Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:42:55.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Open art: MOOCs, copyright and the art librarian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2016

Megan Deacon  and
Linda Kalejs
Megan Deacon*
Affiliation:
Monash University Library, Law Library, Wellington Road, Clayton, Victoria 3800 Australia, Phone: +61 3 990 55732
Linda Kalejs*
Affiliation:
Monash University Library, 900 Dandenong Road, Caulfield East Victoria 3145 Australia, Phone: +61 3 990 32536,
*
[Corresponding Author], Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have transformed the Higher Education sector world-wide, educating diverse audiences through Open Access content and resources. Very few have been integrated into the museum experience; however there is signifi cant potential for MOOCs to revolutionise access to the collections of art museums and galleries. This article presents empirical evidence drawing from a review of literature, and provides a case study into copyright challenges encountered using art images and video in a MOOC environment. Specific examples have been selected from the FutureLearn/ Monash University Creative Coding MOOC launched in June 2014, discussing the role that an Art Librarian plays in this process. This will be of interest to a broader museum and gallery audience, embarking on provision of online educative programs for users.

Type
Research Article
Information
Art Libraries Journal , Volume 40 , Issue 4: The role of the art librarian in the Open Access movement: Special Issue , 2015 , pp. 20 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © The Art Libraries Society 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.For example: Department for Business Innovation and Skills, The Maturing of the MOOC: Literature Review of MOOCs and Other Forms of Online Distance Learning, London, 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240193/13-1173-maturing-of-the-mooc.pdf. Australian Trade Commission Insight Report, More than MOOCs: Opportunities Arising from Disruptive Technologies in Education, Canberra, 2013.Google Scholar
2.Erin, May 22, 2013, guest post by David Greenfield, ‘MW2013 Reflections: Moocs, Museums and Mistakes’ Edgital: Talk at the Edge of Museum Education and Digital Media, 2013. http://www.edgital.org/2013/05/22/mw2013-reflections-moocs-museums-and-mistakes/.Google Scholar
3.“Monash at a Glance.” Monash University. 26 August 2014. http://www.monash.edu.au/about/glance/.Google Scholar
4.“About FutureLearn.” FutureLearn. 2014. https://www.futurelearn.com/aboutGoogle Scholar
5.“Creative Coding MOOC.” Jon McCormack. 14 March 2014. http://jonmccormack.info/∼jonmc/sa/news/creative-coding-mooc/Google Scholar
6.Barnes, Cameron, ‘Moocs: The Challenges for Academic Librarians,’ Australian academic and research libraries 44, no. 3 (2013): 165.Google Scholar
7.Barnes, , ‘Moocs: The Challenges for Academic Librarians,’ 165.Google Scholar
8.Barnes, , ‘Moocs: The Challenges for Academic Librarians,’ 166.Google Scholar
9.For example: Duke University Library, which “handled permissions requests, provided consultations on fair use, and offered assistance locating open access alternatives, to enable Coursera instructors to use materials that support their pedagogical creativity.” Fowler, Lauren, and Smith, Kevin, ‘Drawing the Blueprint as We Build: Setting up a Library-Based Copyright and Permissions Service for Moocs.’ D-lib magazine: the magazine of digital library research 19, no. 7/8 (2013), doi:10.1045/july2013-fowler.Google Scholar
10.Butler, , Brandon, , Smith, Kevin, Crews, Kenny, and Kyle K, Courtney. “Copyright, Licensing, Open Access Session.” Paper presented at MOOCs and Libraries: Massive Opportunity or Overwhelming Challenge?, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 18-19, 2013. http://oclc.org/research/events/2013/03-18.html.Google Scholar
11.For example: Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), Australia. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00291.Google Scholar
12.FutureLearn. ‘Copyright and Rights as part of your production process for FutureLearn,’ Internal Documents, 2014.Google Scholar
13.See the discussion on risks of relying on fair use in ‘Copyright challenges in a MOOC environment’ Educause Brief, 2013: 5 – 7. https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB9014.pdf or Megan, W, Pierson, Robert R, Terrell, , and Madelyn F, Essel, ‘Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Intellectual property and related issues’ MOOCs: The Key Legal and Policy Issues for Colleges and Universities Virtual Seminar National Association of College and University Attorneys in association with the American Council on Education and EDUCAUSE, Session 5G, June 19-22 2013: 15. https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/CSD6233.pdf.Google Scholar
14.This is controversial for exact photo reproductions of paintings. The Bridgeport case suggests there is no separate copyright protection for these photos in the US but there are contrasting opinions in the UK and EU. There are no cases on point in Australia. Refer to: Kenneth D. Crews ‘Museum Policies and Art Images: Conflicting Objectives and Copyright Overreaching’ Fordham Intellectual Property Media & Entertainment Law Journal 22, (2012): 795–834. Also, Simon Stokes, Art and Copyright (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003), 42, 102–113.Google Scholar
15.Another example is the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, providing open access to high quality versions of images from its collection. See Joris, Pekel. ‘Democratising the Rijksmuseum: Why did the Rijksmuseum make available their highest quality material without restrictions, and what are the results?’ in Case Study Europeana Foundation http://pro. europeana.eu/documents/858566/858665/Democratising+the+Rijksmuseum?version=1.1.Google Scholar