I agree = with you on the underlying problem =96 but I am not so sure that I agree = with your view of the solution.

The reason why Gower focuses on interactive whiteboards = (from our point of view, maybe somewhat perversely) is that Gower is = assuming that something displayed on an IWB is not then going out of the = room =96 it is a plenary display device with a clear boundary to the = group of people who are accessing it. This replicates the conditions = which applied to the display of video in classrooms and (on the basis of = low and rapidly deteriorating quality) to the distribution of = photocopied hand-outs.

I do not agree with you that the supplier should now = dictate copyright terms (this is really code for =93ignore copyright=94). = The much touted view that the internet was going to end intellectual = property is untrue, for reasons: (a) =96 technically, because publishers = are increasingly putting in place DRM protection, (b) because the law is = still the law and from time to time very significant damages are still = awarded against file sharers, and (c) =96 in principle, because = undermining IP would be a disaster which would bring innovation to a = screaming halt.

That is not to say that people, using e.g. creative = commons, may elect to give up their IP if they are able to earn their = living some other way (e.g. by occupying a salaried position or by = offering advertising or support services) =96 and this might be a very = appropriate model for UGC. But the vast majority of businesses still = need to charge for the services they provide in one way or another =96 = and we need the involvement of industry if we are going to get access to = genuinely innovative products and = content.

The other = issue with the educational exceptions is the definition of the material = which is affected =96 something like =93literary, dramatic or musical = works=94 i.e. educational content is not included. If it were, then all = educational publishers would be put out of business overnight. In other = words, the educational exceptions only affect material where education = is a tangential and unimportant source of income to the rights = holder.

In this = respect, we have to question the distinction (which in this context = becomes very important) between educational and non-educational content. = We are no longer going to distribute a photocopy of Macbeth (literary, = not educational) and then have a chat about it (educational but not = replicable) =96 we are going to suck in a digital version of Macbeth, = probably combined with some videos of the latest RSC production = (commercial/dramatic) and comments from other teachers (UGC), into an = educational software programme (commercial educational). The boundaries = starts to become very complex.

So I have two overall comments on = Gower:

1) = educational exceptions can be applied fairly easily to what I would call = =93plenary displays=94 (IWBs and = visualisers).

2) I am less sure about =93distance learning=94, which is = really a synonym for the internet. Even if the VLE is secure, you cannot = then stop the material being copied by students into non-secure = environments. =46rom hereon in, educational exceptions are insufficient = without a technical component. We must look to DRM solutions which place = a reliable =93wall=94 around educational use and can seamlessly handle = the authorisation of non-educational content within complex = orchestrations of different types of = content.

PS. you = need to send an email to Leon, who will give you access to the = document.

From: [mailto: On Behalf Of Roger = Broadie
Sent: 11 February 2010 = 09:00
To: theo kuechel
Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; = Advisory talk
[Advisory] Re: = [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright = and Education

Theo,

First of all, I cannot access Gower's recommendations for = educational exceptions, I can't get at it through my usual Google docs = logon. Please advise.

However, I will be extremely surprised if ANY educational = exceptions will deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. This = is because the concept of 'educational use' was single person use for = their own study, whereas education use now largely means copying and = re-purposing for access by others who will collaboratively reflect upon = what the learner has done and provide afl feedback. There is no = substantive difference between this and = publishing.

It is also almost impossible to limit use to 'use within an = educational institution' because that must now mean use online by the = community of people involved with promoting learning in the institution, = and where does that stop? Does it include Granny who lives in New Zealand and the partner school = in Mexico?

The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its head = and to state very clearly that material that is not provided with = appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored = by educators and learners. It is time for the users to set copyright = terms, not the suppliers.

The terms and conditions that you come across in many web = resources are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try = looking at a few. There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier = end, it will have to be resolved from the user end. For instance, = LT Scotland DICTATE what the copyright = terms and conditions will be for things they licence nationally. The = whole education community should do = similarly.

There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that = matter:

- you can look at it but not do anything else with = it.

- you can copy and re-purpose it within the defined community of = a an educational institution (but the community of the institution can = only be defined by the institution = itself)

- it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to = your heart's content provided source is = acknowledged.

Roger.

On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel = wrote:

Paul, Colleagues;

This is very timely, urgent and = probably of greater significance than the many technologies we often = discuss, (including iPads, Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 = applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are likely to = determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access digital = content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our = learners. These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for = the foreseeable future and permeate all educational uses of ICT = including distance learning, mobile technologies, student work in = digital format and the sharing and development of teacher created = resources.

Having read Marshall's = synopsis and then the re-read the documents it appears there is some = urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy of Gower's = recommendations for educational exceptions here, to which we can add comments = /annotations. Please email Leon for access.

It = think is important we have that debate and I personally look forward to = reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we can = start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace = working group on = this?

Best
Theo

On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford = <Colleagues

Many of = you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter Marshal = Mateer's article about an important consultation with implications = for UK schools. Did you already = know about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body responsible for granting = Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the United = Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their = consultation and it deals in part with copyright in education in a = digital age.

We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss = the implications for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are = looking for a volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the = basis of a Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to

--
Theo = Kuechel
Learning Technology Research
theo.kuechel@gmail.com

Roger Broadie,
Director,
Broadie = Associates
http://www.BroadieAssociates.c= o.uk
Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.u= k

99 High Street, Chatteris,
Cambs, PE16 6NP, = UK.

tel: +44 1 354 695583
mobile: +44 7710 = 328672
fax: +44 1 = 354 696647

= --Apple-Mail-86-443476086-- From crispin.weston@alphalearning.co.uk Thu Feb 18 17:39:20 2010 From: crispin.weston@alphalearning.co.uk (Crispin Weston) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:39:20 -0000 Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education In-Reply-To: <411ED577-ED51-43B8-BFF6-CFA93CEB5E91@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> References: <16F87465-D859-4F26-8D77-1E680771EDBB@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> <68D1C08C2CBF4BF7ACB28E41F6004F49@DEVELOPMENT> <411ED577-ED51-43B8-BFF6-CFA93CEB5E91@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> Message-ID: <9FDCE0A4898C440AB276C681F0CAC3A9@DEVELOPMENT> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01CAB0C1.4F348860 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Roger, I agree with all you say - the concept of educational exceptions is essentially broken. I would only add two points (uncontentious ones, I hope): 1) the simple classification offered by Creative Commons is a real help - maybe we need some similarly iconic representation of "for educational use"; 2) it would be useful to have some kind of technical boundary to that educational use - this would be feasible for more complex interactive (and probably high-value) content, though not for simple assets which, as you say, cannot be kept inside any sort of a useful boundary. Crispin. _____ From: Roger Broadie [mailto:Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk] Sent: 18 February 2010 17:18 To: Crispin Weston Cc: 'secondary'; 'Advisory talk' Subject: Re: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education Crispin, Apologies for taking some time to get to replying to your email. Education dictating copyright terms is certainly NOT code for 'ignore copyright'. Exactly the opposite in fact, it means assuming everything is copyright and that it is necessary to positively determine what the Terms and Conditions (Ts&Cs) for usage are. The point I am making is that the whole concept of 'educational exceptions' is broken and cannot be mended. Even if we engaged fully in debate of the Gower recommendations and the consultation it would not be possible to agree limits on where things could be accessed, by who, or what materials are included or not included. The net result would be that any school relying on educational exceptions to justify how content is being used digitally by their community will end up hopelessly confused. It's just unworkable. We could engage with this until the end of eternity and still get no result. A little story - a big museum set up a nice project, whereby kids could borrow mobile phones and as they went round the museum could take pictures of things they found particularly interesting and could then upload these into online galleries being run by the museum, that the kids could then access when back in school. But the project ran into a roadblock when they realised that they had some things in the museum that were on loan and not owned by themselves, and the terms of the loan did not permit photography of the object, let alone the making and copying of digital copies. At some point in the near future kids in schools are going to be permitted to use their phones to capture images - how many company meetings have you been in where taking pictures of the whiteboard at the end of a discussion is just normal practice. Even the builder putting in our loft conversion is now taking pictures of things to show us. So if they are using some content in class and need to be able to look at it again at home, they will copy it. Moral for the school - don't have any content in use that cannot be used in this way and make sure the kids also know the Ts&Cs (probably 'can be used by you and on the school platform, can't be put on the Internet or copied to others). I believe we should be saying to this consultation: - Educational exceptions to copyright will no longer work for schools, because they cannot be limited in space or to what materials are digitised, given that we are way past the point when digitising devices and spread of content around networks and the Internet can be controlled by a responsible organisation, and the people it is necessary to engage in collaborative learning cannot be limited to single defined institutions and people who are bone-fide members of those institutions. - Schools should therefore rely not on exceptions, but on positive determination of the copyright terms and conditions that apply to the content they wish to use. - For education and learning in the digital age, there is a clear need for as much content as possible to be covered by creative commons Ts&Cs, so that it can be used as widely as possible, collaboratively, and re-purposed to aid learning. The amount of this content will continue to grow exponentially, worldwide, as more and more educators and learners become content creators. - Copyright holders will then have to decide for themselves what they have that has value beyond the creative commons content available, and whether they are going to adopt copyright Ts&Cs that help educators to use their content, both with regard to how the content can be used and to the complexity for the organisation in understanding and managing the copyright Ts&Cs. (I have seen museum Ts&Cs that run to 12 pages!) To help this process some simple, single page exemplar Ts&Cs for education purchasers should be produced. The whole issue of digital rights management would also come in here - if content owners demand DRM and that makes their content unusable by schools and their communities, then so be it. - Similarly, organisations such as the Copyright Licensing Authority will have to decide if they can make a business by coordinating the copyright Ts&Cs of a range of defined content providers, in a way that will stimulate educational use and hence a financial return to the content owners, that the owners could not themselves achieve by selling to schools directly. Then as clarity appears as to what content schools can and cannot afford to use, without reliance on 'educational exceptions', there will be a clear message for government that if some content is critical for education and is not being made available for educators and learners to use, in learning-effective, manageable and affordable ways, then national action will need to be taken to make such content available. Roger. On 11 Feb 2010, at 10:04, Crispin Weston wrote: Roger, I agree with you on the underlying problem - but I am not so sure that I agree with your view of the solution. The reason why Gower focuses on interactive whiteboards (from our point of view, maybe somewhat perversely) is that Gower is assuming that something displayed on an IWB is not then going out of the room - it is a plenary display device with a clear boundary to the group of people who are accessing it. This replicates the conditions which applied to the display of video in classrooms and (on the basis of low and rapidly deteriorating quality) to the distribution of photocopied hand-outs. I do not agree with you that the supplier should now dictate copyright terms (this is really code for "ignore copyright"). The much touted view that the internet was going to end intellectual property is untrue, for reasons: (a) - technically, because publishers are increasingly putting in place DRM protection, (b) because the law is still the law and from time to time very significant damages are still awarded against file sharers, and (c) - in principle, because undermining IP would be a disaster which would bring innovation to a screaming halt. That is not to say that people, using e.g. creative commons, may elect to give up their IP if they are able to earn their living some other way (e.g. by occupying a salaried position or by offering advertising or support services) - and this might be a very appropriate model for UGC. But the vast majority of businesses still need to charge for the services they provide in one way or another - and we need the involvement of industry if we are going to get access to genuinely innovative products and content. The other issue with the educational exceptions is the definition of the material which is affected - something like "literary, dramatic or musical works" i.e. educational content is not included. If it were, then all educational publishers would be put out of business overnight. In other words, the educational exceptions only affect material where education is a tangential and unimportant source of income to the rights holder. In this respect, we have to question the distinction (which in this context becomes very important) between educational and non-educational content. We are no longer going to distribute a photocopy of Macbeth (literary, not educational) and then have a chat about it (educational but not replicable) - we are going to suck in a digital version of Macbeth, probably combined with some videos of the latest RSC production (commercial/dramatic) and comments from other teachers (UGC), into an educational software programme (commercial educational). The boundaries starts to become very complex. So I have two overall comments on Gower: 1) educational exceptions can be applied fairly easily to what I would call "plenary displays" (IWBs and visualisers). 2) I am less sure about "distance learning", which is really a synonym for the internet. Even if the VLE is secure, you cannot then stop the material being copied by students into non-secure environments. From hereon in, educational exceptions are insufficient without a technical component. We must look to DRM solutions which place a reliable "wall" around educational use and can seamlessly handle the authorisation of non-educational content within complex orchestrations of different types of content. Crispin. PS. you need to send an email to Leon, who will give you access to the document. _____ From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.org] On Behalf Of Roger Broadie Sent: 11 February 2010 09:00 To: theo kuechel Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; Advisory talk Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education Theo, First of all, I cannot access Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions, I can't get at it through my usual Google docs logon. Please advise. However, I will be extremely surprised if ANY educational exceptions will deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. This is because the concept of 'educational use' was single person use for their own study, whereas education use now largely means copying and re-purposing for access by others who will collaboratively reflect upon what the learner has done and provide afl feedback. There is no substantive difference between this and publishing. It is also almost impossible to limit use to 'use within an educational institution' because that must now mean use online by the community of people involved with promoting learning in the institution, and where does that stop? Does it include Granny who lives in New Zealand and the partner school in Mexico? The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its head and to state very clearly that material that is not provided with appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored by educators and learners. It is time for the users to set copyright terms, not the suppliers. The terms and conditions that you come across in many web resources are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a few. There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it will have to be resolved from the user end. For instance, LT Scotland DICTATE what the copyright terms and conditions will be for things they licence nationally. The whole education community should do similarly. There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter: - you can look at it but not do anything else with it. - you can copy and re-purpose it within the defined community of a an educational institution (but the community of the institution can only be defined by the institution itself) - it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your heart's content provided source is acknowledged. Roger. On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel wrote: Paul, Colleagues; This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than the many technologies we often discuss, (including iPads, Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are likely to determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access digital content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable future and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and the sharing and development of teacher created resources. Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions here , to which we can add comments /annotations. Please email Leon for access. It think is important we have that debate and I personally look forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace working group on this? Best Theo On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford wrote: Colleagues Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with implications for UK schools. Did you already know about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultation and it deals in part with copyright in education in a digital age. We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.uk -- Theo Kuechel Learning Technology Research theo.kuechel@gmail.com T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk Roger Broadie, Director, Broadie Associates http://www.BroadieAssociates.co.uk Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk 99 High Street, Chatteris, Cambs, PE16 6NP, UK. tel: +44 1 354 695583 mobile: +44 7710 328672 fax: +44 1 354 696647 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01CAB0C1.4F348860 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi = Roger,

I agree with all you say – = the concept of educational exceptions is essentially = broken.

I would only add two points = (uncontentious ones, I hope):

1) the simple classification = offered by Creative Commons is a real help – maybe we need some similarly = iconic representation of “for educational = use”;

2) it would be useful to have = some kind of technical boundary to that educational use – this would be = feasible for more complex interactive (and probably high-value) content, though = not for simple assets which, as you say, cannot be kept inside any sort of a = useful boundary.

Crispin.<= /p>

From: Roger Broadie [mailto:Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk]
Sent: 18 February 2010 = 17:18
To: Crispin Weston
Cc: 'secondary'; = 'Advisory talk'
Subject: Re: [Advisory] = Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education

Crispin,

Apologies for taking some time to get to replying to your = email.

Education dictating copyright terms is certainly NOT code for = 'ignore copyright'. Exactly the opposite in fact, it means assuming everything = is copyright and that it is necessary to positively determine what the = Terms and Conditions (Ts&Cs) for usage are.

