https://histoire-geographie.ac-dijon.fr/spip.php?article1092

The new open will be enacted by policymaking, first in the EU.

The new open will be enacted by "sensemaking work" and "creating new narratives".

piccola nota: questo è anche uno dei motivi per cui non c'è compatibilità fra CC-BY 4.0 e ODbL

la creative commons, es la encargada de que se especifiquen los derechos sobre cierta obra, pero esto solo pasa con las obras que se han acogido a estas dos CC, estas complementan a la gran C ya que protege al autor y da paso a un permiso con medidas restringidas según el autor, este es un gran paso ya que no nos estaremos enfrentando a demandas legales y podemos editar con restricciones pero al mismo tiempo con libertad por que sabemos lo que permite el autor de la obra, así mismo la edición de ciertos contenidos se vuelve algo relevante en el momento de poder hacerlo bajo ciertos permisos ya que estas no restringen del todo el acceso a la edición y lo mejor de todo es que lo puede hacer cualquier persona sin ningún tipo de restricción.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUblaElbybE] min: 4:34

Parfois bien utile de ne pas être trop puristes au sujet des licences. Il y a une grande diversité dans les usages «libres» de ressources qui ne le sont pas toujours.

It's difficult to spread Open Access and Free cultural work licenses if blog posts about Open Access are not compatible with Open Access. The article by Anne Young has a non-commercial restriction. It would be nice to contact Anne Young to propose to release her blog post under CC BY-SA license or anyway under a Free cultural work license.

Cuando analizamos el significado de estas letras CC las cuales asociamos facilmente a la palabra todos los derechos reservados,no contemplamos las implicaciones que estas letras llevan implicitas como: que adicionalmente significan pedir permiso, y que estas letras protegen a los propietarios de derechos de autor y nos comunican a los demás quienes son sus dueños.

château

Parking Vending Machine

cartons

CC quadruple bond

carbon-carbon quadruple bond

https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/open-research-emerald/our-open-research-policies

Emerald already has progressive green open access / self archiving policies which allow immediate open access for the authors accepted manuscript (AAM) under a creative commons attribution non-commercial license (CC BY-NC). This demonstrates that Emerald cannot agree with much of the statement they are signing. Note, Plan S ask for CC BY or CC BY-ND is permissible under Plan S by exception. The funders' request for a more permissive CC BY license is all I can identify as a potential problem, but there are no specific concerns raised in the statement.

Again, it is not at all clear what is meant by this statement. Equity in academia is an incredibly important goal. This statement currently reads like unsubstantiated rhetoric. Libraries, Institutions and funders have found that the unintended consequences of deficient deals with publishers supported by their funds can include inequitable access to no-additional-cost publishing. However, the intention of the Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) is to arm all authors with detailed knowledge of their rights to ensure they have the same minimum opportunity to widely disseminate their work. Furthermore, by providing a version of an output with a CC BY license there is greater equity around accessing the research and therefore greater opportunity to build on it for public benefit, making a more equitable environment for all. The version of record (VoR) remains important in this scenario, so more equitable access should not undermine the sustainability of journals and platforms which are valued.

The publishers below will not support the Plan S rights retention strategy (RRS). In its simplest form the RRS re-asserts the authors' rights as the rights holder to assign a copyright license of their choice (CC BY informed by their funding agency) to all versions of their research/intellectual output. In the case of the RRS states that the author should apply a CC BY license to their accepted manuscript (AAM) if they cannot afford to pay article processing charges or choose not to apply a CC BY license to the Version of Record (VoR), which they are free to do. Therefore, this statement is either saying the undersigned will not carry publications forward to publication (most appropriate approach), or they will not support the same copyright laws which fundamentally protects their rights and revenue after a copyright transfer agreement is signed by the rightsholder.

