I've had a lot of success with this. I've also had colleagues claim that giving models leads to students simply parroting the example rather than actively engaging with the material. I think it depends on context, and in my context, I lean heavily toward examples. I get better work, and I do not think they are copy-catting.

This is really good advice

Staggering assignment types is good, yes, but what about including multiple assessment options for each assignment?

I like these examples. I want to build short quizzes at the end of readings to accomplish this in my LIB101 course, with students able to re-take until they get 100%, and students unable to move on until they get 100%.

I used to do this without fail; then started doing it less frequently when students complained of redundancy or video length.

The vaguery of NC as deterrent has been explained elsewhere; but this explanation finally approaches some new critiques of NC licensing. I really wanted to read the linked articles (which is also in the CC wiki) but the link is dead. I'm still on the fence about NC and want to read more in-depth analysis.

Yes! Industry standard is a phrase that can fall by the wayside, now too, as faculty increasingly take control over their educational content.

Interesting - in teaching I often try to get students to focus more on process than outcome, but is that simply because it's difficult to get students to slow down and practice meta-cognition?

Traditional hallmarks of quality (expertise) don't ensure an effective outcome.

I echo this concern when teaching library research to undergraduates. "High quality" excludes relevance and context. It oversimplifies the concept, de-emphasizes the role of judgement and critical thinking, and places information on a binary spectrum between poor and good.

I'm curious about the discovery infrastructure that enables researchers, students, etc. to discover articles in isolated institutional repositories. It seems like this is the one service that journals actually provide, but isn't that a relatively easy one to overcome?

Again, the publishers are maintaining their bottom line at the expense of the public, be it through the institution, the author, or the library. How is this tolerated?

I thought the majority of editorial boards were volunteers.

How is this any different than charging the institution's library for a subscription? If a single article fee can be $1,000, the same as the average price for an academic JOURNAL subscription, it feels like this is an even smarmier way for profit-driven publishers. to scam the public educational system.

This was helpful

This made me wonder about people using screen readers or other assistive technology. Are CC licenses compatible with these? Is there a situation where use of these technologies could lead to a copyright mistake, and in that case is there some leniency?

Drawbacks of registation: it costs money. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ04.pdf

Wait, what? This is a REALLY big deal. I don't know much about the US Copyright office, but a short look at their website tells me a registration can take 6-9 months? What a joke! If somebody is infringing on my copyright, the damage (monetary and reputational) will be entrenched by then. I'm also curious about the role of Copyright Clearance Center, which I know nothing about. They're a private company, and I've heard terrible things, but I don't know what role they play.

OH, fascinating! I wonder if I can get my article back from taylor & francis once I'm 60.

From my faculty bargaining contract:

1. The ownership of materials or processes produced solely for the College and at the College expense shall vest in the College and be copyrighted or patented, if at all, in its name. a. Marketing, licensing, any profit from sale or distribution of this copyrighted or patented material shall vest solely and completely in the College. b. A written record will be entered into in advance between the College and the faculty member that reflects the work to be performed. This would not preclude both parties from mutually agreeing to create such a record after the fact.

So is Nike's 'Just do it' actually a Trademark?

I just need examples here; this is too vague

This list was more helpful than the digest version found in Moodle (2.1 What's copyrightable?); I'm glad I opened this resource.

How are these fixed? If I video somebody's choreography, the video is under my copyright as far as I understand it.

OK, so what about corporations owning copyright? Disney hires a team of writers/illustrators who collaboratively build a character/narrative/film, but they dipped into the public domain well to do so. I

I think it's well acknowledge in smaller circles, but popular culture and mainstream dominant narratives certainly operate on the tacit assumption framed in really crass political generalizations. Many in American culture have kneejerk reactions to anything that is not individualistic, labeling it on a spectrum from leftie to communist. AOC is self-quoted as a Democratic socialist precisely because of the shock and horror this is assumed to engender in the average reader.

But living in a political state requires any individual or group with or without property to deal with the state, at the very least in the form of property tax, much less operational taxes and licensing. This in turn requires revenue generation.

And when values aren't shared? AKA when one values private property and the other favors communal stewardship? Who wins then - Mickey Mouse?

This is a moral stipulation that feels omitted from public discourse about the responsibilities of being alive on earth, and therefore in a stewardship position. Is this a result of naive capitalism and libertarianism? The invisible hand that eventually backhands you? AKA https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/

Accounts for historical legacy of cultural products, as well as inherited wealth. Nods to an understanding of power and privilege as active forces with historical origins.

Vicious. This is a really familiar process that I see people fighting the good fight/fighting the old establishment often feeling. But Lessig remixed his creativity into something more useful, advanced, and influential than his own simmering regret and self-accusations. Only a purist like him would think that a better lawyer would have swayed a purchased case.

Legal values: avoiding harm was more important to this court than attempting to intuit and honor framers' intentions.

This feels like a direct violation of free speech. This argument feels incredibly emotional and pathetic.

Incidentally, the historian's and the economist's take on this case is exactly the one I'm missing in this article.

Gross. Having to sell the importance of constitutional law and intellectual property rights to the highest court in the U.S. This is why I didn't major in political science; too high risk of cynicism.

Feels solid

For works that don't make anybody money (or much money), doesn't their value lie in attribution? Isn't the value what it contributes to the author's reach and reputation?

The sooner the better, Larry.

I appreciate the explicit charge here; academic writing can often be too careful about calling out the power struggle that is inherent in all politics

So not just the utilitarian reasoning (to protect creators rights in order to incentivize new works) to protect Creators from Consumers, but also to protect Consumers from Creators. Enabling Consumers to thereby become Creators. Perhaps copyright had behind it a trace of the belief that we are all Creators, thereby presciently anticipating the digital age. Or maybe not...

Was this related to Disney's push for the CTEA? The NET )sounds unenforceable and unrealistic.

I would like to hear this argument elaborated upon. Is it to ensure economic gain for creative works for creator & descendants? How long do works remain commercially viable for? Did Bono cite his own influences ever, and how would he respond to being asked about how his 'giants' contributed to his own creative success.

This was a much-needed specific instance where corporations have been able to draw from the commons then privatize their new creative work. It is especially salient given Disney was behind the 1976 Copyright Term Extension Act. While I believe this practice holds up as logical from a capitalist economic perspective, Disney using its influence to extend copyright law in its own favor (to the detriment of the commons it extracted from) does not align with the ethos of the commons.

Fun fact: one of our very own PNWCritLib group members authored a chapter in this excellent tome!