All posts in OER + Open content

As discussed in Open Content: Licensing, Attribution, and Reuse, the licenses of our source material can affect the licenses we can use when we release our remixed work. At times, there will be potential conflicts that need to be addressed. Unlike traditional copyright, where our options are limited by the whims and decisions of the copyright holder, Creative Commons licensing provides authors with more flexibility and choice.

With some thought and planning, licensing issues can be relegated to just another step in the process of authoring open content.

Resolving Potential Conflicts

If you come across a situation where you are looking at a licensing conflict that appears insurmountable, you have a few other options:

• Contact the license holder and ask permission; or
• Fair Use; or
• Curation; or
• Multiple licenses covering components within a resource; or
• Write your own.

Frequently, contacting the license holder and asking for permission will be all that's needed. In many cases, the original author wanted to have some degree of control over where there work will be reused, and are open to allowing it to be incorporated into a derivative work. When we have asked authors to use their work under a different license, we have written a brief email describing our project, how the piece will be used, and why the piece is important within the project. Additionally, we let the author know that we will attribute them, and ask if there is a specific way that want to be recognized as the original creator.

Fair Use is a second option; Fair Use is part of US Copyright Law; there are also some international parallels. The concept of fair use defines a set of conditions under which a portion of a work can be reused or remixed within a new derivative work. This video provides more information on Fair Use. The short version: using information within an educational setting is widely protected under Fair Use.

If Fair Use is not a fit for your specific situation, you can also incorporate work by curating external sources. In this context, "curation" includes a description of how the external resource fits into your work, along with a link to the resource (or, for information not on the web, instructions on how to access the resource).

Using multiple licenses is a third option; while this is the most complex of all options, it does allow for reuse of content under different licenses. When a work uses more than one license, individual components within the work retain their original license, while the bulk of the new work is licensed under a different license. As one example to illustrate when this is a viable approach, if an image under a No Derivatives license is reused in its original format, the rest of the work can be released under a different license while the image retains its original ND license.

The final option covered here is to create your own resource. If none of the options discussed so far work, creating your own new work and releasing it under a Creative Commons license is always a viable option.

Through the options described above, many external resources can be incorporated into open content without infringing upon the rights of the original authors. Attribution and transparency, discussed later in this post, provide additional ways that we can safely and ethically reuse existing content within open educational resources.

Transparency and Intent

One of the fears we hear repeatedly about adopting open content is the fear that it can lead to legal action for infringing on the rights of copyright holders. As with every fear, it helps to temper the concern with some reality.

The reality is that large companies use the threat of a lawsuit as a means of chilling competition. However, the likelihood of that happening is incredibly small, and it becomes even smaller when we use the steps described in this post to make sure that we are respecting the licenses that creators put on their work.

By being completely transparent about the source material we use, by using proper attribution, and by making an intentional effort to use and support open content creation efforts, we minimize any risk even further. The companies and organizations looking to sue are concerned about the long term prospects of their business model, and they should be. The goal of open content, however, is not to ruin the textbook industry in its current form - while that might happen, that's a secondary effect. The goal of open content is to support teachers and learners working together to create the best learning process possible. Content plays a role in that, but, the process of creating and reusing open content becomes more valuable than the actual content.

When discussing open content, many people become focused on the "content" rather than the "open." By being transparent about our sources, our methods, and our goals, we can provide a clear roadmap of how we got to a specific piece of content. In most cases where the author of a piece of work has a question about how their work is being used, they will ask that the work be removed, or they will ask for more information. In these situations, being fully transparent about how we created the work will help demonstrate our intent. This is not a blanket protection against legal action, but given that (in the US, anyways) anyone can sue anyone for any reason, it's difficult to get that blanket protection whether we use open content or not.

Being fully transparent in how we source and create open content, however, helps illustrate the process by which more people can benefit from open content. It's also a stark contrast to traditional textbook companies, where various interest groups vet and make recommendations to textbooks prior to publication. Transparency offers demonstrable evidence of how our work came into existence.

Last week, we put out a guide to creating openly licensed content prior to our first open content authoring event in Philadelphia, and our session at EduCon on open content. During these events, several people asked about the easiest way to find openly licensed content. Sites like OER Commons can be useful, but for us, the easiest way we have found is using Google's advanced search feature.

