Team Lead Succeed – Helping you and your team achieve high-performance teamwo...
Lecture capture: Risky business or evolving open practice
1. Lecture capture: risky business or
evolving open practice
Jane Secker, LSE and Chris Morrison,
University of Kent
@jsecker @cbowiemorrison @UKCopyrightLit
ALT-C Conference 6-9th September 2016
4. What?
Why?
How?
When?
Survey devised by: Jane Secker, Chris Morrison, Philippa Hatch,
Alex Fenlon, Charlotte Booth, Carol Summerside, Helen Cargill,
Phil Ansell and Scott McGowan
5. The issues
• Lecture recording & IPR
(intellectual property
rights) policies
• Consent from individuals
• Dealing with 3rd party
copyright
• Wider IPR issues
Full report coming soon from:
https://ukcopyrightliteracy.wordpress.com
6. Yes - my
institution has a
written policy
29%
No - my
institution has no
policy or
documented
approach to
lecture capture
31%
Sort of - my
institution has a
documented
approach to lecture
capture but it is not
expressed as a single
formal policy
40%
Does your institution have a policy covering IPR issues with
lecture recording? (N=33)
Headline findings
7. Academic consultation
Figure 2: Did your institution consult widely with the
academic community before introducing a policy or
approach to lecture recording? (n=33)
10. Responsibility for 3rd party copyright
The lecturer would be expected to observe copyright and can apply to the
Copyright Clearance Service for advice.
3%
9%
18%
21%
94%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
School Administration Staff
Other
E-learning / VLE team
Compliance Officer / Team
Lecturer/presenter
Figure 8. Who takes responsibility for rights issues with content included
in lectures? (n=33)
11. Dealing with third party copyright
issues
7%
20%
30%
50%
50%
53%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
They must not upload recordings including
third party content to the VLE or similar
Other
They should rely on openly licensed / Creative
Commons materials only
They must edit problematic content
themselves
They must always seek permissions for third
party content
They can rely on fair dealing exceptions
Figure 10. What advice do you give to lecturers using third party content?
(n=30)
12. Responsibility for third party copyright
Yes
3%
No
83%
No Answer
14%
Figure 11. Do you, or any one else in the university, review
lecturer recordings to identify content that is not permitted
under UK copyright law or university licences? (n=33)
13. Making staff aware of copyright issues
9%
18%
33%
73%
73%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
They are not made aware of these issues
It’s in the staff terms and conditions
They are provided with advice as part of staff
induction / training
Information is on the website
They are provided with advice as part of
agreeing to use the lecture recording system
Figure 9. How are staff made aware of copyright issues that might
arise in recording lectures? (n=33)
14. Wider IPR issues
• Automated processes easier, but
awareness of IPR is low (IPAN, 2016)
• Variety of attitudes to IPR/risk –
what’s acceptable?
• Different issues for some disciplines
• Is lecture capture different to other
VLE use?
• Lecture capture is too new to be
considered in some policies
• General academic resistance to
lecture capture
15. Policy analysis
• Examined 11 institutions
• Compared with Jisc guidance
as a benchmark
• Looked only at what was
provided (some policies are
behind registration walls)
• Created 5 higher level and 12
lower level categories
16. High level categories
Appetite for risk Support and guidance
Institutional control Open practice
Comprehensiveness
of approach
19. Interim findings
• Variety of approaches
• No clear models as yet
• Does good policy = good
practice?
• Support needs to be clear,
helpful and practical
• Institutional culture of risk
could be explored further
• Open practice not
widespread
20. Next steps
• Full report to be published soon!
• Talk to Jisc / ALT about improving
the current guidance
• Need for flexible approach to
help devise policies that support
institutional culture and open
practice
• IPRs need to be considered as
part of wider policies and
academics need to be on board
21. Further reading
• IPAN (2016) University IP Policy: Perception
and practice. Available at:
http://www.ipaware.net/sites/default/files/
IPAN_NUS_University_IP_Policy_v11-
2r_online-mainr_28jul16.pdf
• Jisc (2015) Recording lectures: legal
considerations.
https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/recording-
lectures-legal-considerations
• Secker, J. & Morrison, C. 2016. Copyright
and E-learning: a guide for practitioners,
Second Edition. Facet Publishing, London.
pp. 103-105.
• Secker, J., Bond, S., & Grussendorf, S. 2010.
