I just read a post by Tom Kuhlmann where he shows how you can use images and animations from virtual worlds such as Second Life to build scenarios for your e-learning courses.
The example he shows is amazing. It really makes the e-learning course very interesting.
However using images from such free online tools can also cause copyright infringement.
For example you cannot use the images created in Toondoo without the title, username and logo. I am not sure if I will want to have my username in every slide of my e-learning course and I am also not sure if I will want a title for every slide. If i exclude the title, username and logo while using Toondoo images then it becomes a copyright infringement.
I am sure the same might be the case with virtual world tools like Second Life. All these free online tools have their own copyright policy.
But then I also feel when you have such easy to use tools around and so many are willing to put the tools to effecitive use, copyright laws must be relaxed a bit. For example I would like it if I can use images from Toondoo and just put the copyright statement at the bottom of each slide or just at the end of the slide. After all what matters is that I duly acknowledge the tool I used.
What do you think? Should copyright laws for free online image building tools be relaxed or atleast be flexible?
Second Life doesn’t have the same restrictions; you retain copyright of anything you create there.
“3.2 You retain copyright and other intellectual property rights with respect to Content you create in Second Life, to the extent that you have such rights under applicable law.”
http://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php
However, you also give Second Life the right to use your content themselves for marketing and other purposes. For some businesses, that’s a deal-breaker; if you want your content to be private or confidential, Second Life isn’t a good choice.
The answer is that you really need to look at the terms for images from every site you want to use. If you want sites where the terms are simpler to understand, look for open source or Creative Commons content. If you’re looking at any commercial sites like ToonDoo or Second Life, you have to read the terms of service/terms of use and legal language carefully. I don’t think they need to change, we just need to read the agreements before we agree to use the services.
Kia ora Rupa.
Copyright is a very complex thing, steeped in controversy.
If we attempt to rationalise why we have copyright laws, we often get caught in the spin of the debate about ownership. And of course, copyright is about ownership. It’s about the author, such as you or me, being given credit for something that has the potential to make money for somebody else when it is used.
My own take on copyright (aside from all the nuances, shades and shadows of copying ideas and forms that often have to be thrashed out in a court of law) is that the only way to avoid this is to never use another’s work.
Of course, even this can meet an impasses, for if, say, I wrote a post on the Coca-cola logo and wanted to illustrate what I had to say about it, I’d be hard pushed to do this without verging on some form of copyright infringement. So in this respect, copyright is restricting, not just in the images that I can freely use (without obtaining permission) but also on the sort of things I might write about.
Otherwise, I would have to make all my own illustrations, take all my own photos, etc, and make sure I didn’t photograph something that might infringe copyright if it was published.
But what is wrong with doing just that? The argument I listened to, time and again, is that we’re not all great artists. I say, so what. Do we need to be great artists to do our own illustrations? Often it’s simply the perception of the writer/illustrator/would-be-creator (or their employer/manager) that they’re not good enough – that their own crafted images would not be acceptable.
So it then comes down to what’s deemed to be acceptable.
I often ask this question in the workplace, for we frequently build resources and various groups within the organisation vet the illustrations for so-called quality standard. A lot of these standards are of a quality that’s far beyond what’s required in student learning resources. And so (we) either pay for an illustrator, do it ourselves or pay copyright clearance on an image that’s deemed to fit the ‘required’ quality standards.
My gut reaction to this is, get real. Why pay for something that meets a standard that’s simply someone’s perception of what is ‘acceptable’?
Catchya later
from Middle-earth