The screencast below gives a quick overview on how to find content. If you are doing this as part of research, you will want to use one of several methods to sort and organize the useful information you discover. We will cover how to collect and organize this information in a follow up screencast.

Some follow up thoughts on this earlier post on open content.

As we talk about open content, one of the refrains we hear pretty regularly goes something like this:

Creating a high quality textbook requires skills in marketing, sales, web design, [fill-in-skill-here], and that is too much to expect from people who aren't professionals.

A similar, related objection to open content is that the resources created and released under an open license don't come with any test banks or evaluations.

I generally nod politely when I hear these objections because they have nothing to do with the process and value of creating open content, and everything to do with the business model of selling access to content. These are two different things.

If you look at content as a product that needs to be sold (ie, as a fixed entity, like a textbook) then your sales channels, your product marketing team, and the skills needed for marketing become necessary for your business. But, this perspective takes a narrow approach on what open content can be, and reduces it to just a replacement for a textbook. This perspective misses how the value of open content accrues over time. Or, in other words, open content should not be blamed for the failure or success of business models that need to sell content.

In response to the people who feel the need to have assessments packaged alongside open content as a pre-requisite for a broader adoption of open content: first, if you want assessments, write assessments. Nothing is stopping you.

Second, the question of assessment -- and the related questions of how, what, and when to assess -- is a larger, and very open, question. Arguably, one of the ways to view the new goals of the Common Core standards and the "next-generation assessments" they appear to require is as a form of corporate welfare carefully sculpted to the large textbook companies that played a guiding role in writing the standards. Making the claim that open content needs to be packaged with ancillary tools that address the unanswered question of assessment is a bait and switch; it can be a well-intentioned bait and switch, but it's not relevant to open content adoption, as assessment can be defined in many ways in many places. The fact that textbook companies package texts and assessments together shouldn't actually confuse us into thinking that the assessments sold are actually good. Convenience doesn't always come with quality.

Third, making the claim that a set of learning resources must be tied to a set of assessments in order for the resources to have value puts too narrow a focus on what learning can and should be. This view of assessment is generally found among those who see open content as just a replacement for a textbook, rather than a way to reimagine the role of texts in our learning and professional development.

In closing, lest anyone get the wrong impression, I agree that quality content is hard to create. It requires work, and time, and attention to detail, and review, and fact-checking. But, textbooks used in classroom settings are commonly adapted to the needs of the classroom, with chapters ignored, replaced, and/or augmented. At least with open content, these modifications can be edited back into the resource so that future classes don't need to reinvent these modifications. However, the fact that texts are commonly modified or only partially adopted serves to prove the larger point: people working in classrooms at any level commonly make adjustments to their texts. Open content makes it easier for that modification process to be recognized as what it is: a domain level expert adapting a resource to meet a specific educational need.

Image Credit: "OER" taken by Open.Michigan, published under an Attribution license.

In our experience working with people and communities around open content, one of the misconceptions we see regularly is that the process of creating open content differs from creating content that is not openly licensed. Fortunately, content is content; and if you have ever created a resource for use in your class, a piece of documentation, a video, a podcast, a blog post, shared a picture online, etc, then you have done the same type of work you will need to do to release openly licensed content.

A primary difference between openly licensed content and content that is encumbered under restrictive copyright is how we view the potential of that content over time. Content that is encumbered under a restrictive license is essentially fixed in time, where openly licensed content can evolve over time through use and reuse. The longer life of open content can shape how we release open content (for example, a polished video could be released with a link to the unedited source videos), but this is an issue that does not need to be directly related to how we create the initial resource. As we discussed earlier, we generally recommend a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license for openly licensed content.

In this post, we will define a general process that we have used when creating resources. We need to emphasize at the outset that there are a lot of ways to do this right. It's also worth noting at the outset that creating open content does not need to be complex (feel free to skip to the end and grab the tl;dr version). Different people have different creative processes, and people should use the means that have worked best for them in the past. The only real way to do it wrong is to eschew planning altogether. Creating quality material doesn't happen by accident, and a coherent process helps separate writing from editing from planning. In our experience, a clear separation of the different stages of the creative process has been helpful to bring increased focus to each stage.

