 Sounds good. All right. Well, welcome everyone to the Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources Fall 2019 webinar on Copyright and Licensing with OER. I'm Matthew Bloom. I'm the OER Coordinator at the Maricopa County Community College District in the Phoenix, Arizona area. And I'm also one of the Vice Presidents for Professional Development with CCCOER, and I'll be moderating a panel discussion today. So I will introduce our panelists, and then we will talk a little bit very briefly about who we are at the Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources. And then, Gen. Wetzler from Creative Commons will provide a flash review of the different Creative Commons licenses. And then we'll have a panel discussion, which we hope to be somewhat interesting and avoiding some of the two complicated discussions, but actually at the same time engaging in some of the nuances of the Creative Commons licenses and how they work with all the work that we're doing for open education at our different institutions. Just as a reminder, you will have the opportunity to ask some questions. Hopefully we'll have some time at the end. If you do have some questions, feel free to enter them into the chat window. I cannot guarantee that we'll get to them all, but hopefully we'll have some time at the end for that. And past that, we'll talk about a few resources that you have and ways that you can stay in contact with us. So without further ado, I would like to turn it over to our speakers for today to introduce themselves. Annalie, would you like to start? Sure. Hi, everyone. I'm Annalie Mon-Perry. I'm a Scholarly Communication Librarian at Arizona State University, which means that I specialize in Scholarly Publishing, Copyright, Fair Use, and All Things Open. Thank you. And Kelsey? Hi, I'm Kelsey Smith. I am the Open Educational Resource Librarian at West Hills College in Lemor. And since most people don't know where Lemor is, it's sort of in the middle of nowhere, California, about 30 miles south of Fresno, so Central Valley. My job, sort of my daily duties are working individually with faculty and in groups. I work exclusively with OER, and I don't really do a lot of that normal librarian type stuff. And most of my job involves searching for OER. Great, thank you. And Jenren? Hi, thanks for having me. I am the Assistant Director of Open Education at Creative Commons and love connecting with folks who have run through the CC certificate course. I know some of you are here and also working with a lot of you who are in the audience. So it's just an honor to be here. Well, thank you very much. I think that we have a lot of interest in this webinar today because hearing from a few experts about the nuances, the intricacies of Creative Commons licensing is a very popular topic. We found a lot of interest in it, so it seems like it's going to be pretty engaging. So first of all, like I said, feel free to introduce yourselves in the chat window. A lot of you have already done that. Last time I looked, we had almost 90 people logged in right now to the webinar, but feel free to introduce yourself. And like I said, if you have any questions, go ahead and put them into the chat window and we'll try to either incorporate that into the discussion as we go or have a little bit of time at the end if we have that opportunity. And just as a reminder, if some of you are perhaps new to the CCC OER webinars, the Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources is a subgroup of the Global Open Education Consortium. And our goals are to expand awareness and access to high quality OER, support faculty choice and faculty development, and also provide some regional leadership for open education, all of course with the goal of improving student success. And we have been doing webinars for several years. Now they are archived on our website. You can go check out webinars going all the way back to, if I remember correctly, I think 2012. So there's quite a bit of interesting discussions and great resources that you can find on the website there. We also have memberships from all across the United States. We have several new members here and maybe some representatives from those institutions might be on the webinar today. So congratulations to the new members and thank you for joining with us. And if you are interested in more details about CCC OER or about how to become a member, you can always check out our website to find out that information. So without further ado, I will go ahead and turn this over to General Wetzler, who will provide us with a little bit of an overview on the basics of Creative Commons, the difference between all rights reserved and some rights reserved for those of us in the audience who may need a refresher on those basics or may be very new to Creative Commons license. So, General, take it away. Thanks so much. Well, first I want to recognize that there are plenty of people in the audience who also have far more expertise than I do. So if anybody has questions about what I'm saying or any revisions to what I'm saying, please feel free to type that in the chat space. So simply put, we're in an information abundant era as Cable Green also in the audience likes to say. What that means is we have this really incredible moment in time where we our landscape for information sharing has changed with internet and what that means is online connectivity has broken down the traditional barriers of geography, of our time and access that's traditionally kind of stunted our communication flows. But copyright or laws that grant exclusive rights to creators over their creations was built for the printing press and the information system that existed in that era of the printing press. So copyright was a way to incentivize creators despite the intensive labor, the expensive and limited print copies that were available in that era. And I'm actually I'm going to pause right there and copy and paste pretty good definition of copyright with a caveat in the chat space in case anybody wants a little bit more information. All