This seeks to provide guidance for students about being 'open' and how everybody can use freely available resources in an ethical way.

1. This work is licensed by Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Sharealike (CC-BY-NC-SA).
OMG the Only way is Ethics (part two)
Being: Open, Creative Commons & IPR
OMGTOWIE pt. 1 can be accessed at storify.com –
please search UCBCCC then stories
Enhancing Employability via Community Challenge

2. http://tinyurl.com/d4gt9o
u

3. … so we need ‘bigger
and better’ mouths?

4. Trust?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/electricsky

8. Use Blipfoto
etc. for
whatever
purpose you
choose.

9. With an
account
you can
create
and
share
playlists

10. The University of British Columbia and the
first ‘known’ edupunk teaching project?

11. New ways of
being for
traditional
academic
sources…

12. Thanks
to data
from
wikipedia

13. Thanks to
data from
youTube

14. The Creative Commons Revolution
One of the foundations behind the drive towards
openness in the contemporary world has been the
Creative Commons licensing system.
“Creative Commons began providing licenses for
the open sharing of content only a decade ago.
Now more than 400 million CC-licensed works are
available on the Internet, from music and photos, to
research findings and entire college courses.”
(The Power of Open, 2011)

20. Copyrighted music and YouTube
• The situation with YouTube is that there is still no general
permission to include copyright protected music within a
video. However, YouTube have an arrangement with the big
recording companies/rightsholders that where copyright-
protected material is discovered within adverts, the rightsowner
may choose (entirely at their choice) to do any of the following:
• Disable the video and have it removed
• Disable the audio, leaving the video intact
• Disable only the bit of the audio which is the copyright music
• Include advertising as an pop-up on the video, and take the
revenue from such
• Include a pop-up giving details of the copyright music
• Do nothing

21. Remember advert breaks?

22. Fighting the law?
• There are going to be multiple rights associated with “I Fought The
Law” – a firm of Glasgow solicitors wanted to use a short clip of
The Clash’s recording of it, and after tracking down all the rights
(in the song, the lyrics, the performance and the recording), it
would have cost somewhere in the region of £8000 to clear the
rights. They decided not to use it.
• Where the resource contains a link to the YouTube video, the
greatest risk is likely to be the video being removed at the request
of one of the rightsholders. Likewise in the case of an embedded
player (which is simply a fancy form of linking). However, if the
video is actually going to be ripped and included in the resource,
there is the not insigificant risk of one of the rightsholders
requiring its removal (and from all copies of the resource made by
users) – which would carry a reputational risk as well as a legal
one.

23. As clearing the rights is probably going to be
unrealistic, there are two recommended
approaches:
1) The first is to look around YouTube to see what other videos
use the track, and to see what’s happened to them. If there are
only recent uploads, that would suggest a rightsowner is
requiring infringing videos to be taken down. If there are
videos including the track going back several years, then you
might get some indication as to what the rightsowner has been
requiring (no action, removing the audio, blanking the
offending ‘bit’, or including advertising).
The fact that the video for What is Crime? has been up for
several years is some answer, though as it is a cover version,
YouTube’s automated copyright music spotting software might
not have found it yet (“Content ID”) – but you never know
when it might be flagged up. There is always some risk that the
video may be removed or altered in future.

24. Alternatives?
2) The second approach is to change the music to
something non-infringing. On the one hand, this isn’t too
difficult as there isn’t any talking over the music etc; on
the other, it’s hard to think of a similar ‘iconic’ piece of
music which would be available copyright cleared. Sonny
Curtis, the songwriter responsible for I Fought the Law, is
still alive and well, so it is going to be in copyright for
some time to come.
3) A statement of ‘fair use’ would be evidence of
reasonable care and a diagnostic tool for assessing IPR has
been made available by JISC for the OER community:

25. Trust me – this
is a really good
resource. There
are templates
for consent
statements etc.
as well as expert
advice for
IPR/copyright
stuff.

26. Please ask, share, tag, curate …
• p.johnson@blackburn.ac.uk
• To find out more, search for UCBCCC on sites
such as: delicious, youTube, pbworks,
slideshare, twitter, storify, prezi and others
that have probably not yet been invented.
• Open education is for everybody.