Next steps - third party media
mackiwg
associated with embedding 3rd party media in WikiEducator over here:
http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator/t/c8d2240cf44d8248
As an educator - I see the huge potential of 3rd party multimedia. As
an administrator - I'm erring on the side of caution because I don't
want to see a great project crippled before it has started because of
legally contentious copyright decisions.
I've created a new thread so that we can transform these discussions
into action steps for moving forward in a productive way. There is
still lots that the WikiEducator community needs to do to resolve
these questions. I think the following steps are important. What do
you think?
1. Get a legal opinion on the issues associated with embedding 3rd
party media in WikiEducator pages. If anyone who has access to a legal
department at their institutions - please help us in collecting an
authoritive legal opinion on what we can and cant do.
2. Address the educational challenges for newbies by developing
tutorials on how to implement WikiEducator tools for adhering to
copyright requirements
3. Action the open, transparent and democratic discussion for a
copyright policy for WikiEducator
4. Search for creative solutions to facilitate pedagogical innovation
using digital technologies without compromising the vision of a free
education curriculum by 2015.
This is a tough challenge -- and we need all the help we can get.
Cheers
Wayne
Leigh Blackall
1. Enable embedded media with a huge WARNING WARNING sign for the process
2. Require that the person using the embed evidence an effort to contact the original creator for permission (provide template letter)
3. Have a policy that deletes embed code that shows media that clearly breaches copyright
4. Have resources ready for the transcoding of cleared content into free formats :)
mackiwg
Thanks for the constructive suggestions. In the absence of a
WikiEducator policy for dealing with our wide range of opinions -
let's agree to work using a consensus model whereby we table as many
views from the WikiEducator community as possible at this time in the
evolution of our development and talk this through until we have
achieved a consensus position.
This discussion should aim for the development of a licensing and
copyright policy for WikiEducator.
The critical path decision is going to be what is legally permissible
and what is not. To the best of my knowledge, none of the
contributions to date come from authoritative legal professionals. We
have all conceded our limited knowledge in this area.
I'd suggest that we start a page in WikiEducator to identify the
specific questions we are asking on the legal front. This can serve as
the basis for gaining an informed legal opinion.
The next step would be to start drafting a WikiEducator policy on
copyright and licensing - open for all to comment, edit and modify
along our journey to achieving consensus - admittedly a difficult
task given that our opinions are informed by a wide range of
experiences and ideological influences.
You've prefaced your email with "...or" . I don't necessarily see the
proposals as an either/or scenario - its too premature to make an
informed judgement on our discussions thus far.
Lets go with the process - collaboratively we will end up with a
better result.
A few initial responses below.
Cheers
Wayne
On Jul 1, 3:32 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or..
>
> 1. Enable embedded media with a huge WARNING WARNING sign for the process
I'm nervous to go down this route in the absence of a legal opinion -
our work is too important to make mistakes on licensing. However - I
do like the idea.
> 2. Require that the person using the embed evidence an effort to contact the
> original creator for permission (provide template letter)
Open question - where the license is not compatible with the current
WikiEducator license - this would require permission before the
resource is embedded - From my knowledge of copyright - this is a
legal requirement, I could be wrong - but lets make sure.
> 3. Have a policy that deletes embed code that shows media that clearly
> breaches copyright
Yeah - good suggestion.
> 4. Have resources ready for the transcoding of cleared content into free
> formats :)
I would very much like to support this. Lets have a look at the
technical, legal and budgetary implications and whether we have the
funds to support this. If not - lets see how we might be able to find
the funding to make this happen. I think its an excellent idea.
Philip Serracino Inglott
a bit on this issue. Let's look at it from the technical point of view.
Firstly, lets look at our situation. It seems to me that unlike other nascent wikis WiEd has more educators than hackers.