The point I am making is that the whole concept of 'educational exceptions' is broken and cannot be mended. Even if we engaged fully in = debate of the Gower recommendations and the consultation it would not be = possible to agree limits on where things could be accessed, by who, or what = materials are included or not included. The net result would be that any school = relying on educational exceptions to justify how content is being used digitally by = their community will end up hopelessly confused. It's just unworkable. We = could engage with this until the end of eternity and still get no = result.

A little story - a big museum set up a nice project, whereby = kids could borrow mobile phones and as they went round the museum could take = pictures of things they found particularly interesting and could then upload these = into online galleries being run by the museum, that the kids could then = access when back in school. But the project ran into a roadblock when they realised = that they had some things in the museum that were on loan and not owned = by themselves, and the terms of the loan did not permit photography of the object, let = alone the making and copying of digital copies.

At some point in the near future kids in schools are going to be permitted to use their phones to capture images - how many company = meetings have you been in where taking pictures of the whiteboard at the end of a discussion is just normal practice. Even the builder putting in our loft conversion is now taking pictures of things to show us. So if they are = using some content in class and need to be able to look at it again at home, = they will copy it. Moral for the school - don't have any content in use that = cannot be used in this way and make sure the kids also know the Ts&Cs = (probably 'can be used by you and on the school platform, can't be put on the = Internet or copied to others).

I believe we should be saying to this = consultation:

- Educational exceptions to copyright will no longer work for = schools, because they cannot be limited in space or to what materials are = digitised, given that we are way past the point when digitising devices and spread of = content around networks and the Internet can be controlled by a responsible organisation, and the people it is necessary to engage in collaborative learning cannot be limited to single defined institutions and people who = are bone-fide members of those institutions.

- Schools should therefore rely not on exceptions, but on = positive determination of the copyright terms and conditions that apply to the = content they wish to use.

- For education and learning in the digital age, there is a = clear need for as much content as possible to be covered by creative commons = Ts&Cs, so that it can be used as widely as possible, collaboratively, and = re-purposed to aid learning. The amount of this content will continue to grow = exponentially, worldwide, as more and more educators and learners become content = creators.

- Copyright holders will then have to decide for themselves what = they have that has value beyond the creative commons content available, and = whether they are going to adopt copyright Ts&Cs that help educators to use = their content, both with regard to how the content can be used and to the = complexity for the organisation in understanding and managing the copyright = Ts&Cs. (I have seen museum Ts&Cs that run to 12 pages!) To help this process = some simple, single page exemplar Ts&Cs for education purchasers should = be produced. The whole issue of digital rights management would also come = in here - if content owners demand DRM and that makes their content unusable by = schools and their communities, then so be it.

- Similarly, organisations such as the Copyright Licensing = Authority will have to decide if they can make a business by coordinating the = copyright Ts&Cs of a range of defined content providers, in a way that = will stimulate educational use and hence a financial return to the content = owners, that the owners could not themselves achieve by selling to schools = directly.

Then as clarity appears as to what content schools can and = cannot afford to use, without reliance on 'educational exceptions', there will = be a clear message for government that if some content is critical for = education and is not being made available for educators and learners to use, in learning-effective, manageable and affordable ways, then national action = will need to be taken to make such content = available.

Roger.

On 11 Feb 2010, at 10:04, Crispin Weston = wrote:

Roger,<= font color=3Dblack>

<= font color=3Dblack>

I agree with you on the = underlying problem – but I am not so sure that I agree with your view of the solution.

<= font color=3Dblack>

The reason why Gower focuses on interactive whiteboards (from our point of view, maybe somewhat = perversely) is that Gower is assuming that something displayed on an IWB is not then = going out of the room – it is a plenary display device with a clear boundary = to the group of people who are accessing it. This replicates the conditions = which applied to the display of video in classrooms and (on the basis of low and = rapidly deteriorating quality) to the distribution of photocopied = hand-outs.

<= font color=3Dblack>

I do not agree with you that the supplier should now dictate copyright terms (this is really code for “ignore copyright”). The much touted view that the internet = was going to end intellectual property is untrue, for reasons: (a) – technically, because publishers are increasingly putting in place DRM protection, (b) because the law is still the law and from time to time = very significant damages are still awarded against file sharers, and (c) = – in principle, because undermining IP would be a disaster which would bring innovation to a screaming halt.

<= font color=3Dblack>

That is not to say that people, = using e.g. creative commons, may elect to give up their IP if they are able to = earn their living some other way (e.g. by occupying a salaried position or by offering advertising or support services) – and this might be a = very appropriate model for UGC. But the vast majority of businesses still = need to charge for the services they provide in one way or another – and = we need the involvement of industry if we are going to get access to genuinely innovative products and content.

<= font color=3Dblack>

The other issue with the = educational exceptions is the definition of the material which is affected – something like “literary, dramatic or musical works” i.e. educational content is not included. If it were, then all educational publishers would be put out of business overnight. In other words, the = educational exceptions only affect material where education is a tangential and = unimportant source of income to the rights holder.

<= font color=3Dblack>

In this respect, we have to = question the distinction (which in this context becomes very important) between = educational and non-educational content. We are no longer going to distribute a = photocopy of Macbeth (literary, not educational) and then have a chat about it (educational but not replicable) – we are going to suck in a = digital version of Macbeth, probably combined with some videos of the latest RSC production (commercial/dramatic) and comments from other teachers (UGC), = into an educational software programme (commercial educational). The = boundaries starts to become very complex.

<= font color=3Dblack>

So I have two overall comments on = Gower:

<= font color=3Dblack>

1) educational exceptions can be = applied fairly easily to what I would call “plenary displays” (IWBs = and visualisers).

<= font color=3Dblack>

2) I am less sure about = “distance learning”, which is really a synonym for the internet. Even if the = VLE is secure, you cannot then stop the material being copied by students into non-secure environments. From hereon in, educational exceptions are = insufficient without a technical component. We must look to DRM solutions which place = a reliable “wall” around educational use and can seamlessly = handle the authorisation of non-educational content within complex = orchestrations of different types of content.

<= font color=3Dblack>

Crispin.

<= font color=3Dblack>

PS. you need to send an email to = Leon, who will give you access to the = document.

<= font color=3Dblack>

<= font color=3Dblack>

From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.o= rg [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.o= rg] On Behalf Of Roger Broadie
Sent: 11 February 2010 09:00
To: theo kuechel
Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; Advisory talk
Subject: [Advisory] Re: = [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and = Education

Theo,

First of all, I cannot access = Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions, I can't get at it through my = usual Google docs logon. Please = advise.

However, I will be extremely = surprised if ANY educational exceptions will deal with the situation we now find = ourselves in. This is because the concept of 'educational use' was single person = use for their own study, whereas education use now largely means copying and re-purposing for access by others who will collaboratively reflect upon = what the learner has done and provide afl feedback. There is no substantive difference between this and = publishing.

It is also almost impossible to = limit use to 'use within an educational institution' because that must now mean = use online by the community of people involved with promoting learning in = the institution, and where does that stop? Does it include Granny who lives = in New Zealand and the partner school = in Mexico?

The only answer is to turn the = copyright legislation on its head and to state very clearly that material that is = not provided with appropriate copyright for use in education, will be = completely ignored by educators and learners. It is time for the users to set = copyright terms, not the suppliers.

The terms and conditions that you = come across in many web resources are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a few. There is no way this can be resolved = from the supplier end, it will have to be resolved from the user end. For = instance, LT Scotland DICTATE what the copyright = terms and conditions will be for things they licence nationally. The whole = education community should do similarly.

There are essentially only 3 = copyright terms that matter:

- you can look at it but not do = anything else with it.

- you can copy and re-purpose it = within the defined community of a an educational institution (but the community = of the institution can only be defined by the institution = itself)

- it is creative commons and you = can copy and re-purpose it to your heart's content provided source is = acknowledged.

Roger.

On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo = kuechel wrote:

Paul, Colleagues;

This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than = the many technologies we often discuss, (including iPads, Interactive = whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are = likely to determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access digital = content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our learners. = These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable = future and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance learning, = mobile technologies, student work in digital format and the sharing and = development of teacher created resources.

Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents it appears there is some = urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy of Gower's recommendations = for educational exceptions here, to which we can = add comments /annotations. Please email Leon for access.

It think is important we have that debate and I personally look = forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we = can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace = working group on this?

Best
Theo

On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul = Springford <paul.springford@naace.org> wrote:

Colleagues

Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter = Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with implications = for UK schools. Did you already know = about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the United = Kingdom= "? Possibly not. It's their consultation and it deals in part with = copyright in education in a digital age.

We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications for = our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a volunteer = to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a Naace response to = the IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.uk=

--
Theo Kuechel
Learning Technology Research
theo.kuechel@gmail.com
T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk

Roger = Broadie,

Director,

Broadie Associates

http://www.BroadieAssociates.= co.uk

Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.= uk

=

99 High = Street, = Chatteris,

Cambs<= /font>, = PE16 6NP, UK.

=

tel: +44 1 354 695583

mobile: +44 7710 328672

fax: +44 1 354 696647

=

=

=

=

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01CAB0C1.4F348860-- From rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk Thu Feb 18 21:28:06 2010 From: rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk (Ray Tolley) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:28:06 -0000 Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education In-Reply-To: <9FDCE0A4898C440AB276C681F0CAC3A9@DEVELOPMENT> References: <16F87465-D859-4F26-8D77-1E680771EDBB@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> <68D1C08C2CBF4BF7ACB28E41F6004F49@DEVELOPMENT> <411ED577-ED51-43B8-BFF6-CFA93CEB5E91@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> <9FDCE0A4898C440AB276C681F0CAC3A9@DEVELOPMENT> Message-ID: <00bc01cab0e1$42847e70$c78d7b50$@co.uk> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01CAB0E1.42847E70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit @ Roger, Thank you for a well-reasoned article! Very helpful. @ Crispin, I like the idea of CCE but wonder if there would need to be clear guidelines - which might need some debating. Would CCE just apply to students in full time education, part time education, personal interest etc, just for written text or for media in any format? BW Ray Tolley FEIDCT, NAACE Fellow, ACQI, MBILD ICT Education Consultant Maximise ICT Ltd P: http://raytolley.v2efolioworld.mnscu.edu/ B: http://www.efoliointheuk.blogspot.com/ W: http://www.maximise-ict.co.uk/eFolio-01.htm T: http://twitter.com/efolio Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Regional Award 2009' From: secondary-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:secondary-admin@talk.naace.org] On Behalf Of Crispin Weston Sent: 18 February 2010 17:39 To: 'Roger Broadie' Cc: 'secondary'; 'Advisory talk' Subject: RE: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education Hi Roger, I agree with all you say - the concept of educational exceptions is essentially broken. I would only add two points (uncontentious ones, I hope): 1) the simple classification offered by Creative Commons is a real help - maybe we need some similarly iconic representation of "for educational use"; 2) it would be useful to have some kind of technical boundary to that educational use - this would be feasible for more complex interactive (and probably high-value) content, though not for simple assets which, as you say, cannot be kept inside any sort of a useful boundary. Crispin. _____ From: Roger Broadie [mailto:Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk] Sent: 18 February 2010 17:18 To: Crispin Weston Cc: 'secondary'; 'Advisory talk' Subject: Re: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education Crispin, Apologies for taking some time to get to replying to your email. Education dictating copyright terms is certainly NOT code for 'ignore copyright'. Exactly the opposite in fact, it means assuming everything is copyright and that it is necessary to positively determine what the Terms and Conditions (Ts&Cs) for usage are. The point I am making is that the whole concept of 'educational exceptions' is broken and cannot be mended. Even if we engaged fully in debate of the Gower recommendations and the consultation it would not be possible to agree limits on where things could be accessed, by who, or what materials are included or not included. The net result would be that any school relying on educational exceptions to justify how content is being used digitally by their community will end up hopelessly confused. It's just unworkable. We could engage with this until the end of eternity and still get no result. A little story - a big museum set up a nice project, whereby kids could borrow mobile phones and as they went round the museum could take pictures of things they found particularly interesting and could then upload these into online galleries being run by the museum, that the kids could then access when back in school. But the project ran into a roadblock when they realised that they had some things in the museum that were on loan and not owned by themselves, and the terms of the loan did not permit photography of the object, let alone the making and copying of digital copies. At some point in the near future kids in schools are going to be permitted to use their phones to capture images - how many company meetings have you been in where taking pictures of the whiteboard at the end of a discussion is just normal practice. Even the builder putting in our loft conversion is now taking pictures of things to show us. So if they are using some content in class and need to be able to look at it again at home, they will copy it. Moral for the school - don't have any content in use that cannot be used in this way and make sure the kids also know the Ts&Cs (probably 'can be used by you and on the school platform, can't be put on the Internet or copied to others). I believe we should be saying to this consultation: - Educational exceptions to copyright will no longer work for schools, because they cannot be limited in space or to what materials are digitised, given that we are way past the point when digitising devices and spread of content around networks and the Internet can be controlled by a responsible organisation, and the people it is necessary to engage in collaborative learning cannot be limited to single defined institutions and people who are bone-fide members of those institutions. - Schools should therefore rely not on exceptions, but on positive determination of the copyright terms and conditions that apply to the content they wish to use. - For education and learning in the digital age, there is a clear need for as much content as possible to be covered by creative commons Ts&Cs, so that it can be used as widely as possible, collaboratively, and re-purposed to aid learning. The amount of this content will continue to grow exponentially, worldwide, as more and more educators and learners become content creators. - Copyright holders will then have to decide for themselves what they have that has value beyond the creative commons content available, and whether they are going to adopt copyright Ts&Cs that help educators to use their content, both with regard to how the content can be used and to the complexity for the organisation in understanding and managing the copyright Ts&Cs. (I have seen museum Ts&Cs that run to 12 pages!) To help this process some simple, single page exemplar Ts&Cs for education purchasers should be produced. The whole issue of digital rights management would also come in here - if content owners demand DRM and that makes their content unusable by schools and their communities, then so be it. - Similarly, organisations such as the Copyright Licensing Authority will have to decide if they can make a business by coordinating the copyright Ts&Cs of a range of defined content providers, in a way that will stimulate educational use and hence a financial return to the content owners, that the owners could not themselves achieve by selling to schools directly. Then as clarity appears as to what content schools can and cannot afford to use, without reliance on 'educational exceptions', there will be a clear message for government that if some content is critical for education and is not being made available for educators and learners to use, in learning-effective, manageable and affordable ways, then national action will need to be taken to make such content available. Roger. On 11 Feb 2010, at 10:04, Crispin Weston wrote: Roger, I agree with you on the underlying problem - but I am not so sure that I agree with your view of the solution. The reason why Gower focuses on interactive whiteboards (from our point of view, maybe somewhat perversely) is that Gower is assuming that something displayed on an IWB is not then going out of the room - it is a plenary display device with a clear boundary to the group of people who are accessing it. This replicates the conditions which applied to the display of video in classrooms and (on the basis of low and rapidly deteriorating quality) to the distribution of photocopied hand-outs. I do not agree with you that the supplier should now dictate copyright terms (this is really code for "ignore copyright"). The much touted view that the internet was going to end intellectual property is untrue, for reasons: (a) - technically, because publishers are increasingly putting in place DRM protection, (b) because the law is still the law and from time to time very significant damages are still awarded against file sharers, and (c) - in principle, because undermining IP would be a disaster which would bring innovation to a screaming halt. That is not to say that people, using e.g. creative commons, may elect to give up their IP if they are able to earn their living some other way (e.g. by occupying a salaried position or by offering advertising or support services) - and this might be a very appropriate model for UGC. But the vast majority of businesses still need to charge for the services they provide in one way or another - and we need the involvement of industry if we are going to get access to genuinely innovative products and content. The other issue with the educational exceptions is the definition of the material which is affected - something like "literary, dramatic or musical works" i.e. educational content is not included. If it were, then all educational publishers would be put out of business overnight. In other words, the educational exceptions only affect material where education is a tangential and unimportant source of income to the rights holder. In this respect, we have to question the distinction (which in this context becomes very important) between educational and non-educational content. We are no longer going to distribute a photocopy of Macbeth (literary, not educational) and then have a chat about it (educational but not replicable) - we are going to suck in a digital version of Macbeth, probably combined with some videos of the latest RSC production (commercial/dramatic) and comments from other teachers (UGC), into an educational software programme (commercial educational). The boundaries starts to become very complex. So I have two overall comments on Gower: 1) educational exceptions can be applied fairly easily to what I would call "plenary displays" (IWBs and visualisers). 2) I am less sure about "distance learning", which is really a synonym for the internet. Even if the VLE is secure, you cannot then stop the material being copied by students into non-secure environments. From hereon in, educational exceptions are insufficient without a technical component. We must look to DRM solutions which place a reliable "wall" around educational use and can seamlessly handle the authorisation of non-educational content within complex orchestrations of different types of content. Crispin. PS. you need to send an email to Leon, who will give you access to the document. _____ From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.org] On Behalf Of Roger Broadie Sent: 11 February 2010 09:00 To: theo kuechel Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; Advisory talk Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education Theo, First of all, I cannot access Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions, I can't get at it through my usual Google docs logon. Please advise. However, I will be extremely surprised if ANY educational exceptions will deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. This is because the concept of 'educational use' was single person use for their own study, whereas education use now largely means copying and re-purposing for access by others who will collaboratively reflect upon what the learner has done and provide afl feedback. There is no substantive difference between this and publishing. It is also almost impossible to limit use to 'use within an educational institution' because that must now mean use online by the community of people involved with promoting learning in the institution, and where does that stop? Does it include Granny who lives in New Zealand and the partner school in Mexico? The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its head and to state very clearly that material that is not provided with appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored by educators and learners. It is time for the users to set copyright terms, not the suppliers. The terms and conditions that you come across in many web resources are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a few. There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it will have to be resolved from the user end. For instance, LT Scotland DICTATE what the copyright terms and conditions will be for things they licence nationally. The whole education community should do similarly. There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter: - you can look at it but not do anything else with it. - you can copy and re-purpose it within the defined community of a an educational institution (but the community of the institution can only be defined by the institution itself) - it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your heart's content provided source is acknowledged. Roger. On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel wrote: Paul, Colleagues; This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than the many technologies we often discuss, (including iPads, Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are likely to determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access digital content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable future and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and the sharing and development of teacher created resources. Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions here , to which we can add comments /annotations. Please email Leon for access. It think is important we have that debate and I personally look forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace working group on this? Best Theo On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford wrote: Colleagues Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with implications for UK schools. Did you already know about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultation and it deals in part with copyright in education in a digital age. We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.uk -- Theo Kuechel Learning Technology Research theo.kuechel@gmail.com T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk Roger Broadie, Director, Broadie Associates http://www.BroadieAssociates.co.uk Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk 99 High Street, Chatteris, Cambs, PE16 6NP, UK. tel: +44 1 354 695583 mobile: +44 7710 328672 fax: +44 1 354 696647 ------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01CAB0E1.42847E70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