Another facet that we will include in our planning docs includes some tools/accomodations for a team of people in different geographic areas working remotely. There are some parts of the work that require different types of collaboration, and we will highlight what has worked for us in the different stages.

Define the scope

Before we get started writing anything, we need to get a sense of what we want or need to write. This initial scope should be looked at as a starting point that will evolve over time, but without some initial focus, the work to follow will be too diffused to be efficient. In general terms, at this stage we start to define the boundaries we want to cover with this resource, and what is out of scope.

A good goal to mark the completion of this stage is a working outline; this is a living document that can be revised as the project takes shape.

For a team of people working together using a Google Doc or a Wiki to author the outline works well. Planning can be done via tools like conference calls, Skype, or Google Hangouts. With that said, I also wouldn't underestimate the usefulness of plain old-fashioned phone calls. Many cell phones and home phone plans support three way calls, and for many situations that's both perfect and convenient.

Collect resources

Once we have a sense of what we want to write or create, we can start to gather related resources. Ideally, this research will uncover a pre-existing, openly licensed resource that meets our needs perfectly, which we can use with little to no additional modifications.

Realistically, though, this research will uncover a range of information of varying quality, accessible under a range of licenses. We will cover licensing later in this post; at this stage we focus on the usefulness of the resources we uncover. As we collect resources, we can evaluate their potential usefulness through a series of questions:

Of the existing content uncovered via our research, how much can be used as is? How much needs to be revised prior to use? How much provides a useful structure? How much provides a cautionary tale (aka, this is NOT what we want)?

With some research completed, what still needs to be written?

As we collect resources, we should cross-reference these resources against our working outline. This will help determine how much of the resource can be curated, and how much needs to be written. Over time, it also helps us split our resources into three general groups:

• Resources that are quoted, or otherwise incorporated into our work; aka, the list of sources and/or works cited;
• Resources that are relevant, and helped refine the scope and direction of the project, but were not quoted or otherwise incorporated; aka, the list of works consulted;
• Resources that are not relevant.

As with any type of work, citation and attribution are essential.

As we collect resources, we need to ensure that we store them in a place that is centrally accessible. If we are working within a distributed team, that place should probably be online. As you store resources, adding annotations/notes will make your life - and the lives of any collaborators - easier over time.

At the very least, use a tool like a Wiki or a Google Doc to save your citations. Zotero is also an excellent choice, as is something like Diigo. Again, the tool we use is less important than actually using one. If we are creating these resources as part of a group effort, then having the list of resources should be available to group members online.

Check licenses

If, over the course of our research, we uncover a resource/resources that we might want to incorporate or remix into our work, we need to check how the material is licensed. If the licensing isn't clear, or if the resource is encumbered with a restrictive license, we have a couple options.

• First, if we want to use an existing resource in its entirety and it is not openly licensed, contact the author and ask permission. Many times, authors are happy to grant permission to incorporate their work.
• Second, if we only want to use an excerpt, quoting a small portion of the resource and citing it is within the bounds of fair use.
• A third option would be to provide a description of a resource, and then link to it so people can access it in its entirety. Obviously, the link approach is only viable for web-accessible material. In the case of material that is not available online, providing an offline reading list is a viable approach.

As licenses are checked, the list of resources should be updated with the new information.

Finalize the working outline

Once we have our resources collected, we can finalize the working outline. This requires that we clearly identify any information/materials that need to be created from scratch, and any sources that will be helpful for the writing/creation process.

If any specific types of media (video, audio, images, infographics, charts, etc) will help to enhance our resource, now is the time to dig into what will work best. It's also worth noting that media can be added later in the process, and that nailing the organization and the structure is a pre-requisite for a sophisticated use of media.

At the end of this stage, the working outline for the project will be translateable into a to-do list. Each component of the outline will have either a list of resources that can be curated to flesh out the section, or a person responsible for writing the material for that section. If you are working as part of a team, you will all have specific components to complete.

During this stage, sorting out the responsibilities of who is doing what can be managed via a blend of synchronous and asynchronous communication. Ideally, the outline we created in the first step (when we defined the scope of this project) will have evolved into this more complete working outline.

This is also a good time to emphasize that even a "finalized" working outline can be revised. Remember - we are creating open content - the idea that this work will be edited, reworked, and improved is implicit in the process. Make it good, and be comfortable with the reality that someone, somewhere will have thoughts and ideas on how to make it better.