right, I'm not sure if that's okay. So we now have this opportunity to share works far more easily and at near zero cost online and scale the number of people reached with these works on far more easily. But our current copyright system has not adapted beyond that kind of lack of adaptation. We're seeing other restrictions to this copyright system. So we see increased prices for published textbooks, the rise of subscription prices for publications. And not only are there increased costs, but there's also an increased amount of time that works remain under copyright. So in the 1990s, the US, for example, extended the copyright protections over works from life of the author plus 50 years to life of the author plus 70 years, which means it's almost at times, it takes almost two lifetimes to access the really wonderful resources that could be at our fingertips for reuse for innovation and for learning. So I think this presents us with a pretty significant challenge and many, many people recognize that there is that these restrictions despite the ease of information sharing in this current era is untenable. So there are a number of different ways to address this challenge. And I would argue that some ways are a little bit more effective than others. And I want to pause there and just recognize the difference between one set of ways versus another that might seem more similar on the surface. A lot of times people will hear about free resources and they'll also hear about open resources, open educational resources, open access to information and so on. But these are actually two very different terms that have very different connotations. So free, for example, might sound really good. But oftentimes in this this kind of ecosystem, it masks the transfer of costs from incurred within this kind of traditional copyright system incurred by one party that are kind of transferred to another party. So an example of that would be when students get access to free textbooks or academic journals. This is not actually free because universities actually pay for subscription bundles to these academic journals and they ultimately get their funds for for this from tuition from students. So this is an example of how free is not exactly what we're looking for when we're we're looking at open. Open, on the other hand, refers to unfettered access or access to resources in formats that allow for free download at the adaptation and improvements. It also refers to no time restrictions in accessing those resources either. So open is completely different from free, but it's often kind of mistaken for for free at times or freeze mistaken for open. So how do we actually open access to resources? This is where the CC licenses come into play. And I will recognize that there are other licenses that are open licenses, but Creative Commons has the the global standard for these open licenses that are also interoperable. So with open licenses right off the bat, creators can execute their own rights and grant permissions to other others that want to access their works. They can provide unfettered access or retain certain rights as needed. So CC licenses are kind of considered some rights reserved as opposed to the all rights reserved of copyright licenses. So I think on my screen, I'm seeing Matt Bloom's contact information, but I expect everyone else is able to see the CC licenses here. I'll just spend a moment to give a quick overview about the CC licenses, and if anybody is curious about learning more, I'm happy to follow up after this discussion. Okay, so there are six different licenses that Creative Commons affords. These are all contingent on four basic license elements. And so you can see that there are kind of four icons here that are kind of mixed together. So our first element is the CC by element or attribution element that is common on all of the licenses. It basically means that you can use an open licensed work as long as you give attribution to the licensor, generally the creator, but sometimes it's different. So that attribution element is kind of at the core of all of these licenses. You also have a share alike or SA icon, and it's the little arrow circle. This references our ability to work with open licensed works and use them, but the requirement to share works with the same or comparable license. So you cannot, for example, add on additional restrictions to a work with a share alike license as you remix it. We also have our non-commercial element, which means you cannot use an open licensed work with this non-commercial icon for commercial purposes. And I think we'll probably get into that a little bit more in the discussion later on. And then finally, we have the no derivatives element. And this means that you are entitled to use the work that is openly licensed with the no derivatives clause, but you cannot share any adaptations of that publicly. So while you may be able to make an adaptation of, say, a play or an image for your own personal use, you cannot share that personal use because it changes the license. So these are the four elements that undergird the six different license options or the six ways to provide permissions for downstream users of open licensed works. So when creators want to determine what they want their works to, how they want their works to be used, they can select one of these six licenses. And you can actually learn more about which license may be most suitable for you with our CC license chooser. And I'll get a link for that and post in the chat space. Here it is. So if we can go to the next slide, here you'll see the kind of the sliding scale of open. So this is a demonstration of how our licenses can roam from very open unfettered access to much more limited access to eventually get to all rights reserved access or all rights reserved copyright at the bottom. I will make a note that at the top you see our public domain tools or icons for public domain dedications. These are technically not licenses because the public domain is the kind of the vast pool of human knowledge that exists outside