The Creative Commons movement and K 12 Schools

Transcription

1 ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE: A COURSE JOURNAL, 1(2), 2009 The Creative Commons movement and K 12 Schools Paul Klintworth University of British Columbia Abstract: A literature review of how the Creative Commons movement to make intellectual property easier to share has affected K-12 schools will be undertaken, including any relevant research from other countries. K 12 schools, and Elementary in particular, could in practice provide better teaching and training of intellectual property issues through the direct involvement of all teachers and administration. As a result of this analysis, there appears to be a need for more empirical research on the application of copyright free materials and media in schools. Teachers and students should be aware of current copyright laws, abide by them, and also make use of other materials, such as those available through Creative Commons licensing. Keywords: 21 st century learning, Creative Commons, copyright, information literacy, media literacy We live in interesting times. Creativity can be digitally expressed in many different ways using a bewildering variety of technology tools. It is in this remix and peerto-peer file-sharing context that rigorous copyright enforcement can become counter-productive, effectively criminalizing many otherwise law-abiding digitally connected citizens, especially youth (Lessig, 2008). Many educators lack awareness or are misinformed about copyright issues in schools, making it important for copyright issues to be made explicit (Starkman, 2008). It is not enough to state that education is covered by a fair use or fair dealing exemption to copyright laws; rather, educators should model and teach students good practice in regard to copyright, including out of school activities (Leaver, 2008). This is modern media literacy at it s best, and the benefits are far reaching for the good of all society. The research focus of this study examines copyright issues in school, including the use of Creative Commons materials as an elegant way forward for teachers and students to create new content and encourage innovation. Most of the research evidence in this study is recent and not widely cited. This would indicate that this area of study would benefit from more attention in schools, and more empirical evidence from researchers. This study starts with a brief description of copyright and intellectual property, then examines the Creative Commons movement, the global aspect of social justice and economics in regard to developing nations, current practice and implications for schools, and concludes with a call for greater awareness and use of Creative Commons materials. The first copyright law, The Statute of Anne in 1709, was concerned with the advancement of learning (Jones, 2009). It was designed to prevent scholarly piracy and protect authors rights (Willinsky, 2009), but was then applied to any commodity to ensure that any resulting economic benefits were applied back to the 1

2 original author. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself (Fitzgerald, 2006, p.5.) Yet an important distinction can be made in terms of the intellectual property of information. The intellectual property of information is measured in terms of its value by its advancement, circulation and subsequent innovation; It is the gift that keeps on giving (Willinsky, 2009.) In economic terms this is repeated added value. Yet copyright law requires subsequent users to require permission, or licenses for other uses. There is an inherent tension between copyright and intellectual property rights, between freedom or the free circulation of ideas and the right to control the economic benefits of intellectual work (Rønning, 2006). The difficulties come when convergent media provide opportunities for remixed creative content in our 21 st century globally connected world. In the fast paced and serendipitous world of the Internet the traditional notion of obtaining permission before re-use is out of place. The key to seamless access to knowledge through open access, new business models or e commerce mechanisms is to work out how that permission process can be automated. (Fitzgerald, 2006, p.4) Creative Commons The quality of knowledge lies in its value, which is determined by how widely it is circulated, as well as its authority. Creative Commons was established in 2001 to advance information circulation and encourage innovation. It is a nonprofit corporation comprising many individuals and organizations, including the MacArthur Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation and Google Incorporated (Fitzgerald, 2006). Creative Commons offer four main conditions of free license that can be combined to offer a variety of rights reserved, allowing others access to material that the author still owns. The resulting licenses are attribution only, attribution-share alike, attribution non-commercial, attribution non-commercial share alike, attribution no derivatives and attribution non-commercial with no derivatives. The no derivatives license means that the material can t be re-mixed The licenses come in three parts; a plain English deed, the legal language code, and a digital code that can be embedded into a web page if appropriate. (Balarishnan, 2009; Kay, 2006; Johnson, 2009). The first legal test upheld a Creative Commons license in a Dutch court in early 2006, thus proving legal protection of the original author rights (Kay, 2006). The Creative Commons license system encourages open access to rights reserved material, it can make copyright material more active, (for example the BBC Archives), it encourages open educational resources, and can also promote new business models (Fitzgerald, 2006). The main criticism of Creative Commons is in economic terms. Copyright maintains artistic control through economic protection, whereas open licensing could diminish the value of creative property (Weinstein and Wild, 2005). Creative Commons licenses are perpetual and irrevocable, so critics argue that these licenses are not adaptable to changing situations (Fitzgerald, 2006). Why would artists or authors want the protection of a Creative Commons license, yet not receive comparable economic benefits? Lawrence Lessig argues that there are some very compelling reasons why Creative Commons licenses are attractive to 2