@ Roger,

Thank you for a well-reasoned article! Very = helpful.

@ Crispin,

I like the idea of CCE but wonder if there would need to = be clear guidelines – which might need some debating. Would CCE = just apply to students in full time education, part time education, personal interest etc, just for written text or for media in any = format?

BW

Ray Tolley FEIDCT, NAACE Fellow, ACQI, = MBILD

ICT Education Consultant

Maximise ICT Ltd

P: http://raytol= ley.v2efolioworld.mnscu.edu/

B: http://www.ef= oliointheuk.blogspot.com/

W: http://www.ma= ximise-ict.co.uk/eFolio-01.htm

T: http://twitter.com/efolio

Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Regional Award = 2009'

From: secondary-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:secondary-admin@talk.naace.org] On Behalf Of Crispin = Weston
Sent: 18 February 2010 17:39
To: 'Roger Broadie'
Cc: 'secondary'; 'Advisory talk'
Subject: RE: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on = Copyright and Education

Hi Roger,

I agree with all you say – the concept of educational exceptions is essentially broken.

I would only add two points (uncontentious ones, I = hope):

1) the simple classification offered by Creative Commons is = a real help – maybe we need some similarly iconic representation of = “for educational use”;

2) it would be useful to have some kind of technical = boundary to that educational use – this would be feasible for more complex interactive (and probably high-value) content, though not for simple = assets which, as you say, cannot be kept inside any sort of a useful = boundary.

Crispin.

From: Roger Broadie = [mailto:Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk]
Sent: 18 February 2010 17:18
To: Crispin Weston
Cc: 'secondary'; 'Advisory talk'
Subject: Re: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on = Copyright and Education

Crispin,

Apologies for taking some time to get to replying = to your email.

Education dictating copyright terms is certainly = NOT code for 'ignore copyright'. Exactly the opposite in fact, it means assuming everything is copyright and that it is necessary to positively determine = what the Terms and Conditions (Ts&Cs) for usage are.

The point I am making is that the whole concept of 'educational exceptions' is broken and cannot be mended. Even if we = engaged fully in debate of the Gower recommendations and the consultation it = would not be possible to agree limits on where things could be accessed, by who, = or what materials are included or not included. The net result would be that any = school relying on educational exceptions to justify how content is being used digitally by their community will end up hopelessly confused. It's just unworkable. We could engage with this until the end of eternity and = still get no result.

A little story - a big museum set up a nice = project, whereby kids could borrow mobile phones and as they went round the museum could = take pictures of things they found particularly interesting and could then = upload these into online galleries being run by the museum, that the kids could = then access when back in school. But the project ran into a roadblock when = they realised that they had some things in the museum that were on loan = and not owned by themselves, and the terms of the loan did not permit = photography of the object, let alone the making and copying of digital = copies.

At some point in the near future kids in schools = are going to be permitted to use their phones to capture images - how many company meetings have you been in where taking pictures of the whiteboard at the = end of a discussion is just normal practice. Even the builder putting in our = loft conversion is now taking pictures of things to show us. So if they are = using some content in class and need to be able to look at it again at home, = they will copy it. Moral for the school - don't have any content in use that = cannot be used in this way and make sure the kids also know the Ts&Cs = (probably 'can be used by you and on the school platform, can't be put on the Internet = or copied to others).

I believe we should be saying to this = consultation:

- Educational exceptions to copyright will no = longer work for schools, because they cannot be limited in space or to what = materials are digitised, given that we are way past the point when digitising devices = and spread of content around networks and the Internet can be controlled by = a responsible organisation, and the people it is necessary to engage in collaborative learning cannot be limited to single defined institutions = and people who are bone-fide members of those institutions.

- Schools should therefore rely not on exceptions, = but on positive determination of the copyright terms and conditions that apply = to the content they wish to use.

- For education and learning in the digital age, = there is a clear need for as much content as possible to be covered by creative = commons Ts&Cs, so that it can be used as widely as possible, = collaboratively, and re-purposed to aid learning. The amount of this content will continue to = grow exponentially, worldwide, as more and more educators and learners become content creators.

- Copyright holders will then have to decide for = themselves what they have that has value beyond the creative commons content = available, and whether they are going to adopt copyright Ts&Cs that help = educators to use their content, both with regard to how the content can be used and = to the complexity for the organisation in understanding and managing the = copyright Ts&Cs. (I have seen museum Ts&Cs that run to 12 pages!) To help = this process some simple, single page exemplar Ts&Cs for education = purchasers should be produced. The whole issue of digital rights management would = also come in here - if content owners demand DRM and that makes their content unusable by schools and their communities, then so be it.

- Similarly, organisations such as the Copyright = Licensing Authority will have to decide if they can make a business by = coordinating the copyright Ts&Cs of a range of defined content providers, in a = way that will stimulate educational use and hence a financial return to the = content owners, that the owners could not themselves achieve by selling to = schools directly.

Then as clarity appears as to what content schools = can and cannot afford to use, without reliance on 'educational exceptions', = there will be a clear message for government that if some content is critical for education and is not being made available for educators and learners to = use, in learning-effective, manageable and affordable ways, then national action = will need to be taken to make such content available.

Roger.

On 11 Feb 2010, at 10:04, Crispin Weston = wrote:

Roger,

I agree with you on the underlying problem – but I am = not so sure that I agree with your view of the solution.

The reason why Gower focuses on interactive whiteboards = (from our point of view, maybe somewhat perversely) is that Gower is assuming that something displayed on an IWB is not then going out of the room – = it is a plenary display device with a clear boundary to the group of people who = are accessing it. This replicates the conditions which applied to the = display of video in classrooms and (on the basis of low and rapidly deteriorating = quality) to the distribution of photocopied hand-outs.

I do not agree with you that the supplier should now dictate copyright terms (this is really code for “ignore = copyright”). The much touted view that the internet was going to end intellectual = property is untrue, for reasons: (a) – technically, because publishers are increasingly putting in place DRM protection, (b) because the law is = still the law and from time to time very significant damages are still awarded = against file sharers, and (c) – in principle, because undermining IP would = be a disaster which would bring innovation to a screaming halt.

That is not to say that people, using e.g. creative commons, = may elect to give up their IP if they are able to earn their living some = other way (e.g. by occupying a salaried position or by offering advertising or = support services) – and this might be a very appropriate model for UGC. = But the vast majority of businesses still need to charge for the services they = provide in one way or another – and we need the involvement of industry if = we are going to get access to genuinely innovative products and = content.

The other issue with the educational exceptions is the = definition of the material which is affected – something like = “literary, dramatic or musical works” i.e. educational content is not = included. If it were, then all educational publishers would be put out of business overnight. In other words, the educational exceptions only affect = material where education is a tangential and unimportant source of income to the = rights holder.

In this respect, we have to question the distinction (which = in this context becomes very important) between educational and non-educational content. We are no longer going to distribute a photocopy of Macbeth = (literary, not educational) and then have a chat about it (educational but not = replicable) – we are going to suck in a digital version of Macbeth, probably = combined with some videos of the latest RSC production (commercial/dramatic) and = comments from other teachers (UGC), into an educational software programme = (commercial educational). The boundaries starts to become very complex.

So I have two overall comments on Gower:

1) educational exceptions can be applied fairly easily to = what I would call “plenary displays” (IWBs and = visualisers).

2) I am less sure about “distance learning”, = which is really a synonym for the internet. Even if the VLE is secure, you cannot = then stop the material being copied by students into non-secure environments. = From hereon in, educational exceptions are insufficient without a technical component. We must look to DRM solutions which place a reliable “wall” around educational use and can seamlessly handle the authorisation of non-educational content within complex orchestrations = of different types of content.

Crispin.

PS. you need to send an email to Leon, who will give you = access to the document.

From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.o= rg [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.o= rg] On Behalf Of Roger = Broadie
Sent: 11 February = 2010 09:00
To: theo = kuechel
Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; Advisory talk
Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and = Education

Theo,

First of all, I cannot = access Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions, I can't get at it = through my usual Google docs logon. Please advise.

However, I will be = extremely surprised if ANY educational exceptions will deal with the situation we = now find ourselves in. This is because the concept of 'educational use' was = single person use for their own study, whereas education use now largely means = copying and re-purposing for access by others who will collaboratively reflect = upon what the learner has done and provide afl feedback. There is no = substantive difference between this and publishing.

It is also almost = impossible to limit use to 'use within an educational institution' because that must = now mean use online by the community of people involved with promoting learning = in the institution, and where does that stop? Does it include Granny who lives = in New Zealand and the partner school in Mexico?

The only answer is to = turn the copyright legislation on its head and to state very clearly that = material that is not provided with appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored by educators and learners. It is time for the users = to set copyright terms, not the suppliers.

The terms and = conditions that you come across in many web resources are completely unworkable for schools = and learners. Try looking at a few. There is no way this can be resolved = from the supplier end, it will have to be resolved from the user end. For = instance, LT Scotland DICTATE what the copyright terms and conditions = will be for things they licence nationally. The whole education community should do similarly.

There are essentially = only 3 copyright terms that matter:

- you can look at it = but not do anything else with it.

- you can copy and = re-purpose it within the defined community of a an educational institution (but the = community of the institution can only be defined by the institution = itself)

- it is creative = commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your heart's content provided source is = acknowledged.

Roger.

On 10 Feb 2010, at = 11:15, theo kuechel wrote:

Paul, Colleagues;

This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than = the many technologies we often discuss, (including iPads, Interactive = whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are = likely to determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access digital = content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our learners. = These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable = future and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance learning, = mobile technologies, student work in digital format and the sharing and = development of teacher created resources.

Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents it = appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy of = Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions here, to which we can = add comments /annotations. Please email Leon for access.

It think is important we have that debate and I personally look = forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we = can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace = working group on this?

Best
Theo

On 5 February 2010 = 21:38, Paul Springford <paul.springford@naace.org> wrote:

Colleagues

Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter = Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with implications = for UK schools. Did you already know about the = Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the United = Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultation and = it deals in part with copyright in education in a digital age.

We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications for = our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a volunteer = to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a Naace response to = the IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.uk

--
Theo Kuechel
Learning Technology Research
theo.kuechel@gmail.com
T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk

