Did the parents of these children give permission for these images to
be authored in support of this global initiative to bring about change
via networked learning and open web publishing ?
What policies do the educational organisations possess and provide for
open scrutiny that protect the educators and organisations involved in
these activities ? Is there are identifiable attributes that would
connect the image > name > individual ?
Etc. etc.
On Mar 22, 11:50 am, James Neill <li...@wilderdom.com> wrote:
> Did the parents of these children give permission for these images to > be authored in support of this global initiative to bring about change > via networked learning and open web publishing ?
> What policies do the educational organisations possess and provide for > open scrutiny that protect the educators and organisations involved in > these activities ? Is there are identifiable attributes that would > connect the image > name > individual ?
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:07 PM, alexanderhayes > <alexanderhayes1...@gmail.com <mailto:alexanderhayes1...@gmail.com>> > wrote:
> Did the parents of these children give permission for these images to > be authored in support of this global initiative to bring about change > via networked learning and open web publishing ?
> What policies do the educational organisations possess and provide for > open scrutiny that protect the educators and organisations involved in > these activities ? Is there are identifiable attributes that would > connect the image > name > individual ?
you guys do yourselves no favours when you make jokes like that.
i'm sure that people in "developing" countries are just as concerned about their children's welfare, images etc as any plump white western parent. except they have way less power to do anything about it.
i absolutely do hope that the OLPC people got permission for the images. otherwise wikipedia should remove them.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM, James Neill <li...@wilderdom.com> wrote: > quick pull them down, the paedophiles are already on the planes!!!!
> Leigh Blackall wrote:
> right on Alex!
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:07 PM, alexanderhayes < > alexanderhayes1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Did the parents of these children give permission for these images to > > be authored in support of this global initiative to bring about change > > via networked learning and open web publishing ?
> > What policies do the educational organisations possess and provide for > > open scrutiny that protect the educators and organisations involved in > > these activities ? Is there are identifiable attributes that would > > connect the image > name > individual ?
rgrozdanic wrote: > you guys do yourselves no favours when you make jokes like that.
> i'm sure that people in "developing" countries are just as concerned > about their children's welfare, images etc as any plump white western > parent. except they have way less power to do anything about it.
> i absolutely do hope that the OLPC people got permission for the > images. otherwise wikipedia should remove them.
> r
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM, James Neill <li...@wilderdom.com > <mailto:li...@wilderdom.com>> wrote:
> quick pull them down, the paedophiles are already on the planes!!!!
> Leigh Blackall wrote: >> right on Alex!
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:07 PM, alexanderhayes >> <alexanderhayes1...@gmail.com >> <mailto:alexanderhayes1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Did the parents of these children give permission for these >> images to >> be authored in support of this global initiative to bring >> about change >> via networked learning and open web publishing ?
>> What policies do the educational organisations possess and >> provide for >> open scrutiny that protect the educators and organisations >> involved in >> these activities ? Is there are identifiable attributes that >> would >> connect the image > name > individual ?
I asked a number of serious questions Rose and in no way was I making
a joke. leigh's response is evidence of this....
In light of present circumstance I was implying that we could do an
awful lot in Australia to ensure that our openess is as apparent in
our social action. I wasnt making a do-gooder.....
I would imagine that all contributions have been vetted etc. and I'm
actually pointing at good gloal practice for extolling the virtues of
social action by bringing about the ability for all people to have
open conversation without the paranoics so apparent in other
supposedly more civilised second world communities.
As far a jneills comment is concerned it gave me a bit of take back to
realise that I'm sure he is inversely and oppositely being
flippant....I wouldnt have stated such a thing....thats his perogative
and not one I necessarily subscribe to.
Plump white western ?
Let's keep the conversation going about the universal ( digital ? )
code that binds all action and inaction that respects all
nationalities and in which ethicity and cultural difference ae
celebrated and honoured.
On Mar 22, 6:00 pm, rgrozdanic <rgrozda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you guys do yourselves no favours when you make jokes like that.
> i'm sure that people in "developing" countries are just as concerned about
> their children's welfare, images etc as any plump white western parent.
> except they have way less power to do anything about it.
> i absolutely do hope that the OLPC people got permission for the images.
