This assignment called for the creation of a CC license for something created for this Digital Citizenship class. I honestly didn’t have a whole lot of stuff to chose from for this assignment. So I decided to make a CC license for my copyright timeline, although I may come up with a Creative Commons: Part II (a sequel!) in order to do a better job. Does anyone even bother licensing slideshow presentations? Anyways, I chose CC-BY-NC-SA (wow, that’s a lot of letters) because….
BY: I am a teacher and I want to teach my students about attribution/citation of information.
NC: Because the purpose of this slideshow is to inform, I do not think it would be ethical for it to be used commercially.
SA: Even though I use mostly public domain images, I have at least one BY-SA image in this slideshow and therefore I would want to have an SA portion on my license for this presentation.
I didn’t want an ND license because I would like the information on this slide to be used, perhaps in another presentation.
Scenario #1: Proper Use
Chad is a teacher looking for simple timeline to teach his students about copyright. He wants them to be able to use it as a quick reference. Chad shares this slideshow, attributes it to the creator and provides his students with the link. All this follows the licensing of this product.
Scenario #2: Oh No She Didn’t
Chad the teacher believes that the lesson that he taught in that class is great and he wants to offer the lesson at a price on a website where teachers can sell lesson plans. He includes this slideshow as a part of the lesson plan he is selling. Chad is violating the CC license attached this slideshow by selling it. If I were to discover this violation, I would ask Chad to remove the slideshow from his lesson plan.
In my very first post, my “yawp,” I shared that I have a BA in English Literature and Iñupiaq Language, that the name of my blog is an Iñupiaq word (pronunciation podcast coming soon, I promise), and that Iñupiaq is my heritage language. So, for my example of fair use, I decided to use one of my passions which combines my two degrees: translation.
I have been translating since I was an undergrad freshman taking first year Iñupiaq. My translations have gotten better, but I’ve still got a ways to go. I like translations because,
even though I reach out to my Iñupiaq instructor for editing, it is a very solitary activity. I do it myself, and I do it in peace and quiet.
I like thinking about how songs from pop culture would be said in Iñupiaq.
There’s not a lot of variety of translated Iñupiaq songs. Most of are hymns. Now, I have nothing against hymns but I also have nothing against variety. One can only listen to “Iłuaqqutilluataŋa Tusaasuġnaqtuq” (“Amazing Grace! How Sweet the Sound”) so many times before it gets stale.
I was incredibly nervous about posting this translation for several reasons. 1) I know my translation has mistakes (I think it’s fairly solid, but it’s still got mistakes and mistakes make me self-conscious). 2) This is a copyrighted song and even though I’ve learned about fair use, I still worry that my work doesn’t fall into those parameters.
However, after careful consideration, I believe this use of a copyrighted work falls under fair use. I will explain how using the four factors of fair use.
the purpose and character of use
The purpose of the translation on this slide is to give an example of a language-learning activity. I sincerely hope that language instructors (of any language) will use this type of activity to teach their students. Value has been added to the copyrighted work because it has been translated into another language. It is not a word-for-word translation. Semantic adjustments have been made that remain true to the essence of the song, but provide a slightly different interpretation that still fits into the song structure.
the nature of the copyrighted work
This particular work is from a genre that is most successful if it gets a wide variety of exposure and interpretations. And it is those various interpretations that continue a song’s exposure without making it stale. Song covers are a popular form of interpretation.
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken
The slideshow only shows the first verse of the song. However, the entire translation is linked. Just like a parody, a translation needs the entire work to conjure up the original. In a translation, the purpose is not to take from an original work in order to pass it off as my own. Its purpose is to expand the audience, and to create a resource for language learners that they will connect to on a cultural level (both pop and Iñupiaq culture).
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
This work in no way “deprives the copyright owner of income.” In fact, as with many covers, it may generate more exposure and income as listeners go in search of the original.
Note:
I have been jonesing super bad to make a music video for my translation. But in my first attempt at a rehearsal of this cover, I realized two things:
how badly I need to practice singing, and
how very much I dislike video-recording myself.
Plus, just the mention of the phrase ‘copyright-infringement’ still scares me. BUT….one day, I will create this music video for Iñupiaq language learners, for language teachers, and for fans of the awesome Adele.
As a (unpublished) writer, I have a funny relationship with the concept of Intellectual Property.
On the one hand, I very much identify with the idea that there is nothing new under the sun and that we are influenced by everything and everyone we cross paths with. As a writer, I can cite Joan Kane, Shakespeare, and T. S. Eliot as influences without worrying about being accused of stealing their ideas. I can write a poem in the villanelle form without having to pay a royalty to whoever created this form
I also understand and support the desire for progress and the sharing of ideas for the betterment of humanity. Open software allows us to create and continue to create online content that is accessible to others. Leaving such works open and available to all leads to innovation.
But, there is the idea that a person who puts work into the creation of something, whether it is physical property or intellectual property, should stand to profit from their creation in some way. An author sells copies of their books, their intellectual property. Someone who builds a house either gets to sell it, or live in it.
There are many other factors that go into this. I think that one of the functions that IP laws serve is to protect creators from entities that would take advantage of the creation of others for their own profit, rather than for the benefit of all.
In this blog, I will focus one specific example of this.
