 All right. Good morning. This is Una Daly here from the Open Education Consortium, the community college branch of Open Education. And I'm very pleased to have Kathleen Amolo from the University of Michigan join us this morning for a primer on open licenses and intellectual property. And I have the pleasure of going over this presentation with Kathleen several times now. And it's really excellent. And there will be a recording so that you can share this with your colleagues. Just a few housekeeping details. We are using Blackboard Collaborate from the California Community College Systems today. And we want to thank them for supporting Open Education at community colleges in California and throughout the nation. If you haven't used it before, we want to point out that on the left-hand side of your screen is the chat window. And we encourage you to type in questions and comments as we go along in that chat window. And Kathleen and I will answer those as we get an opportunity. And we'll save the more difficult ones or the more complex ones until the end. And there is tech support available if you're having some issues. And I'll let you read the number there at the bottom of the screen. At this point, I want to invite you to introduce yourself in the chat window. Let us know what institution or organization you're with and your interest in OER. Once again, I'm Una Daley, the Community College Outreach Director at the Open Education Consortium. And I run these webinars on a regular basis. And I'm just thrilled to have Kathleen Amolo, who is the International Program Manager at the Office of Enabling Technologies at the Med Center at the University of Michigan. Kathleen, you want to tell us a little bit about your day job there and what you're up to this week? So I, 2008, back when I was a graduate student, and I've been working with them for this whole time. And one of the things that drew me to them was the fact that they were really interested in tying up an education to a lot of their global health efforts. And hopefully you can hear me okay. I'm actually calling you right now from Ethiopia, working with one of our partner institutions, which is a medical school that was started just six years ago. Wonderful. Thank you, Kathleen. And also on the line here today is James Glappa Grossclag, the President of the Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources. James, do you want to say hi? James has typed in in the chat window, Kathleen wins the prize for the farthest slung speaker. And yes, definitely thank you, Kathleen, so much for taking some time out of your busy evening in Ethiopia to help people out with open licensing and how they might apply that in their work. Now, you know where Kathleen is from. I'm actually located in California, which is on the west coast of the United States. And I'd like to invite those of you out there in our virtual audience to tell us where you're from. If you pick up the little star icon in the middle of the screen toolbar and you can choose an icon there and drop it as to where you're located to show us. And I'm going to take the smiley face here and do Ethiopia. I hope I did that correctly. Oops. Oh, my gosh, it moved. It looks like we have folks from the east coast, northeast. Looks like we've got some from central east. And we've got them up and down the west coast of the U.S. And we've got some Canadian folks up in British Columbia, I think. And we've got Kathleen in Africa, so very exciting. All right. I just want to give a brief overview of the Community College Consortium for OER at the Open Education Consortium. For those of you who might be joining us for the first time. So we're a long-time organization now in Open Ed. The Community College Consortium was started in 2007. And our mission is promoting the adoption of Open Ed educational resources to enhance teaching and learning. Our overall goals are expanding access to education for all learners. And we work heavily with faculty by providing professional development and opportunities to collaborate with us at different conferences and educational events. And these webinars that we do monthly are part of our professional development series. And our focus is the Community College. So that's where we focus. But we work with four-year colleges and universities. Our students become your students as they transfer on in their educational journey. We now have over 200 colleges in 17 states and provinces who are part of our community of practice. And we'd love to have you join us as well if your interest is in Open Education from either a faculty or a student point of view. So getting to today's topic. Education is about sharing. And many of our Open Education visionaries have stated this. And so I'll repeat one of them, David Wiley, who says that faculty share knowledge with their students freely. Both through their lectures, their notes that they provide for students, and through instructional materials. And students share their understanding with each other, with the teacher, et cetera. And faculty share with their colleagues, I think, in the best of all cases. And so Open Licensing is one of those enabling technologies and also legal frameworks that makes that possible. And of course, that's the topic for today's talk. And not to take away from Kathleen's. I'm just going to give you very briefly Open Licensing means for an educational resource. It means that it's free to access online, free to print. Kind of the four rules of Open that we state often are reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute. Which are very powerful capabilities, which are not available with just free resources. So that's why an Open License is so much more powerful than just a free resource. And finally, Creative Commons is the primary way that educational resources are released under an Open License. And this is where an author chooses to license a version that can be shared by others without asking direct permission. But that author retains the full copyright. So that was just a very quick overview. And at