of the restrictions of copyright. So these are considered tools. The rest of the six licenses that you see are they work in copyright. So they work with those restrictions. So here you see those licenses going from CC buy to the very most restrictive license at the bottom to copyright. I'm realizing in terms of timing I'll stop there but happy to answer any questions about the licenses and how to use them during the discussion and following the discussion. Well that's great. Thank you. Yeah thank you very much, Jenren. I think that that is extremely helpful because like I said we have maybe some people on the call who are experts at Creative Commons licensing, far surpassing whatever you know small amount of expertise I might have and then there are also maybe some folks who really need the kind of reminder about some of the basics and that actually brings me to one of my first questions which I'll get to in a moment. I just want to say that one of the kind of basic requirements of all of the six Creative Commons licenses or actually the basic requirement is the need for attribution and I'm sure that a lot of us over the course of the next you know 45 minutes or 40 minutes will probably have questions about how to attribute and what's one of the best practices for that and we decided to actually just provide you with a set of resources for you know best practices for attribution how to build the attribution itself some tools for that and so there's a slide later on that is dedicated to some of these resources for attribution although feel free to share specific questions in the chat window. I did want to start the panel discussion you know after kind of having this this primer focused on all you know the basics copyright and the need for open licensing and how the open licenses work along with existing copyright law I felt like it would be a good idea to start with a very basic question or I guess suite of questions focused on this really I think interesting word work so again I almost I just want to say I almost put a slide in this presentation with like a picture of like a bunch of lawyers in a room to say like you know just to kind of like preface the whole thing and saying like we are not lawyers right nobody on this at least to my knowledge nobody on participating in this webinar is a lawyer so you know it's all prefaced with that kind of caveat that that these are just kind of opinions about how how the licenses work but it would nonetheless I think be very valuable for us to draw from our experiences and for you specifically on on the panel to draw from your experiences working with OER working with faculty at your institutions or with other organizations um working with people who are uh or thinking about the experiences that you've had with the open licensing and just give us a general sense and and I'll just leave this open to whoever kind of wants to jump in and respond but what do we mean when we talk about work like what is a work and then I've also heard other terms collective work I've heard obviously derivative work is something we'll be talking about so wondering if someone on the panel would be interested in kind of providing an answer or a set of answers to these questions here sure I'll go ahead and jump in um since copyright's one of my uh one of my hobbies I suppose you're absolutely right I'm not a lawyer um so when we look at works for copyright we look at things that can be protected by copyright and these are often things that are original works of authorship that can be fixed in a tangible medium of expression and this can cover a lot of different types of things um a lot of the things that we normally think about in education such as textbooks learning objects videos slide decks um and other sorts of things but there are some things that under that might not be protected by copyright that we might still consider a work so certain types of facts and data may not be protected by copyright or procedures or processes now they might be protected by a different type of intellectual property but they're not protected by copyright um so you know works can be a whole bunch of different types of things and some can be larger works some can be smaller works sometimes it could just be like a brief essay sometimes it can be an entire documentary right so there's lots of different sizes here uh when we look at a collective work that is often a group of different types of works that have been pulled together and they may be authored by a bunch of different people or they may be group authored where there's a bunch of people working together to make kind of a unified whole as opposed to pulling together a bunch of different kinds of works that are authored by different people not necessarily intending for it to be put together and mixed up into one cohesive bit um a derivative work is something specifically mentioned in copyright law as something is one of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder and that is building from one you know starting with one type of work and building to another type so a really good example would be I have a a work that I created and I want to translate it to another language so that would be um that would be a derivative work or perhaps I am starting with a uh a lecture that I've presented and I have a bunch of maybe a slide deck but now I want to take that slide deck and make it into an interactive tutorial that would be a derivative work as well so I'll start there and see if any of the other panelists want to jump in I don't think I could have said it any better than that um I just wanted to add on another example of what a collective work is and one that I see very often at the community college level um our faculty often um compile a lot of OER on our LMS which is Canvas and so that would be considered a collective work so they may apply a CC license to their whole course but there are so many different OER are like compiled into that so they may have videos images texts all of that organized into an online course so that would be an example of a