Next, I think that the ability of MediaWiki sotware to embedd other media including video would be a great asst. This is irrelevant of any other issue. Wiki software tries to base itself on the original concepts of the web, with cross linking and deep linking (like interwiki) as a natural part of the way it works. Of course this does not work well with DRM.
There is another problem. Who will actually implement the media embedding code? Can it be done in a way that is not site specific? It does not make sense to have tags for youtube/blip/etc... Maybe Embeding of video/multimedia will remain a technically broken method until someone comes up with a standard for doing it across multiple sites (like what happened with RSS, and <object> is too much of a hackish way to do it). In fact it can be argued that Youtube and its friends are actually harming mashups, as they only want you to mashup with them, not from multiple sources and back to the source. In any case Wikieducator (as I undersatnded it) does not have the resources of the finances to have code developed to enable media embedding in a robust manner (i.e. that is standards based and secure) so in a way, that's that! Maybe there are more flixible wikis out there, but in my book MediaWiki is has its own good point that are not to be underestimated (e.g. the ability to run the 10th most visited website)
Then there is also the problem of offline reproducibility. It has been WiEd 's aim from the start that its content should keep in mind the possibility that it might need to be used offline. While it is technically possible to reproduce interlinked mashups for offline consumption (bar copyright restrictions) this is non-trivial to implement. and we are back at square one.
As I said elsewhere, I am convinced that the problem of universal connectivity is a transient one, but the transition will take an undefined (probably very long) amount of time.
Whether Embedded Media should be used is a separate issue. In any case this should be done with great care and sensitivity for both copyright issues and contextualiastion for target audiences; as one ought to do in the case of images. If a picture is worth a 1000 words then a video is worth 25 pictures a second and the ammount of attention required in making the right desicions with regards to both copyright and contextualisation is equally amplified.
In short:
1. Yes, I agree that WiEd should have the infrastructure to allow embedded media (though this goes for all MediaWiki)
2. Until there are the resources to implement it PROPERLY, we'll just have to work our way around it.
3. In any case WiEd is about free content, and as such the sources for embedding should ideally be also free. I consider sources such as flickr, youtube etc.. too volatile as they are susceptible to the market. Freedom form market pressure and volatility is another aspect of freedom that needs to be kept in mind for content. (even if nothing will ever be completely free of that)
Cheers,
Philip
mackiwg
Thanks for popping in to the discussions.
> There is another problem. Who will actually implement the media embedding code?
There is an existing MW extension which facilitates embedding of
Youtube videos - I can't make a judgement on the integrity or security
of the code. Based on the discussions I see the following themes
emerging that we will need to research, discuss and achieve consensus:
1. Legal implications of embedding 3rd party media and what WikiEd
needs to do so that we don't break the law
2. Educational implications
3. The impact of 3rd party media in relation to our community values
associated with free content
4. Technical implications
5. Implications for learners who don't have 24/7 connectivity or
authors with low bandwidth
Have I missed any of the main themes we should be discussing?
Cheers
Wayne
5.
Steve Foerster
> Hi all - there has been some pretty good discussion on the challenges
> associated with embedding 3rd party media in WikiEducator over here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator/t/c8d2240cf44d8248
> As an educator - I see the huge potential of 3rd party multimedia. As
> an administrator - I'm erring on the side of caution because I don't
> want to see a great project crippled before it has started because of
> legally contentious copyright decisions.
> I've created a new thread so that we can transform these discussions
> into action steps for moving forward in a productive way. There is
> still lots that the WikiEducator community needs to do to resolve
> these questions. I think the following steps are important. What do
> you think?
I just hope I don't have too much of a pirate mentality to contribute
usefully here! If use of material can help educate people, my initial
reaction is always to hoist the jolly roger and tell anyone claiming
intellectual property rights to go walk the plank.
However, I do recognise that we'd rather devote our energies to
curriculum development than legal defence, so it's sensible to come up
with a policy that prevents use of troublesome material without unduly
hindering us.