this point, to get all the background information and the details on that, we have Kathleen O'Molo once again who is at Open Michigan and works directly with faculty on a regular basis to share their resources. So, Kathleen, are you there? Yes, I am. All right. So, Edith, do you want to go ahead and advance to my second slide? All right, I'm just going past your overview slide. Great. So, as I mentioned, I joined the OER activities at Michigan in 2008. I was a graduate student. And when I joined, I joined as a volunteer to help the faculty publish this course as an open educational resource. The Open Michigan initiative started around the same time with two primary goals. One, to sustain a thriving culture of sharing knowledge at the university. And two, to provide and develop a comprehensive collection that would provide public access to the university's scholarly output. And one thing that really attracted me to the field of open education is that it expands one community of peers, learners, and teachers. Now, let me talk a little bit about this. And for me, with open education, there's a much larger common pool that people can draw from. And also, which is really important, one to which they are also empowered to contribute back to by collecting information from the community. They are also empowered to contribute back to by customizing their learning experiences for their own context. So, it's not just about the content. It's about the connections to potential collaborators and to different mindsets. Now, I should probably start by admitting that prior to my role at Open Michigan, when I heard people talk about copyright and other types of intellectual property, I tended to zone out. I thought it was not relevant. I didn't think it was interesting. And I thought it was needlessly complex. Kind of unintentionally, as a byproduct of my work with Open Michigan, I became a sort of copyright guru and actually copyright nerd when I talked about copyright for fun. And now I appreciate its relevance, its purpose, and have learned a number of approaches to simplify how to explain it and how to follow it. For our talk today, I want to focus on four things. One, how copyright affects you as both producers and consumers of educational content. And how that differs between the classroom and outside the classroom. Two, explain the purpose of intellectual property and the different types you may encounter. Three, define the characteristics of open content such as open educational resources. And lastly, explain the motivations and mechanics of open licenses as a method of sharing and contributing content. And finally, I want to start with slide three. I wanted to begin with some interactive exercises and trivia. In the Blackboard Collaborate panel, around the left, near the top above the listed names, you'll see some icons. At least the ones for questions is a check box. So you can express yourself if that's wrong. And I have five questions which are a mixture of yes to no and multiple choice. Yes, that's a good. I decided four. Good. All right. So we're all set for our trivia. First question, yes or no? Any presentation slides that a person would use in the classroom they can also publish as an open educational resource simply by posting them online. All right. I don't know if you can see this, but we've got four yeses and six nos. All right. In this case, the answer is no. And the reason for that is your classroom is considered a closed audience for enrolled students. So this means you allow certain exemptions given the nature of the youth, the fact that it's educational purposes and for a restrictive audience. So a lot of times when you create content to teach, you take images and content from elsewhere, you take the text books, images you find online, or kind of content that was inherited from a faculty member who taught the course before. This is copyrighted content that you can use in the classroom that you cannot publish or share in a public space. You need to get permission for content that's not created by you before you share it publicly. Next question, five, five. What can be equalities of open content? Are you going to read that, Kathleen, for people who might not be able to see? Oh, sure. So I think everyone can read it except for me. A, free to access. B, publicly available. C, terms of use that allows copies and adaptations. D, both A and B, so both free and public. E, A, B, and C, free, public and with terms of use that allows copies and adaptations. All right. Do you want to know what the winner is, Kathleen? Sure. We have 13 that said E, and then we have a handful for D and A and C. C, A, and C. Well, this is actually kind of a bit of a trick question because some organizations have different definitions of open. However, the most commonly accepted definition is E. The content that is free, public, and licensed with terms of use that allow copies and adaptations. Next question, which of these is necessary to copyright a work? A, publication or sharing publicly. D, including the copyright symbol, the C with the circle around it. Option C, actually registering with the copyright offers. Option D, both including the copyright symbol and officially registering. Or E, none of the above. All right. The answer with the most votes is E. And then with D, following close behind. Well, the correct answer here is E. Copyright is automatic. You actually don't need to register with the copyright office. You don't necessarily even need to make it public through some form or digital publication. And you don't need to include the copyright symbol either. Technically, you don't even need to include the author's name. There are several reasons why it's helpful to include these things. So you can actually track how work is being used. Technically, none of these are required in order for something to be copyrighted. Which brings us to a follow-up question. Slide seven. If none of those previous characteristics are required, which of these ones are? A, tangible format. C, demonstrates efforts. C, possesses creative