Friday, April 30, 2010

Copyrighted work and OER

After reading this weeks material it has become clear to me that there is two sides to these different licenses. One might even say that it is a necesary evil

On the one hand I can see the value of the creative commons licences in freeing up the material for people right accross the globe to use and re-use. It also places some restrictions on how, where and when one might use the material. This is were the two sides I mentioned earlier comes in.

On the one hand it protects the author or creator of the material to some extent, for example fair use of material. On the other hand it might place undue and confusing restrictions on the work (I know I was initially very confused)and some individuals might think it easier just to copyright the work and be done with it.

In my opinion these licenses are a good thing, if they are used in the right instances and do not work against the ideal they are trying to uphold


  1. Like your statement: "do not work against the ideal they are trying to uphold."

    Maybe the protection end of licensing has come to dominate the purpose of licensing. Instead of encouraging sharing by protecting you from being ripped off, the whole process has been turned into a what's-mine-and-what's-yours standoff?

    I like the idea of sharing with attribution and some sort of reward for what is usually the extra effort that goes into something unique. Why shouldn't the extraordinary be rewarded?

    As territorial animals, us humans seem to naturally seek advantage, and advantage feeds advantage. So even if there are enough trees (or fire hydrants) for every dog, some dogs will always mark more than their share, not for need, but for advantage.

    All systems eventually need renewal and copyright may now be so distorted by clauses and sub-clauses as to be non-functional. The necessary tension that keeps any idea alive has been lost in the struggle between private and public interests--especially now when "private interest" can actually mean the interests of a corporation as a legal standing for a human.

    I'm not sure if this makes sense. Talking about necessary evils is difficult. We're so used to the one-or-the-other way of thinking it's difficult to talk about the space between them where everything resides.

    Thanks for your comments. May not be apparent but they did break up some confusion over copyright in my mind.

  2. I also wonder about what the author is being protected from. Traditionally it has been protected in (mostly) the economic sense. There are exceptions, but authors who work at schools, colleges and universities are already being compensated. What is copyright protecting them from?

  3. Protection?

    Anything you create takes time and effort. It may have been fun time and not made with the intention of gain or fame but you put time in that someone else didn't, and I think it's fair to have this acknowledeged in some way.

    It makes sense to me that copyright protects effort and keeps others from profiting from your work. It's a way of controling how what you made will be used and by whom.

    Also, people steal stuff and take credit for it which is unfair appropriation of other peoples time.