> 1. Get a legal opinion on the issues associated with embedding 3rd
> party media in WikiEducator pages. If anyone who has access to a legal
> department at their institutions - please help us in collecting an
> authoritive legal opinion on what we can and cant do.
I expect I'm about to show conclusively that I'm not a lawyer, but
here goes:
Which jurisdictions are important here? If WikiEducator is a COL
project, and COL is in Vancouver, does that mean that it's Canada's
legislation on this that matters? Or, since the server seems to be in
Germany, does that mean that German law is what's important?
> 2. Address the educational challenges for newbies by developing
> tutorials on how to implement WikiEducator tools for adhering to
> copyright requirements
Have the Wikimedia people already developed tutorials we might be able
to adapt?
> 3. Action the open, transparent and democratic discussion for a
> copyright policy for WikiEducator
You referred to a Wikipedia policy we might use as a starting point,
but I didn't catch the web address.
One addition point here is that this might be the right time to
discuss whether we'll continue to require WikiEducator initiatives to
use BY-SA, or whether we'll allow BY-SA or compatible. I strongly
urge us to consider the latter, so that those initiatives that wish to
use BY or a public domain dedication can do so.
Relatedly, we release everything under BY-SA 3.0. Shouldn't that be
"3.0 or later", so that if the way we ultimately resolve GFDL/BY-SA
incompatibility relies on a new version we'll be prepared?
> 4. Search for creative solutions to facilitate pedagogical innovation
> using digital technologies without compromising the vision of a free
> education curriculum by 2015.
We should keep in mind that even in 2015 we can't count on people to
have fast enough Internet access to handle multimedia. If a work
consists of only text and images, then it can be printed, which I
think will be much more practical for some time. At the same time, a
curriculum consisting of audio files would be development-compliant,
as it could be broadcast to people who have Freeplay Lifeline radios
<http://www.freeplayfoundation.org/>, etc. It's a single curriculum
that requires video or both text and multimedia that makes me a bit
leery.
-=Steve=-
mackiwg
Steve wrote:
> I just hope I don't have too much of a pirate mentality to contribute
> usefully here! If use of material can help educate people, my initial
> reaction is always to hoist the jolly roger and tell anyone claiming
> intellectual property rights to go walk the plank.
>
> However, I do recognise that we'd rather devote our energies to
> curriculum development than legal defence, so it's sensible to come up
> with a policy that prevents use of troublesome material without unduly
> hindering us.
My sentiments as well. That said I agree that we should come up with a
stable and robust policy that will keep maintenance and management
challenges to a minimum so we can get on with the important work. For
example - by association WikiEd subscribes to the free cultural works
definition - we don't want to go down the route of using non-free
content (eg NC or ND restrictions) in the name of education.
As Brent has pointed out - WikiEd does use non-free file formats -
Flash, MP3 and pdf. However, in terms of policy we can agree to adopt
practices which support the intent of the Free cultural works
definition. We have adopted a somewhat liberal interpretation of the
following requirement in the free cultural works definition;
"While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a
free format copy must be available for the work to be considered
free."
So for example, we might think about the following policy guidelines
Flash
Until such time as the Open Flash movement have stable editing tools,
we can upload Flash objects if, for example:
1) The source source FLA file is distributed under an appropriate free
software license - so that the object is editable.
2) The content of the flash object is released as free content.
There are a range of rich educational simulations - to date we have
had success in negotiating a CC-BY-SA license for the use of these
objects in a few example lessons. So in this situation I feel that we
are in line with the intent of the Free Cultural Works Definition.
This of course will create problems for WikiEd if we were to consider
amalgamating or joining one of the other big free content projects in
the future. So from a policy perspective - I would recommend a clear
identification of the pages (using categories) where flash content is
used.