expression. D is unique. Or E, both A and C. They're both tangible and creative. All right. This one was a little more divided. We have E got the most votes. D got the next and then A. A little difference of opinions there. Well, this one I think is one of the toughest questions in it. It was one of the hardest things for me to understand when I started. The answer here is E. So it needs to be both fixed and tangible format and creative. So it needs to be tangible in some way. That means it should be recorded, sculpted. You can touch it, written down. You can touch it or drawn. So copyright does not apply to things that are not somehow tangible. So for example, a conversation or a speech that is spoken. But is not recorded via audio or video. And it's not transcribed. It's not actually copyrighted because there's no tangible record of that speech. Now for creative expression, it means that in order for something to be eligible for copyright, it needs to have some minimum element of creative expression. So it can't be something that is very standard or even, it cannot be something that's abstract. So for example, a mathematical formula or a chemical representation, a really basic stick figure, the table of just numbers, or a list of range in an obvious manner such as by date or by name does not have creative expression. And therefore would not be eligible for copyright. Now I want to talk a little bit about why it's not the other one. The uniqueness is tricky. Something maybe unique and not creative. It's also theoretically possible to have two similar works that each have copyright if they were created wholly independent of each other. Effort is also not one of the requirements. Something may involve a lot of effort, so not necessarily be creative. For example, organizing lists of names and contact details alphabetically such as the white paper in a phone book is not eligible for copyright even though it is labeling type. Now on to slide eight. Copyright is actually a bundle of five rights. The person who owns the copyright has the exclusive rights to control these five things. One is reproduction or copying. The second one is the ability to control derivative works or adaptations such as translations or other modifications to the content. That person also owns the right to distribution so that they're allowed to control whether or not it's contracted out to a publisher and what channels it goes through. Other rights that they include, other rights to publicly display something such as to display a work apart in a museum. And the right to publicly perform a work such as a stage performance of a player musical. Now on to slide nine, which is our last review question. Another term that you may have heard during copyright discussions is public domain. What do you think this term means? Is it A, publicly available information? B, something that's not under copyright and is therefore no rights reserved? Or is it C, both A and B? Well, maybe I'm the only one who had trouble with that one. It looks like C1 with 16 votes. But B came in at eight. So that was another one that was popular. If I had answered this a few years ago, I would have said B. That was the only way that I have heard it for a long time. But it's actually C. Both of these meanings are very common, not only in the US, but actually in different countries and different jurisdictions. So when I will talk about public domain and the rest of this presentation, I'll be talking about it in the copyright sense, which works that are no longer under copyright. And later on, I'll go into the different reasons why something may not be under copyright and why it currently falls in the public domain. Now on to slide 10. So far, all of my questions and discussions have been about copyright, which is just one of four different types of intellectual property. As I mentioned, copyright applies to tangible works with some element of creativity. Copyright protects the expression to not the underlying idea. Trademarks, on the other hand, apply to phrases, images, or files associated with a particular brand. Their symbol of goodwill on our views in business or commerce. And their protection is based on the distinctiveness of a brand within a particular market or gene graphic engine. Patents are another type of intellectual property, which most often are used for such inventions. But more generally, they refer to designed processes and practices. Trade secrets, the fourth edge of intellectual property, is always one that I found a little fascinating. Because for those, they're kind of like patents in the sense that they're, generally, referred to processes or recipes for products. But the only way to protect those is if they're kept secret. So if any, if ever a trade secret were released, they would actually become public domain. The first three types of intellectual property, copyright trademarked ties, were all created to encourage people to share and promote knowledge. In exchange for granting creators exclusive rights to their creations for a limited amount of time. Number 511, when you create your content, what is your intent? And how do you communicate that to your audience? Slide 12. As I mentioned, by default, if you don't include anything whatsoever on your content, it's going to be all rights reserved, which will severely limit you. This means every single time someone wants to use the words, they technically have to go back to the copyright owner to get permission. Slide 13. What open licenses do is they reduce that transaction cost and essentially change the terms of use from all rights reserved to some rights reserved. When using an open license, the author or copyright owner retains the copyright to their original work. It gives other people permission to copy and distribute the materials, provided they get credit and attribution, and under several other possible conditions. With open licenses, you are giving permission in advance for some reasons, while still keeping the options for people to contact you for permission for other uses beyond