collective work and I don't have anything else to add to that I think the the one kind of side note um in terms of derivatives we also sometimes refer to them as remixes or adaptations so if you hear people talking about derivatives or remixes or adaptations they at least in in my context we use them interchangeably that's great thank you so much now there are there are a couple questions um a thread of of kind of questions going on in the chat window right now that I think would be definitely appropriate to expand on this a little bit um it was brought up the the point I think believe it was buddy muse said to copyright to be copyrighted the work must be in tangible form as well um and then the response from um Andrea Troncoso was what counts as tangible obviously can't simply mean physical otherwise everything would digital would be open so would someone on the panel like to maybe address this question what do we mean when we talk about a work being in a fixed form or in a tangible form can we just kind of flesh out that definition just a little bit sure so we usually mean when we say fixed in a tangible form of expression it means that it has to be saved and in a format that can then be accessed later so um if I take a picture with my phone and it's on my phone that counts as a tangible form of expression if I save a document on my computer or uh in the cloud somewhere that also counts so it's really that has to be able to be preserved in some way that when you you can come back to it a later date you can share it with other people and it will still exist in that kind of state that it was in when you saved it right excellent I think that's very helpful um it also occurs to me that that we may end up addressing at some point in this discussion a definition of what it was like what does it mean to publish or share something too uh because it could just very well be that you so and maybe I'll just ask the panel this right now if I were to create a document on my computer uh you know and without the intention of ever sharing it I would still own the copyright and automatically for that work correct yeah you ask yep yeah so one of the questions that we had following up to this when we talk about a collective work or a derivative work I want to thank um Nate Angel actually for his um I some of us on on participating here in this webinar may be familiar with this analogy um that he's shared uh about remixing comparing the different ways that you can either uh curate creative commons license works in a way like this this would be like the tray would be kind of the collective work and then you know the individual compartments on the tray are the various you know I guess ingredients in the meal but they have their different licenses and you can clearly distinguish one from the other because you've got very solid boundaries there um the comparison between this kind of curation of openly licensed materials with uh what he calls the the cc smoothie um wherein you know it's the remix process you know putting it in the blender basically right you're creating this lumpy paste and it's it's virtually impossible at that point to tell where the strawberry ends and the banana begins and so thus in this smoothie the ingredient with the most restrictive license tends to overpower the beverage um I think my question here um because I've found this to be a very helpful analogy uh but my question is is the distinction always that clear uh are there situations where the blender maybe has only been you know pulsed like once or twice and there's big chunks of you know apple or something in there or is or is any blending at all going to require the application of the more restrictive license and another way to ask that question would be just in general you know where do we draw the line between curation of works and the creation of a remix or a derivative work I'm happy to jump in with the first stab so this is actually a really challenging question that comes up a lot in our certificate course on open licensing at creative commons and it's not always clear I think there there are a lot of cases where it's hard to determine originality and a lot of times what constitutes originality actually depends on a country's applicable law so I'm going to post a link to um a little bit more information on that if you're curious um I would say because the the lines can be blurry in our course we end up emphasizing um attribution first and foremost so if you if you do a good job attributing the content then it's almost it's almost secondary whether the content is collection content or remix content I'm not saying it's not important I'm just saying it can be very difficult to determine I was just gonna oh go ahead you go okay I'm just going to say that um there with there is no clear line and nobody really likes a chunky smoothie like we want it to be either a smoothie or a tv dinner and um and like you said you know no matter what you will have to attribute every one of those ingredients that you are using um so it's really it's so situation dependent it's it's pretty difficult to answer um so go ahead Emily I was just going to say that you know a lot of these questions are copyright you know everybody who loves copyright we always have the same answer to most questions is it depends so it's so hard to determine like how far is it like if I take a work um that is perhaps like a meme right I have a picture and I have some images on it and maybe I want to use or some words on it and I want to use it in a different presentation and me but I want to change the word how much of a change is that like how key are the the words to that image and that's a hard thing to determine like I might argue well it's not that big of a change maybe I'm changing one word maybe it doesn't really count as a full derivative or adaptation it's just a really minor change but I think that gendron's point to being really clear in your attribution and articulating what you did change that's kind of the key piece right yes I use this here's where it came from only my version