Lecture Capture: rich and strange, or a dark
art? LSE Research Online. Available:
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29184
https://ukcopyrightliteracy.wordpress.com
Slides 1-5 – Chris
Slides 6-13 Jane
Slides 14-21 Chris
This paper presents findings from a recent survey on institutional attitudes towards intellectual property issues (IPR) and lecture capture. It was completed by copyright and e-learning support practitioners from 33 institutions across the UK higher education sector. The findings are particularly important as many institutions look to encourage open practices, however they reflect the on-going tension surrounding copyright and IPR issues. These issues include whether permission is obtained from the academic staff, the ownership of recorded lectures and the inclusion of third party content in lectures that is subsequently copied and redistributed.
In 2010 Secker et al., (2010) examined staff attitudes to lecture capture and concerns about copyright and IPR were cited by several academics. Jisc (2010) produced guidance on the legal considerations of lecture recording highlighting the importance of copyright, however, this survey is the first research to be undertaken since changes were made to UK copyright law in October 2014. The amendments widened the educational exceptions to copyright, specifically Section 32 (Illustration for Instruction) and Section 30 (Quotation, Criticism and Review). The survey collected data about how different institutions might be interpreting these exceptions with regards to lecture recordings.
The paper illustrates a mixed picture with regards to institutional policies. For example 31% of institutions have no documented approach or formal IPR policy for lecture recording despite recommendations that they should (Jisc, 2010). Only 29% of respondents have an institutional IPR policy with the remaining 40% having an informal, less well-documented approach. In addition to this nearly half of institutions (45%) did not consult widely with the academic community before introducing lecture capture. Meanwhile 45% of institutions have taken the decision not to ask for individual consent from those being recorded.
The paper will explore some of the conflicts that arise, for example requiring lecturers to obtain permission for the use of third party content as well as advising them to rely on copyright exceptions. In most institutions (94%) lecturers are expected to take responsibility for all rights issues. Even though this responsibility is shared with others, ultimately the lecturer often has to make decisions about which content to include. The majority of respondents (63%) try to give helpful examples to support lecturers make fair dealing choices, but leave the ultimate decision up to them. Only 3% actually monitor recordings to see if uses of copyright material are permitted under law. These findings are particularly interesting to consider in the context of risk-management and attitudes towards open practice.
The findings are being used to develop good practice guidelines for institutions, which will be presented. The paper concludes by sharing the authors’ on-going work to embed copyright literacy into institutional practices as part of digital capabilities and open practices.
Earlier research I did (a lit review) did not highlight copyright or IPR as an issue or concern amongst lecturers although it had been cited in my own institution when the policy was implemented and later when there was a discussion over changing from opt in to opt out.
What did we want to find out? What are the issues?
Why did we do the research? – to find out what people were doing about the new exceptions – illustration for instruction and use of images in lectures
How did we do it? A survey open to all HEIs made available on LIS-copyseek and to the heads of e-learning – caveat small scale
When – it was distributed in February 2016 – we had 33 respondents – the issue being two institutions sent in two different responses! Interesting in itself!
Some of the issues are:
Lecture recording policies and statements about IPR – what do they say?
Lecture recording and consent from individuals – including guest speakers and students (Opt in vs opt out policies)
Dealing with third party copyright issues – use of the new and existing copyright exceptions, advice given to staff
Overall approach to lecture recording as part of wider IPR issues in an institution
Lecture recording and IPR policies
Analysis of formal written policies
Ownership of the resulting outputs
Consent from individuals
Performance rights and moral rights
Dealing with guest speakers and students
Dealing with third party copyright
Wider issues related to IPR in the institution
31 % do not have a policy or documented approach to lecture recording
40% sort of have one
Only 29% have a written policy
31 % do not have a policy or documented approach to lecture recording
40% sort of have one
Only 29% have a written policy
Varying practices and IP / copyright policies
A lot of grey areas
Where policies exist not always clear how are they implemented in practice
IPR relates to wider issues of institutional culture which this study doesn’t examine
Further findings to be published soon…...
I am thinking here about saying something about how the opt in (responsibility often with the lecturer) and opt out (taking more interventionalist approach, having policies / guidelines better organised – in one place) approaches create differences in approach to copyright as well.
Policy analysis in progress – looking at:
Is there a single document or website dedicated to lecture recording?
Have a specific statement about IPR and lecture recording
Is IPR of recorded lectures owned by the lecturers/presenters?
License vs Assignment
Reference to performance rights
Reference to moral rights
Makes clear an opt-in / opt-out approach to lecture recording
Who is responsible for 3rd party copyright?
It provides specific advice on how to handle third party copyright
It provides specific regulations for students, staff and others
There is a takedown policy directly referring to recorded lectures
It provides advice on using content under copyright exceptions