that. Slide 14. I read a really good article last year that talked about this kind of tent and spectrum between giving permission for some uses in advance, like you can do with open licenses, and requiring each permission request to come to you, like it does default with all rights reserved. If your goal in creating a certain piece of content is to influence others and to build authority and reputation for your expertise in content, then open licenses can be a very effective way of scaling that. If your primary goal is monitoring a game, then all rights reserved may be a better option for you, so that you can try as much as possible to track every single use. It's important to note that you need a certain level of authority and influence in order to attract paying customers. This, I believe, is one reason why we see a number of hybrid models, where a subset or excerpt of a collection is shared freely under an open license, and other parts are shared as all rights reserved. Slide 15. Then all rights reserved or a circle with one to name is a default. But as slide 16 tells you, some rights reserved is a very easy alternative that you can use, and one of those alternatives you can use is Creative Commons, where you can do a circle around it. Slide 17. Open licenses enable others to make marginal improvements or enhancements and to build upon your work. So this includes revisions and remissions. Slide 18. You can also duplicate it and copy it. Slide 19, which is something that I'm really feeling today, it allows me to share something online, offline, kind of semi-connected digital format, and this is something that has been really essential to act as we've been working with our partner universities overseas that struggle with either consistent or affordable internet access. Slide 20. Open licenses also enable translations into other languages or other formats, as well as a number of other transformations. Now, I'm slide 22. Some of these transformations can include things like converting something that was designed for sharing on a desktop computer. Slide 23, taking the same content and adapting it to share on mobile phones. Now I'm on slide 24, and I'd actually like to take a pause right now to see if there are any questions up to this point. Well, Kathleen, you've been getting some appreciation for the content that you're sharing about, I think particularly James here mentions that I appreciate the lack of judgment in this description. The choice of license depends on your objective. And Quill agrees with that. Mary Burgess from up in British Columbia at the BC campus. She said that she's finding this super helpful. And I'm repeating this because Kathleen doesn't have access to the chat window at the moment. So I just let her know that she is being appreciated even though she can't see it. Thank you. And I particularly- Are there any questions for me? Let's see. All right, Quill says this is by far the most down-to-earth description of intellectual property that I've heard in a long time. So I think you're being very clear. We don't have any questions. And I just wanted to repeat one thing from one of your slides where you said that restricting access to your content reduces your ability to build your authority in your field. And I think that is something that really is an important incentive for people to openly license. Do you have any examples from the medical school about licensing that you'd like to share? Well, I have one in particular that I'll talk about. That's an example of a hybrid model where there's default Creative Commons license as well as in parallel another list of uses that people can use. In terms of other examples, I would say we don't have one license for all of our resources we let the authors who for the most part are the ones who own copyright decide which license they want to use. And in general, we prefer licenses that allow people to create adaptations. So I'll talk a little bit more about that later. But for us, we really want to encourage people to be able to adapt it to their different contexts. OK. And when you're talking about that, Kathleen, you mean the University of Michigan and its partners. James did have a question. He said, how do you define publicly accessible? That's a very good question. Well, one of the definitions that we use for open content is that anything we have that's shared under an open license should not be behind any sort of login. So for us on our page, we don't even require free login. We want to reduce any technical barriers to accessing content just like we reduce legal barriers by using open license. So the first thing that we do that is we put it on our institutional website. But we also try to promote it as far and wide as possible by working with other search engines like OER Commons, by working with Willow, by working with some of our partner organizations like the Open Education Consortium, and also by sharing our content with other partner institutions who want to make it available locally through their local area network. OK. And Quill says, three cheers for ease of access and lack of logins. Good summary. Yes. Shall we move on to slide 25? All righty. So licenses are essentially contracts that let other people know how they may need a copyrighted work. With licenses, the copyright holders may keep their rights under number five, but then they license any one or any combination of those rights to other individuals or groups. They can sign over all of their rights, but they can kind of distribute them however they want to different audiences. Now on to slide 26. Creative Commons are an example of what we call public non-excludable licenses. So this means that things that are openly licensed to Creative Commons apply to the general public anywhere in the world and that they may exist in parallel with other terms of use for the same work. With Creative Commons licenses, there are four possible conditions that you may choose from, and you can mix and match these four to create six different licenses. One feature which is common to all of them