had a different word here um so that nobody kind of mixes up what I'm doing versus what I took it from okay well thank you very much I mean so again it's maybe not always the most satisfying thing to to hear that the answer is it depends but it's just true and I and I appreciate that very much um I would like to shift a little bit to a question about fair use and how fair use this this concept of defending your I guess violation of somebody else's intellectual property rights is as fair use or fair dealing how does that work with creative commons licensing so for example if I were to um you know let me just ask like this is it possible to apply a creative commons license to a work in which you are fairly using all rights reserved content because I have I for one and I know some other people as well but I know that I found myself at one point under the impression that creative commons licenses in fair use defenses you know didn't didn't really work together like if you were going to put a creative commons license on something then you can't you shouldn't be like you know fairly using that work although I have been corrected in that in that misinterpretation of it so I'm just wondering what um you know is it possible to apply that kind of a creative commons license to a work where you're fairly using something and if so what considerations are necessary um I like the answer to this would be a yes but um so if you are using depending on fair use for a few things within a work maybe a collection you can apply a creative commons license to that but um you need to be very clear in what is being used fairly so um you need to be clear on if you are using something that's protected under all rights reserved copyright that you make that distinction that your creative commons license does not apply to that section um this I never encourage this among faculty that I work with if they are using diagrams or videos in their course that they want to share out openly that they then replace those with hyperlinks before sharing out um there is also a no to this question if you are using a like a whole pdf home um in your course that is all rights reserved copyright and you're relying on fair use you cannot apply a creative commons to something that you don't own the copyright to so a no and a yes but yeah I would agree with that and I really love to highlight so one thing to really consider is that um traditional publishers rely on fair use all the time for commercial uses right and we have big studios we have textbooks they use rely on fair use and so there's really nothing that prevents us from doing so with creative commons and open education content um I really appreciated um Kelsey's comment about making sure that you make it clear that this content this copyrighted content is excluded from our uh open license and then there's a really great um code of best practice in fair use for open courseware that came out in 2009 I'm going to post the link to that here in the chat um and this specifically addresses um these codes of fair use can really provide great guidance for common situations in open um situations and or so they provide good guidance for these different best practices and situations so you'll see that this is a common situation that happens in this environment and here's how fair use can apply um if your situation is very similar to this this fair use argument may work as well for you so even though you always have to do your own fair use uh justification for your use yes things can be different um there's always little individual changes but these codes of best practice can provide a lot of guidance thanks I'm looking forward to seeing that um resource myself um yeah I think the one thing that I wanted to reiterate is that creative commons licenses do not replace other copyright licenses and fair use is a limitation to copyright so um I don't I don't see fair use as um a good bad fellow or a bad fellow bad bad fellow um I think there are two separate things creative commons licenses and copyright can be restricted or can um have the limitation of fair use excellent I think that um those are great responses and again you know highlighting some of the complexity here but also I think helping to clarify maybe some misperceptions that that might be out there um I do have a question about other kinds of open content licenses um I guess just just to ask the question directly should we be remixing creative commons licensed content with work made available under other open licenses or even work that has been published with a non-standard permission statement as um you know we we probably have all seen at one time or another for example an educator maybe before creative commons existed you know somebody might have created a website you know a teaching blog or something and and put content on that and then down at the bottom just written in very much non-lawyer language um something along lines of well feel free to use this as long as you're doing it for x and y and not blah blah so I'm just wondering what um you know should we be remixing content like that um and if so what should we consider I'm happy to jump in with a quick thought on this um so I think when you are trying to look at the interoperability of copyright permissions you need a copyright lawyer so if you are going to try to remix or if you're trying to kind of merge these permissions um it's going to get very messy especially for lay people um like us um so I I would argue that it's it's not a good idea um I think a really good thing about the creative commons licenses is um they are interoperable you don't have to initiate a legal conversation with a lawyer every time you need to use or remix them I can definitely see some hesitation and I think that um that's absolutely right but I guess I would also argue two two quick things is that um for one thing if somebody's kind of giving some permission in advance even if it's not a standard license but if they say pretty clearly on their blog or something like that saying you're free to use this for this type