Of the 4R's (Reuse, Redistribute, Revise, Remix) the last 2, which involve creating a derivative work based on the original, seem at once to be the most promising yet also the most contentious. Look around, and the larger media zeitgeist seems to be one of remix and mashups, yet it is not clear that the same can be said of Open Educational Resources - it is hard to find a lot of good examples of educational remizes. Why?
What is stopping you from re-mixing an existing OER for your own uses?
Have you remixed or revised someone else's materials? What was the experience like? Are there things that made it easier, or things you'd recommend others to consider to do to facilitate this for others?
Or do I have this completely wrong; are OERs getting remixed and revised everywhere? Point out your favourite examples to help inspire others.
But I guess to take it out of the realm of the theoretical, have you ever had occassion to find an OER that was really good, that you wanted to reuse or remix, but didn't because of it's license? I'm really interested to hear specific examples of this. That's been one of my ongoing frustrations around OERs in general, lots of edge cases and theoretical discussions around licensing that don't have actual examples attached to them. Not accusing you of this, but would like to see if we can move past that.
Gerry, it depends on the type of licence you are referring to. If it is a a Creative Commons Licence than it should be quite clear on how you can use the materials based on the type of licence assigned to the materials. If it is the Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike licence than you do not need to request permission from the author. Permission is automatically granted to remix, tweak and build upon the materials in the OER when the author assigns this type of licence to his or her products. If the licence say No Derivative Works than the must use the materials as they were written. No remixing or tweaking is allowed.
Barbara: Take a look at this link http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/. It provides a legal interpretation of the different licence conditions.
If you used a photo in a PowerPoint presentation, the first question is where did it come from. All OER materials have either a Creative Commons licence or a unique copyright restrictions based on the institution you downloaded it from. The safest way to intrepret copyright is to assume (which is legally correct) that everything that is published, be it text, video, audio, photos or graphics automatically is protected by copyright. The copyright owner must grant you permission to use those materials and may restrict how they are used. Thus the need for a CC licence since it eliminates the need to always go to the copyright owner before publishing, reusing or re-mixing.
One of the issues that causes traditional univesities grief is that once you include an OER into a course than the course must conform to the Creative Commons licence of the original OER. Therefore if TRU even re-purposes the content they must make it available (without restrictions) for others to download. Otherwise the institution violates the licencing agreement.
Now that being said, I am not sure who enforces this policy. It would be a very difficult task to follow the different re-use/re-mix variations that are based on single OER.
Have you remixed or revised someone else's materials? What was the experience like?
Most enriching and fun as it is impossible for one person to do or know it all so when you find something that fits your theme or the point you are trying to make, it is just perfect synergy. Brazilian favours an open and free culture of remix: "cannibalism", creolization, baroque, technological appropriation :-)
My students and I have used to compose environmental posters, presentations, a collection of resources from other sites in an instructional sequence, the headers of a website.