3 artists; there are systems of value apart from the monetary system, such as creative expression, a culture of generosity, and opportunities to connect communities of like-minded people (Lessig, 2008). In addition, there are hybrid business models that can effectively maximize the benefits of a Creative Commons license. One instance can be where freely available material gains public attention, bringing gains to the author with increased commercial opportunities in other subscription areas (Geach, 2009). Lessig gives examples such as Wikipedia, Flickr, Craigslist and YouTube that essentially offer free services, yet have commercial success due to massive user support. The success comes in maintaining a fine balance between free user support and commercial profit. YouTube gains revenue through its advertising. For Lessig the main advantage is how knowledge is spread and built upon by amateur creativity and innovation, something that would be stifled by traditional copyright (Lessig, 2008). Another challenge facing the Creative Commons model is preserving the full integrity of the original work (Fitzgerald, 2006). Global issues There is a social justice aspect to the use of Creative Commons licenses, more marked in international terms in the worldwide digital divide. For practical purposes the digital divide may be described as the disparity of technological infrastructure between developed and developing nations. There is no equity in the benefits of Creative Commons materials as not everyone can realize them due to infrastructure disparity (Chander and Sunder, 2004). Whilst the Internet was created for the public good, other factors can inhibit the benefits. This is certainly the case with infrastructure, where in 2006 approximately one third of the world was not connected to the Internet (Rønning, 2006). Another factor limiting the free spread of information through the Internet is government control in repressive regimes, putting in place censorship and blocking controls (Rønning, 2006). Information can still be released, as witnessed recently during the disturbances following the Iranian election when Twitter and other social media tools were effectively used to provide information, bypassing government controls. Differing attitudes can lead to different perspectives. Europeans can be more willing in general to defend the public domain than North Americans (Rønning, 2006). The explosion of Internet use combined with new technology media resulted in intensive lobbying from commercial organizations seeking to restrict and control copyright materials, resulting in the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the European INFOSOC Agreement (Rønning, 2006). The Creative Commons movement can be seen as a public reaction to the commercial lobbying, and has now set up Creative Commons licenses in many countries around the world, adapted to local copyright laws. There are even special hybrid licenses for developing nations promoting social justice and compensate for economic disparities (Sunder, 2006). Rønning highlights two areas of technological advancement in countries disadvantaged by infrastructure. In the mid-1990 s India was poorly served by technology, yet by 2006 had its own 3

4 Silicon Valley in Bangalore, and the ability to develop it s own simple computer for the education and research sectors. African cell phone connectivity has risen exponentially, along with Internet connectivity, although this is mainly limited to larger towns (Rønning, 2006). India has its own Creative Commons organization, as South Africa, and there is an ongoing program of new Creative Commons initiatives throughout the world. In Brazil Creative Commons licenses support commercial development as well as public access to culture and knowledge (Parilli, 2009). The availability of multi-lingual Creative Commons materials can only lead to increased innovation throughout society. Practice in K-12 schools Students are increasingly using web2.0 tools such as remixing, mashups and social media to innovate and create material to publish on the Internet for a global audience (Alexander, 2008). Schools can be cautious in adopting innovative technology as there are often conflicting views as to what is in the best interests of the education community. Both privacy and personal safety issues are often used to justify blocking such Internet sites as Facebook and YouTube in school. Students who are adept in using technology may have different expectations from their teachers. They are often very technologically literate, yet not so media literate. They create their content in new ways, often ranking people and products in multiple ways (Herring, 2009). Yet this can embody the student culture that engages in much peer-to-peer filesharing and a general disregard for societal rules to do with copyright. This very much represents the type of amateur creativity that Lessig advocates being deregulated in favor of increased innovation and public knowledge. The current situation where copyright holders litigiously pursue filesharers with aggressive intent is not effective. This is why Lessig promotes an alternative system of incentive for content creators (Lessig, 2008). Teachers are also beginning to use these same technology tools in their practice. Copyright issues have always been significant in schools, yet in a remixmashup culture they become increasingly important. Education and research is covered by a fair use exemption to copyright, yet it is better to teach students practical skills relevant to the world outside of school (Leaver, 2008). Some administrators turn a blind eye when there are copyright infractions at school, as no individual teacher has been sued for this type of offence. However, there are numerous examples of school districts being fined because of individual teacher copyright malpractice (Starkman, 2008). Implications for good practice Doug Johnson argues a strong case that teachers and administrators need to be aware of current copyright issues and act accordingly. In practice this means changing the focus from what is forbidden to what is allowed, and presenting the issue in terms of the producer as well as the consumer. In this way students have to justify the use of copyright material in their creative content, and be able to justify why it could be considered as a fair or transformative use in education (Johnson, 4