of purpose um I think that it would be okay if you're using it for that kind of purpose but again you would want to make sure that you're clear in your attribution and your documentation that I'm using this by permission seen on this page um and I would also say something like and I guess the other thing is if you felt uncomfortable doing that here's where it's fine to ask for permission we can always do that and if and if you're looking at somebody's blog where they're giving that permission then you're in an enviable place where you think that you know who the copyright owner is at that point um and so you can always contact them and ask them for permission. Yeah I was also going to mention that and I've done that before where I wasn't completely clear on what the person was allowing and not allowing and uh I know that's not always possible maybe the person doesn't work for wherever or they have passed away but it doesn't hurt to reach out and especially if you plan on mixing it with a lot of other credit common license things you can tell them what your intent is and if it matches with what they planned for their work and yeah so it doesn't hurt to reach out. Well all right I mean so I think that that's great because at first it sounded like we shouldn't do it but then at the same time it really is a matter of the ability to contact the original author is a great potential recourse and I guess as a follow-up question if an author and again I don't know if there's even really like a solid answer to this possible but and I know you're not lawyers but if someone had published something in that way with a non-standard you know just expression of permission to use under certain circumstances and then you reached out to them is it appropriate and or possible to ask that person to release that content under an open license um and if so would it is is it not can is it possible that the license that they apply could conflict with what they had written the non-standard description before? Does that make sense? That makes sense to me I I think it would um like any other communication that you might have with a creator getting a sense of what they what they intend is um it's definitely possible and if they're willing to apply a sec license um great I think if it it likely as conversation unfolds it it could open up some conflicting permissions but again that that's probably more um an indication that just additional communications needed rather than an indication of um less communication needed I guess we're shying away from it. Well great so one of the questions that I whenever I do any kind of workshop about open educational resources or um in a lot of discussions that I have with faculty just as you know in the kind of support that I give in my job um one of the questions has to do with interpreting the non-commercial um licenses so the question that I have here I think there might be some confusion sometimes about when a use is considered commercial and I'm sure there's a lot of there are a lot of resources out there to kind of help us look at cases case studies and things like that but I'm wondering um you know how do we draw the line between commercial and non-commercial use when working with bookstores or print-on-demand services and and I guess and I know that this is kind of a nebula of questions here but um you know what about some of these other you know case examples what about the use of you know non-commercial content at uh for profit for profit institutions or charter schools or when soliciting donations um I was wondering if anyone could respond to these or maybe even provide a specific example where you have dealt with um you know kind of working out one of uh you know an issue related to the non-commercial clause um I wanted to mention that that the non-commercial license was actually purposely written sort of vague um because it's so situation dependent and that line there's no real solid line it's pretty blurry and um so from my understanding there's been some court cases and things about this um with as far as bookstores go they let's go let's do print shops first so a print shop you are allowed to um use a print-on-demand service um part of the Creative Commons license is giving you the ability to share and reproduce a work and you sometimes cannot do that without a print shop um so print shops are okay to use that's not considered commercial um what you cannot do is then um say your bookstore wants to print out an OER book that's non-commercial they can't mark that up highly they can mark up the price enough to do some cost recovery but nothing more than that and that's kind of been my understanding on the non-commercial in colleges um and then I will let someone else take away the second part of that question I'm happy to jump in um so I think the kind of a helpful distinction is um also noting that you're looking at use not the actual user so the if the intended use of the non-commercial um licensed work ends up being commercial then you're violating the license if the intended purpose or use is um is um a commercial venture for say a non-profit then you're violating the license if the intended purpose is non-commercial but it's being used at a um at like IBM or another um commercial venture then you are not violating the the license so it's really not about the the user it's about the intended use of the license I'm not sure if that made any sense but um I think you can you can have for-profit entities using non-commercial licensed um works without infringing on the rights well thank you very much for for everyone for um you know going and into some of this uh these philosophical discussions or I guess in some of the the nuances as I as I keep saying about them um this first set of questions that I had uh the questions we have addressed so far from what is it work to the questions about remixing and fair use and everything these were kind of all focused on drawing lines between definitions and and kind of looking at at some of those details but I was also there were there's there's a couple