Home » Posts tagged 'creative commons'
Tag Archives: creative commons
|From E-Learning V|
I clicked on this to find an image of a brain for my last post. Many of the images in Pixabay are from commercial operations such as Shuttershock ; their images have a great big digital watermark across them and a request to pay a large subscription fee. On the other hand, I did find the image of neurons below that does the job and has the Creative Commons Non-Attribution Distribution rights – i.e. use as you please without the need to link to or attribute the image. No fus, no future problem, just help yourself – I like that.
The easiest way to find the perfect image though is simply to search in Google for an item adding the word ‘images’ in the search and then click through ’til you find what gets your attention; click on the image and decide if the conditions are onerous. Depending on what you are looking for most are free with a share-alike creative commons, all you are supposed then to do is to link back to the source.
Pixabay must be an open platform: anyone can contribute images. Perhaps Pixabox are making money by having commercial stock libraries use it too? Flickr is pretty good, but the Google search would include Flickr images anyway.
I have some 2,000 images in five galleries in Google Pics, E-learning I (1000 images, H807, H800), E-learning II (385 images H808, B822), E-learning III (521 images, H810), E-learning IV (349 images, H809, H818) and E-learning V (Ouverture, once I get started). As well as module specific, even EMA specific galleries, such as H818: The Networked Practitioner. and H818: EMA (29 images, L120). Grabbed from everywhere, many CCS (share-alike) just about all related to illustrating various MAODE modules over the last four years. However, I’ve not been meticulous about identifying where the copyright always lies. It’s true, that it is irksome, just adding that extra link or creating the correct Creative Contributions copyright tag as an icon – though we ought to do that. There is a bonus for doing so as the links to and from your post and the image host generates traffic but I’d only do that for a commercial blog, which this isn’t.
The other thing to do is to draw your own images, saying using the Apps ‘Paint’ or ‘Brushes” or to take or have your own gallery of photographs to use (smart phone snaps, photos) then you will never have a copyright issue as they are yours. The other one is to screengrab images you like and then manipulate them in a App such as ‘Studio’. All of this takes time and a blog is a blog, not an article for a magazine don’t you think?
Using SimpleMinds multi-media mindmap as a concept board for a Tutor Marked Assignment (TMA) on the Open University module ‘The Networked Practitioner’
|From E-Learning III|
|From E-Learning III|
|From E-Learning III|
Fig.1. SimpleMinds+ concept board/mind map for H818 TMA 01
Sometimes it is too much fun. Actually writing the assignment is such an anticlimax. Sometimes the tool offers too much. SimpleMinds (Free) does the job more the adequately. Here I got mesmerized by the ability to add pictures … which might be a visual aide memoir but are unnecessary and unlikely to make it into the assignment. Though I do believe in illustrating the thing if I can. However, given the module I’ll have to be very sure indeed where I stand on the creative commons for any images used.
There’s a mash-up here from a publicity piece on the Museum of London using an application called Studio – I ought to attribute both.
There’s a photo I took in the Design Museum.
To confuse the visitor some parts of this show permitted photography, some didn’t – this did, but I don’t know on what basis. In the centre there is a complex SimpleMind of my own on 13 learning theories (there are possibly only five or six, but I stretched the thinking a bit) I ought to have a creative commons licence on it of some kind so that a) I receive attribution b) there is no commercial use c) there is no chopping it about. ie. CC attribution, no commercial, share alike?
Fig 1. CC licensed (BY ND SD) flickr phot by A.Diez Herrero: http://flickr.com/photos/21572939@N03/2090542246 I need to get this right. I’m not good with options. Black and white, yes or no, do as you please or copyright works for me. There are now six variables. Or in combination is this actually many more? So, determined to be on the right side of the ethical and moral duty to acknowledge what is mine and what is mashed-up or anothers this website and video will help. Keri Beasley on Creative Commons http://kerileebeasley.com/workshops/creative-commons-explained/
Fig. 1. Creative Commons Video thanks to CreativeCommons.org.nz
It’s about time I understood what each of these mean. I am yet to read blurb that makes it clear to my soft brain, so if you have got your head around it and can explain each in ten words of two of fewer syllables please try.
Attribution – Do anything you like, bugger it about, commercialise, just acknowledge my authorship, then attach whatever CC license you like to it.
Fig. 3. CC Attribution
Then additional rules, or licence elements.
Attribution, Non Commercial CC CreativeCommons.org.nz
Attribtuion, Non Commerical – so, help yourself, but acknowledge this as mine and don’t use it for any commercial purpose only I can. DO, make T-shirts, but don’t sell them.