MP3
The patent issue worries me. Our decision to permit MP3s was pragmatic
given the limitations of browser based playback of the ogg format. ogg
is digitally superior to MP3. We do however use a GNU (FDL) browser
player for the MP3s
Policy implication -
- Once a free software browser player is available for .ogg - we agree
to convert all MP3s into a free audio format. Similarly we need an
easy way to identify all the MP3s. Not too difficult to convert MP3
into .ogg's.
While PDF is a proprietary, it is nonetheless an openly documented
format and we have free software tools which export to this format. I
dont see any problems with pdf.
Currently, we do not permit uploading of any closed document formats
(eg. .doc and ppt) and I see know justifiable reason to change this.
Perhaps - if we can find the funding for this, we may consider a web
service to convert closed formats - but again this is entirely
dependant on funding.
> You referred to a Wikipedia policy we might use as a starting point,
> but I didn't catch the web address.
Here it is: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
>
> One addition point here is that this might be the right time to
> discuss whether we'll continue to require WikiEducator initiatives to
> use BY-SA, or whether we'll allow BY-SA or compatible. I strongly
> urge us to consider the latter, so that those initiatives that wish to
> use BY or a public domain dedication can do so.
Currently in WikiEd the default license is CC-BY-SA with the option of
contributors to license their content under CC-BY.
>
> Relatedly, we release everything under BY-SA 3.0. Shouldn't that be
> "3.0 or later", so that if the way we ultimately resolve GFDL/BY-SA
> incompatibility relies on a new version we'll be prepared?
Noted - I'm hopeful that the new CC-Learn Director is going to get
this incompatibility resolved.
> We should keep in mind that even in 2015 we can't count on people to
> have fast enough Internet access to handle multimedia. If a work
> consists of only text and images, then it can be printed, which I
> think will be much more practical for some time.
This is why a feel its so important to think very carefully about the
implications of embedding 3rd party media.
On the one hand, as a teacher myself - I understand the frustrations
of wanting an easy way to quickly embed rich media resources. Teaching
is one of the most stressful jobs (independently researched <smile>)
and folk don't have the time to convert media into the necessary
formats for uploading on WikiEd.
On the other hand, I know that we're pretty close to getting a
workable solution for off line users of WikiEd content. With our work
on Wiki ==> pdf we should have an intermediary XML format which would
make it possible to do a few smart things.
For example, if the pages selected for a printed study guide contain
audio or video media, it should be possible to automatically generate
an ISO CD-ROM image that would accompany the printed materials
containing the media of the pages selected for printing. However, if
the majority of audio and video WikiEd resources are sitting on
external websites - we would not be able to provide this functionality
for those pages. So - from a policy perspective we must think
carefully about how we differentiate pages that contain external media
that would not benefit from this functionality.
A few additional thoughts for our deliberations ...
Cheers
Wayne
Philip Serracino Inglott
mackiwg wrote:
Steve wrote:I just hope I don't have too much of a pirate mentality to contribute usefully here! If use of material can help educate people, my initial reaction is always to hoist the jolly roger and tell anyone claiming intellectual property rights to go walk the plank.
...
So for example, we might think about the following policy guidelines Flash Until such time as the Open Flash movement have stable editing tools, we can upload Flash objects if, for example: 1) The source source FLA file is distributed under an appropriate free software license - so that the object is editable. 2) The content of the flash object is released as free content.
But you would loose some quality in conversion as you are recompressing. Lets talk FLAC for anything that needs high quality... MP3 ... - Once a free software browser player is available for .ogg - we agree to convert all MP3s into a free audio format. Similarly we need an easy way to identify all the MP3s. Not too difficult to convert MP3 into .ogg's.
...
One addition point here is that this might be the right time to discuss whether we'll continue to require WikiEducator initiatives to use BY-SA, or whether we'll allow BY-SA or compatible. I strongly urge us to consider the latter, so that those initiatives that wish to use BY or a public domain dedication can do so.Currently in WikiEd the default license is CC-BY-SA with the option of contributors to license their content under CC-BY.Relatedly, we release everything under BY-SA 3.0. Shouldn't that be "3.0 or later", so that if the way we ultimately resolve GFDL/BY-SA incompatibility relies on a new version we'll be prepared?Noted - I'm hopeful that the new CC-Learn Director is going to get this incompatibility resolved.