Academy of Dental Materials

Acoustical Society of America

AIP Publishing

American Academy of Ophthalmology

American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus

American Chemical Society

American Gastroenterological Association American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Medical Association

American Physical Society

American Society for Investigative Pathology

American Society for Radiation Oncology

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Hematology

American Society of Clinical Oncology

American Association of Physicists in Medicine

American Association of Physics Teachers

AVS – The Society for Science and Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing

Brill

British Journal of Anaesthesia

Budrich Academic Press

Cambridge Media

Cambridge University Press

Canadian Cardiovascular Society

De Gruyter

Duncker & Humblot

Elsevier

Emerald

Erich Schmidt Verlag

French Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Frommann-Holzboog Verlag

Future Science Group 

Hogrefe

International Association for Gondwana Research

IOP Publishing

Journal of Nursing Regulation

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT).

Julius Klinkhardt KG

La Découverte

Laser Institute America

Materials Research Forum LLC

The Optical Society (OSA)

Pearson Benelux

SAGE Publishing

Society of Rheology

Springer Nature

Taylor & Francis Group

The Geological Society of America

Thieme Group

Uitgeverij Verloren

Verlag Barbara Budrich

Vittorio Klostermann

wbv Media

Wiley

Wolters Kluwer

icones de jeu

wc libres

https://youtu.be/cmQ8V-5-hLk?t=2590

bus barré

clouds

microscope

CC Creative Commons

I suggest an additional section titled tools. These tools really helped me in gaining a better understanding of structuring attributions etc.

The Attribution Builder is really helpful when there is uncertainty as to how to proceed with citing sources, especially as citing CC Licenses seems different from scholarly practices.

1. Open Attribution Builder, by WA SBCTC, [n.d.]. The Open Attribution Builder is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
2. CC “Select your License” tool logic - Beta version, by Wyblib40, 2020. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. (Please note that this workflow logic diagram I created myself in order to get a feel for the new License Chooser tool (2020)

I thought this an absolutely great tool. It is helping me shape the policy for our university, and covers areas of OER development that I have not even considered yet. I believe this resource should really get a lot more prominence as a tool.

Add: "Creative Commons: A Basic Presentation" by Catherine Zoerb, 2017, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license. This presentation allows one easy to understand the basics of, and application of Creative Commons, without legal jargon, allowing for good introduction in overview format.

An excellent resource directly from the Creative Commons site describing the rationale of use, "three-layer" design, license types, and their specific permissions/restrictions. This is a go-to resource before and after completing this course. There is no better documentation for this topic on the internet.

Open Access and the Humanities) by Dr Martin Eve provides a really useful general introduction to open access, but then does a really good job of explaining the specific complexities for Humanities and Social Science scholars.

This is still the most helpful visual I have seen thus far to help explain and clarify compatibility of CC licenses.

Creative Commons covers 4 areas of practice: -re-use: right to verbatim reuse content

• revise: right to change/ modify the content -remix: right to combine original or revised with new content -redistribute: right to make and share copies of content

great for expanding, exploring, sharing and remixing content in the educational world.

How we end up making carbon dioxide

I can't tell why he says this based on the previous definition of work.

I wish there were more examples here that one could readily adopt. This example is specific to one institution.

Service-learning approaches - real-life application of skills gained in class to make society better.

The FedEx Office case offers a clear example to use when talking about the parameters of publishing/printing out BY-NC-SA licensed work. Our school bookstore approached the OER group about providing low cost “books” of CC licensed work. He made it clear he would make no profit off the copies. If they didn’t sell, that was fine. The bookstores are under threat from open licensed materials. What I thought was a lovely ploy to bring students into the bookstore to buy sundries, actually reflects his reality. Printing out CC licensed OER is best done at price that only can cover the price of the book and a small charge for their overhead.

I enjoyed learning about open licensing history, the OPL and the OCL, precursors to Creative Commons. I have read other writings of Dr. Wiley and his knew of his involvement with Lumen Learning and CC. I was not surprised to know that he connected the ideals open software and open publishing. I took for granted that a lot of software was open source, I didn’t question the duality between commercial software and the free stuff. Such thinking may mark a turning point for Open, reflecting how the concept of open can co-exists our heads. Things in the Open world seem to be gaining momentum. An example is the price of textbooks has plateaued and even fallen in the US. (bls.gov and fred.stlouisfed.org).