Roger Broadie,

Director,= <= /o:p>

Broadie = Associates<= /o:p>

http://www.BroadieAssociates.= co.uk<= /o:p>

Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.= uk<= /o:p>

99 High Street, = Chatteris,<= /o:p>

Cambs, PE16 6NP, = UK.<= /o:p>

tel: +44 1 354 = 695583<= /o:p>

mobile: +44 7710 = 328672<= /o:p>

fax: +44 1 354 = 696647<= /o:p>

------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01CAB0E1.42847E70-- From dfee@btinternet.com Thu Feb 18 22:21:11 2010 From: dfee@btinternet.com (Leon Cych) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:21:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education In-Reply-To: <411ED577-ED51-43B8-BFF6-CFA93CEB5E91@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> Message-ID: <85250.60604.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --0-625363690-1266531671=:60604 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable QED - just the other day in Australia - just listen: http://audioboo.fm/boos/98963-copyright-is-an-ass facinating. Leon Cych --- On Thu, 18/2/10, Roger Broadie wrote: From: Roger Broadie Subject: Re: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Ed= ucation To: "Crispin Weston" Cc: "'secondary'" , "'Advisory talk'" Date: Thursday, 18 February, 2010, 17:18 Crispin, Apologies for taking some time to get to replying to your email. Education dictating copyright terms is certainly NOT code for 'ignore copyr= ight'. Exactly the opposite in fact, it means assuming everything is copyri= ght and that it is necessary to positively determine what the Terms and Con= ditions (Ts&Cs) for usage are. The point I am making is that the whole concept of 'educational exceptions'= is broken and cannot be mended. Even if we engaged fully in debate of the = Gower recommendations and the consultation it would not be possible to agre= e limits on where things could be accessed, by who, or what materials are i= ncluded or not included. The net result would be that any school relying on= educational exceptions to justify how content is being used digitally by t= heir community will end up hopelessly confused. It's just unworkable. We co= uld engage with this until the end of eternity and still get no result. A little story - a big museum set up a nice project, whereby kids could bor= row mobile phones and as they went round the museum could take pictures of = things they found particularly interesting and could then upload these into= online galleries being run by the museum, that the kids could then access = when back in school. But the project ran into a roadblock when they realise= d that they had some things in the =C2=A0museum that were on loan and not o= wned by themselves, and the terms of the loan did not permit photography of= the object, let alone the making and copying of digital copies. At some point in the near future kids in schools are going to be permitted = to use their phones to capture images - how many company meetings have you = been in where taking pictures of the whiteboard at the end of a discussion = is just normal practice. Even the builder putting in our loft conversion is= now taking pictures of things to show us. So if they are using some conten= t in class and need to be able to look at it again at home, they will copy = it. Moral for the school - don't have any content in use that cannot be use= d in this way and make sure the kids also know the Ts&Cs (probably 'can be = used by you and on the school platform, can't be put on the Internet or cop= ied to others). I believe we should be saying to this consultation: - Educational exceptions to copyright will no longer work for schools, beca= use they cannot be limited in space or to what materials are digitised, giv= en that we are way past the point when digitising devices and spread of con= tent around networks and the Internet can be controlled by a responsible or= ganisation, and the people it is necessary to engage in collaborative learn= ing cannot be limited to single defined institutions and people who are bon= e-fide members of those institutions. - Schools should therefore rely not on exceptions, but on positive determin= ation of the copyright terms and conditions that apply to the content they = wish to use. - For education and learning in the digital age, there is a clear need for = as much content as possible to be covered by creative commons Ts&Cs, so tha= t it can be used as widely as possible, collaboratively, and re-purposed to= aid learning. The amount of this content will continue to grow exponential= ly, worldwide, as more and more educators and learners become content creat= ors. - Copyright holders will then have to decide for themselves what they have = that has value beyond the creative commons content available, and whether t= hey are going to adopt copyright Ts&Cs that help educators to use their con= tent, both with regard to how the content can be used and to the complexity= for the organisation in understanding and managing the copyright Ts&Cs. (I= have seen museum Ts&Cs that run to 12 pages!) To help this process some si= mple, single page exemplar Ts&Cs for education purchasers should be produce= d. The whole issue of digital rights management would also come in here - i= f content owners demand DRM and that makes their content unusable by school= s and their communities, then so be it. - Similarly, organisations such as the Copyright Licensing Authority will h= ave to decide if they can make a business by coordinating the copyright Ts&= Cs =C2=A0of a range of defined content providers, in a way that will stimul= ate educational use and hence a financial return to the content owners, tha= t the owners could not themselves achieve by selling to schools directly. Then as clarity appears as to what content schools can and cannot afford to= use, without reliance on 'educational exceptions', there will be a clear m= essage for government that if some content is critical for education and is= not being made available for educators and learners to use, in learning-ef= fective, manageable and affordable ways, then national action will need to = be taken to make such content available. Roger. On 11 Feb 2010, at 10:04, Crispin Weston wrote: Roger, =C2=A0I agree with you on the underlying problem =E2=80=93 but I am = not so sure that I agree with your view of the solution. =C2=A0The reason w= hy Gower focuses on interactive whiteboards (from our point of view, maybe = somewhat perversely) is that Gower is assuming that something displayed on = an IWB is not then going out of the room =E2=80=93 it is a plenary display = device with a clear boundary to the group of people who are accessing it. T= his replicates the conditions which applied to the display of video in clas= srooms and (on the basis of low and rapidly deteriorating quality) to the d= istribution of photocopied hand-outs. =C2=A0I do not agree with you that th= e supplier should now dictate copyright terms (this is really code for =E2= =80=9Cignore copyright=E2=80=9D). The much touted view that the internet wa= s going to end intellectual property is untrue, for reasons: (a) =E2=80=93 = technically, because publishers are increasingly putting in place DRM prote= ction, (b) because the law is still the law and from time to time very significant damages are still awarded a= gainst file sharers, and (c) =E2=80=93 in principle, because undermining IP= would be a disaster which would bring innovation to a screaming halt. =C2= =A0That is not to say that people, using e.g. creative commons, may elect t= o give up their IP if they are able to earn their living some other way (e.= g. by occupying a salaried position or by offering advertising or support s= ervices) =E2=80=93 and this might be a very appropriate model for UGC. But = the vast majority of businesses still need to charge for the services they = provide in one way or another =E2=80=93 and we need the involvement of indu= stry if we are going to get access to genuinely innovative products and con= tent. =C2=A0The other issue with the educational exceptions is the definiti= on of the material which is affected =E2=80=93 something like =E2=80=9Clite= rary, dramatic or musical works=E2=80=9D i.e. educational content is not in= cluded. If it were, then all educational publishers would be put out of business overnight. In other wo= rds, the educational exceptions only affect material where education is a t= angential and unimportant source of income to the rights holder. =C2=A0In t= his respect, we have to question the distinction (which in this context bec= omes very important) between educational and non-educational content. We ar= e no longer going to distribute a photocopy of Macbeth (literary, not educa= tional) and then have a chat about it (educational but not replicable) =E2= =80=93 we are going to suck in a digital version of Macbeth, probably combi= ned with some videos of the latest RSC production (commercial/dramatic) and= comments from other teachers (UGC), into an educational software programme= (commercial educational). The boundaries starts to become very complex. = =C2=A0So I have two overall comments on Gower: =C2=A01) educational excepti= ons can be applied fairly easily to what I would call =E2=80=9Cplenary disp= lays=E2=80=9D (IWBs and visualisers). =C2=A02) I am less sure about =E2=80=9Cdistance learning=E2= =80=9D, which is really a synonym for the internet. Even if the VLE is secu= re, you cannot then stop the material being copied by students into non-sec= ure environments. From hereon in, educational exceptions are insufficient w= ithout a technical component. We must look to DRM solutions which place a r= eliable =E2=80=9Cwall=E2=80=9D around educational use and can seamlessly ha= ndle the authorisation of non-educational content within complex orchestrat= ions of different types of content. =C2=A0Crispin. =C2=A0PS. you need to se= nd an email to Leon, who will give you access to the document. =C2=A0 =C2= =A0From:=C2=A0advisory-admin@talk.naace.org=C2=A0[mailto:advisory-admin@tal= k.naace.org ]=C2=A0On Behalf Of=C2=A0Roger Broadie Sent:=C2=A011 February 2010 09:00 To:=C2=A0theo kuechel Cc:=C2=A0beyond@talk.naace.org;=C2=A0primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; Adv= isory talk Subject:=C2=A0[Advisory] Re: [Secondary]=C2=A0 UK=C2=A0Consultation on Copy= right and Education =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Theo, =C2=A0First of all, I cannot = access Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions, I can't get at i= t through my usual Google docs logon. Please advise. =C2=A0However, I will = be extremely surprised if ANY educational exceptions will deal with the sit= uation we now find ourselves in. This is because the concept of 'educationa= l use' was single person use for their own study, whereas education use now= largely means copying and re-purposing for access by others who will colla= boratively reflect upon what the learner has done and provide afl feedback.= There is no substantive difference between this and publishing. =C2=A0It i= s also almost impossible to limit use to 'use within an educational institu= tion' because that must now mean use online by the community of people invo= lved with promoting learning in the institution, and where does that stop? = Does it include Granny who lives in=C2=A0 New Zealand=C2=A0and the partner school in=C2=A0 Mexico ? = =C2=A0 =C2=A0The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its he= ad and to state very clearly that material that is not provided with approp= riate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored by educato= rs and learners. It is time for the users to set copyright terms, not the s= uppliers. =C2=A0The terms and conditions that you come across in many web r= esources are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at= a few. There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it will= have to be resolved from the user end. For instance, LT=C2=A0 Scotland=C2= =A0DICTATE what the copyright terms and conditions will be for things they = licence nationally. The whole education community should do similarly. =C2= =A0There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter: =C2=A0- you ca= n look at it but not do anything else with it. =C2=A0- you can copy and re-= purpose it within the defined community of a an educational institution (but the community of the institution can = only be defined by the institution itself) =C2=A0- it is creative commons a= nd you can copy and re-purpose it to your heart's content provided source i= s acknowledged. =C2=A0Roger. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 10 Feb 2010, at = 11:15, theo kuechel wrote: Paul, Colleagues; This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than the m= any technologies we often discuss, (including=C2=A0 iPads, Interactive whit= eboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation a= re likely to determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access = digital content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our l= earners. These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for the f= oreseeable future and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distan= ce learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and the sh= aring and development of teacher created resources. Having read=C2=A0 Marshall 's synopsis and then the re-read the documents i= t appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a cop= y of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions=C2=A0here, to which= we can add comments /annotations. Please email=C2=A0Leon=C2=A0for access. It=C2=A0 think is important we have that debate and I personally look forwa= rd to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we = can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace wor= king group on this? Best Theo On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford wrote= :Colleagues Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter Marshal M= ateer's article about an important consultation with implications for=C2=A0= UK=C2=A0schools. Did you already know about the Intellectual Property Offi= ce (IPO), "the=C2=A0official government body=C2=A0responsible for granting = Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the=C2=A0 United Kingdom "? Possibly n= ot. It's their consultation and it deals in part with copyright in educatio= n in a digital age. We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications for our= schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a volunteer to = coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a Naace response to th= e IPO. Any offers please to=C2=A0paul.springford@naace.co.uk --=C2=A0 Theo Kuechel Learning Technology Research =C2=A0 theo.kuechel@gmail.com T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk =C2=A0 Roger Broadie,Director,Broadie Associateshttp://www.BroadieAssociates.co.u= kRoger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk 99 High Street, Chatteris,Cambs, PE16 6NP, UK. tel: +44 1 354 695583mobile: +44 7710 328672fax: +44 1 354 696647 =20 --0-625363690-1266531671=:60604 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
QED - just the other day in Australia - just = listen:

http://audioboo.fm/boos/98963-copyright-is-an-ass

facinating.<= br>
Leon Cych

--- On Thu, 18/2/10, Roger Broadie <Roger@= BroadieAssociates.co.uk> wrote:

= From: Roger Broadie <Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [= Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education
To:= "Crispin Weston" <crispin.weston@alphalearning.co.uk>
Cc: "'secon= dary'" <secondary@talk.naace.org>, "'Advisory talk'" <advisory@tal= k.naace.org>
Date: Thursday, 18 February, 2010, 17:18

Crispin,

Apologies for taking some time to get to replying to your e= mail.

Education dictating copyright terms is certa= inly NOT code for 'ignore copyright'. Exactly the opposite in fact, it mean= s assuming everything is copyright and that it is necessary to positively d= etermine what the Terms and Conditions (Ts&Cs) for usage are.

The point I am making is that the whole conc= ept of 'educational exceptions' is broken and cannot be mended. Even if we = engaged fully in debate of the Gower recommendations and the consultation i= t would not be possible to agree limits on where things could be accessed, = by who, or what materials are included or not included. The net result woul= d be that any school relying on educational exceptions to justify how conte= nt is being used digitally by their community will end up hopelessly confused. It's just unworkable. We could engage with this until the end of= eternity and still get no result.

A little story = - a big museum set up a nice project, whereby kids could borrow mobile phon= es and as they went round the museum could take pictures of things they fou= nd particularly interesting and could then upload these into online galleri= es being run by the museum, that the kids could then access when back in sc= hool. But the project ran into a roadblock when they realised that they had= some things in the museum that were on loan and not owned by themsel= ves, and the terms of the loan did not permit photography of the object, le= t alone the making and copying of digital copies.

= At some point in the near future kids in schools are going to be permitted = to use their phones to capture images - how many company meetings have you = been in where taking pictures of the whiteboard at the end of a discussion is just normal practice. Even the builder putting in our loft c= onversion is now taking pictures of things to show us. So if they are using= some content in class and need to be able to look at it again at home, the= y will copy it. Moral for the school - don't have any content in use that c= annot be used in this way and make sure the kids also know the Ts&Cs (p= robably 'can be used by you and on the school platform, can't be put on the= Internet or copied to others).

I b= elieve we should be saying to this consultation:

-= Educational exceptions to copyright will no longer work for schools, becau= se they cannot be limited in space or to what materials are digitised, give= n that we are way past the point when digitising devices and spread of cont= ent around networks and the Internet can be controlled by a responsible org= anisation, and the people it is necessary to engage in collaborative learning cannot be limited to single defined institutions and people who a= re bone-fide members of those institutions.

- Scho= ols should therefore rely not on exceptions, but on positive determination = of the copyright terms and conditions that apply to the content they wish t= o use.

- For education and learning in the digital= age, there is a clear need for as much content as possible to be covered b= y creative commons Ts&Cs, so that it can be used as widely as possible,= collaboratively, and re-purposed to aid learning. The amount of this conte= nt will continue to grow exponentially, worldwide, as more and more educato= rs and learners become content creators.

- Copyrig= ht holders will then have to decide for themselves what they have that has = value beyond the creative commons content available, and whether they are g= oing to adopt copyright Ts&Cs that help educators to use their content, both with regard to how the content can be used and to the comple= xity for the organisation in understanding and managing the copyright Ts&am= p;Cs. (I have seen museum Ts&Cs that run to 12 pages!) To help this pro= cess some simple, single page exemplar Ts&Cs for education purchasers s= hould be produced. The whole issue of digital rights management would also = come in here - if content owners demand DRM and that makes their content un= usable by schools and their communities, then so be it.

- Similarly, organisations such as the Copyright Licensing Authority = will have to decide if they can make a business by coordinating the copyrig= ht Ts&Cs of a range of defined content providers, in a way that w= ill stimulate educational use and hence a financial return to the content o= wners, that the owners could not themselves achieve by selling to schools d= irectly.

Then as clarity appears as to what content schools can and cannot afford to use, without r= eliance on 'educational exceptions', there will be a clear message for gove= rnment that if some content is critical for education and is not being made= available for educators and learners to use, in learning-effective, manage= able and affordable ways, then national action will need to be taken to mak= e such content available.

Roger.

On 11 Feb 2010, at 10:04, Crispin Weston wrote:

<= div class=3D"Section1">
Roger,

I agree with you on the underlying problem =E2=80=93 = but I am not so sure that I agree with your view of the solution.

The reason why Gower focuses= on interactive whiteboards (from our point of view, maybe somewhat pervers= ely) is that Gower is assuming that something displayed on an IWB is not th= en going out of the room =E2=80=93 it is a plenary display device with a cl= ear boundary to the group of people who are accessing it. This replicates t= he conditions which applied to the display of video in classrooms and (on t= he basis of low and rapidly deteriorating quality) to the distribution of p= hotocopied hand-outs.

I do not agree with you that the supplier should now dictate = copyright terms (this is really code for =E2=80=9Cignore copyright=E2=80=9D= ). The much touted view that the internet was going to end intellectual pro= perty is untrue, for reasons: (a) =E2=80=93 technically, because publishers= are increasingly putting in place DRM protection, (b) because the law is s= till the law and from time to time very significant damages are still award= ed against file sharers, and (c) =E2=80=93 in principle, because underminin= g IP would be a disaster which would bring innovation to a screaming halt.<= /span>

That is not to= say that people, using e.g. creative commons, may elect to give up their I= P if they are able to earn their living some other way (e.g. by occupying a= salaried position or by offering advertising or support services) =E2=80= =93 and this might be a very appropriate model for UGC. But the vast majori= ty of businesses still need to charge for the services they provide in one = way or another =E2=80=93 and we need the involvement of industry if we are = going to get access to genuinely innovative products and content.

The other issu= e with the educational exceptions is the definition of the material which i= s affected =E2=80=93 something like =E2=80=9Cliterary, dramatic or musical = works=E2=80=9D i.e. educational content is not included. If it were, then a= ll educational publishers would be put out of business overnight. In other = words, the educational exceptions only affect material where education is a= tangential and unimportant source of income to the rights holder.
=
In this respect, we have to = question the distinction (which in this context becomes very important) bet= ween educational and non-educational content. We are no longer going to dis= tribute a photocopy of Macbeth (literary, not educational) and then have a = chat about it (educational but not replicable) =E2=80=93 we are going to su= ck in a digital version of Macbeth, probably combined with some videos of t= he latest RSC production (commercial/dramatic) and comments from other teac= hers (UGC), into an educational software programme (commercial educational)= . The boundaries starts to become very complex.