is attribution, or the moral rights to be named as the author of the work. And the attribution clause is often referred to by simply d-y or by or the little person icon. Now on to slide 27. Another option you can choose is non-commercial, which is the currency symbol with a line here, or often abbreviated as NC. Non-commercial at its most common interpretation means that you cannot sell the work for a profit. There's actually a broader range of these interpretations, and if anyone's interested, I'd be glad to point you to some studies by Creative Commons. But essentially, the range of interpretations go from non-commercial means that no money whatsoever can change hands to a more progressive interpretation at the other end, which allows people to charge money as long as they're only doing it to recoup a new cost and not generating any profit. Now on to slide 28, which is the share-alike option. And for me, I think this is one of the hardest ones to understand when I started. Share-alike, which is often abbreviated by either SA or the counterclockwise arrow. This is called a viral clause. It means that any adaptation or any translation into another language, any remix into a different medium or format for anything that directly builds upon and is integrated with original works has to adopt the same exact license. So if, for example, I had chosen this clause for this presentation, and someone who is bilingual and speaks Spanish wants to translate into Spanish, they would have to license their presentation under the exact same license. And if someone wanted to translate into that into another language, they would have to keep the same license and so on. So slide 29 includes the fourth and last condition you may choose. And you can either choose share-alike or you can choose no derivatives. And no derivatives or ND, abbreviated with an equal sign, gives people permission to copyright or distribute the work, but only if they do not alter it anyway. So it means no excerpts, no edits, and no adaptations. Of these four licenses, the CC BY or attribution only is the most flexible. It's the one that we use as a default at Open Michigan. A few years ago, CRETA Commons had a group called CC Learn that focused on open licenses and education. And one of the things that they developed was a handout which explained why they thought the CC BY license should be the default license for OER. And at the end of my presentation, I'll include some links so you can go and look at that document. Kathleen, we had a couple of questions that are answered right now. Is that okay? So this question was from Mary Burgess, and I think it was applying to the share-alike clause. And she asked, does this apply to the creation of new content, not just translations? The short simple answer is yes. So if you say, for example, someone wrote a paper and you wanted to turn it into a book. And you took their work and expanded into something much greater. That adaptation of it would still invoke the share-alike clause. Okay, so any revision to content that had a share-alike clause would need to have the same license on the revision. Yes, that's a very good way to put it. And that Quill also typed something in to the chat window, which I think people sound helpful. Maybe I'll just get really quickly. Recently, someone told me that Creative Commons said that share-alike license is applied only to the part of the new work that uses the original work. This is new to me. I think the concept is that if I modify a picture with an SA license or a share-alike license, the new picture has to be share-alike. But my overall slides don't have to be share-alike, even though I include this picture. This is one of the things why I like talking about this stuff, because I can go from the simple version to the more complex to depend answer. And that's a really good example about if you edit an individual image and you revive the image that is clearly a derivative and invokes the share-alike clause. Now, if you are looking at my presentation and the images, you may have seen that I had some share-alike images. But my presentation itself does not include the share-alike clause. And the reason for that is that when you're putting together something like a PowerPoint presentation, the images actually become part of a collection that creates the presentation. And if you're building a collection, the share-alike clause is not necessarily invoked, because you're not revising the content necessarily. They're including as part of a collection. Great. Thank you. Thank you for that, Kathleen and Quill. Next slide. So slide 30 is an example of a custom license that one of our open textbook authors used. So what I wanted to show you this example is that by default, he selected a Creative Commons license, and he chose the Creative Commons attribution non-commercial share-alike license. As is default, which he included at the beginning of the book. But he also included a list of license exemptions as an appendix at the end of the book. So slide 31 shows you what some of these exemptions are. So in addition to the general Creative Commons license, he gave instructors permission to print some or all of the book for their enrolled students, and they could do it for either commercial or non-commercial usage, as long as they provided attribution. Another additional new T-loud was allowing translations into other languages, which could be in their for commercial or non-commercial usage. And that could be done as long as the translations were licensed under an attribution share-alike license, so that those translations could be shared back with the community. And then slide 32 tells you how he concluded his copyright detail. Lastly, because he still retained copyright, even though he was using these other open licenses, he encouraged people to contact him if they wanted to use some or all of the book for any other use than the ones that he had clearly already stated. Now on to slide 33. For a little bit amount of time that I have left, I want to talk about ways that you can simply