The article addresses how public domain objects returns to copyright when cultural institutions create photographic reproductions. This has the effect of limiting public access to culture. I’m curious if this may be related to local copyright law without Freedom of Panorama (FOP). Freedom of Panorama allows photographs and video of buildings, public art and other public work to be used for commercial purposes. Without it, any image/video of art, architecture and public are may be protected by copyright for a period of time. This map found on Wikipedia’s Freedom of Panorama entry, illustrates that many countries in the EU lack freedom of panorama such as France, Italy and Greece. If the freedom of panorama is given in local copyright, creating an image becomes a derivative work, without it, using it commercially violates copyright. Is a museum considered a public space and subject to FOP restrictions? Tricky. Further research found that this was being addressed by the EU in 2017 with limited success.

The author argues that the model of green and gold have not worked to further open scholarship and suggests solutions meant to increase revenue in scholarly publishing that supports Open Access. He claims piracy, such as Sci-Hub, and the lack of academic institution blocking access constitutes complicity. It is clear the scholarly model is broken. Access to journals and research is de facto open thus the industry needs to shift its business model.

There is an additional resource I suggest be added, Paywall the Business of Scholarship documentary. It works as both an introduction to the topic, but also provides resources geared towards advocacy. It directly addresses issues with piracy and equity.

The inclusion of multiple modes of content delivery is a great way to take advantage of online learning. Students expect to have text and visuals, such as the Open Access Explained video.

Nobel laureate in Economics, Elinor Ostrom’s work concerns the concept of the commons, how successful management is critical and why important to include all stakeholders. Her work addresses how communities manage and govern their commons. Her 8 Principles for Managing a Commons most likely was considered during the creation of Creative Commons. Comparing her principles, you can see how each one translates into CC’s work. The licenses define clear boundaries with the four elements BY, SA, NC and ND. CC has developed a system of monitoring and management carried out by community members. Following these principles, as CC does, keeps the organization responsive to change and working with communities worldwide. I found myself reflecting on how a successful use of the commons can translate to success, but also disappointed to realize bringing people together isn’t easy. This makes the CC an impressive expression of the 8 Concepts working in a real world situation.

Examples would really help. I can't imagine a scenario where anyone would care about this. As was pointed out in the comments, making minor corrections to a CC BY-SA work would not enable anyone to reshare that entire work with corrections under a new license. So the case here is if someone wanted to share minor corrections to a work independently of the work itself and license those minor corrections differently? For example: Here are my typo corrections to a published work, outside of the context of that published work? Example please...

Except for the semi-famous case of the open resources collected in lardbucket, how often does this example appear in the wild?

"How to Attribute a Creative Commons licensed work" This is the best one yet on how to form 'the best' attributions.

To add to "More scholarship about CC licenses" and to support unit 4.1: Bishop, Carrie. “Creative Commons and Open Access Initiatives: How to Stay Sane and Influence People.” Art Libraries Journal 40.4 (2015): 8–12. Web.

Bishop presents a cheerful exploration of the Tate’s mammoth enterprise to digitize and release into the public Web 52,000 works of art, many of which are still under copyright. Commonly, galleries and museums would like to broaden exposure to the artwork in their collections, but when artists or their descendants are still actively monitoring use and income, there can be a barrier between connecting the public with the art work and the needs of the artistic community. Bishop describes the Tate’s desire to license the newly digitized images under a Creative Commons license to provide clear guidelines to the public, but at the same time to respond to the fears, hopes, and wishes of their artists. The Tate decided that it could best realize its goal to "democratize access" and to connect the public with British artists through applying the CC-BY-NC-ND license—both making the images available and quelling the concerns of the artists or their estate managing family members. The article provides an interesting perspective to the discussion of “open culture” or “free culture.” Some of this freedom may come about in incremental doses. The CC license might make it possible to allow an artist to connect their work with a larger public, at the same time that it makes them confident that their work won’t be misused or appropriated in an undesired manner. Aart museums seem to have a difficult relationship with open access and Creative Commons licensing. The Getty, for instance, has a fairly complicated statement of terms that make murky all that CC transparency, so there is viewing the material and then there is repurposing the material. The result is that a slow, measured pace, while nurturing the artist along, may be the way to ultimately make CC and Open Access a norm rather than an exception.

And a video! "5 Minutes on Creative Commons for Libraries" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjhmpN1NVBw

OER Africa is an OER organization that promotes resources and professional development and is a solid example of OER in the global south.