Also, if you are working within a group of people, this stage - along with writing, assembling, and editing - can really benefit from face to face interactions, with as many people as possible working in the same place. If it's not possible for everyone to get together face to face, use phone calls, skype, chat, Google hangouts, etc, to support real time communication.

Write and/or Curate

Once the working outline has reached something that resembles final form, any new material can be written. Curated resources can often require transitional passages to stitch them together. As with any act of creation, don't worry about making this perfect on the first pass.

This part of the work is largely a solitary endeavor - hunker down, stow your self-critical tendencies, and get an initial draft out. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be editable.

Assemble the work

Using the working outline as a guide, the various components of the resource can now be sequenced and pulled together. At this stage, the work should be reasonably complete, and the various sections should be ready for editing.

For a lot of us, this is where the process of creating open content ends. A lot of us have fairly complete but rough resources littering our office space, our hard drives, our blogs, our wikis, etc, and when asked why we don't release them out under an open license, we say something like: "It's not ready."

And really, we all need to get over it. Share it out under an open license, so someone else can discover it, and start with the next step:

Edit

This stage is where additional polish gets applied to a resource, and where something can be transformed from useful in a single context to generally useful.

This stage can and should include adding new content and removing existing content, even if the new content had been written from scratch. Revising the working outline is also a possibility.

If you are crunched for time, working solo, trying to catch up on sleep, trying not be a workaholic, you have permission to skip this step - as we have said before, editing can be done by anyone who wants to provided you release the material under an open license. The only way to ensure that no one will ever edit the resource is to not share it out.

Publish

In this context, the act of publishing a resource means that a resource is made available online under an open license, and ideally in a reusable format. And of those two details, the open license is the more important detail. Data in a proprietary format can be edited into a more usable format if it's openly licensed.

Where the resource gets published is up to you. Start a blog at wordpress.com. Create a Tumblr, join Posterous, and attach files to your posts as needed. Share information in Google docs. Put videos on YouTube. There are myriad ways to put data on the web. Pick one, use an open license, and let it rip.

All this is, really

Despite the copious verbage of this post, the process of creating open content does not need to be complex.

• Plan what you want to write;
• Research the topic;
• Curate what you can, and write what you have to; and then
• Publish your work under an open license.

There are really only two differences about creating openly licensed content and how most of us prepare and use resources, and they are more philosophical shifts than things that take time: first, open content needs to be released under a license that allows reuse, and second, when we create open content we need to view our work as simultaneously ours, and as a potential starting point for someone else.

Open Content Is Only Partially About Content

In this post, we have focused on the process of creating open content.

But really, creating open content is only partially about content. Traditionally, when we think about open content, we draw a line between open content and a textbook, and open content gets relegated to another version of a textbook, but licensed differently. And, seen through a narrow perspective, open content can be that. Open content can be used as a replacement for textbooks.

But it doesn't need to end there. If a teacher has the opportunity to work with a community of other educators to create the material they will use in the classroom, how will that affect their subject matter expertise? If working within a learning community to create openly licensed materials became a regular part of ongoing professional development, we could start to have professional development that is consistently meaningful. Peer mentoring looks a lot like working within a team to create openly licensed content. If teachers are working on open content with other educators (or even non-educators) outside their building, they are learning about different ways of doing things, different sources, different materials that are relevant to their work.

What implicit message would it give to our kids if they were able to see their teacher as an expert who, as part of their daily work, created the tools they used to work? What would it say to our kids if they were able to have a role in creating or revising the content for the next year's class? Because really, for some classes, having the outgoing students highlight give guidance, and edits, on what worked and what didn't would be a great final assessment, and would provide an interesting way of seeing what people learned. We talk a lot about the need for students to be creators, but we tend not to model the creation as much as we should.

With open content, the content becomes a catalyst for an ongoing process of creation, community engagement, learning, and reflection. For people looking for a practical use for a learning network, look no further. Open content can provide the resources that we use to run our learning environments, but it can also provide the starting point for ongoing professional growth within communities of practice.

Image Credit: "Devil's Tower" taken by Holly Hayes, published under an Attribution NonCommercial license.