integrate open licenses into your work. And on slide 34, you'll see four basic steps. The first step is to select a Creative Commons license that works best for you to use other openly licensed works in your work. So anything not created by you should also be openly licensed. Third, properly attribute the authors of those other works that you broke upon. And fourth, and fourth really key, make sure you ensure your work at the end so that other people can actually have access to it, use it, and adapt it. Slide 35 gives you an example of how you can openly license your work. Just like you don't need to register in order for something to be copyrighted, you don't need to register in order to openly license something. All you need to do is include the license name and link, the year of creation, and the copyright element. And this license information should actually be included on the file itself so that in case someone downloads it, they still have that information readily available. One thing to point out on this slide. You may see that I'm listed as the author, but the copyright owner at the very bottom is actually the regent of the University of Michigan. And at my institution, the default is that the institution holds the rights of the copyright to works created by its employees. You have some exceptions at my institution, which are faculty works, works authored by librarians, or student works created for academic courses are all owned by those individual authors. And this kind of copyright ownership will vary by institution. Slide 36 shows you examples of how you can do attributions within a page. The main thing to remember when you're building on someone else's openly license work is to include the author, to include the title, to include the source, ideally the name as well as the link, and to include the creative comments or other open license information. This can either be done within the page or slide 37 shows you how it can be done at the end of a presentation in a style similar to endless. So I'm on slide 38 now. And what I've tried to do so far is give you a high level overview. But if you're interested in some additional training and practice, slide 39 provides a list of resources developed in Michigan over the past few years. So if you're interested in diving a little deeper, I encourage you to look more at our DTRIB program, which is a model we created for a distributed way of creating open educational resources. It's actually what sparked my interest in OER back in 2008. And one of the things that I spent a lot of time on in terms of facilitating and refining at open Michigan. If you go to this link here, the open.umich.edu, you'll see a number of our templates for how we train others to review materials for both copyright, product endorsement and trademark, and other privacy issues before it can be shared publicly. We also have the course up on the school of open, a number of guides, and even a paper-based activity that takes you about 45 minutes that you can use to train others to simplify the process of walking through how to do copyright clearance and how to attribute openly-liked content. And this process is actually what we've been using for several years to get people new to copyright, new to open educational resources, and in some cases just new to digital publishing, up to speed on the basic things that they need to consider before they share something with a massive or a public audience. Slide 49 is an example of one of the tools or templates that may include as part of this grant training. So this is something we include as the second page of all of our published works, and it explains why we chose to keep certain interviews or other content. And we may choose to keep it because it was clearly created common license or under another open license such as the new free documentation license, which is the legacy license from Wikipedia. It may keep something because it's public domain, and it could be public domain because the work is old and had a copyright term that expired. It could be in the public domain because the copyright holder has actually given up all of their rights and dedicated to the public domain. Or in the U.S., something may be in the public domain because it was authored by the U.S. federal government. There's also a category at the bottom. You can see that we call Make Your Own Assessment. And those are resources which are not clearly licensed, and we don't have explicit permission, but there are other reasons why we can use them in our work. And it may be because it's ineligible for copyright, and that it shows no elements of creative expression. So my example earlier of a standard representation of a chemical form would be something that's in that category. Occasionally, it may also keep something under for you if it's been established to be standard practice that are used to be fair, such as including a thumbnail or screenshot as an illustration example accompanying text. So finally, the takeaways that I hope you got from my presentation now here on slide 42 are that all rights are reserved to default, and you're allowed certain expressions to use all rights reserved content in the closed restricted audience of a classroom. But once you share it publicly or with a massive audience, you need permission. And what open licenses do is they allow you to use, exchange, and remix educational materials both legally and globally. So the key that I hope you take away is that what you create is relevant to others. So by incorporating openly licensed or public domain content into your work and licensing your work, you can amplify the visibility and impact of your creation all while keeping your copyright and all while being attributed. So now I'm onto my closing slide 43, and I want to thank you very much for your attention today. You can see here our email address as well as our website, how you can connect on Facebook, and you can also download all of my slides as well as a video I have on my speaker notes for today. So I think we have about eight minutes or so