5 2008). When it comes to working with students, it s best to be real. We can certainly get students to bubble in the right answer on a test about copyright, we can refuse to accept work that may include copyrighted media, and we can say, Think hard about your actions, young woman. But I doubt any of these actions will stop students from illegally downloading materials once they re out of our sight (Johnson, 2008, p. 48.) Media literacy should involve critical thinking. Too often teachers may err on the side of caution, and this reflects my experience within the context of training Elementary teachers in technology integration over the last five years. The other extreme situation can occur when teachers either wilfully or naively break copyright laws, for example I have witnessed teachers showing copyright movies in class without a performance license, and other teachers copying software for students to use at home. Johnson advocates much greater awareness regarding copyright use in schools, and also suggests that all teachers and students make use of Creative Commons licenses in the creative content they produce, whatever the media (Johnson, 2008). Many schools have legalistic copyright restrictions which serve to limit technological creativity in the use, reuse and remix realms; this is certainly at odds with student culture outside of school, where the maxim seems to be to copy anything that is published in any form. Most schools are required to have an acceptable use policy regarding the Internet and technology, yet this needs to be translated into effective practice by being relevant to student culture both within and outside of school. Schools, Elementary in particular, are only recently becoming aware of the need to teach technology ethics, covering online safety, responsible use, copyright and citation guidelines, and the critical thinking needed to apply this knowledge to new situations (Lehman, 2009; Starkman, 2009). This is the perfect context in which to apply Creative Commons type media. Johnson suggests three main purposes for schools to use Creative Commons licensing: for Conclusion Many teachers would not consider their students as morally corrupt. Yet this is how modern copyright law treats them in the light of the reuse, remix and mashup context of their technology use. Teachers can also be held to copyright account if they are technologically adept. Intellectual property in educational terms is a valuable commodity that needs shepherding and celebrating in terms of its creative worth. This study has highlighted the lack of empirical evidence about copyright issues in school. All teachers, not just librarians or technology specialists, and students need to be made aware of the exciting possibilities that can result from the use of Creative Commons materials in their work as content producers. Many teachers that I personally know have never heard of the Creative Commons movement. There is now a wealth of material available in this format that can only encourage educational innovation in this current era of easily available access to all 5

6 forms of audio and visual media. References Alexander, B. (2008) Web 2.0 and emergent multiliteracies, Theory Into Practice, 47(2), p Balarishnan, S. (2009). COPYRIGHT in the classroom: Teacher and student use of online audio-visual RESOURCES. Screen Education, (54), p Chander, A., & Sunder, M. (2004). The romance of the public domain. California Law Review, 92(5), p Fitzgerald B, (2006). Open Content Licensing (OCL) for Open Educational Resources. Paper presented at the OECD Expert Meeting on Open Educational Resources in Malm, Sweden on 6 and 7 February Retrieved July 19, 2009 from Geach, N. (2009). The future of copyright in the age of convergence: Is a new approach needed for the new media world? International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 23(1), p Herring, M. (2009) on the horizon. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(3), p Johnson, D. (2008). Who's afraid of the big bad? School Library Journal, 54(10), p Johnson, D. (2009). Creative commons and why it should be more commonly understood. Library Media Connection, 27(6), p Jones, R. (2009). Technology and the cultural appropriation of music. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 23(1), Kay, R. (2006). Creative commons. Computerworld, 40(21), p Leaver, T. (2008). Creative commons: An overview for educators. Screen Education, (50), p Lehman, K. (2009). Teaching information ethics to high school students. Library Media Connection, 27(6), p Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. Penguin, New York. Parrilli, D. M. (2009). Creative commons licenses in Brazil: Legal, economic and social implications. ICFAI Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 8(2), p Rønning, H. (2006). Systems of control and regulation: Copyright issues, digital divides and citizens' rights. Critical Arts: A South-North Journal of Cultural & Media Studies, 20(1), p Schlesinger, R., & Lessig, L. (2008). Don't make kids online crooks US News & World Report. Starkman, N. (2008). Do the (Copy)right Thing. T.H.E. Journal, 35(3), p Sunder, M. (2006). Ip³. Stanford Law Review, 59(2), p

7 Weinstein, S., & Wild, C. (2005). Lawrence lessig's Bleak house : A critique of Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity or How I learned to stop worrying and love internet law. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 19(3), p Willinsky, J. (2009). Course Lectures, Developments in Access to Knowledge and Scholarly Communication LLED565D Graduate Class, University of British Columbia. 7