So I have two overall commen= ts on Gower:

1) educational exceptions can be applied fairly easi= ly to what I would call =E2=80=9Cplenary displays=E2=80=9D (IWBs and visual= isers).
<= /div>
2) I am less = sure about =E2=80=9Cdistance learning=E2=80=9D, which is really a synonym f= or the internet. Even if the VLE is secure, you cannot then stop the materi= al being copied by students into non-secure environments. From hereon in, e= ducational exceptions are insufficient without a technical component. We mu= st look to DRM solutions which place a reliable =E2=80=9Cwall=E2=80=9D arou= nd educational use and can seamlessly handle the authorisation of non-educa= tional content within complex orchestrations of different types of content.=
<= /div>
Crispin.
&n= bsp;
PS. you need to send an email to Leon, who will give you access to th= e document.

From:&nb= sp;advisory-admin@talk.n= aace.org [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.org ]= On Behalf Of Roger Broadie
Sent: 11 February 2010 09:00
To: theo kuechel
Cc: be= yond@talk.naace.org; = primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; Adviso= ry talk
Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education

Theo,

First of a= ll, I cannot access Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions, I c= an't get at it through my usual Google docs logon. Please advise.

<= div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times= New Roman';">However, I will be extremely surprised if ANY educational exc= eptions will deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. This is because the concept of 'educat= ional use' was single person use for their own study, whereas education use= now largely means copying and re-purposing for access by others who will c= ollaboratively reflect upon what the learner has done and provide afl feedb= ack. There is no substantive difference between this and publishing.=

It is also almost impossible to limit use to 'use within = an educational institution' because that must now mean use online by the co= mmunity of people involved with promoting learning in the institution, and = where does that stop? Does it include Granny who lives in New Zealand&n= bsp;and the partner school in&= nbsp; Mexico ?
<= /span>

The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation= on its head and to state very clearly that material that is not provided w= ith appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored by educators an= d learners. It is time for the users to set copyright terms, not the suppli= ers.

The terms and conditions that you come across i= n many web resources are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Tr= y looking at a few. There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier = end, it will have to be resolved from the user end. For instance, LT Scotland DICTATE what the copyright terms and condition= s will be for things they licence nationally. The whole education community should do si= milarly.
=
<= span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">There are essentially only 3 copyright term= s that matter:
<= /font>
- you can look at it but not do any= thing else with it.

- you can copy and re-purpose it within the def= ined community of a an educational institution (but the community of the in= stitution can only be defined by the institution itself)

- it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your heart's content provide= d source is acknowledged.
&nb= sp;
Roger.
=

On 10 Feb 2010, = at 11:15, theo kuechel wrote:

<= br>
Paul, Colleagues;
This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than the many technologies we often discu= ss, (including iPads, Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications o= r VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are likely to determine how we a= re allowed to use our digital tools, access digital content and by default,= determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These outcomes will sh= ape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable future and permeate = all educational uses of ICT including distance learning, mobile technologie= s, student work in digital format and the sharing and development of teache= r created resources.

Having read Marshall 's synopsis and then the re-read the documents it = appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy = of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions here, to which we can add comments /annotations. Please email Leon<= /a> for access.

It= think is important we have that debate and I personally look forward= to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we ca= n start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace worki= ng group on this?

Best
Theo

On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford <paul.springford@naace.org> wrote:
Colleagues

Many of you will already have read in th= e latest Naace newsletter Marshal Mateer's article about an important consu= ltation with implications for UK schools. Did you= already know about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in= the United Kingdom "? Possibly n= ot. It's their consultation and it deals in part with copyright in educatio= n in a digital age.

We firmly expect that members will wish to discu= ss the implications for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are = looking for a volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basi= s of a Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to paul.= springford@naace.co.uk

--&nb= sp;
Theo Kuechel
Learning Technology Research
theo.kuechel@gmail.com
T.Kuechel@hul= l.ac.uk

Roger Broadie,
Director,
Broadie Associates
http://www.BroadieAssociates.co.uk=
Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk

99 High Street, Chatteris,
Cambs, PE16 6NP, UK.

tel: +44 1 354 695583
mobile: +44 7710 328672
f= ax: +44 1 354 696647

--0-625363690-1266531671=:60604-- From Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk Fri Feb 19 08:34:54 2010 From: Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk (Roger Broadie) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:34:54 +0000 Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education In-Reply-To: <9FDCE0A4898C440AB276C681F0CAC3A9@DEVELOPMENT> References: <16F87465-D859-4F26-8D77-1E680771EDBB@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> <68D1C08C2CBF4BF7ACB28E41F6004F49@DEVELOPMENT> <411ED577-ED51-43B8-BFF6-CFA93CEB5E91@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> <9FDCE0A4898C440AB276C681F0CAC3A9@DEVELOPMENT> Message-ID: <1491C13E-DD87-440F-99BB-25D33239151B@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-98-498485885 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Crispin, Thanks for supporting the view that the educational exceptions concept =20= is broken. And I am afraid the idea that there can be a technical boundary also =20 cannot work. Access to educational content is now through a browser, =20 even for software that is used through thin client or secure gateway =20 technologies, with the software actually running on machines in the =20 school. And if the user can see something on their screen, they can =20 capture it, even if only as a screen-grab or by taking a picture of it =20= on their phone. Sure it is possible to technically limit software and content to =20 running on specific machines, but that does not fully solve the =20 copyright problem. It only gives control over quality of the content. The only copyright control which is workable is legal control through =20= Ts&Cs, with the Ts&Cs being simple enough for all users to grasp easily. There can be a sort of technical boundary through closed networks/=20 intranets that require logon, but even this cannot be precisely =20 defined by the copyright holder. Some years ago in a 3Com meeting, a =20 network manager from a university who was attending explained that =20 they had 60 different CATEGORIES of user on the network, with overlaps =20= all over the place, some being full 'members' of the institution, =20 others being transient users or being some kind of associate user, =20 making it absolutely impossible to precisely define numbers of users. =20= The same is true for schools with parents and extended family needing =20= some access, as well as partner schools, other agencies, maybe =20 community businesses and so on. Roger. On 18 Feb 2010, at 17:39, Crispin Weston wrote: > Hi Roger, > > I agree with all you say =96 the concept of educational exceptions is =20= > essentially broken. > > I would only add two points (uncontentious ones, I hope): > > 1) the simple classification offered by Creative Commons is a real =20 > help =96 maybe we need some similarly iconic representation of =93for =20= > educational use=94; > > 2) it would be useful to have some kind of technical boundary to =20 > that educational use =96 this would be feasible for more complex =20 > interactive (and probably high-value) content, though not for simple =20= > assets which, as you say, cannot be kept inside any sort of a useful =20= > boundary. > > Crispin. > > > > From: Roger Broadie [mailto:Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk] > Sent: 18 February 2010 17:18 > To: Crispin Weston > Cc: 'secondary'; 'Advisory talk' > Subject: Re: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright =20= > and Education > > > > Crispin, > > Apologies for taking some time to get to replying to your email. > > Education dictating copyright terms is certainly NOT code for =20 > 'ignore copyright'. Exactly the opposite in fact, it means assuming =20= > everything is copyright and that it is necessary to positively =20 > determine what the Terms and Conditions (Ts&Cs) for usage are. > > > The point I am making is that the whole concept of 'educational =20 > exceptions' is broken and cannot be mended. Even if we engaged fully =20= > in debate of the Gower recommendations and the consultation it would =20= > not be possible to agree limits on where things could be accessed, =20 > by who, or what materials are included or not included. The net =20 > result would be that any school relying on educational exceptions to =20= > justify how content is being used digitally by their community will =20= > end up hopelessly confused. It's just unworkable. We could engage =20 > with this until the end of eternity and still get no result. > > A little story - a big museum set up a nice project, whereby kids =20 > could borrow mobile phones and as they went round the museum could =20 > take pictures of things they found particularly interesting and =20 > could then upload these into online galleries being run by the =20 > museum, that the kids could then access when back in school. But the =20= > project ran into a roadblock when they realised that they had some =20 > things in the museum that were on loan and not owned by themselves, =20= > and the terms of the loan did not permit photography of the object, =20= > let alone the making and copying of digital copies. > > At some point in the near future kids in schools are going to be =20 > permitted to use their phones to capture images - how many company =20 > meetings have you been in where taking pictures of the whiteboard at =20= > the end of a discussion is just normal practice. Even the builder =20 > putting in our loft conversion is now taking pictures of things to =20 > show us. So if they are using some content in class and need to be =20 > able to look at it again at home, they will copy it. Moral for the =20 > school - don't have any content in use that cannot be used in this =20 > way and make sure the kids also know the Ts&Cs (probably 'can be =20 > used by you and on the school platform, can't be put on the Internet =20= > or copied to others). > > > I believe we should be saying to this consultation: > > - Educational exceptions to copyright will no longer work for =20 > schools, because they cannot be limited in space or to what =20 > materials are digitised, given that we are way past the point when =20 > digitising devices and spread of content around networks and the =20 > Internet can be controlled by a responsible organisation, and the =20 > people it is necessary to engage in collaborative learning cannot be =20= > limited to single defined institutions and people who are bone-fide =20= > members of those institutions. > > - Schools should therefore rely not on exceptions, but on positive =20 > determination of the copyright terms and conditions that apply to =20 > the content they wish to use. > > - For education and learning in the digital age, there is a clear =20 > need for as much content as possible to be covered by creative =20 > commons Ts&Cs, so that it can be used as widely as possible, =20 > collaboratively, and re-purposed to aid learning. The amount of this =20= > content will continue to grow exponentially, worldwide, as more and =20= > more educators and learners become content creators. > > - Copyright holders will then have to decide for themselves what =20 > they have that has value beyond the creative commons content =20 > available, and whether they are going to adopt copyright Ts&Cs that =20= > help educators to use their content, both with regard to how the =20 > content can be used and to the complexity for the organisation in =20 > understanding and managing the copyright Ts&Cs. (I have seen museum =20= > Ts&Cs that run to 12 pages!) To help this process some simple, =20 > single page exemplar Ts&Cs for education purchasers should be =20 > produced. The whole issue of digital rights management would also =20 > come in here - if content owners demand DRM and that makes their =20 > content unusable by schools and their communities, then so be it. > > - Similarly, organisations such as the Copyright Licensing Authority =20= > will have to decide if they can make a business by coordinating the =20= > copyright Ts&Cs of a range of defined content providers, in a way =20 > that will stimulate educational use and hence a financial return to =20= > the content owners, that the owners could not themselves achieve by =20= > selling to schools directly. > > > Then as clarity appears as to what content schools can and cannot =20 > afford to use, without reliance on 'educational exceptions', there =20 > will be a clear message for government that if some content is =20 > critical for education and is not being made available for educators =20= > and learners to use, in learning-effective, manageable and =20 > affordable ways, then national action will need to be taken to make =20= > such content available. > > > Roger. > > > > > > On 11 Feb 2010, at 10:04, Crispin Weston wrote: > > > Roger, > > I agree with you on the underlying problem =96 but I am not so sure =20= > that I agree with your view of the solution. > > The reason why Gower focuses on interactive whiteboards (from our =20 > point of view, maybe somewhat perversely) is that Gower is assuming =20= > that something displayed on an IWB is not then going out of the room =20= > =96 it is a plenary display device with a clear boundary to the group =20= > of people who are accessing it. This replicates the conditions which =20= > applied to the display of video in classrooms and (on the basis of =20 > low and rapidly deteriorating quality) to the distribution of =20 > photocopied hand-outs. > > I do not agree with you that the supplier should now dictate =20 > copyright terms (this is really code for =93ignore copyright=94). The =20= > much touted view that the internet was going to end intellectual =20 > property is untrue, for reasons: (a) =96 technically, because =20 > publishers are increasingly putting in place DRM protection, (b) =20 > because the law is still the law and from time to time very =20 > significant damages are still awarded against file sharers, and (c) =20= > =96 in principle, because undermining IP would be a disaster which =20 > would bring innovation to a screaming halt. > > That is not to say that people, using e.g. creative commons, may =20 > elect to give up their IP if they are able to earn their living some =20= > other way (e.g. by occupying a salaried position or by offering =20 > advertising or support services) =96 and this might be a very =20 > appropriate model for UGC. But the vast majority of businesses still =20= > need to charge for the services they provide in one way or another =96 = =20 > and we need the involvement of industry if we are going to get =20 > access to genuinely innovative products and content. > > The other issue with the educational exceptions is the definition of =20= > the material which is affected =96 something like =93literary, = dramatic =20 > or musical works=94 i.e. educational content is not included. If it =20= > were, then all educational publishers would be put out of business =20 > overnight. In other words, the educational exceptions only affect =20 > material where education is a tangential and unimportant source of =20 > income to the rights holder. > > In this respect, we have to question the distinction (which in this =20= > context becomes very important) between educational and non-=20 > educational content. We are no longer going to distribute a =20 > photocopy of Macbeth (literary, not educational) and then have a =20 > chat about it (educational but not replicable) =96 we are going to =20 > suck in a digital version of Macbeth, probably combined with some =20 > videos of the latest RSC production (commercial/dramatic) and =20 > comments from other teachers (UGC), into an educational software =20 > programme (commercial educational). The boundaries starts to become =20= > very complex. > > So I have two overall comments on Gower: > > 1) educational exceptions can be applied fairly easily to what I =20 > would call =93plenary displays=94 (IWBs and visualisers). > > 2) I am less sure about =93distance learning=94, which is really a =20 > synonym for the internet. Even if the VLE is secure, you cannot then =20= > stop the material being copied by students into non-secure =20 > environments. =46rom hereon in, educational exceptions are =20 > insufficient without a technical component. We must look to DRM =20 > solutions which place a reliable =93wall=94 around educational use and = =20 > can seamlessly handle the authorisation of non-educational content =20 > within complex orchestrations of different types of content. > > Crispin. > > PS. you need to send an email to Leon, who will give you access to =20 > the document. > > > From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.org = [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.org=20 > ] On Behalf Of Roger Broadie > Sent: 11 February 2010 09:00 > To: theo kuechel > Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; =20 > Advisory talk > Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and =20= > Education > > > > Theo, > > First of all, I cannot access Gower's recommendations for =20 > educational exceptions, I can't get at it through my usual Google =20 > docs logon. Please advise. > > However, I will be extremely surprised if ANY educational exceptions =20= > will deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. This is =20 > because the concept of 'educational use' was single person use for =20 > their own study, whereas education use now largely means copying and =20= > re-purposing for access by others who will collaboratively reflect =20 > upon what the learner has done and provide afl feedback. There is no =20= > substantive difference between this and publishing. > > It is also almost impossible to limit use to 'use within an =20 > educational institution' because that must now mean use online by =20 > the community of people involved with promoting learning in the =20 > institution, and where does that stop? Does it include Granny who =20 > lives in New Zealand and the partner school in Mexico? > > > The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its head and =20= > to state very clearly that material that is not provided with =20 > appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely =20 > ignored by educators and learners. It is time for the users to set =20 > copyright terms, not the suppliers. > > The terms and conditions that you come across in many web resources =20= > are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a =20= > few. There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it =20= > will have to be resolved from the user end. For instance, LT =20 > Scotland DICTATE what the copyright terms and conditions will be for =20= > things they licence nationally. The whole education community should =20= > do similarly. > > There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter: > > - you can look at it but not do anything else with it. > > - you can copy and re-purpose it within the defined community of a =20 > an educational institution (but the community of the institution can =20= > only be defined by the institution itself) > > - it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your =20= > heart's content provided source is acknowledged. > > Roger. > > > > > On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel wrote: > > > > Paul, Colleagues; > > This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance =20 > than the many technologies we often discuss, (including iPads, =20 > Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes =20= > of this consultation are likely to determine how we are allowed to =20 > use our digital tools, access digital content and by default, =20 > determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These outcomes =20 > will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable future =20= > and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance =20 > learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and =20 > the sharing and development of teacher created resources. > > Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents =20 > it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has =20 > created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions =20= > here, to which we can add comments /annotations. Please email Leon =20 > for access. > > It think is important we have that debate and I personally look =20 > forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you =20= > suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised =20 > there is no Naace working group on this? > > Best > Theo > > > > > > On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford =20 > wrote: > Colleagues > > Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter =20 > Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with =20 > implications for UK schools. Did you already know about the =20 > Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body =20 > responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the =20 > United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultation and it deals =20= > in part with copyright in education in a digital age. > > We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications =20= > for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a =20= > volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a =20= > Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to = paul.springford@naace.co.uk > > > > --=20 > Theo Kuechel > Learning Technology Research > theo.kuechel@gmail.com > T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk > > > > > > Roger Broadie, > Director, > Broadie Associates > http://www.BroadieAssociates.co.uk > Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk > > 99 High Street, Chatteris, > Cambs, PE16 6NP, UK. > > tel: +44 1 354 695583 > mobile: +44 7710 328672 > fax: +44 1 354 696647 > > > > > > --Apple-Mail-98-498485885 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi = Roger,

I agree = with all you say =96 the concept of educational exceptions is = essentially broken.
I would only add two points (uncontentious ones, I = hope):

1) the = simple classification offered by Creative Commons is a real help =96 = maybe we need some similarly iconic representation of =93for educational = use=94;

2) it = would be useful to have some kind of technical boundary to that = educational use =96 this would be feasible for more complex interactive = (and probably high-value) content, though not for simple assets which, = as you say, cannot be kept inside any sort of a useful = boundary.