For example, in November of 2015, a UK clothing designer called KTZ received backlash for a particular sweater in their line, shown on the right in the picture below.
A sweater by UK designer KTZ was nearly identical to garment designed by early 20th century Inuit shaman Awa.
The man on the left was an Inuit shaman from Iglulik, Nunavut, named Awa. The sweater retailed for around $845. There can be no doubt that the inspiration for this garment came from Awa’s design, it is very close to an exact copy. Ok, fashion designers take inspiration from many sources. So what’s the big deal? Well, according to a CBC article, the design was used without Awa’s descendant’s permission or awareness, which caused outrage from the family members. Furthermore, this particular design was not just a fashion choice made by Awa. He didn’t just decide to create a new fashion trend. Awa was a shaman, a religious leader in his community. According to great-granddaughter, Salome Awa, “[Awa] had a vision of being drowned and created the garment with the help of his family to protect him” (CBC). This garment was designed and produced for a spiritual purpose.
KTZ’s sweater design, as far as I could tell from research, was not the result of any sort of collaboration with the Awa family or the community they are from. Although a Vogue overview of that particular line cites the inspiration as coming from Inuit culture, that the designs (which also were inspired by A Clockwork Orange) were meant to evoke “droogs in the making—suburban kids at loose ends—being sent to rehab in the Arctic.”
The family was not offered any monetary compensation, although KTZ did issue an apology and pulled the garment from its line and out of stores.
This is not the first time such an appropriation has happened to an indigenous community. Within the past forty years, various indigenous communities from around the world have made various declarations supporting and protecting their intellectual property rights. In 2007, the UN adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Article 11, Section 1 reads
Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature.
IP’s true intention is not only to protect the intellectual work of any person, it is also to protect the creator and their work from the power structures that would take advantage of them. Was it within the legal rights of KTZ to appropriate Awa’s design? Ummm…sure. After all, the design wasn’t patented according to Western law, and being from the early 20th century, if it were it would probably fall under public domain by now. But does that mean it was ethical? No. The historical trauma felt by many indigenous peoples, including the Inuit of Canada, makes the appropriation by KTZ especially unethical. Indigenous peoples have, for centuries, been the object of exoticism and abuse. Desired for their strange and intriguing arts but also despised and mistreated for their difference…and for their resources. This appropriation of Awa’s design perpetuates that abuse.
I came across this video while searching for Iñupiaq dance videos to annotate with content. You probably don’t know/remember that Noorvik was the first town to be counted in the 2010 census, which is the occasion that this man performed for. Another reason I chose this video is because it marks the first time native dance was accepted, taught and performed in my village.
So, I have an assignment to explore some digital citizenship literature. In ED 601: Intro to Soc. Sci. Research, this would probably be called a literature review. But since the ED 601 lit review is super stressing me out, I like the term exploration a lot better.
So grab your hats, let’s go exploring.
I’m not kidding about the hat.
First, I begin with digitalcitizenship.net. A straightforward site. It structures digital citizenship with nine elements. I really like that they begin with the element they refer to as “Digital Access,” emphasizing that not everyone has the same access to technology. This was something that I found critical to recognize as I completed my year of student teaching. Many of my students did not have internet access at home. This heavily influenced my view and implementation of homework.
The nine elements were explained succinctly, and the site has a list of resources and publications, which is useful.
However, although the copyright says 2017, the aesthetics of site seems a bit dated and it definitely lacks some of the little black dress elegance that many modern sites have. Yes, Beauty and the Beast has taught us once again that looks aren’t everything (and that you’ll eventually get over being held hostage), but I do think aesthetics count for something.
The second piece of literature I found interesting and related to my upcoming career as a teacher is an article called “P-20 Model of Digital Citizenship” by Curran and Ribble (2017). This focuses on the educating and molding of digital citizens from preschool to adulthood. It seemed odd to learn about digital citizenship through what I thought was a cut and dry scholarly article, but their definition of digital citizenship definitely caught my attention:
platforms,communities,andnetworks.” (p. 36) <— [yeah APA citation, I can’t escape it.]
Problem solving. Who’s problems are we supposed to be solving?
This article refers to the same nine elements as digitalcitizenship.net. And it goes into further detail. Whereas digitalcitizenship.net is an introduction digital citizenship and how it applies to education, this article gets into more detail, suggesting what digital citizens should be focusing on at a particular age level.
At last, let’s end with Common Sense Education. I had never heard of this site before doing this assignment, and to be honest, the name reminded me of a right-wing website that my uncle is always sharing articles from. However, just a brief glance told me that it was nothing like it.
As a teacher, I am excited by the fact that there are lesson plans on digital citizenship available for download. And by providing a program for families as well as students, it seems like the aim of Common Sense Education is, just as Curran and Ribble suggest, to make digital citizenship a matter of lifelong learning.
The teaching materials are organized by the target age group, include standards, and detailed lesson plan steps. Yes, a teacher’s dream. And the materials that this site provides cover all major subject areas that are taught in K-12 schools.
Overall, this site seems to cover a wide range of resources and fosters bringing the digital community members together to be educated about digital citizenship. However, it is aimed toward those in the education field, so those who are not educators, the educated, or family members of the educated may not find this resource appealing