Fig. 5. Attribution, no derivates. CC CreativeCommons.org.nz
– don’t bugger it about and acknowledge my authorship, that’s all. YOu’ll need my permission before you make any changed to it.
Fig.6. Attribution, share-alike CC CreativeCommons.org.nz
– i.e. share, but do so under the SAME attribution rule. So, acknowledge me whatever you do with it.
This means that you must meet the following three requirements to use the materials:
- Your use is ‘non-commercial’.
- You always cite The Open University and retain the name of any original authors.
- You ‘share-alike’, that is, make any original or derivative works available under the same terms as our licence to you. Derivative works must be redeposited in the OpenLearn LabSpace.
We grant you the right to make use of the materials as they are or in modified form. You may translate, modify, print, network, reformat or change the materials in any way providing that you meet the terms of the licence. Unit materials in which we do not own copyright, but which we have licensed for use from other rights holders, are identified in the acknowledgements of every study unit and in the article information of other OpenLearn content. These extracts may be used freely as part of your use of the website but we are unable to grant the right to modify them or to use them as stand-alone items. The surrounding OpenLearn content may be modified, however, and the extract retained for use within the modified version.
Attribution, non comercial, share-alike – i.e. share, mash-up, mess-up and do as you want with it, just acknowledge me and don’t do anything commercial with it.
Attribution, non commercial, no derivatives – use as is, no buggering about and you must acknowledge my authorship.
You tell teenagers this and do they give a monkey’s if they can stream a movie for free???
Atrribution Noncommercial No Derivative Works
ie. share, attribute, but don’t do anything to it – no mashups, annotations or layers.
Which is what they want you to do with TED talks.
- Attribution (BY): You must explicitly reference TED as the original source of the materials, and TED’s logos within the videos and visuals as well as those of the TED Talks sponsors remain untouched and unedited.
- NonCommercial (NC): You can’t use TED Talks (or any parts of them) for commercial purposes. If you are a company wishing to create a TED branded content offering, you will require a Distribution Partner License Agreement with TED. Please contact Deron Triff, Director of Content Distribution, to explore the opportunity.
- NonDerivative (ND): You cannot alter the videos in any way. This means you cannot edit, remix, cut, shorten, add overlays to them, or, well, alter them in any way.
- These conditions can be modified only by explicit permission of TED Conferences LLC. The complete text of the license can be seen on the Creative Commons (CC) license
Or if this is getting too messy:
What are the Creative Commons Licences? by Kerilee Beasley
Each of the four main Creative Commons licences are described below
(descriptions sourced from http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons).
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work – and derivative works based upon it – but only if they give you credit.
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work – and derivative works based upon it – but for noncommercial purposes only.
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.
You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.
This licence means you are allowed to redistribute, both commercially and non-commercially, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you.
Fig.1. Applying learning on the First World War with e-learning – some Kindle reading.
I believe very much in the process of pulling apart, opening out, expanding, then editing, revising and condensing. There is an applied ‘creation process’ here – the three diamonds or Buffalo system that I sense H818 is taking us through.
Fig.2. The ‘Buffalo’ system of opening up, the compressing thinking
These days it is easy to grab and mash any content on a digital screen, but where I have a book I will, in some circumstances take pictures rather than write notes, then quickly bracket and annotate this text before filing it in an appropriate album online – for later consumption.
Regarding CC I’m afraid as the music and movie industries have already shown people will do as they please even where the copyright is bluntly stated. Academia will require and expect that everything is done by the book – the rest of the world won’t give a monkey’s … ‘we’ll’ do as we please until there’s a legal shoot up or the ‘industry’ realises that it has moved on.
Regarding eBooks, Amazon are looking at and expect to be very much at the forefront of the evolutionary of the book. Google are competing in the same space.
‘Have we reached the Napster moment in publishing?’ a senior engineer at Amazon asked.
My head, content wise, is in another place, studying First World War military history. As never before on the MAODE or subsequent OU e-learning modules, I know have content to put into these processes. For example, ‘the causes of the First World War’ might require reading of a dozen books and papers/pamphlets starting with H G Wells in 1914 and ending with books appearing on tables in Waterstones this week. Courtesy of the Internet just about anything I care to read, at a price, I can have within seconds on a smart device … or overnight courtesy of Amazon.
Whatever my practice, this content is mashed-up in my head.
If I mash it up through screen grabs, notes, sharing in social media and blogging then this is another expressing of what is going on in my head – though controlled by the parameters of the tools and platforms I use – currently a wordpress blog, SimpleMinds for mindmaps, and ‘Studio’ for layering text and images over screengrabs i.e annotations. As well as what ever Kindle gives me in the way of notes and highlights.