Roger Broadie [
Sent: 18 February 2010 = 17:18
To: Crispin Weston
Cc: 'secondary'; 'Advisory = talk'
Subject: Re: [Advisory] Re: = [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright = and Education

Crispin,

Apologies for taking some time to get to replying to your = email.
Education dictating copyright terms is certainly NOT code for = 'ignore copyright'. Exactly the opposite in fact, it means assuming = everything is copyright and that it is necessary to positively determine = what the Terms and Conditions (Ts&Cs) for usage = are.

The point I am making is that the whole concept of 'educational = exceptions' is broken and cannot be mended. Even if we engaged fully in = debate of the Gower recommendations and the consultation it would not be = possible to agree limits on where things could be accessed, by who, or = what materials are included or not included. The net result would be = that any school relying on educational exceptions to justify how content = is being used digitally by their community will end up hopelessly = confused. It's just unworkable. We could engage with this until the end = of eternity and still get no = result.
A little story - a big museum set up a nice project, whereby = kids could borrow mobile phones and as they went round the museum could = take pictures of things they found particularly interesting and could = then upload these into online galleries being run by the museum, that = the kids could then access when back in school. But the project ran into = a roadblock when they realised that they had some things in the = museum that were on loan and not owned by themselves, and the = terms of the loan did not permit photography of the object, let alone = the making and copying of digital = copies.
At some point in the near future kids in schools are going to be = permitted to use their phones to capture images - how many company = meetings have you been in where taking pictures of the whiteboard at the = end of a discussion is just normal practice. Even the builder putting in = our loft conversion is now taking pictures of things to show us. So if = they are using some content in class and need to be able to look at it = again at home, they will copy it. Moral for the school - don't have any = content in use that cannot be used in this way and make sure the kids = also know the Ts&Cs (probably 'can be used by you and on the school = platform, can't be put on the Internet or copied to = others).

I believe we should be saying to this = consultation:

- Educational exceptions to copyright will no longer work for = schools, because they cannot be limited in space or to what materials = are digitised, given that we are way past the point when digitising = devices and spread of content around networks and the Internet can be = controlled by a responsible organisation, and the people it is necessary = to engage in collaborative learning cannot be limited to single defined = institutions and people who are bone-fide members of those = institutions.

- Schools should therefore rely not on exceptions, but on = positive determination of the copyright terms and conditions that apply = to the content they wish to = use.
- For education and learning in the digital age, there is a = clear need for as much content as possible to be covered by creative = commons Ts&Cs, so that it can be used as widely as possible, = collaboratively, and re-purposed to aid learning. The amount of this = content will continue to grow exponentially, worldwide, as more and more = educators and learners become content = creators.

- Copyright holders will then have to decide for themselves what = they have that has value beyond the creative commons content available, = and whether they are going to adopt copyright Ts&Cs that help = educators to use their content, both with regard to how the content can = be used and to the complexity for the organisation in understanding and = managing the copyright Ts&Cs. (I have seen museum Ts&Cs that run = to 12 pages!) To help this process some simple, single page exemplar = Ts&Cs for education purchasers should be produced. The whole issue = of digital rights management would also come in here - if content owners = demand DRM and that makes their content unusable by schools and their = communities, then so be = it.
- Similarly, organisations such as the Copyright Licensing = Authority will have to decide if they can make a business by = coordinating the copyright Ts&Cs of a range of defined content = providers, in a way that will stimulate educational use and hence a = financial return to the content owners, that the owners could not = themselves achieve by selling to schools = directly.

Then as clarity appears as to what content schools can and = cannot afford to use, without reliance on 'educational exceptions', = there will be a clear message for government that if some content is = critical for education and is not being made available for educators and = learners to use, in learning-effective, manageable and affordable ways, = then national action will need to be taken to make such content = available.

Roger.

On 11 Feb 2010, at 10:04, Crispin Weston = wrote:
Roger,
I agree = with you on the underlying problem =96 but I am not so sure that I agree = with your view of the solution.
The = reason why Gower focuses on interactive whiteboards (from our point of = view, maybe somewhat perversely) is that Gower is assuming that = something displayed on an IWB is not then going out of the room =96 it = is a plenary display device with a clear boundary to the group of people = who are accessing it. This replicates the conditions which applied to = the display of video in classrooms and (on the basis of low and rapidly = deteriorating quality) to the distribution of photocopied = hand-outs.
I do not = agree with you that the supplier should now dictate copyright terms = (this is really code for =93ignore copyright=94). The much touted view = that the internet was going to end intellectual property is untrue, for = reasons: (a) =96 technically, because publishers are increasingly = putting in place DRM protection, (b) because the law is still the law = and from time to time very significant damages are still awarded against = file sharers, and (c) =96 in principle, because undermining IP would be = a disaster which would bring innovation to a screaming = halt.
That is = not to say that people, using e.g. creative commons, may elect to give = up their IP if they are able to earn their living some other way (e.g. = by occupying a salaried position or by offering advertising or support = services) =96 and this might be a very appropriate model for UGC. But = the vast majority of businesses still need to charge for the services = they provide in one way or another =96 and we need the involvement of = industry if we are going to get access to genuinely innovative products = and content.
The other = issue with the educational exceptions is the definition of the material = which is affected =96 something like =93literary, dramatic or musical = works=94 i.e. educational content is not included. If it were, then all = educational publishers would be put out of business overnight. In other = words, the educational exceptions only affect material where education = is a tangential and unimportant source of income to the rights = holder.
In this = respect, we have to question the distinction (which in this context = becomes very important) between educational and non-educational content. = We are no longer going to distribute a photocopy of Macbeth (literary, = not educational) and then have a chat about it (educational but not = replicable) =96 we are going to suck in a digital version of Macbeth, = probably combined with some videos of the latest RSC production = (commercial/dramatic) and comments from other teachers (UGC), into an = educational software programme (commercial educational). The boundaries = starts to become very complex.
So I have = two overall comments on Gower:
1) = educational exceptions can be applied fairly easily to what I would call = =93plenary displays=94 (IWBs and = visualisers).
2) I am = less sure about =93distance learning=94, which is really a synonym for = the internet. Even if the VLE is secure, you cannot then stop the = material being copied by students into non-secure environments. =46rom = hereon in, educational exceptions are insufficient without a technical = component. We must look to DRM solutions which place a reliable =93wall=94= around educational use and can seamlessly handle the authorisation of = non-educational content within complex orchestrations of different types = of content.
PS. you = need to send an email to Leon, who will give you access to the = document.
advisory-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto: On Behalf Of Roger = Broadie
Sent: 11 February 2010 = 09:00
To: theo kuechel
Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; = Advisory talk
[Advisory] Re: = [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright = and EducationFirst of all, I = cannot access Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions, I = can't get at it through my usual Google docs logon. Please = advise.
<= div style=3D"margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: = 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New = Roman'; ">However, I will = be extremely surprised if ANY educational exceptions will deal with the = situation we now find ourselves in. This is because the concept of = 'educational use' was single person use for their own study, whereas = education use now largely means copying and re-purposing for access by = others who will collaboratively reflect upon what the learner has done = and provide afl feedback. There is no substantive difference between = this and = publishing.
It is also almost = impossible to limit use to 'use within an educational institution' = because that must now mean use online by the community of people = involved with promoting learning in the institution, and where does that = stop? Does it include Granny who lives in New Zealand and the partner school = in Mexico?
The only answer = is to turn the copyright legislation on its head and to state very = clearly that material that is not provided with appropriate copyright = for use in education, will be completely ignored by educators and = learners. It is time for the users to set copyright terms, not the = suppliers.
The terms and = conditions that you come across in many web resources are completely = unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a few. There is no = way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it will have to be = resolved from the user end. For instance, LT Scotland DICTATE what the copyright = terms and conditions will be for things they licence nationally. The = whole education community should do = similarly.
There are = essentially only 3 copyright terms that = matter:
<= div style=3D"margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: = 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New = Roman'; ">- you can look at = it but not do anything else with = it.
- you can copy = and re-purpose it within the defined community of a an educational = institution (but the community of the institution can only be defined by = the institution = itself)
<= div style=3D"margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: = 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New = Roman'; ">- it is creative = commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your heart's content = provided source is = acknowledged.
=
On 10 Feb 2010, = at 11:15, theo kuechel = wrote:
Paul, = Colleagues;

This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater = significance than the many technologies we often discuss, = (including iPads, Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or = VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are likely to determine how we = are allowed to use our digital tools, access digital content and by = default, determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These = outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable = future and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance = learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and the = sharing and development of teacher created resources.

Having = read Marshall's = synopsis and then the re-read the documents it appears there is some = urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy of Gower's = recommendations for educational exceptions here, to which we can add comments = /annotations. Please email Leon for access.

It = think is important we have that debate and I personally look forward to = reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we can = start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace = working group on = this?

Best
Theo

= On 5 February = 2010 21:38, Paul Springford <Colleagues

Many of you = will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter Marshal Mateer's = article about an important consultation with implications for UK schools. Did you already = know about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body responsible for granting = Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the United = Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their = consultation and it deals in part with copyright in education in a = digital age.

We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss = the implications for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are = looking for a volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the = basis of a Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to
--
Theo = Kuechel
Learning Technology Research
theo.kuechel@gmail.com

Roger = Broadie,
Director,Broadie Associates99 High = Street, Chatteris,, PE16 6NP, UK.tel: +44 1 354 = 695583
mobile: +44 7710 = 328672
fax: +44 1 354 = 696647