for questions if you want to open it up. All right. Thank you so much, Kathleen. So in working with Kathleen this last week, she very graciously agreed to do a YouTube video of this presentation in case our internet connection and phone lines didn't work from Ethiopia. So I will put that link in if Kathleen doesn't. I've got it here someplace. Oh, yes, there it is. So once again, you can share this video of this presentation with your colleagues immediately. So thanks so much for being with us today, Kathleen, and sharing all that great information and also for providing that video immediately. We, of course, always archive our webinars as well and they'll be captioned, which is nice, but it takes about a week, so this is really simple. I'm just going to finish up here with slides. I'm from the Community College Consortium. So once again, the Community College Consortium provides webinars and workshops on finding and adopting open textbooks, understanding open licenses. Thank you, Kathleen, for helping us with that today. Online accessibility, faculty and student surveys, and overall access to our community of OER practitioners and experts. And we had over 40 folks from our community on today. Please let me know if you would like to join our community, our online community, by sending me an email. And I just put my email address in there. And stay in the loop with us. Here's a couple of upcoming conferences. We'll be filling more of these in over the fall, but we have one in San Diego, California, coming up in mid-June, which is our California Community College Online Teaching Conference, an excellent conference for those of you who are active in online or would like to get active in online teaching. And we'll be doing several presentations there on how to find and adopt OER. Also, hope to see everyone at the Open Education Conference in November. Once again, we meet monthly on a more informal basis. Our next meeting is next Wednesday, where community members come together, ask questions, and present their projects on a very informal basis. And our webinars will restart again in the fall. So we hope to see you either over the summer or in the fall. And now I have put both Kathleen and my email address in the whiteboard. And we are open for questions for the next five minutes. While we're waiting for questions to come in, let's see. We've got one from Kathleen here. Kathleen, this is from Cynthia. If I can get my college to caption your YouTube video, would you give permission to do this? Well, I already gave her permission in advance because it's Creative Commons Attribution License. Great. So that would be wonderful. If she captioned the YouTube video, please send them to me. So I will upload them to our YouTube channel. Yeah. So Kathleen, we can talk about that as well, because we will caption the live portion of the video as well. OK. Super. And let's see. Amanda says, can you describe the difference between attribution and citation? Is she like a librarian? He corrected us on our use of this a few years ago. He was a librarian. Well, we have this on our website. And I'm actually starting to think that's online right now. So I can't pull up the official version on our website. I can go to open.unit.edu slash share slash view, I believe. You can see artistation of it. And how we learned about the difference is that citation refers to a very sort of scholarly form of acknowledging someone else's work. So it would be something like note that ILA or MLA format important to consider resource like an unknown form. And attribution is much more informal. So attribution generally just refers to acknowledging who actually created another work. Great. Thank you, Kathleen. We also had a librarian from the state who piped in and said almost exactly the same thing in our chat window. So thank you for that. OK. Good. I'm glad I mentioned her. OK. And I've been reminded. And I'm very pleased to say that the University of Michigan is a sustaining member of the Open Education Consortium. And we're very grateful for their support not only this morning, but on an ongoing basis to help us promote open education throughout the world. So please take that back with you, Kathleen, to your folks. One earlier question I saw, which I think scrolled off the screen now, but someone asked if you could just explain one more time the difference between share alike and no derivatives. Well, when you're choosing to create a common license and you can combine those four to create six, you never actually have a combination that includes both share alike and no derivatives. Because what no derivatives does is it tells people they can copy it. And they can either copy it for commercial uses or non-commercial uses, depending on it, whether or not the NC clause is mixed in there. But all this is just copy it. They can't actually revise it or make any other monstrous issues for content. And what share alike does is it allows people to modify the content. But it means two modifications that they make have to keep that same share like clause within it. So if something starts with an open resource and someone else builds on it, it keeps that share like license and everything will happen. Thank you for that, Kathleen. Are you still there? You know, I appreciate Kathleen's explanation. I didn't actually realize. I think I forgot that you can't have ND and SA on the same license. So thank you for that. I think we lost Kathleen. So unfortunately, we're just about at the end here. Kathleen says, sorry, call just stopped. I got that over Skype. So I want to thank Kathleen once again for an amazing presentation today. And I want to thank all of you for coming. I hope you have a wonderful summer and we'll see you early in the fall with our webinars restarting. If you have any questions that didn't get answered today, please do contact Kathleen or me at the email addresses on the screen and we'd be happy to either answer those or direct you to folks who can. So thanks once again. I appreciate your time this morning. And I'll turn off the recorder.