This document summarizes a lecture on open educational practices regarding lecture recording. It finds that many universities do not have clear policies on intellectual property rights and lecture recording. Policies vary in their approaches to consent, third-party copyright, and open access. The research recommends that universities adopt minimum standards for policies, involve staff and students in policy development, clarify responsibilities for managing risks, and provide copyright guidance and support for open educational practices. Further research is needed on the relationship between institutional culture and risk tolerance as well as engaging academic staff in debates around openness.
1. Lecture recording: what does it
mean to be open?
Jane Secker, LSE and Chris Morrison,
University of Kent
@jsecker @cbowiemorrison @UKCopyrightLit
OER17 Conference 5-6 April 2017
2. The research team
Chris Morrison,
University of Kent
@cbowiemorrison
Dr Jane Secker, LSE
@jsecker
Juliana Rios-Amaya,LSE
Report available online
7. The survey
Survey devised by: Jane Secker, Chris Morrison, Philippa Hatch,
Alex Fenlon, Charlotte Booth, Carol Summerside, Helen Cargill,
Phil Ansell and Scott McGowan
8. The issues examined
• Lecture recording & IPR
(intellectual property
rights) policies
• Consent from individuals
• Dealing with 3rd party
copyright
• Move towards open
practice
• Wider IPR issues
Full report available at
https://copyrightliteracy.org
9. Yes - my
institution has a
written policy
29%
No - my
institution has no
policy or
documented
approach to
lecture capture
31%
Sort of - my
institution has a
documented
approach to lecture
capture but it is not
expressed as a single
formal policy
40%
Does your institution have a policy covering IPR issues with
lecture recording? (N=33)
Headline findings
10. Academic consultation
Figure 2: Did your institution consult widely with the
academic community before introducing a policy or
approach to lecture recording? (n=33)
12. Responsibility for 3rd party copyright
The lecturer would be expected to observe copyright and can apply to the
Copyright Clearance Service for advice.
3%
9%
18%
21%
94%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
School Administration Staff
Other
E-learning / VLE team
Compliance Officer / Team
Lecturer/presenter
Figure 8. Who takes responsibility for rights issues with content included
in lectures? (n=33)
13. Responsibility for third party copyright
Yes
3%
No
83%
No Answer
14%
Figure 11. Do you, or any one else in the university, review
lecturer recordings to identify content that is not permitted
under UK copyright law or university licences? (n=33)
14. Making staff aware of copyright issues
9%
18%
33%
73%
73%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
They are not made aware of these issues
It’s in the staff terms and conditions
They are provided with advice as part of staff
induction / training
Information is on the website
They are provided with advice as part of
agreeing to use the lecture recording system
Figure 9. How are staff made aware of copyright issues that might
arise in recording lectures? (n=33)
15. Where are recordings stored?
6%
9%
12%
12%
64%
88%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
On any website, no password required
Other
On external web services (e.g. itunesU,
Vimeo and You Tube)
On personal computers and shared drives
(e.g. University network, home PC,…
On a password controlled VLE (e.g.
Blackboard, Moodle etc)
On the lecture capture service (Echo 360,
Panopto etc)
Figure 3. Where does your university permit captured lectures to be
stored? (n=35)
16. Policy analysis
• Examined 11 institutions
• Compared with Jisc guidance
as a benchmark
• Looked only at what was
provided (some policies are
behind registration walls)
• Created 5 higher level and 12
lower level categories
17. High level categories
Appetite for risk Support and guidance
Institutional control Open practice
Comprehensiveness
of approach
19. Findings
Variety of
approaches
No clear models as
yet
Policy is not the
same as practice
Jisc guidance not
widely adopted
Support should be clear,
helpful and practical
Institutional culture of risk
difficult to determine
Open practice not
widespread
20. Recommendations
Minimum standards in lecture recording policy should be
adopted
Staff and students should be involved in policy
development
Responsibility for managing risk should be clarified
Copyright advice and guidance should be provided
Institutional policies should refer to ‘open educational
resources’ and open practice far more
22. Further Research
Relationship between
institutional approach
to risk and lecture
recording
Understand optimum
involvement of
academic staff in
debates
Exploring the impact of
copyright guidance and
levels of copyright
literacy amongst staff
Identify ways to engage
with ‘open’ culture
alongside concerns over
academic identities
23. Further reading
• Elmes, John. (2016) Universities ‘uncertain’ about lecture-
capture copyright. Times Higher Education Supplement. 8
December 2016. Available at:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/universities-
uncertain-about-lecture-capture-copyright
• IPAN (2016) University IP Policy: Perception and practice.