http://raytolley.v2efolioworld.mnscu.edu/ B: http://www.efoliointheuk.blogspot.com/ W: http://www.maximise-ict.co.uk/eFolio-01.htm T: http://twitter.com/efolio Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Regional Award 2009' From: secondary-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:secondary-admin@talk.naace.org] On Behalf Of Crispin Weston Sent: 18 February 2010 17:39 To: 'Roger Broadie' Cc: 'secondary'; 'Advisory talk' Subject: RE: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education Hi Roger, I agree with all you say - the concept of educational exceptions is essentially broken. I would only add two points (uncontentious ones, I hope): 1) the simple classification offered by Creative Commons is a real help - maybe we need some similarly iconic representation of "for educational use"; 2) it would be useful to have some kind of technical boundary to that educational use - this would be feasible for more complex interactive (and probably high-value) content, though not for simple assets which, as you say, cannot be kept inside any sort of a useful boundary. Crispin. _____ From: Roger Broadie [mailto:Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk] Sent: 18 February 2010 17:18 To: Crispin Weston Cc: 'secondary'; 'Advisory talk' Subject: Re: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education Crispin, Apologies for taking some time to get to replying to your email. Education dictating copyright terms is certainly NOT code for 'ignore copyright'. Exactly the opposite in fact, it means assuming everything is copyright and that it is necessary to positively determine what the Terms and Conditions (Ts&Cs) for usage are. The point I am making is that the whole concept of 'educational exceptions' is broken and cannot be mended. Even if we engaged fully in debate of the Gower recommendations and the consultation it would not be possible to agree limits on where things could be accessed, by who, or what materials are included or not included. The net result would be that any school relying on educational exceptions to justify how content is being used digitally by their community will end up hopelessly confused. It's just unworkable. We could engage with this until the end of eternity and still get no result. A little story - a big museum set up a nice project, whereby kids could borrow mobile phones and as they went round the museum could take pictures of things they found particularly interesting and could then upload these into online galleries being run by the museum, that the kids could then access when back in school. But the project ran into a roadblock when they realised that they had some things in the museum that were on loan and not owned by themselves, and the terms of the loan did not permit photography of the object, let alone the making and copying of digital copies. At some point in the near future kids in schools are going to be permitted to use their phones to capture images - how many company meetings have you been in where taking pictures of the whiteboard at the end of a discussion is just normal practice. Even the builder putting in our loft conversion is now taking pictures of things to show us. So if they are using some content in class and need to be able to look at it again at home, they will copy it. Moral for the school - don't have any content in use that cannot be used in this way and make sure the kids also know the Ts&Cs (probably 'can be used by you and on the school platform, can't be put on the Internet or copied to others). I believe we should be saying to this consultation: - Educational exceptions to copyright will no longer work for schools, because they cannot be limited in space or to what materials are digitised, given that we are way past the point when digitising devices and spread of content around networks and the Internet can be controlled by a responsible organisation, and the people it is necessary to engage in collaborative learning cannot be limited to single defined institutions and people who are bone-fide members of those institutions. - Schools should therefore rely not on exceptions, but on positive determination of the copyright terms and conditions that apply to the content they wish to use. - For education and learning in the digital age, there is a clear need for as much content as possible to be covered by creative commons Ts&Cs, so that it can be used as widely as possible, collaboratively, and re-purposed to aid learning. The amount of this content will continue to grow exponentially, worldwide, as more and more educators and learners become content creators. - Copyright holders will then have to decide for themselves what they have that has value beyond the creative commons content available, and whether they are going to adopt copyright Ts&Cs that help educators to use their content, both with regard to how the content can be used and to the complexity for the organisation in understanding and managing the copyright Ts&Cs. (I have seen museum Ts&Cs that run to 12 pages!) To help this process some simple, single page exemplar Ts&Cs for education purchasers should be produced. The whole issue of digital rights management would also come in here - if content owners demand DRM and that makes their content unusable by schools and their communities, then so be it. - Similarly, organisations such as the Copyright Licensing Authority will have to decide if they can make a business by coordinating the copyright Ts&Cs of a range of defined content providers, in a way that will stimulate educational use and hence a financial return to the content owners, that the owners could not themselves achieve by selling to schools directly. Then as clarity appears as to what content schools can and cannot afford to use, without reliance on 'educational exceptions', there will be a clear message for government that if some content is critical for education and is not being made available for educators and learners to use, in learning-effective, manageable and affordable ways, then national action will need to be taken to make such content available. Roger. On 11 Feb 2010, at 10:04, Crispin Weston wrote: Roger, I agree with you on the underlying problem - but I am not so sure that I agree with your view of the solution. The reason why Gower focuses on interactive whiteboards (from our point of view, maybe somewhat perversely) is that Gower is assuming that something displayed on an IWB is not then going out of the room - it is a plenary display device with a clear boundary to the group of people who are accessing it. This replicates the conditions which applied to the display of video in classrooms and (on the basis of low and rapidly deteriorating quality) to the distribution of photocopied hand-outs. I do not agree with you that the supplier should now dictate copyright terms (this is really code for "ignore copyright"). The much touted view that the internet was going to end intellectual property is untrue, for reasons: (a) - technically, because publishers are increasingly putting in place DRM protection, (b) because the law is still the law and from time to time very significant damages are still awarded against file sharers, and (c) - in principle, because undermining IP would be a disaster which would bring innovation to a screaming halt. That is not to say that people, using e.g. creative commons, may elect to give up their IP if they are able to earn their living some other way (e.g. by occupying a salaried position or by offering advertising or support services) - and this might be a very appropriate model for UGC. But the vast majority of businesses still need to charge for the services they provide in one way or another - and we need the involvement of industry if we are going to get access to genuinely innovative products and content. The other issue with the educational exceptions is the definition of the material which is affected - something like "literary, dramatic or musical works" i.e. educational content is not included. If it were, then all educational publishers would be put out of business overnight. In other words, the educational exceptions only affect material where education is a tangential and unimportant source of income to the rights holder. In this respect, we have to question the distinction (which in this context becomes very important) between educational and non-educational content. We are no longer going to distribute a photocopy of Macbeth (literary, not educational) and then have a chat about it (educational but not replicable) - we are going to suck in a digital version of Macbeth, probably combined with some videos of the latest RSC production (commercial/dramatic) and comments from other teachers (UGC), into an educational software programme (commercial educational). The boundaries starts to become very complex. So I have two overall comments on Gower: 1) educational exceptions can be applied fairly easily to what I would call "plenary displays" (IWBs and visualisers). 2) I am less sure about "distance learning", which is really a synonym for the internet. Even if the VLE is secure, you cannot then stop the material being copied by students into non-secure environments. From hereon in, educational exceptions are insufficient without a technical component. We must look to DRM solutions which place a reliable "wall" around educational use and can seamlessly handle the authorisation of non-educational content within complex orchestrations of different types of content. Crispin. PS. you need to send an email to Leon, who will give you access to the document. _____ From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.org] On Behalf Of Roger Broadie Sent: 11 February 2010 09:00 To: theo kuechel Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; Advisory talk Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education Theo, First of all, I cannot access Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions, I can't get at it through my usual Google docs logon. Please advise. However, I will be extremely surprised if ANY educational exceptions will deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. This is because the concept of 'educational use' was single person use for their own study, whereas education use now largely means copying and re-purposing for access by others who will collaboratively reflect upon what the learner has done and provide afl feedback. There is no substantive difference between this and publishing. It is also almost impossible to limit use to 'use within an educational institution' because that must now mean use online by the community of people involved with promoting learning in the institution, and where does that stop? Does it include Granny who lives in New Zealand and the partner school in Mexico? The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its head and to state very clearly that material that is not provided with appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored by educators and learners. It is time for the users to set copyright terms, not the suppliers. The terms and conditions that you come across in many web resources are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a few. There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it will have to be resolved from the user end. For instance, LT Scotland DICTATE what the copyright terms and conditions will be for things they licence nationally. The whole education community should do similarly. There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter: - you can look at it but not do anything else with it. - you can copy and re-purpose it within the defined community of a an educational institution (but the community of the institution can only be defined by the institution itself) - it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your heart's content provided source is acknowledged. Roger. On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel wrote: Paul, Colleagues; This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than the many technologies we often discuss, (including iPads, Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are likely to determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access digital content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable future and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and the sharing and development of teacher created resources. Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions here , to which we can add comments /annotations. Please email Leon for access. It think is important we have that debate and I personally look forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace working group on this? Best Theo On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford wrote: Colleagues Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with implications for UK schools. Did you already know about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultation and it deals in part with copyright in education in a digital age. We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.uk -- Theo Kuechel Learning Technology Research theo.kuechel@gmail.com T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk Roger Broadie, Director, Broadie Associates http://www.BroadieAssociates.co.uk Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk 99 High Street, Chatteris, Cambs, PE16 6NP, UK. tel: +44 1 354 695583 mobile: +44 7710 328672 fax: +44 1 354 696647 ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01CAB143.CF1893A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ray,

I agree the CCE would need = discussion and agreement. Plus, I think, support from some kind of technical = boundary (forthcoming reply to Roger) – so that the mark is a matter of information = rather than permission.

Crispin.<= /p>

From: secondary-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:secondary-admin@talk.naace.org] = On Behalf Of Ray Tolley
Sent: 18 February 2010 = 21:28
To: = advisory@talk.naace.org; secondary@talk.naace.org
Subject: RE: [Advisory] = Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education

@ = Roger,

<= /o:p>

Thank you = for a well-reasoned article! Very helpful.

<= /o:p>

@ = Crispin,

<= /o:p>

I like the = idea of CCE but wonder if there would need to be clear guidelines – which = might need some debating. Would CCE just apply to students in full time education, part time education, personal interest etc, just for written = text or for media in any format?

<= /o:p>

BW

<= /o:p>

Ray = Tolley FEIDCT, NAACE Fellow, ACQI, = MBILD

ICT Education Consultant

Maximise ICT = Ltd

P: = http://raytolley.v2efoliowor= ld.mnscu.edu/

B: = http://www.efoliointheuk.blo= gspot.com/

W: = http://www.maximise-ict.co.u= k/eFolio-01.htm

T: &nbs= p; http://twitter.com/efolio

Winner of the = IMS 'Leadership Regional Award 2009'<= /span>

<= /o:p>

From: secondary-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:secondary-admin@talk.naace.org] = On Behalf Of Crispin Weston
Sent: 18 February 2010 = 17:39
To: 'Roger Broadie'
Cc: 'secondary'; = 'Advisory talk'
Subject: RE: [Advisory] = Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education

Hi = Roger,

I agree with all you say – = the concept of educational exceptions is essentially = broken.

I would only add two points (uncontentious ones, I hope):

1) the simple classification = offered by Creative Commons is a real help – maybe we need some similarly = iconic representation of “for educational = use”;

2) it would be useful to have = some kind of technical boundary to that educational use – this would be = feasible for more complex interactive (and probably high-value) content, though = not for simple assets which, as you say, cannot be kept inside any sort of a = useful boundary.

Crispin.<= /p>

From: Roger Broadie [mailto:Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk]
Sent: 18 February 2010 = 17:18
To: Crispin Weston
Cc: 'secondary'; = 'Advisory talk'
Subject: Re: [Advisory] = Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education

Crispin,

Apologies for taking some time to get to replying to your = email.

Education dictating copyright terms is certainly NOT code for = 'ignore copyright'. Exactly the opposite in fact, it means assuming everything = is copyright and that it is necessary to positively determine what the = Terms and Conditions (Ts&Cs) for usage are.

The point I am making is that the whole concept of 'educational exceptions' is broken and cannot be mended. Even if we engaged fully in = debate of the Gower recommendations and the consultation it would not be = possible to agree limits on where things could be accessed, by who, or what = materials are included or not included. The net result would be that any school = relying on educational exceptions to justify how content is being used digitally by = their community will end up hopelessly confused. It's just unworkable. We = could engage with this until the end of eternity and still get no = result.

A little story - a big museum set up a nice project, whereby = kids could borrow mobile phones and as they went round the museum could take = pictures of things they found particularly interesting and could then upload these = into online galleries being run by the museum, that the kids could then = access when back in school. But the project ran into a roadblock when they realised = that they had some things in the museum that were on loan and not owned = by themselves, and the terms of the loan did not permit photography of the = object, let alone the making and copying of digital = copies.

At some point in the near future kids in schools are going to be permitted to use their phones to capture images - how many company = meetings have you been in where taking pictures of the whiteboard at the end of a discussion is just normal practice. Even the builder putting in our loft conversion is now taking pictures of things to show us. So if they are = using some content in class and need to be able to look at it again at home, = they will copy it. Moral for the school - don't have any content in use that = cannot be used in this way and make sure the kids also know the Ts&Cs = (probably 'can be used by you and on the school platform, can't be put on the = Internet or copied to others).

I believe we should be saying to this = consultation:

- Educational exceptions to copyright will no longer work for = schools, because they cannot be limited in space or to what materials are = digitised, given that we are way past the point when digitising devices and spread = of content around networks and the Internet can be controlled by a = responsible organisation, and the people it is necessary to engage in collaborative learning cannot be limited to single defined institutions and people who = are bone-fide members of those institutions.

- Schools should therefore rely not on exceptions, but on = positive determination of the copyright terms and conditions that apply to the = content they wish to use.

- For education and learning in the digital age, there is a = clear need for as much content as possible to be covered by creative commons = Ts&Cs, so that it can be used as widely as possible, collaboratively, and = re-purposed to aid learning. The amount of this content will continue to grow = exponentially, worldwide, as more and more educators and learners become content = creators.

- Copyright holders will then have to decide for themselves what = they have that has value beyond the creative commons content available, and = whether they are going to adopt copyright Ts&Cs that help educators to use = their content, both with regard to how the content can be used and to the = complexity for the organisation in understanding and managing the copyright = Ts&Cs. (I have seen museum Ts&Cs that run to 12 pages!) To help this process = some simple, single page exemplar Ts&Cs for education purchasers should = be produced. The whole issue of digital rights management would also come = in here - if content owners demand DRM and that makes their content unusable by = schools and their communities, then so be it.

- Similarly, organisations such as the Copyright Licensing = Authority will have to decide if they can make a business by coordinating the = copyright Ts&Cs of a range of defined content providers, in a way that = will stimulate educational use and hence a financial return to the content = owners, that the owners could not themselves achieve by selling to schools = directly.

Then as clarity appears as to what content schools can and = cannot afford to use, without reliance on 'educational exceptions', there will = be a clear message for government that if some content is critical for = education and is not being made available for educators and learners to use, in learning-effective, manageable and affordable ways, then national action = will need to be taken to make such content = available.

Roger.

On 11 Feb 2010, at 10:04, Crispin Weston = wrote:

Roger,

I agree with you on the = underlying problem – but I am not so sure that I agree with your view of the solution.

The reason why Gower focuses on interactive whiteboards (from our point of view, maybe somewhat = perversely) is that Gower is assuming that something displayed on an IWB is not then = going out of the room – it is a plenary display device with a clear boundary = to the group of people who are accessing it. This replicates the conditions = which applied to the display of video in classrooms and (on the basis of low and = rapidly deteriorating quality) to the distribution of photocopied = hand-outs.

I do not agree with you that the supplier should now dictate copyright terms (this is really code for = “ignore copyright”). The much touted view that the internet was going to = end intellectual property is untrue, for reasons: (a) – technically, = because publishers are increasingly putting in place DRM protection, (b) because = the law is still the law and from time to time very significant damages are = still awarded against file sharers, and (c) – in principle, because = undermining IP would be a disaster which would bring innovation to a screaming = halt.

That is not to say that people, = using e.g. creative commons, may elect to give up their IP if they are able to = earn their living some other way (e.g. by occupying a salaried position or by offering advertising or support services) – and this might be a = very appropriate model for UGC. But the vast majority of businesses still = need to charge for the services they provide in one way or another – and = we need the involvement of industry if we are going to get access to genuinely innovative products and content.

The other issue with the = educational exceptions is the definition of the material which is affected – something like “literary, dramatic or musical works” i.e. educational content is not included. If it were, then all educational publishers would be put out of business overnight. In other words, the educational exceptions only affect material where education is a = tangential and unimportant source of income to the rights holder.

In this respect, we have to = question the distinction (which in this context becomes very important) between = educational and non-educational content. We are no longer going to distribute a = photocopy of Macbeth (literary, not educational) and then have a chat about it (educational but not replicable) – we are going to suck in a = digital version of Macbeth, probably combined with some videos of the latest RSC production (commercial/dramatic) and comments from other teachers (UGC), = into an educational software programme (commercial educational). The = boundaries starts to become very complex.

So I have two overall comments on = Gower:

1) educational exceptions can be = applied fairly easily to what I would call “plenary displays” (IWBs = and visualisers).

2) I am less sure about = “distance learning”, which is really a synonym for the internet. Even if the = VLE is secure, you cannot then stop the material being copied by students into non-secure environments. From hereon in, educational exceptions are insufficient without a technical component. We must look to DRM = solutions which place a reliable “wall” around educational use and can = seamlessly handle the authorisation of non-educational content within complex orchestrations of different types of content.

Crispin.

PS. you need to send an email to = Leon, who will give you access to the document.

From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.o= rg [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.o= rg] On Behalf Of Roger Broadie
Sent: 11 February 2010 09:00
To: theo kuechel
Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; Advisory talk
Subject: [Advisory] Re: = [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education

Theo,
=

First of all, I cannot access = Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions, I can't get at it through my = usual Google docs logon. Please advise.

However, I will be extremely = surprised if ANY educational exceptions will deal with the situation we now find = ourselves in. This is because the concept of 'educational use' was single person = use for their own study, whereas education use now largely means copying and re-purposing for access by others who will collaboratively reflect upon = what the learner has done and provide afl feedback. There is no substantive difference between this and publishing.

It is also almost impossible to = limit use to 'use within an educational institution' because that must now mean = use online by the community of people involved with promoting learning in = the institution, and where does that stop? Does it include Granny who lives = in New Zealand and the partner school in Mexico?

The only answer is to turn the = copyright legislation on its head and to state very clearly that material that is = not provided with appropriate copyright for use in education, will be = completely ignored by educators and learners. It is time for the users to set = copyright terms, not the suppliers.

The terms and conditions that you = come across in many web resources are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a few. There is no way this can be resolved = from the supplier end, it will have to be resolved from the user end. For = instance, LT Scotland DICTATE what the copyright = terms and conditions will be for things they licence nationally. The whole = education community should do similarly.

There are essentially only 3 = copyright terms that matter:

- you can look at it but not do = anything else with it.

- you can copy and re-purpose it = within the defined community of a an educational institution (but the community = of the institution can only be defined by the institution = itself)

- it is creative commons and you = can copy and re-purpose it to your heart's content provided source is = acknowledged.

Roger.

On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo = kuechel wrote:

Paul, Colleagues;

This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than = the many technologies we often discuss, (including iPads, Interactive = whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are = likely to determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access digital = content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our learners. = These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable = future and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance learning, = mobile technologies, student work in digital format and the sharing and = development of teacher created resources.

Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the = re-read the documents it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational = exceptions here, to which we can add comments /annotations. = Please email Leon for access.

It think is important we have that debate and I personally look = forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we = can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace working = group on this?

Best
Theo

On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul = Springford <paul.springford@naace.org> wrote:

Colleagues

Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter = Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with implications = for UK schools. Did you already know = about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the United Kingdom"? = Possibly not. It's their consultation and it deals in part with copyright in education = in a digital age.

We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications for = our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a volunteer = to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a Naace response to = the IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.uk

--
Theo Kuechel
Learning Technology Research
theo.kuechel@gmail.com
T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk

Roger = Broadie,

Director,

Broadie Associates

http://www.BroadieAssociates.= co.uk

Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.= uk

=

99 High = Street, = Chatteris,

Cambs<= /font>, = PE16 6NP, UK.

