Archives for posts with tag: copyright
I consider that  public funded projects output must be open, whether it is OER, Open data, Open access, etc. That is one of the challenges I have been facing with my thesis, I started from an advocate perspective. 🙂
Although personally, I use everything that I come across that I consider relevant for the objectives I want to achieve, including copyrighted material (if I can´t find it under a flexible license) and mix them together.  I request permission for the copyright material and make a disclaimer stating that they arecopyrighted materials and authorizations to reuse them should be requested. The studies are made available under a Creative Commons license.
I am each time more convinced that it is critical to learn IPR, in school, not from a negative perspective (the usual not to steal/punishment mode!) but from a positive, constructive, creative, rights perspective. It would for sure get a lot of kids, students, teachers looking at what they do from quite a different perspective of worthness and value. They would know/ have an informed choice as to how they wanted to share their creations, as CC0, copyrighted, flexible licenses…
The other day in a forum, the position it was that IPR is just for developed countries and big corporations…I consider that right now it protects much better the ownership/authorship (depending on national legislations and whether the countries are signatories to Berne Convention) for  authors from whenever they are. Having said that, I am also in total disagreement of getting back to public domain as default for the creator, unless it is registered, as then it will be a privilege of developed countries and a total backlash for authors/owners from developing countries. Then, the colleagues from that forum would be absolutely right!

There was recently a very public case “monkey business” between wikimedia/Slater. In short, a monkey had taken a selfie with Slater´s camera. The photo was posted in wikimedia under public domain. Slater considered that he owned the copyrights to the photo. You can read a liitle bit more about the case in here:

In the meantime, in August U.S. Copyright Office launched the ”

Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition”

where this is explicitly defined, including even if you are the owner, it is not considered a copyright.

306 The Human Authorship Requirement
The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the
work was created by a human being.
The copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the
creative powers of the mind.” Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879). Because
copyright law is limited to “original intellectual conceptions of the author,” the Office
will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the
work. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884).
The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. Likewise, the
Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings,
although the Office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy(ies)
state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit.
• A photograph taken by a monkey.
• A mural painted by an elephant.
• A claim based on the appearance of actual animal skin.
• A claim based on driftwood that has been shaped and smoothed by
the ocean.”

Therefore, only human beings can claim authorship of works. This means that monkeys selfies are…public domain.

a great TED talk by Larry Lessig about how copyright laws need to change or otherwise creativity, innovation and in the end development will be diminished, not reach their full potential…it is up to us to make this change…how can we, for instance, still have ebooks that can only be read 8, 10 times before the access is removed to a ebook??!!…