This kind of ‘extra corporeal’ engagement or visualization of what is going on in my head with the content gives it an life of its own and an extra dimension while also re-enforcing my own thoughts and knowledge. I’m sure that I am rattling along this learning curve at a far, far greater pace then I could have a decade or two decades ago. Patterns are more apparent. And I am spotting too many misappropriated images too. The idea that you can grab a frame and relabel it is 100 years old!
Fig.3. How I filmed the Front. Geoffrey Malins
For example, the footage from the ‘Battle of the Somme’ is often ‘grabbed’ with subsequent combatants and authors claiming these to be original photographs of their own – they must have had access to the negative. This footage, as I am very familiar with it, is repeatedly put into films and documentaries completely out of sequence.
As reference above is correct – I find ‘grabs’ from the film footage and photographs taken by Ernest Brooks who accompanies the ‘cameramen’ around the Somme in June/July 1916 constantly claimed as another person’s own photograph or belonging to their collection.
A false or alternative impression is therefore built up.
Then, across YouTube, sections of TV dramas and films are snatched and cut into a person’s own re-hashing of a different story. Harry Patch died age 111 or something – the last veteran. A tribute to him uses footage from the TV drama starring Daniel Radcliffe called ‘My Boy, George”.
Are we therefore seeing with text, stills and moving images what has been happening to music for the last decade or more – deliberate, and often illegal sampling and mashing, rehashing, exploiting of someone else’s work? If so what impact will this have on content in the future? Does too much of it start to look familiar, rather than original? Or does originality come out of this process too?
The conclusion might be that people simple sidestep the stilted, stuck, formal process of academia – where the sharing process is so desperately slow. The paper I read on use of audio and tracking in a museum I thought was reasonably current as it was published in 2008 but the technology used comes from a different era – 2003. Research done in 2006, initially submitted as a paper in 2007, published the following year.
An R&R department functioning like this would be left behind.
Knowledge must leak, must be shared sooner, and where those share a work in progress it should be commended.
Martin Weller published ‘The Digital Scholar’ in 2011 on a Creative Commons Licence. You can download it for free, or purchase the book or eBook, and then do as you will with it. When I read it I share short excerpts on Twitter. I’ve blogged it from end to end and am now having fun with a simple tool for ‘mashing up’ designs called ‘Studio’. It’s a photo editing tool that allows you to add multiple layers of stuff. I rather see it as a revision tool – it makes you spend more time with the excerpts you pick out.
You cannot be so open that you become an empty vessel … you have to create stuff, get your thoughts out there in one way or another so that others can knock ’em down and make more of them. Ideas need legs. In all this ‘play’ though have I burried my head in its contents and with effort read it deeply? Do we invoke shallow learning and distraction with openness? If we each read the book and met for a tutorial is that not, educationally, a more focused and constructive form of ‘oppenness’?
In relation to scholarship shoulf the old rules, the ‘measures’ of academic prowess count? In the connected world of the 21st century ‘scholarship’ is able to emerge in unconventional ways, freed of the school-to-university conveyor belt.
Weller, M (2011) The Digital scholar
Fig.1. I like spirals. Thirty years ago this was just a photo. For me it is an expression of what learning looks like. (I think this is St.John’s College, Boat House – or is it Balliol?)
At the base are the undergraduates, the first years, as you climb the steps you find the second and third years, then the middle common room the MA and D.Phil students while at the top are the lecturers, senior lecturers and professors.
And when you die they raise a flag.
In 1983 (or was in 1982?) this was the epitome of ‘closed learning’ – the Oxford College boat house.
Not so much ‘dreaming spires’ as ‘dreaming spirals’.
- It was a privilege, but like many of these I’ve been either in denial or trying to shake them off for the best part of 25 years.
- ‘Je suis comme je suis, je suis faite comme ca’ (Jacques Prevert)
- And there’s no going back.
I was up at 4.03am. Back to bed at 6.15am. Then up again 20 minutes ago.
- My body was tired, my head continued to buzz.
Regarding ‘Open Learn’ what’s all this fretting about process for?
Have we all forgotten the purpose of research????
Not ‘how?’ but ‘why?’
Why? Why? Why?
We are seeking answers, not trying to construct a bridge across the English Channel with chopsticks and bendy-straws.
Not to get the process right, but to get answers to problems, to find better ways, to understand and share what is going on so that we can act, or not act on it?
Sometimes I read an academic paper and it is all about the process.