of quite one question in particular that um has emerged in discussions that I've had with folks you know whether at you know the open education conference or or you know various times what I've met with people who are trying to make these open education initiatives happen in higher education and a question that comes up has to do with intellectual property policies I mean different institutions will inevitably have different policies regarding the intellectual property rights of content developed by their faculty uh and staff and so to your knowledge how have some colleges dealt with issues or conflicts related to intellectual property policies and I think that's that's the part one of the question part two of the question is even more direct and it's you know should faculty and staff be releasing their work under Creative Commons licenses when no explicit OER policy language exists at their institution I think this is a great question I know that I've been working with our Office of General Counsel to try to clarify our intellectual property policies uh with respect to being able to apply Creative Commons licensed creative common licenses to our work so I think a key thing to consider is you should know what your what your intellectual property policy is and I think everybody who wants to create their own work and apply a Creative Commons license to it needs to understand what types of their works where they own the copyright and which ones are considered a work for hire where their employer owns the copyright and that's typically spelled out in either your employment contract or your institution's intellectual property policy and often it's kind of there's some gray lines where they may say something like well your syllabus and lecture and course content and learning objects that you submit to your students those are the work you do in the course and scope of your employment and that's your work for hire we own the copyright to that but if you do textbooks or you're doing scholarly publishing in your field we like to encourage you to do that and so you own the copyright to those works so and sometimes that's a gray line how do you draw a line between I'm making a textbook but I'm building it out of a bunch of modules that I created for my course so I think that you know the first you need to consider what it is and then secondly if you want to release a creative your work under Creative Commons license often there's procedures where you could work with your department head your dean your office of general counsel and say look I know that what you really care about is that you don't want me to take my stuff with me when I go so I'm not going to do that I just want to apply a Creative Commons license to it is there a process by which I can do that because I have to have the copyright in order to apply that license and so you have to clarify that process but I wouldn't just slap it on there without having that conversation and just from a perspective of a very small rural community college and others out there's out there where the intellectual property policies aren't really written and if OER is new on your campus there's probably no mention of open licensing in there so at West Hills we do have an administrative procedure that sort of mentions it but nobody was really educated on it at the time and it is going under revision and it did state that you know if you wanted to open the license something that had to be CC by and then you know faculty didn't really like that so but one thing I wanted to mention was it's a good idea to check if your state has some sort of policy our California Community College Chancellor's Office actually requires that anything funded by grants or contracts out of the Chancellor's Office must be released under a CC by license so that would you know proceed any of our language that we would have here on the college so if the work an instructor did was funded from the Chancellor's Office it would need to be released under CC by license kind of no matter what was going on here at campus so that's just something to be aware of you may have a state policy and just sort of be aware where the funding is coming from I have nothing to add on on the second half of that question I think you both covered it really well on the first part of your question Matt I you were asking a little bit more about some institutions who have dealt with conflicts related to IP or maybe some examples that we could share and I don't have many examples but I did want to share a recent case that I was aware of that was pretty interesting so basically there's been a legal case against Harvard for using images of slaves for a commercial profit and the lawsuit and I'll post the article right here the lawsuit says that the images are spoils of theft because the slaves and the images were unable to give consent so the descendants of the slaves in the images have may have rights to the IP so anyway a fascinating case I know there are a number of different colleges that have similar challenges but this this one really came to the top of my mind thank you that does sound very interesting I'm wondering if so we're getting pretty close to the end here and I want to leave about five minutes to go over that list of resources for attribution and some some just other brief little details about how you can stay connected with CCC OER before we do that the last question that I shared with with every with everyone on the panel or the last thing I was asking people to bring was maybe think about some kind of an experience that you've had a specific challenging or interesting experience that you've had working with open licenses so this is just very much open intended in in terms of you know your response but I'm wondering if anyone on the panel has any you know experience that sticks out to you from your time dealing with with the nuances of open licensing that you think you'd like to share happy to jump in so I think one of the challenging elements that I've seen in my previous job was not not particularly around the actions