Available at:
http://www.ipaware.net/sites/default/files/IPAN_NUS_Univ
ersity_IP_Policy_v11-2r_online-mainr_28jul16.pdf
• Jisc (2015) Recording lectures: legal considerations.
https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/recording-lectures-legal-
considerations
• Rios-Amaya, Juliana, Secker, Jane and Morrison, Chris (2016)
Lecture recording in higher education: risky business or
evolving open practice. LSE / University of Kent, London, UK.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68275/
• Secker, J. & Morrison, C. 2016. Copyright and E-learning: a
guide for practitioners, Second Edition. Facet Publishing,
London. pp. 103-105.
• Secker, J., Bond, S., & Grussendorf, S. 2010. Lecture Capture:
rich and strange, or a dark art? LSE Research Online.
Available: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29184
https://ukcopyrightliteracy.wordpress.com
With an increasing call for open practices in the higher education sector, we present findings from a survey of copyright, intellectual property (IP) policies and lecture recording (Rios-Amaya et al, 2016). We explore what open means in the context of automated lecture recording systems. The survey was completed by 33 institutions across UK HE and 11 lecture recording, copyright and IP policies were analysed. The findings reveal some of the tensions that open practice creates with regards to copyright and IP issues, and highlight the challenges of changing cultures in HE. Lecture theatres are traditionally private spaces, so opening these spaces up presents some specific challenges, of which copyright and related rights are a fundamental component. Issues such as whether permission is obtained from academic staff, the ownership and control of the intellectual property rights (IPR) which arise in the recording of a lecture and the inclusion of third party content that is subsequently copied and redistributed, are all potentially contentious.
Jisc (2014) produced guidance on the legal considerations of lecture recording highlighting the importance of copyright, however, this survey is the first research to be undertaken since major changes were made to UK copyright law in October 2014. The amendments widened the educational exceptions to copyright, specifically Section 32 (Illustration for Instruction) and Section 30 (Quotation, Criticism and Review) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The survey collected data about how different institutions might be interpreting these exceptions with regards to lecture recordings. The paper illustrates a mixed picture with regards to institutional policies. For example 31% of institutions have no documented approach or formal IPR policy for lecture recording despite Jisc recommending that they should. Only 29% of respondents have an institutional IPR policy with the remaining 40% having an informal, less well-documented approach. In addition to this nearly half of institutions (45%) did not consult widely with the academic community before introducing lecture capture. Meanwhile 45% of institutions do not to ask for individual consent from those being recorded. One of the key findings was that most recorded lectures are currently restricted so that they are only accessible to those within their institution. Concerns about copyright and IP were cited as one of the major barriers to making the recordings open.
The paper explores some of the contradictions that arise, for example requiring lecturers to obtain permission for the use of third party content as well as advising them to rely on fair dealing exceptions (for which no permission is required). In most institutions (94%) lecturers are expected to take responsibility for all rights issues. Even though this responsibility is shared with others, ultimately the lecturer often has to make decisions about which content to include. Many institutions (63%) try to give helpful examples to support lecturers interpret fair dealing, but leave the ultimate decision up to them. Only 3% actually monitor recordings to see if uses of copyright material are permitted under law. These findings are particularly interesting to consider in the context of risk-management and attitudes towards open practice. However several institution indicated that they might follow different processes if they were to make their recordings open, or to use them in a MOOC.
