit. So it says, I'm free to share and copy and redistribute the material in any format and I can adapt and mix, but as long as I give appropriate credit to the attribution and as long as if I'm making a remix of that photo, I also have to make it a Creative Commons share like license. So this is one of the reasons I really love OER is because they take the guesswork completely out of can I use it or not? It's laid out here pretty clearly in the license. So in using fair dealing or educational exceptions and copyright, I oftentimes feel that it's a lot of gray area and there's some risk involved. Using openly licensed work, there's very little risk generally involved in it as long as you're following the license. So when you're using Creative Commons materials there's some questions you might wanna ask yourself, can you reuse the material? Does the license say that you can? Are you allowed to change or adapt it if you're planning to do that? Have you met the license conditions specifically? Have you provided the attribution? Thinking about some of the things that you may wanna go beyond thinking of license terms, but is the content appropriate to your audience? And this is where oftentimes the ability to revise open educational content is really important because there is a great example, another example from UBC where somebody was using a psychology textbook and the images in the textbook were, which was written in the U.S. were not reflective of sort of the families or communities that they're describing of the families or communities in British Columbia. So the instructor spent time revising the textbook to replace the images with ones that were more culture appropriate to the Canadian context. Is the content accessible to students with diverse abilities? This is the idea of if we're using textbooks that we can revise, should we be making sure that all our students can go ahead and use them? So a quick question often is, how do we find OER once we start doing OER? And this is great because there is a lot of OER openly licensed works in there. So this is from 2017. I think was the last time they tried to quantify how many openly licensed works and they stopped at 1.4 billion. What's important in 2010 is there was 400 million. So it's sort of growing exponentially. How many openly licensed works are out there? From an educational point of view, I think we live in a time of overabundance, changing from a time from when students took classes to get access to scarce knowledge or resources to a time when we have access to those resources everywhere on the internet and really looking towards instructors as guides and as mentors on what's appropriate in those resources and evaluating and textualizing the overabundance of those resources. So this is a page with a lot of links. I just wanted to show a couple of the links since there were some great questions on like how do we use public images out there and how do we find open materials? I'm gonna start with the image question. Oftentimes a place people start with images is Google. So I'm just gonna go ahead and type in Google. If you haven't done this lately, Google's gotten a lot worse. So if I type in tree and I'm looking for an image of a tree, I will then go over to images. And what you can do here is you can click on tools and under tools, you'll see usage rights. And you can go ahead and drop that down to Creative Commons licenses. And so Creative Commons licenses are in theory machine readable as well. And that allows search engines and technologies like Google to be able to say these images or these resources have a Creative Commons license on it. Then what you'll wanna do is you'll wanna click into the image and click all the way into it and then get to sort of the source of the image. And you'll see here, this is coming from Wikimedia Commons. And if you scroll down, you'll see this is made available under Creative Commons. Universal public domain dedication. So if I click through this, this will basically say there's no copyright on this image. It can be used exactly however you wanna use it. So that's one way to start looking for open license images that you can use. Another one that I particularly like is something called Openverse. So this is openverse.org. This was created by the Creative Commons nonprofit organization and it's specifically to search images and audio. So if I look at tree here, I do a search. I'll take a minute. It's gonna say there's over 10,000 images of trees you can use the more specific your searches, the more we find that the search will be. And I can also say these are the different type of public or different type of Creative Commons licenses over here. So if I only want things that require an attribution, I can drill down. I can also look at different type of audio. So tree frog sounds and things like that if I'm looking for sounds is in this database as well. Another quick one to show briefly is Oasis. And this is often my starting point when I'm looking for looking for open educational resources that I can use and Oasis is a federated search engine. So it's gonna go out and search repositories of open educational resources in many different formats and contacts. So I'm just gonna search for physics. That's a very general term. And it's gonna come back with all these sorts of different types, interactive simulations, textbooks, course materials, learning objects, podcasts. I'll suggest some other examples. So maybe I wanna interact with simulation and it will start pulling up the like FET which is the University of Colorado, different sort of openly licensed materials. And I can drill into it and you can see if you go to FET, this is a big one, but somewhere on here, they'll have a Creative Commons license that will tell you exactly. So here's an example of a calculator and where's the license session of this. All materials on FET are openly licensed. So at some point in here, you would wanna explore and find the Creative Commons license that I can never find it when I'm on screen but it is there. Another quick place I just wanna show is the BC Open Collection. So BC is one of the leaders in creating and funding support for open educational materials. And we have a great sort of repository that's managed by BC Campus. If I find a physics, go back to physics here, I'll start pulling up textbooks, course resources and just to look at like what a textbook looks like. This is the landing for college physics. I can see some supplemental materials including UBC created physics videos, instructor resources, things like this. I can see the Creative Commons license. But what I particularly like about the BC Campus Open Collection is I can see instructor peer reviews of these. So peers have gone in and reviewed these and if you look at the full review, they're pretty in depth, so content, clarity. So if you're looking for a new textbook, this is particularly a great place because you can use these reviews to help sort of navigate what's out there. And I just realized that I'm running out of time, but I do just want to point out that the book, the library in CTLT can also help you find these. And we'll send these slides out with links to all these places. But there are great resources through the library for finding open educational materials. And specifically if you're looking for something in specifically in your discipline, contact your disciplinary librarian and they'll help you search for it or put you in touch with the open education librarian or somebody like myself that can help you navigate them as well. And then just quickly, there is support at UBC if you want to use open educational resources in your courses. So we have something called the UBC Fund and this provides grants of up to $25,000 to use open educational resources specifically for the cost or specifically for the purpose of making course materials more affordable for our students. So if you're interested in adopting an open textbook or using open textbook or using open problem sets or problem banks, you can apply to this fund and get support for doing that. And that's a quick high level overview of open materials and copyright. And I'm gonna stop my screen sharing and see if anybody has any questions. And maybe at this point, we'll go ahead and turn off the recording. So if you do have questions and you don't want those questions to be recorded, we'll turn that off now and you can go ahead and ask our questions.