Exploring Creative Commons

Loving OEP

For week3 I’m being asked to consider what CC license I would give to my bloggings. Now here is the problem: whilst some of my blog posts are squeaky clean, others incorporate pictures and text that I have purloined from elsewhere, sometimes without attribution.  (I feel the shame of an undergraduate rumbled by Turnitin).  I can’t put any license on the whole of this blog without a cleanup – or mark many posts Private.  The rubber hits the road here, I need to change the way I do things to embrace Openness.  I can understand now why OER and OEP (Open Educational Practice) are so closely matched, clearly OEP raises the critical mass of OER.

What I have to be aware of also is that the creative commons level that I define for my writings sets the tone for what I can safely incorporate and who can reuse content I create.  So, if I want to put in a nice picture that is CC NC, as I understand it, I can’t then remove the NC and say “commercial is OK”, by doing so I’m in the wrong and am setting up a problem for anyone that may wish to reuse my bloggings –  they will have to dig into individual elements to be safe.  Moller refers to this as a compatibility issue.  If I have NC jottings, they can’t be incorporated in derivative works (he cites WikiPedia) that permit commercial use.

So, copyright needs to based both on what I want to give to others, and what I want to incorporate.

What I’ve found more confusing is to get my head around SA.  SA (Share Alike) means that my work can only be incorporated into derivatives that take on the same Creative Commons sharing rights I have defined (i.e. as a minimum they remain open/free).   Even if the derivative has lots of added value it needs to keep the same CC <..>SA license.

So, for my ponderings here I think a humble CC-BY would do.  If I didn’t wish to identify myself a CC on it’s own would do.

Openlearn is CC-BY-NC-SA, I wonder if the “NC” is there partly because the materials incorporated are defined by others as NC?  I confess that I am still a bit confused, so need a bit of discussion to get it clearer.

Loved the CC Choose a license tool so have tried it out for this post:
Creative Commons License
LPlateRamblings by LPlatesCCBlogPost is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC.

This entry was posted in H817Open, study and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Exploring Creative Commons

  1. yes, the difficulty is the one you hit upon, if you incorporate other elements. I tend to use CC images from Flickr and make the attribution obvious, but I would be lying if I said I hadn’t included YouTube clips of dubious origin. But I’m trying to state that _my_ work, and it’s usually obvious what is your work, is under a CC-NC licence. Like OpenLearn I went with NC although I know a lot of people don’t like it. I think the opted for NC for openlearn mainly because it stops other people taking the content and charging for it, so they could undercut the OU. It was a good way of overcoming some of the reservations people had about the wisdom of giving content away.

  2. Nat Nelson says:

    I have the same problem and I am sure we are not alone. I think open education and Creative Commons are helping to highlight this issue.

  3. ingermariec says:

    I recognize your concerns about putting a CC license on your blog. One does start scrutinizing prior actions and possible “dark deeds”. And who can say, with a clear conscience, that he/she never used copyright material? But it’s great to be made aware of the CC license and also the abundance of CC material that you can actually find on the net, if only you know where and how to search. It certainly helps when wanting to “keep one’s act clean” 🙂

Comments are closed.