Lecture capture: risky business or evolving open practice

Editor's Notes

• #2: Slides 1-5 – Chris Slides 6-17 Jane Slides 17-21 Chris Slides 22-25 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.
• #7: 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!
• #8: 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
• #9: 31 % do not have a policy or documented approach to lecture recording 40% sort of have one Only 29% have a written policy
• #10: 31 % do not have a policy or documented approach to lecture recording 40% sort of have one Only 29% have a written policy
• #22: 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