Copyright Questions

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search

(Comment.gif: I have looked at the Copyright Compatibility Chart in the OER course -

Copyright Questions

Content that is on WikiEducator - unless it is specifically categorized as CC-BY, is it considered CC-BY-SA?

  • Yes the WE default license is BY-SA but copyright holders can add the category CC-BY to differentiate from BY-SA pages. Both licenses are free cultural works approved licenses.
Can CC-BY-SA content be used in a CC-BY publication, but that that discrete element be attributed as CC-BY-SA?

(Comment.gif: I'm thinking here, of performance indicators from a logic model or COL publication - that could be used / referenced to another project.)

Depends on whether the resultant work constitutes an adaptation. If it is a cleary defined and discrete element (eg Annexure or Insert and used verbatim with clear identification of the different license, that should be fine in this use case.

  • comments please
Khan Academy content is CC-BY-NC-SA - If a course outline / activities are created on WE, it can link to Khan Academy videos, but NOT host / post them on WE - correct?
  • comments please

Yes linking is fine from WE's perspective. However the usage of the Khan Videos will need to be aligned with Khans terms of service (aka their definition of NC.)

What if content by an educational institution is not specifically categorized as anything, but is on WE - is it CC-BY-SA, or is it implied CC-BY as per institution policy (i.e., Otago Poly)

  • comments please

The default IP position is all rights reserved and most institutional policy is standard copyright. In the case of an organisation like Otago Poly which has a CC-BY license, the copy hosted on WikiEducator will carry the stated license on the WE page. That is, CC-BY-SA if not categorised (permissible derivative from the original CC-BY content) or CC-BY if labelled as CC-BY on WE.

Content from Wikipedia can be used in WE - but on what basis - can it be used in CC-BY, or is it only CC-BY-SA

Reusing Wikipedia content on WE should be re-licensed under CC-BY-SA. There are exceptions, for example reusing a photograph (discrete item) where the original on WP is CC-BY or dedicated to the public domain. Our practice in WE is to use the original license indicated on the metadata of the file upload where the image is unchanged.

If an organization posts content on WE (CC-BY), can it develop a derivative work with a more restrictive license (i.e., CC-BY-NC)

Yes, the original copyright holder retains all rights and can develop derivative works under more restrictive licenses (even all rights reserved) assuming that the original material on WE was not improved by other editors if a CC-BY-SA license was used for the original materials on WE. If categorised under CC-BY and other editors improve the work -- this can still be reused under a more restrictive license

  • comments please

Alternately - can an organization dual license the same content - one version for WE; another version elsewhere and develop the derivative content on the second license?

  • Yes

If a dual license is used, how is this referred to / signalled?

  • Each version will carry its respective license. The derivative work (if it applies) will attribute the original source assuming derivatives are produced. If both versions are published at the same time -- attribution would not be required as technically not a derivative work because both versions are produced by the copyright holder.

Cable Green, Creative Commons - 12/7 / 12 email thread

Greetings Open Friends:

I’ve consulted by colleagues at Creative Commons and have provided responses to Roger’s questions below. Please keep in mind that none of this should be construed as legal advice.

Does the new radically different OER still have to attribute the original OER sources or should it be considered a new OER that requires its own attribution if others use it?

See, which says:

"All CC licenses require users to attribute the original creator(s) of a work, unless the creator has waived that requirement or asked that her name be removed from an adaptation or collection. CC licenses have a sophisticated and flexible attribution requirement, so there is not necessarily one correct way to provide attribution. The proper method for giving credit will depend on the medium and means you are using, and may be implemented in any reasonable manner, although in the case of an adaptation or collection the credit needs to be as prominent as credits for other contributors. The CC website offers some best practices to help you attribute works, and the CC Australia team has developed a helpful guide to attributing works in different formats."

Is the last author in the chain now considered the new author and thus can claim copyright permissions in accordance with the Creative Commons license?

If the last author (or any authors preceding) have altered the work enough to constitute a derivative work then they are copyright owners of their contributions to the new derivative work. Whether a modification is considered an adaptation for the purpose of CC licenses depends on the applicable law.

See for more information.

Can the new author change the license type?

If the resulting work is a derivative work, the license for the new, derivative work needs to be compatible with the license on the original. That means generally that you cannot apply a license to your derivative contributions if a user of the derivative work cannot comply with both the original license and the license you have applied.

See for a visual chart that details the CC license(s) you may apply to a resulting work.

If the work is not an adaptation, but the author is merely aggregating different works into larger collection, see

Hope this helps! Please keep in mind that the CC attribution requirement is designed to be flexible, so there is not necessarily one correct way to provide attribution. For some best practices and marking tips, see Warm regards,