Creative Commons Media Release?

[Colleen Morgan]

Hello,

Does anyone have experience with media releases that also incorporate
Creative Commons licensing? The Human Subjects Review board here at UC
Berkeley says that archaeological photography and video recording both lay
outside of the purview of the IRB, but that getting a media release would
be "the nice thing to do." Following the template of the media release
provided by the HSR office, I cobbled one together with an added clause
for Creative Commons licensing of the materials; however I am not sure of
its legality or overall worth. I was hoping that someone with more
experience in such matters would be able to give me advice.

There is a link to it here:

http://middlesavagery.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/human-subjects-review-and-digital-archaeology/

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Colleen
--
Archaeology PhD Candidate
Department of Anthropology
University of California, Berkeley

[Christopher Kelty]

colleen

i've dealt with this before, but with elite scientists, who usually
want all the attention they can get.

Questions to ask:

1) are you attributing authorship (in the sense of owning a copyright)
to the people you are giving this form to. That is, do they have any
reasonable justification for claiming copyright in the
images/texts/videos you are distributing?

1a) if not, then the media release is essentially an informed consent
form, in which you are specifying what will happen to the materials.
You might want to spell it out in more detail, since putting things
online is a permanent action (i.e. there is no rescinding permission
once you've done that. Thank you Google). The form you linked to
doesn't really communicate that these materials will circulate
globally constrained only by a very lineral copyright license. I
personally think the ethical thing to so is to say so.

1b) If so, then the form is a copyright-transfer contract, and you
might want to specify that you are asking for a non-exclusive license
to copy, display, transform, etc. the work and to release it under a
creative commons license. in this case the materials should list the
person as an author/owner of the materials, and your use of them as
modified works.

1b is sometimes safer, because it gives subjects/collaborators an
ownership and authorship stake... makes them more collaborators than
human subjects and hence fully outside IRB oversight... though not
outside AAA ethics.

hope that helps
ck

[Christopher Kelty]

I got the following offer. I won't be at the AAA this year. Anyone
else want to follow up?

ck


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lynne Schmelz <sch...@fas.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Subject: AAA Meeting-Need Meeting Space?
To: cke...@gmail.com


Dear Chris,

I am Co-Chair of the Scholarly Communication Interest Group of the
AAA. We have a meeting time slot, but I do not have an agenda, and
will not be using the meeting room.
Do you need meeting space for an open access event at the AAA?

My time slot is:
December 5, 2009
12:15-1:30 p.m.
Room: 407

Best,
--Lynne




--
Lynne M. Schmelz
Librarian for the Sciences and Librarian of the Cabot and Tozzer Libraries
Harvard College Library

Cabot Science Library, Harvard University
1 Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Tel.617-495-5351
Fax 617-495-5324

Tozzer Library, Harvard University
21 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
Tel. 617-496-1481
Fax 617-496-2741
E-mail: sch...@fas.harvard.edu