Too often I write an assignment and it has to be written to be marked – not to generate ideas. In fact, my finest few hours, a total End of Module Assignment rewrite was a disaster for a set of marks but is my theory and philosophy of what learning is. It was the culmination of months of work, years even. Expressed somewhere like the School of Communication Arts I would have had the attention of eyes and ears.
Fig.2. Submitted as the hypothesis for an End of Module Assignment the grade was catastrophic – it is of the module, but the examiners didn’t have a grid filled with the appropriate crumbs that would permit them to ‘tick the boxes’. (I did submit more than the image, 6ft high and drawn on a sheet of backing wallpaper).
Creativity doesn’t fair well in a process driven system, either in research or in marking assignments.
This isn’t an excuse regarding a grade or the need and value of process drive, guideline controlled, parameter set research, but rather a cry for some ‘free thinking’ the ‘parcours’ of mental agility and expression.
Fig.3 The cliffs below Roche de Mio, La Plagne
There is value in going off piste.
It isn’t even the democratisation of education and knowledge either, it is the Tim Berners-Lee rather than the Google approach to knowledge – i.e. give it away for free.
It is ‘communismization’ – which is a word, however horrible it sounds, I just looked it up.
This moves me onto dwelling on Creative Commons.
If the idea of openness is to give it away for free what is the reward for the author? Recognition as the author. However, I get the feeling that unless it is published some readers think they can help themselves to the ideas and words of others and claim them as their own.
There will always be theft, but as children aren’t we told that for someone to copy your ideas is a compliment?
We need to behave like the children we still are.
But does even that matter in an open society – theft of intellectual property I mean?
If the spreading of the word is all important should any of us give a fig?
If we have a roof over our heads, food and water, electricity to charge the iPad, the BBC … a health service like the NHS what more can we want?
- Better schools.
- Better roads.
- Better weather.
‘Peace on earth and good will to humankind’.
A better word needs to be found for what is meant by ‘communismization’.
Is is just ‘communization’?
- Is it simply ‘open’?!
- ‘Open’ might do.
As the air we breathe …
P.S. I worked the season in Val d’Isere in my gap year and returned a decade later and stayed in La Plagne from December to May researching a book and a couple of documentaries for Oxford Scientific Films. None saw the light of day, though after several weeks thinking about it I came down that cliff face. I made a big mistake by slowing down at the edge and nearly didn’t have enough distance to clear the rocks. I no longer have a death wish. And it wasn’t even fun. It focused the mind though. In fact, the best way to stop yourself thinking about other stuff is to take such risks. Racing Fireballs in the English Channel has its appeal – I have a tendency to end up in the spinnaker or under the hull though.
- Web Inventor Tim Berners Lee Shares £1m Prize (news.sky.com)
- Fostering Creativity – The Use of Open Educational Resources (classroom-aid.com)
- Tim Berners-Lee: The Web needs to stay open, and Gopher’s still not cool. (boingboing.net)
- Tim Berners-Lee: ‘You can do anything with a computer that you can imagine’ (venturebeat.com)
- Inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee says web neutrality crucial (radionz.co.nz)
- What I wish Tim Berners-Lee understood about DRM (guardian.co.uk)
‘How’ and ‘Where’ you show your video content has become part of the brief.
It makes a difference in terms of the audiences and potential audiences that can be reached and the way in the which your content could, if you wish, be reversionsed and used in different ways (hopefully, under the right Creative Commons) with links back to you.
On your website, whether on the intranet or for external viewing where it can be shared and discussed.
It can also go out as a channel in its own right. At the broadcast end I recently saw what some of the content going out on Channel Flip. Today you can have your own channel. If you have appeal to an audience and can attract enough viewers advertisers will sponsor your content.
E-learning has become far easier to mange and distribute with platforms such as present.me for video, but also specialist mobile e-learning platforms like GoMo from e-learning specialists Epic.
The right content may be used in qualifications too.
Put on YouTube your content can be embedded within other people’s content while you can take advantage of detailed analytics, not least viewing behaviours.
If Boyer’s four main scholarly functions were research, application, integration and teaching, then I would propose that those of the digital scholar are engagement, experimentation, reflection and sharing’. Weller (2011 in Chapter 4, 20% of the way through, Kindle Location 1005. Is there a page number related to a print version? Amazon say not in a polite, informative and lengthy e-mail. What therefore is the answer to this referencing conundrum?)
Does Weller’s suggestion make anyone who keeps a student blog and shares it openly like this a scholar?
Making us all digital scholars? (I love the term as a hundred years ago in Census Returns it was used to describe anyone attending an academic institution, whether school or university).
Weller, M., (2011) The Digital Scholar