What if we could push OE with resources which technically aren’t “Open” in the CC sense?
I am not a lawyer nor do I play one online.
Was just talking about OERs and copyright with a librarian colleague. We’re smack in the middle of the land of the Kanienʼkehá꞉ka.
While copyright can already prove tricky, there’s obviously a lot to discuss about other rights, as they pertain to the resources we adopt, adapt, share, create, and appropriate.
In some cases, these other rights may run counter to the copyright discussion. Part of that depends on the jurisdiction, of course.
Similar issues were on our minds when a group of us (Quebec’s OER Leaders Network) went through Creative Commons Certification together. (Thanks again, @Jennryn & Shana!) @cable addressed some of those concerns.
An important challenge (at least for the Canadian Confederation, with its checkered past) is about traditional knowledge.
And I have a specific case in mind. A freely-accessible learning resource that I find fascinating, about daycare centres among First Nations (particularly Innu people).
I’ve been really impressed with how effective it is, pedagogically.
And, no, this collection (and the specific resources it contains) can’t be qualified as OER. Part of that has to do with the usage rights set up by the people who created it. Even beyond that, there’s an issue to raise about cultural ownership if such resources were to be used in inappropriate ways.
So, among rights which can modulate the power of copyright are moral rights. While they’re not distinct in US law (in which Larry Lessig originally set Creative Commons, 20 years ago), those rights do exist around the World, including in Europe and South America.
Again, I’m no lawyer. One thing I’ve been hearing about the distinction between moral rights and copyright is that moral rights are typically inalienable and indefinite whereas copyright is often transferrable and always has an “expiry date”.
In some discussions of moral rights, it’s pretty clear that they’re meant to be held by whole social/cultural groups instead of individual interests.
In ethnomusicology, a classic case of such a clash between cultural interests and copyright comes from US folksinger Paul Simon.
Ghana’s copyright law for folklore hampers cultural growth (theconversation.com)
(Another classical case, with other consequences, revolves around a song often used by US folksinger Pete Seeger and eventually used by Disney. 3rd Ear Music Forum - Where does the lion sleep tonight?)
Irish traditional music also serves as a context for similar discussions.
[PDF] All that is not given is lost : Irish traditional music, copyright, and common property | Semantic Scholar
It sounds like labels for material pertaining to Traditional Knowledge have the potential to clarify important specifications as to how the material’s use and (re)appropriation. Some, proposed by Local Contexts, address seasonal protocol, community use, and cultural sensitivity.
TK Labels – Local Contexts
Again, Lauren Bourdages has discussed these in the past and probably understands them more than I ever will.
In fact, people from Local Contexts have also presented during an OEG conference: @garrett @Maui_Hudson @JaneAnderson @smizota @vpoundstone
Meta-Metadata: Traditional Knowledge & Biocultural Notices/Labels for OpenGLAM OER - OE Global 2021 / Asynchronous Interactive Activities - OE Global Connect
So I won’t risk saying more about any of this. I’m fully naïve about those labels and how they’ve been used in practice.
Going back to my original idea, putting it in the (in)famous HMW format:
How Might We advocate for Open Education using resources which carry restrictions that exclude them from common definitions of Open Educational Resources?
It can be about resources carrying TK Labels, of course. Or other moral rights. Or even some CC BY-ND/CC BY-NC-ND resources which remain useful in learning contexts though we can only adopt them and not adapt them.