Any user May post content under other allowed licences as long as the licence used is clearly indicated. In principle any licence that is equivalent or less restrictive than CC-BY-SA is to be allowed. Currently few such licences are known. these are PD, CC-BY, and GDFL, but GDFL is temporarily not allowed on WikiEd as it is incompatible with our default licence. We hope this will be resolved shortly.
Also, in the case of Media and other self contained content (i.e. the kind which cannot be collaboratively edited, but only allows a whole new version to be uploaded) WikiEd is allowing CC-BY-NC with the proviso that the author is acting responsibly, such content is kept to a minimum and is replaceable with free content (when such becomes available) within the context it is used. The latter policy is to be under constant review, and considered the exception rather than the rule.
This is the way I see it ... not any official position of the WikiEd crowd.
Cheers,
Philip
Leigh Blackall
I was excited to see another supporter (Steve) of the CC BY license for wikied, I wish it could be a license that we apply to a whole page or project and not just a single user... all said before. Steve had me in stitches here over the "walk the plank" line, LOL.
Regarding the issue of accessibility of 3rd party multi media:
I share those concerns, not because my motivations are to service Africa or other beacon, but because around 80% of the people in my area are on dial up or less. We are a rural area, where people can face a few hours drive to get to a place that has broadband access. More than many others in the world have, but an issue we deal with non-the-less.
I want to point to a page where we link out to a Youtube movie. We would embed it if we could, but it's a link now. The main point is that in the activity we are asking our students (the ones with broadband that is) to transcribe the video. When this course runs in a few weeks, we hope to have a fully transcribed text version of the video. Wikis lend themselves to this type of activity. We can say to a group - this video must be transcribed by the end of this course, and each one of us need only do a little bit.
Also, we know that it is technically possible to download copies of youtube movies. I use the video downloader extension firefox. It grabs videos from most of the video hosting sites. If Wikied could host FLV (the format that these videos are in), it would be very easy for me to download a video from Youtube or wherever, and reupload to Wikied. Then the offline version CD could be more easily made. But first I need to see if the embedded media is of use. I want to be able to quickly add the code and see the movie in the context of the materials. If its no good, I or my students will delete it. If it rocks! we download and reupload to Wikied - copyright permission obtained.
Thanks to Steve and Phillip for some really stimulating input.
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
http://learnonline.wordpress.com
Leigh Blackall
Günther Osswald
may I butt in here although not having read all the corresponding
posts?
Some general considerations:
By embedding 3rd party multimedia, we open up new dimensions.
Its nice to have videos for educational purposes available, but we
should always keep in mind that for the time being many educators in
the south have only old computers and weak internet connections. It
will be frustrating for them to not being able to access a resource
that obviously was being recommended by the author of the article.
External links should be permitted like we did before, but the
newcomers have to be aware that taking that link of course makes them
leave WikiEducator and our licence conditions. And that we can not
take any responsibility for content or quality of the linked page.
And still one important consideration: It's well known that most links
used in the web lead back to US-American sites. I'm afraid with videos
this will be even more frequent. And do we want to be WikiEd
Americanized? That would not be fair to the other cultures! I for
myself always suffer seeing indigenous cultures being eradicated by
western cultures. I suggest that videos shall be produced locally by
WikiEducators themselves! (hi Leigh!)
Regards from windy Bavaria, Günther
Leigh Blackall
And still one important consideration: It's well known that most links
used in the web lead back to US-American sites. I'm afraid with videos
this will be even more frequent. And do we want to be WikiEd
Americanized? That would not be fair to the other cultures! I for
myself always suffer seeing indigenous cultures being eradicated by
western cultures. I suggest that videos shall be produced locally by
WikiEducators themselves! (hi Leigh!)