=

tel: +44 1 354 695583

mobile: +44 7710 328672

fax: +44 1 354 696647

=

=

=

<= /o:p>

------=_NextPart_000_004D_01CAB143.CF1893A0-- From gary.clawson@nwlg.org Fri Feb 19 09:38:43 2010 From: gary.clawson@nwlg.org (Gary Clawson) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:38:43 -0000 Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education In-Reply-To: <1491C13E-DD87-440F-99BB-25D33239151B@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0066_01CAB147.535E3E00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The National Digital Resource Bank ( www.ndrb.org.uk ) which was announced at last year's NAACE Conference by Jim Knight, on the face of it looked like a way to simply populate learning platforms with full curriculum coverage at an average cost of around �25 per school. The reality was that it introduced the concept of 'Open Content'. Content that was IP checked and could be used under a creative commons licence by any educationalist or learner in perpetuity for the purposes of learning. Not poor quality content but highly interactive, publicly funded, curriculum specific content. This is exactly what UK education requires if using ICT in learning is to break away from the antiquated annual and restrictive commercial licences that characterise the vast majority of UK digital resource provision. How can you embed digital resources into learning if you don't know whether the head can afford the licences next year? Once we move away from this restrictive commercial model we can start to have a community of teachers capable of deriving and sharing content from a strong base of Creative Commons content rather than a weak base of inappropriately licenced commercial content. There won't be any technical barriers as the companies that fail to adopt Open Standards simply won't exist any more and the successful ones will be the ones that have moved into content creation tools and much improved learning platforms. Kind Regards Gary Clawson Chief Executive North West Learning Grid eGovernment National Awards 2006 Winner eGovernment National Awards 2009 Highly Commended BETT Awards 2010 Finalist -----Original Message----- From: secondary-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:secondary-admin@talk.naace.org]On Behalf Of Roger Broadie Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 8:35 AM To: Crispin Weston Cc: 'secondary'; 'Advisory talk' Subject: Re: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education Hi Crispin, Thanks for supporting the view that the educational exceptions concept is broken. And I am afraid the idea that there can be a technical boundary also cannot work. Access to educational content is now through a browser, even for software that is used through thin client or secure gateway technologies, with the software actually running on machines in the school. And if the user can see something on their screen, they can capture it, even if only as a screen-grab or by taking a picture of it on their phone. Sure it is possible to technically limit software and content to running on specific machines, but that does not fully solve the copyright problem. It only gives control over quality of the content. The only copyright control which is workable is legal control through Ts&Cs, with the Ts&Cs being simple enough for all users to grasp easily. There can be a sort of technical boundary through closed networks/intranets that require logon, but even this cannot be precisely defined by the copyright holder. Some years ago in a 3Com meeting, a network manager from a university who was attending explained that they had 60 different CATEGORIES of user on the network, with overlaps all over the place, some being full 'members' of the institution, others being transient users or being some kind of associate user, making it absolutely impossible to precisely define numbers of users. The same is true for schools with parents and extended family needing some access, as well as partner schools, other agencies, maybe community businesses and so on. Roger. On 18 Feb 2010, at 17:39, Crispin Weston wrote: Hi Roger, I agree with all you say � the concept of educational exceptions is essentially broken. I would only add two points (uncontentious ones, I hope): 1) the simple classification offered by Creative Commons is a real help � maybe we need some similarly iconic representation of �for educational use�; 2) it would be useful to have some kind of technical boundary to that educational use � this would be feasible for more complex interactive (and probably high-value) content, though not for simple assets which, as you say, cannot be kept inside any sort of a useful boundary. Crispin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Broadie [mailto:Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk] Sent: 18 February 2010 17:18 To: Crispin Weston Cc: 'secondary'; 'Advisory talk' Subject: Re: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education Crispin, Apologies for taking some time to get to replying to your email. Education dictating copyright terms is certainly NOT code for 'ignore copyright'. Exactly the opposite in fact, it means assuming everything is copyright and that it is necessary to positively determine what the Terms and Conditions (Ts&Cs) for usage are. The point I am making is that the whole concept of 'educational exceptions' is broken and cannot be mended. Even if we engaged fully in debate of the Gower recommendations and the consultation it would not be possible to agree limits on where things could be accessed, by who, or what materials are included or not included. The net result would be that any school relying on educational exceptions to justify how content is being used digitally by their community will end up hopelessly confused. It's just unworkable. We could engage with this until the end of eternity and still get no result. A little story - a big museum set up a nice project, whereby kids could borrow mobile phones and as they went round the museum could take pictures of things they found particularly interesting and could then upload these into online galleries being run by the museum, that the kids could then access when back in school. But the project ran into a roadblock when they realised that they had some things in the museum that were on loan and not owned by themselves, and the terms of the loan did not permit photography of the object, let alone the making and copying of digital copies. At some point in the near future kids in schools are going to be permitted to use their phones to capture images - how many company meetings have you been in where taking pictures of the whiteboard at the end of a discussion is just normal practice. Even the builder putting in our loft conversion is now taking pictures of things to show us. So if they are using some content in class and need to be able to look at it again at home, they will copy it. Moral for the school - don't have any content in use that cannot be used in this way and make sure the kids also know the Ts&Cs (probably 'can be used by you and on the school platform, can't be put on the Internet or copied to others). I believe we should be saying to this consultation: - Educational exceptions to copyright will no longer work for schools, because they cannot be limited in space or to what materials are digitised, given that we are way past the point when digitising devices and spread of content around networks and the Internet can be controlled by a responsible organisation, and the people it is necessary to engage in collaborative learning cannot be limited to single defined institutions and people who are bone-fide members of those institutions. - Schools should therefore rely not on exceptions, but on positive determination of the copyright terms and conditions that apply to the content they wish to use. - For education and learning in the digital age, there is a clear need for as much content as possible to be covered by creative commons Ts&Cs, so that it can be used as widely as possible, collaboratively, and re-purposed to aid learning. The amount of this content will continue to grow exponentially, worldwide, as more and more educators and learners become content creators. - Copyright holders will then have to decide for themselves what they have that has value beyond the creative commons content available, and whether they are going to adopt copyright Ts&Cs that help educators to use their content, both with regard to how the content can be used and to the complexity for the organisation in understanding and managing the copyright Ts&Cs. (I have seen museum Ts&Cs that run to 12 pages!) To help this process some simple, single page exemplar Ts&Cs for education purchasers should be produced. The whole issue of digital rights management would also come in here - if content owners demand DRM and that makes their content unusable by schools and their communities, then so be it. - Similarly, organisations such as the Copyright Licensing Authority will have to decide if they can make a business by coordinating the copyright Ts&Cs of a range of defined content providers, in a way that will stimulate educational use and hence a financial return to the content owners, that the owners could not themselves achieve by selling to schools directly. Then as clarity appears as to what content schools can and cannot afford to use, without reliance on 'educational exceptions', there will be a clear message for government that if some content is critical for education and is not being made available for educators and learners to use, in learning-effective, manageable and affordable ways, then national action will need to be taken to make such content available. Roger. On 11 Feb 2010, at 10:04, Crispin Weston wrote: Roger, I agree with you on the underlying problem � but I am not so sure that I agree with your view of the solution. The reason why Gower focuses on interactive whiteboards (from our point of view, maybe somewhat perversely) is that Gower is assuming that something displayed on an IWB is not then going out of the room � it is a plenary display device with a clear boundary to the group of people who are accessing it. This replicates the conditions which applied to the display of video in classrooms and (on the basis of low and rapidly deteriorating quality) to the distribution of photocopied hand-outs. I do not agree with you that the supplier should now dictate copyright terms (this is really code for �ignore copyright�). The much touted view that the internet was going to end intellectual property is untrue, for reasons: (a) � technically, because publishers are increasingly putting in place DRM protection, (b) because the law is still the law and from time to time very significant damages are still awarded against file sharers, and (c) � in principle, because undermining IP would be a disaster which would bring innovation to a screaming halt. That is not to say that people, using e.g. creative commons, may elect to give up their IP if they are able to earn their living some other way (e.g. by occupying a salaried position or by offering advertising or support services) � and this might be a very appropriate model for UGC. But the vast majority of businesses still need to charge for the services they provide in one way or another � and we need the involvement of industry if we are going to get access to genuinely innovative products and content. The other issue with the educational exceptions is the definition of the material which is affected � something like �literary, dramatic or musical works� i.e. educational content is not included. If it were, then all educational publishers would be put out of business overnight. In other words, the educational exceptions only affect material where education is a tangential and unimportant source of income to the rights holder. In this respect, we have to question the distinction (which in this context becomes very important) between educational and non-educational content. We are no longer going to distribute a photocopy of Macbeth (literary, not educational) and then have a chat about it (educational but not replicable) � we are going to suck in a digital version of Macbeth, probably combined with some videos of the latest RSC production (commercial/dramatic) and comments from other teachers (UGC), into an educational software programme (commercial educational). The boundaries starts to become very complex. So I have two overall comments on Gower: 1) educational exceptions can be applied fairly easily to what I would call �plenary displays� (IWBs and visualisers). 2) I am less sure about �distance learning�, which is really a synonym for the internet. Even if the VLE is secure, you cannot then stop the material being copied by students into non-secure environments. From hereon in, educational exceptions are insufficient without a technical component. We must look to DRM solutions which place a reliable �wall� around educational use and can seamlessly handle the authorisation of non-educational content within complex orchestrations of different types of content. Crispin. PS. you need to send an email to Leon, who will give you access to the document. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.org] On Behalf Of Roger Broadie Sent: 11 February 2010 09:00 To: theo kuechel Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; Advisory talk Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education Theo, First of all, I cannot access Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions, I can't get at it through my usual Google docs logon. Please advise. However, I will be extremely surprised if ANY educational exceptions will deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. This is because the concept of 'educational use' was single person use for their own study, whereas education use now largely means copying and re-purposing for access by others who will collaboratively reflect upon what the learner has done and provide afl feedback. There is no substantive difference between this and publishing. It is also almost impossible to limit use to 'use within an educational institution' because that must now mean use online by the community of people involved with promoting learning in the institution, and where does that stop? Does it include Granny who lives in New Zealand and the partner school in Mexico? The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its head and to state very clearly that material that is not provided with appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored by educators and learners. It is time for the users to set copyright terms, not the suppliers. The terms and conditions that you come across in many web resources are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a few. There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it will have to be resolved from the user end. For instance, LT Scotland DICTATE what the copyright terms and conditions will be for things they licence nationally. The whole education community should do similarly. There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter: - you can look at it but not do anything else with it. - you can copy and re-purpose it within the defined community of a an educational institution (but the community of the institution can only be defined by the institution itself) - it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your heart's content provided source is acknowledged. Roger. On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel wrote: Paul, Colleagues; This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than the many technologies we often discuss, (including iPads, Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are likely to determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access digital content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable future and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and the sharing and development of teacher created resources. Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions here, to which we can add comments /annotations. Please email Leon for access. It think is important we have that debate and I personally look forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace working group on this? Best Theo On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford wrote: Colleagues Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with implications for UK schools. Did you already know about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultation and it deals in part with copyright in education in a digital age. We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.uk -- Theo Kuechel Learning Technology Research theo.kuechel@gmail.com T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk Roger Broadie, Director, Broadie Associates http://www.BroadieAssociates.co.uk Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk 99 High Street, Chatteris, Cambs, PE16 6NP, UK. tel: +44 1 354 695583 mobile: +44 7710 328672 fax: +44 1 354 696647 ------=_NextPart_000_0066_01CAB147.535E3E00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The=20 National Digital Resource Bank ( www.ndrb.org.uk ) which was = announced at last=20 year's NAACE Conference by Jim Knight, on the face of it looked like a = way to=20 simply populate learning platforms with full curriculum coverage at an = average=20 cost of around =A325 per school. The reality was that it introduced the = concept of=20 'Open Content'. Content that was IP checked and could be used under a = creative=20 commons licence by any educationalist or learner in perpetuity for the = purposes=20 of learning. Not poor quality content but highly interactive, publicly = funded,=20 curriculum specific content. This is exactly what UK education requires = if using=20 ICT in learning is to break away from the antiquated annual and = restrictive=20 commercial licences that characterise the vast majority of UK = digital=20 resource provision. How can you embed digital resources into learning if = you=20 don't know whether the head can afford the licences next year?=20

Once=20 we move away from this restrictive commercial model we can start to have = a=20 community of teachers capable of deriving and sharing content from a = strong base=20 of Creative Commons content rather than a weak base of inappropriately = licenced=20 commercial content. There won't be any technical barriers as the = companies that=20 fail to adopt Open Standards simply won't exist any more and the = successful ones=20 will be the ones that have moved into content creation tools and much = improved=20 learning platforms.

Kind=20 Regards

Gary=20 Clawson

Chief=20 Executive

North=20 West Learning Grid

eGovernment National Awards 2006 = Winner

eGovernment National Awards 2009 Highly Commended

BETT=20 Awards 2010 Finalist

-----Original Message-----
From:=20 secondary-admin@talk.naace.org = [mailto:secondary-admin@talk.naace.org]On=20 Behalf Of Roger Broadie
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 = 8:35=20 AM
To: Crispin Weston
Cc: 'secondary'; 'Advisory=20 talk'
Subject: Re: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK = Consultation on=20 Copyright and Education

Hi Crispin,

Thanks for supporting the view that the educational exceptions = concept is=20 broken.

And I am afraid the idea that there can be a technical boundary = also=20 cannot work. Access to educational content is now through a browser, = even for=20 software that is used through thin client or secure gateway = technologies, with=20 the software actually running on machines in the school. And if the = user can=20 see something on their screen, they can capture it, even if only as a=20 screen-grab or by taking a picture of it on their phone.

Sure it is possible to technically limit software and content to = running=20 on specific machines, but that does not fully solve the copyright = problem. It=20 only gives control over quality of the content.

The only copyright control which is workable is legal control = through=20 Ts&Cs, with the Ts&Cs being simple enough for all users to = grasp=20 easily.

There can be a sort of technical boundary through closed=20 networks/intranets that require logon, but even this cannot be = precisely=20 defined by the copyright holder. Some years ago in a 3Com meeting, a = network=20 manager from a university who was attending explained that they had 60 = different CATEGORIES of user on the network, with overlaps all over = the place,=20 some being full 'members' of the institution, others being transient = users or=20 being some kind of associate user, making it absolutely impossible to=20 precisely define numbers of users. The same is true for schools with = parents=20 and extended family needing some access, as well as partner schools, = other=20 agencies, maybe community businesses and so on.

Roger.

On 18 Feb 2010, at 17:39, Crispin Weston wrote:

Hi=20 Roger,

I agree = with all=20 you say =96 the concept of educational exceptions is essentially=20 broken.

I would = only add=20 two points (uncontentious ones, I = hope):

1) the = simple=20 classification offered by Creative Commons is a real help =96 maybe = we need=20 some similarly iconic representation of =93for educational=20 use=94;

2) it = would be=20 useful to have some kind of technical boundary to that educational = use =96=20 this would be feasible for more complex interactive (and probably=20 high-value) content, though not for simple assets which, as you say, = cannot=20 be kept inside any sort of a useful = boundary.

Crispin.

From: Roger Broadie [mailto:Roger@BroadieAssocia= tes.co.uk]
Sent: 18 February 2010 = 17:18
To: Crispin = Weston
Cc: 'secondary'; 'Advisory=20 talk'
Subject: Re: [Advisory] Re: = [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright = and=20 Education

Crispin,