JISC

This session provided an overview of the legal lessons learnt from JISC funded projects and services.

Steve Loddington: Implementing a rights solution in an institutional repository

Overview

The “Rights and Rewards in Blended Institutional Repositories” Project based at LoughboroughUniversity is a two year research project. As part of the project, it provided a survey of 430 content producers asking them about their experiences, how they wanted their material treated and used and issues for the future.

Key areas that were examined as part of the project included:

• Ownership of material
• Different IPR support mechanisms that were provided for key stakeholders (depositors and users).
• Different licences in places

The project research revealed:

• Lack of IPR awareness which was identified as major barrier, both for users and depositors.
• Different licences were used
• Lack of clarity regarding terms of licences
• Authors wanted credit
• Although Loughborough owned IP in teaching materials – but this could vary.

Major lessons learnt:

• Stakeholders do not always know about IPR, therefore we need to “educate” them
• Not everyone wants to share material externally – some only want material shared internally (project developed some licences to take this into account)
• Need to avoid complex work flows, otherwise overly complex licences can act as a barrier
• There are not many altruistic reasons for sharing
• Cultural barriers are very difficult to overcome

Recommendations and considerations:

• Need for clear depositor and users licences to provide clarity about what can and ca  not be done with content from repositories
• Need for guidance to support IPR and the use licences – such as IPR training materials
• Possibility of using CreativeCommons or similar licences as users are more likely to be more aware and familiar with them and the terminology that they use
• The importance of bringing in different experts, such as IP experts – which encourages buy in
• Different material types may require different licences! (e.g. images, teaching, learning and research material).

 

John Casey – TrustDR (Trust in Digital Respositories)

Overview:

The TrustDR Project is a 2 year project, focussed on elearning materials and elearning repositories. The aim of the project is to develop resource packs to deal primarily with  cultural issues.

Some key issues and lesson learnt:

• With reference to the recent HEFCE report on IPR and elearning, it is important that IPR Policies need to reflect elearning business model.
• There needs to be an acknowledgement that there is substantial process change going on regarding elearning, and IPR is an outcome from this process. Therefore the work in IPR is grounded in practical issues of institutions developing practical learning methods. There is a need to acknowledge change in current practices from subsistence to sustainable driven by new uses of technology. The TrustDR project looking at the idea of change and mapping different IP regimes to different business models. IPR regime needs to fit underlying business model.
• The main problems may not necessary be legal. For example, the issues may be relational and organisational. For example, senior managers need to take ownership of issues
• IPR and DRM gets easier if you understand your business and where the value is – i.e. is the value in the content or in the process? The TrustDR project argues that the value is in the process, and therefore there is a real need for clarity.
• IPR and DRM acts as a major lightning conductor for these issues: particularly, ownership, powers, control and status.
• Policy is all about relationship – and poor policy in this area is symptomatic of poor relations. (Diagram credited to Wilma Mossink from SURF).

Recommendations:

• Clear IP policy required
• IP Policy register for UK
• Use of licences
• Ownership is over-valued
• Use of TrustDR development pack

 

Mike Dodds – JORUM

JORUM is a JISC funded free online service to allow institutions to share their teaching and learning materials/resources. JORUM is split into two parts – depositor and user parts, with two distinct requirements and licences. (NB: The Contributor licence grants HEFCE permission. HEFCE is the licencee, who then sub-licences the resources to users). Even though JORUM runs issues on a national level, issues are relevant on an institutional basis. Legal issues are a significant component, none the less because IPR issues need to be resolved by the depositor and ensuring that third party rights are resolved (which is stated in the JORUM Contributor Agreement). Other legal issues, such as obscenity, libel etc are also relevant and need to be addressed.

Legal lessons learnt (setting up a licence):

• Need to find a middle ground – there will always be opposing views about how things should be done
• Key areas: institutional liability; use of Creative Commons; Student Access; Perpetual Licence; commercial content
• When developing licence model – research as much as possible, review existing models and use expertise and previous lesson learnt (no need to recreate what has already been tried and tested!)
• Important to ensure a balance between robust licence and IPR framework vs. usable and practical
• Process of signing up can raise issues- so need right set up process
• Future proofing licence – so that as many needs as possible and met and there is a limited requirement to re-approach rights holders for permissions again
• Look at flexibility
• Keep licence brief, simple and balance
• Managing licence – keep on top of views
• Need licence guidance, notice and take down, FAQ;s, what you can and cannot do.
• Stress benefits of licence
• Have a simple fact sheet and summary
• Share experience and knowledge

 

Michael Ross – CHERRI

CHERRI was a 6 months project to review the use of images, as well as video, audio etc in a medical educational context, how content is used and establishing processes to deal with legal issues. Project was set against use of new technologies, crises in advancing practices, changes in public attitudes towards consent, huge variation in what people do images etc. One major issue underpinning this is the ethics of the use of image

Why is it important to deal with legal issues?

• Informed consent is key  - particularly from patients
• Important to act within a legal framework
• Need to comply with IPR
• There are other legal issues apart from IPR which need to be dealt with such as defamation, Freedom of Information, Mental Capacity Act etc
• Policy texts and Standards also need to be adhered
• Need to be mindful of privacy issues
• Common law remedy “Negligence” and also common law duty of confidentiality

Legal lessons learnt

• Need informed consent
• Need for consistency – remove variation and thus confusion and concern
• Possible use of Creative Commons Style Licence or other similar “commons” style licence – use of licence based upon what the patient has given consent for

 

Questions

Question: Is it a legal requirement to inform users about the need to sign up to and abide by licences in a repository?

Answer: Yes, it is a requirement – and often the user would have abided by terms and conditions, even though most people will not read/understand them! Risks are involved if there is not a licence or means to communicate that the licence is there.

Question: We are trying to engender communities of sharing. The more shared, the more they can be owned. But this is paradoxical. What are the speakers’ views?

Answer: Education community only really engaged with IPR after the X4L project. It is up to the community to try and resolve this. Senior managers must engage with this, in the same way that they have to engage with eLearning in general. Academics have learnt to do without managers, so they are used to dealing with things without managers. But after a crisis, this can bring relationships to the fore. There is certainly real confusion about access tocontent. Most people just want clarity and to know what they can use and to stay on right side of the law. Need some kind of system that is clear, particularly in a clinical context.