Think of Youtube like you do Wikis? They are open to other cultures loading content. We are loading a hell of a lot of multi media content to YouTube AND Blip.tv AND Slideshare so it's not ALL "American".
mackiwg
Leigh has made a good point that in the wiki environment, local
cultures can easily recontextualise the video.
An interesting bit of useless information on WikiEducator. We're an
international project advocating a strong voice for the developing
world. COL is based in Vancouver and the WikiEducator server is
located in Germany. Our content comes from all corners of the world. A
truly international project!
Cheers
Wayne
Philip Serracino Inglott
forget to set the right from: address. So sorry if its a bit outdated.
Lets try and recap:
There are three points that are under examination here:
1. Licensing of embedded media -- the problem is that while everyone
seems to agree that we should be using free content: how free is free?,
or how free does embedded media need to be so that the free content in
which it is embedded is still free? -- also, once we start embedding we
multiply the problems of ensuring licence compatibility etc...
2. Technical issues -- how do we go about actually embedding Media in Wiki?
3. Is embedding a good thing anyway? this mostly relates to the
north-south/online-offline tensions. Gunther for example might not be
comfortable using YouTube, but he could use videos off
commons.wikimedia.org, or obtained through democracy player, but it
would not make his material anymore bandwith friendly.
I think at this stage we can summarise that:
1 The need/desire for an embedding solution is clear. This would be one
added functionality, after all, those who do not need it can simply not
use it. YET, how high it should be on the priorities list is still not
agreed upon, as the technical-know-how/finances to implement this
solution is not currently at hand.
2. The pedagogical value of using embedded video is accepted, but the
issue of creating potentially inaccessible content might mean that one
should think twice before using video. Some of us think that the value
of content with video is actually reduced as it is made functionally
unusable by a large portion of our target audience.
3. The Licensing issues is still a mess and very unclear, I which case,
while we continue to discuss, I would suggest that we'd rather err on
the side of caution and stick to CC-BY-SA, as strictly as humanly
possible for educators :-p
May I propose that the three aspects of the issue be discussed in
separate threads.
I hope I have been a faithful rapporteur. If not feel free to flame me
... its already too hot to breath anyway here in Malta.
Cheers,
Philip
Brent
2. Technical issues -- how do we go about actually embedding Media in Wiki?
brent.
Philip Serracino Inglott
Now which are stable? which are secure? which are useful?
But probably Extension:FLVPlayer and Extension:EmbedVideo would address most embedding needs right? Or do you have a personal preference.
So what does Erik, and any other hackers around here think of those extensions?
Philip
Leigh Blackall
Doh! Ok.
Now which are stable? which are secure? which are useful?
But probably Extension:FLVPlayer and Extension:EmbedVideo would address most embedding needs right? Or do you have a personal preference.
So what does Erik, and any other hackers around here think of those extensions?
Philip
Brent wrote:On 7/5/07, Philip Serracino Inglott <ink...@gmail.com> wrote:
2. Technical issues -- how do we go about actually embedding Media in Wiki?
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Media_handling_extensions
brent.
Steve Foerster
> I was excited to see another supporter (Steve) of the CC BY license for
> wikied, I wish it could be a license that we apply to a whole page or
> project and not just a single user... all said before.
To be clear, I'm actually a public domain supporter, and dedicate all
my content to it. I'm simply willing to accept BY-SA (and no further)
as a compromise to build this community. I don't want the perfect to
be the enemy of the good, and all that. Nevertheless, I've been
waiting on us to resolve this part of the licensing policy before
moving forward with XXI Texts. We get the source for them from the
public domain, and that's where they ought to stay.
> Steve had me in stitches here over the "walk the plank" line, LOL.