This should probably not be 3 different bullet points as it is all one resource. Also, quick question, how does this illustrate 'other' open movements as it seems to be about what free culture is.

The link to this text is broken. Boundless has gone out of business. I would suggest as a replacement the Wikipedia article on this topic. It is a B-class article and is organized in a logical fashion.

The Fair Use Index. This resource tracks judicial decisions to help better understand the types of uses courts have previously determined to be fair—or not fair. Includes a variety of courts. Fair Use is determined by the judicial branch.

How are Creative Commons Licenses Designed?. From OER Africa. Great explanation from the global south. Provides basic clear understanding of the design of a license.

Licensing or Copyright guidance FAQ from Open Oregon. Great DYI resource that provides practical answers to a lot of questions.

Formating, only one bullet needed.

Fair use and mixing "all rights reserved" with open content. Something that many content creators struggle with. Includes an example statement. http://support.skillscommons.org/faqs/q-if-proprietary-licensed-material-is-being-mixed-with-new-oer-materials-what-licenses-should-be-used/ . Also indirectly helps with understanding traditional versus creative commons (know the license of the works you are planning to remix).

A tool to help mix licenses: http://www.web2rights.com/creativecommons/ . Helps to automate compatibility questions.

"Are Creative Commons Licenses Overly Permissive? The Case of a Predatory Publisher". This article is a bit alarmist about predatory publishers republishing (incorrectly) cc material. Important to understand real world use cases of cc and how this affects perception of the license by academics.

The Redalyc project. From the global south, this project is a digital library of OA journals. Creative Commons 2.5.

Joseph Esposity "Libraries Face a Future of Open Access" published by [The Scholarly Kitchen](https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/) on May 23, 2018. Pull quote: "What appears to get lost in discussions of the march of cancelled contracts in Europe is that it is not just publishers that are being disrupted. This is a disruption to the entire ecosystem. When the favor comes due, we may not like the terms, but pay we will."

Gulley, Nicola. “Creative Commons: Challenges and Solutions for Researchers; a Publisher’s Perspective of Copyright in an Open Access Environment.” Insights: the UKSG journal 26.2 (2013): 168–173. Web. Unit 3.2 (New Article)

Gulley, Nicola. “Creative Commons: Challenges and Solutions for Researchers; a Publisher’s Perspective of Copyright in an Open Access Environment.” Insights: the UKSG journal 26.2 (2013): 168–173. Web. Gulley, a publisher with Institute of Physics (IOP) sets out to describe and clarify the CC BY license for researchers who may be wary of making use of it for their own work. The Research Councils UK currently require APC funded OA articles to be made available under a Creative Commons Attribution license . This license is also favored by the UK’s Wellcome Trust).

Although this is a 2013 article, Gulley’s overview of the six licenses is still largely valid. The benefits she sites include clarity for the user, the ability to build on past research—the primary need for scientists and providing a nearly internationally applicable standard (something that has only improved since she wrote her article). Gulley cites that authors have expressed concern over maintaining control of their work over time and against derivative uses, maintaining the integrity and context of their work, and the compatibility as CC licenses are combined into a single work.

Gulley explains in detail the more weedy aspects of CC-BY licensing, and how to address some of the concerns she mentioned in line with established Creative Commons policy. In fact, IOP has adopted CC BY licensing for its publications (presumably for their openly accessible content) because the opportunities for sharing outweigh any negative effects.

How would this paragraph correspond to creative commons licenses? My interpretation is that a cc-by sa nc is possible but not a cc-by nd?

Amen: open licensing as key infrastructure in improving public education rather than an end in itself!

CC power point slides

Open Ed mini-conference

OER and copyright course

Sessions and Speaker Looks great!

This work is not "objective description" right?

Technology's essence is more than the ability of humans to control it, as thought with most previous technologies. While establishing definitions in the introduction, Heidegger finds it important to establish a distinction between what was instrumental to technology in the past and what we will find technology can become without definitions that limit technology to something outside of the basic, instrumental necessities.

waiver form allowing uni to use students' work

Why not just use CC license?

Creativity. That's really what "open" is all about too! Love!

amen.