For this to happen we argue there needs to be a culture change in HE so that ‘copyright literacy’ is embedded across HE as part of developing digital capabilities. Supporting open practice inevitably means tackling difficult issues over copyright and providing timely support to staff.
References
Jisc (2014) Recording Lectures: legal considerations . Available at:
https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/recording-lectures-legal-considerations
Rios-Amaya, Juliana, Secker, Jane and Morrison, Chris (2016) Lecture recording in higher education: risky business or evolving open practice. LSE / University of Kent, London, UK. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68275/
Lecture theatres are traditionally private spaces, so opening these spaces up presents some specific challenges, of which copyright and related rights are a fundamental component. Issues such as whether permission is obtained from academic staff, the ownership and control of the intellectual property rights (IPR) which arise in the recording of a lecture and the inclusion of third party content that is subsequently copied and redistributed, are all potentially contentious.
Communication to the public – what does that mean?
Case of UC Berkeley having to remove all their recorded lectures because they were not accessible….
So many issues to consider to shift people to being open – it’s not just about opening the door and letting people look in. Include something about how open practice is being encouraged but if all you do is record a lecture then this is not shifting towards openness.
Can you include third party content is an important issue.
What did we want to find out? What are the issues?
Why did we do the research? – to find out what people were doing about the new exceptions – illustration for instruction and use of images in lectures
How did we do it? A survey open to all HEIs made available on LIS-copyseek and to the heads of e-learning – caveat small scale
When – it was distributed in February 2016 – we had 33 respondents – the issue being two institutions sent in two different responses! Interesting in itself!
Some of the issues are:
Lecture recording policies and statements about IPR – what do they say?
Lecture recording and consent from individuals – including guest speakers and students (Opt in vs opt out policies)
Dealing with third party copyright issues – use of the new and existing copyright exceptions, advice given to staff
Overall approach to lecture recording as part of wider IPR issues in an institution
Lecture recording and IPR policies
Analysis of formal written policies
Ownership of the resulting outputs
Consent from individuals
Performance rights and moral rights
Dealing with guest speakers and students
Dealing with third party copyright
Wider issues related to IPR in the institution
31 % do not have a policy or documented approach to lecture recording
40% sort of have one
Only 29% have a written policy
31 % do not have a policy or documented approach to lecture recording
40% sort of have one
Only 29% have a written policy
Very few are made available on a site without a password. Additionally half allow the recordings to be downloaded but half only allow them to be streamed.
Open practice was all about whether Creative Commons licences were being used on the recordings or if staff were encouraged to use material under CC licences (e.g. images)
The chart on the left shows: the institutions that provide a higher level of support for copyright advice, have a tendency towards open practice and higher levels of appetite for risk. Arguably, institutions that are more open often are in a stronger position because they have considered copyright and IP issues in line with the development of open practices, however further evidence would be needed to back up this point.
The chart on the right shows: it is possible to observe that there are three institutions with a high level of institutional control and high level of comprehensiveness of approach
These findings are particularly interesting to consider in the context of risk-management and attitudes towards open practice. However several institution indicated that they might follow different processes if they were to make their recordings open, or to use them in a MOOC.
Might have to mention a certain Copyright the Card Game here….. Copyright literacy is key
Also return to the point about fear and how games are good for this.
Jane to add picture from Leeds event or similar
You don’t want open practice to become a compliance issue – rather than something that teachers choose to do it. The most important thing is to educate them so they can make choices – policies and rules are not the answer
For this to happen we argue there needs to be a culture change in HE so that ‘copyright literacy’ is embedded across HE as part of developing digital capabilities. Supporting open practice inevitably means tackling difficult issues over copyright and providing timely support to staff.