It's so much nicer than what I *really* want to tell them. :-D
-=Steve=-
Leigh Blackall
1. It is not a term that is used in Australia/NZ - but I appreciate that it is/will be widely recognised practically, just not sure about US legal imperialism and all that stuff...
2. Attribution as a form of currency and network building device. By being attributed I get an alert, by getting an alert I potentially make links with new people, ideas and projects. By being attributed I get some sort of recognition that I can measure and show my boss, my wife, my mum, myself.. you know :)
But all respect to the principle behind PD and I certainly hope that the option to mark a page or project in wikied as PD or equivalent will be enabled, at the very least for the important reason you indicate.
Leigh Blackall
Brent picked up a very definitive statement from YouTube. No one has looked into other hosting services like Slideshare.net..
I have just received advice from the person in our organisation who knows the most about copyright in the digital network. Pam keeps a blog called digital image copyright. She is new to the game, but does remarkable investigative research in the field. Her advice regarding NZ legislation and the topic of our list discussion - just for the record, supports what Brent did:
Hi LeighSee other email. The old legal statements are just about non-existent on the ground and most are concerned with copyright, and don't cover the internet and still waiting for the magic paragraph to appear in the new legislation which would give us the opportunity to "cache web pages for the duration of the course" under the educational exemptions. Until recently I wouldn't have seen a problem with linking/embedding but have come across a couple of sites concerned with bandwidth theft now. SO .... the only advice I can offer is read the terms and use tab (which is where I find most of my info as I try to build up a picture of how sites see themselves being used). If they don't mention it specifically I'd link and if they retrospectively apply prohibition then I'd remove and desist.We need the magic sentence to make our VLE lives easier and we need it now!Pam
LeighBlackall
creating quite a few video pages the last few days example:
http://wikieducator.org/Video_-_Get_Creative), and wish it was a
category actually, with each video having a standard page... or like
the :image pages with the data automatically recorded...
I can sense a day when we will eccept embedding, or when we start
seeing a lot more multi media... is there a way I can work up these
video pages that compliments this day? starting a video category
perhaps?
On Jul 10, 8:54 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A while ago Wayne was asking for a definitive statement regarding copyright
> and embedding 3rd party media.
>
> Brent picked up a very definitive statement from YouTube. No one has looked
> into other hosting services like Slideshare.net..
>
> I have just received advice from the person in our organisation who knows
> the most about copyright in the digital network. Pam keeps a blog
> called digital
> image copyright <http://pammckinlay.blogspot.com/>. She is new to the game,
> but does remarkable investigative research in the field. Her advice
> regarding NZ legislation and the topic of our list discussion - just for the
> record, supports what Brent did:
>
> Hi Leigh
>
> See other email. The old legal statements are just about non-existent on the
> ground and most are concerned with copyright, and don't cover the internet
> and still waiting for the magic paragraph to appear in the new legislation
> which would give us the opportunity to "cache web pages for the duration of
> the course" under the educational exemptions. Until recently I wouldn't have
> seen a problem with linking/embedding but have come across a couple of sites
> concerned with bandwidth theft now. SO .... the only advice I can offer is
> read the terms and use tab (which is where I find most of my info as I try
> to build up a picture of how sites see themselves being used). If they don't
> mention it specifically I'd link and if they retrospectively apply
> prohibition then I'd remove and desist.
>
> We need the magic sentence to make our VLE lives easier and we need it now!
>
> Pam
>
mackiwg
Things have been pretty hectic on this end - and just haven't had the
time to move this forward. Its definitely still on the agenda and will
get us moving on the next steps once I can find a little breathing
space.
A category for pages containing video links is a good idea. Go for it.
Wayne
LeighBlackall
- not just from YouTube either.
Slideshare just made available synchronized audio to slides, along
with the usual embed codes made available and the social networking.
They have Larry Lessig's Free Culture talkas slideshow on the week!
http://learnonline.wordpress.com/2007/07/26/slideshare-finnally-does-it/