required for an open licensing requirement within federal grants it was at the time at the state department working on federal grant requirements for open licenses so it wasn't the actual implementation or actions needed but actually the the behavior change so I think with likely with any behavior change the biggest hurdle is often that kind of initial that initial mindset and addressing the underlying assumptions and mindset before change can happen so we we found a lot of different stakeholders that felt threatened by change and by what what loss it represented to them so I think one of the the quotes I I really like is that change represents loss to to someone so I think what we found was after months and months of work actually with cable and and other folks in the open community at the time we were getting nowhere with with kind of the resistance against our our work and kind of this this larger work that we were a part of creating a federal open licensing playbook just a playbook a set of guidelines for other federal stakeholders to understand how they could open license other cases of open licensing activity within the federal government and so on the resistance to that in particular was so so strong that the real takeaway for me was that that much of the focus has to be on that kind of like empathy and acknowledgement of loss for stakeholders within a system or at least perceived loss that that they have so I'm not sure if that is clear but the the challenge for me anyway it was more with the behavioral change and less with the actual open license that part was easy I saw a lot too there's a lot of resistance from people because it's a big change and a lot of the challenge I had was sort of educating our faculty on what these licenses really are and they're not a threat you know and they always wanted to choose the most restrictive one and what's been interesting is seeing somebody who really had no interest or was openly licensing their work but very restrictively which they're you know they are free to do and then a few years later seeing them dive real deep into OER and there we have people trying to develop VR psychology openly licensed stuff now and there's just that whole transition on campus yeah I guess I think some of the biggest challenges is finding the tension between you know a lot of people that want to support open education or open access and want to make their content available and they want to make use it and reuse it in different ways but there's a definite concern by a lot of academics that look I want to make this out there but I am concerned about commercial energies coming in and taking my work and then selling it and kind of ruining all this good contribution to the commons that I want to make and the non-commercial you know use does address that to some extent but then it can also be limited limiting in the kind of work and same with the share like so sometimes it's that tension like how do you pick the license that's going to best suit your intention for giving permission and access to your work well thank you very much all three of you on the panel for participating in this discussion and sharing your thoughts I think that so far based on that some of the other very interesting discussions going on in the chat somebody just asked whether or not the the full text of the chat will be shared and I will leave it up to Una to determine that but I think it would probably be fine and there so there were some other discussions going on in there and some great questions and resources shared so thank you everyone for participating this has been I think very interesting very enlightening in some ways as promised here is a list of some OER and licensing resources specifically there are a few in here when you look at the creative commons best practices for attribution you can use the open washington attribution builder which is like a really nice tool that you can use to kind of help you build the attributions if you need it there's all kinds of great resources on this page here that we encourage you to check out and try to utilize and finally of course or maybe not quite finally but remember that there's conferences coming up from the open education conference to the OEC global conference on and go to the website under get involved to see about those opportunities and if you are not on the CCC OER community email you do not have to be a member of CCC OER to join that email and I will tell you that while you get maybe 15 to 20 extra emails a day they are usually some of the most interesting emails you're likely to get some really interesting discussions in the open education community take place on that listserv so I do encourage you to join the community email to stay informed and to also you know find out about new resources that folks are sharing on a regular basis there and we also have our blog posts on the website as well if you want to check out some additional information about projects and experiences from folks in the open education community and last the shameless plug for the rest of our webinars in the in this fall series we've already done our two so far the first two but we've got one on october 16th about equity diversity and inclusion in OER following that November with a webinar focused on research studies looking at the impact that OER has on various metrics and then at the end of the semester we thought because of all the great opportunities for conferences this the this fall specifically the two that I mentioned we will be focusing that final webinar on kind of kind of doing a recap and providing some of our members a chance to reflect on their experiences and presentations at those conferences so we do encourage you to register early and join us for those and if you have any additional questions feel free to contact well according to this slide not me but feel free to contact me if you want Lisa Young and to Asu Tashjin are the co-presidents of CCC OER, Una Daley is the director and Liz is a support specialist and I thank you again for attending and have a great day