> otherwise wikipedia should remove them.
> r
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM, James Neill <li...@wilderdom.com> wrote:
> > quick pull them down, the paedophiles are already on the planes!!!!
> > Leigh Blackall wrote:
> > right on Alex!
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:07 PM, alexanderhayes <
> > alexanderhayes1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Did the parents of these children give permission for these images to
> > > be authored in support of this global initiative to bring about change
> > > via networked learning and open web publishing ?
> > > What policies do the educational organisations possess and provide for
> > > open scrutiny that protect the educators and organisations involved in
> > > these activities ? Is there are identifiable attributes that would
> > > connect the image > name > individual ?
http://teachandlearnonline.cn/ has been up since this morning , want to use this site for things happening here , I am also going to upload mediawiki and use Wordpress for the blog .wiki will be fine soon too
Wanna to know what do you think of this site and how to make most of it , any ideas would be greatly appreicated
> I asked a number of serious questions Rose and in no way was I making > a joke. leigh's response is evidence of this....
> In light of present circumstance I was implying that we could do an > awful lot in Australia to ensure that our openess is as apparent in > our social action. I wasnt making a do-gooder.....
> I would imagine that all contributions have been vetted etc. and I'm > actually pointing at good gloal practice for extolling the virtues of > social action by bringing about the ability for all people to have > open conversation without the paranoics so apparent in other > supposedly more civilised second world communities.
> As far a jneills comment is concerned it gave me a bit of take back to > realise that I'm sure he is inversely and oppositely being > flippant....I wouldnt have stated such a thing....thats his perogative > and not one I necessarily subscribe to.
> Plump white western ?
> Let's keep the conversation going about the universal ( digital ? ) > code that binds all action and inaction that respects all > nationalities and in which ethicity and cultural difference ae > celebrated and honoured.
> On Mar 22, 6:00 pm, rgrozdanic <rgrozda...@gmail.com> wrote: > > you guys do yourselves no favours when you make jokes like that.
> > i'm sure that people in "developing" countries are just as concerned > about > > their children's welfare, images etc as any plump white western parent. > > except they have way less power to do anything about it.
> > i absolutely do hope that the OLPC people got permission for the images. > > otherwise wikipedia should remove them.
> > r
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM, James Neill <li...@wilderdom.com> > wrote: > > > quick pull them down, the paedophiles are already on the planes!!!!
> > > Leigh Blackall wrote:
> > > right on Alex!
> > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:07 PM, alexanderhayes < > > > alexanderhayes1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Did the parents of these children give permission for these images > to > > > > be authored in support of this global initiative to bring about > change > > > > via networked learning and open web publishing ?
> > > > What policies do the educational organisations possess and provide > for > > > > open scrutiny that protect the educators and organisations involved > in > > > > these activities ? Is there are identifiable attributes that would > > > > connect the image > name > individual ?
sorry, but i'm still p***** off that i can't even photograph my own kids at the flipping swimming pool - things have gone way too far IMHO beyond common sense in australia with this paranoia
al upton & the minis is just another gurgle down the drain of political correctedness from what i can tell (and there's isn't even an accusation yet, just kafka-esque shut-down? - reeks of gutless shiny-bum risk management)
hasn't this country got better stuff to get on with?
when someone actually does something wrong/inappropriate, go ahead and do something about it - until then, let's get on with (open) education
rgrozdanic wrote: > i didn't mean to embarrass or offend anyone. i always type first and > think later in talo.
> and the plump white western thing was statistically correct, i believe :-)
> cheers
> r
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:27 PM, alexanderhayes > <alexanderhayes1...@gmail.com <mailto:alexanderhayes1...@gmail.com>> > wrote:
> I asked a number of serious questions Rose and in no way was I making > a joke. leigh's response is evidence of this....
> In light of present circumstance I was implying that we could do an > awful lot in Australia to ensure that our openess is as apparent in > our social action. I wasnt making a do-gooder.....
> I would imagine that all contributions have been vetted etc. and I'm > actually pointing at good gloal practice for extolling the virtues of > social action by bringing about the ability for all people to have > open conversation without the paranoics so apparent in other > supposedly more civilised second world communities.
> As far a jneills comment is concerned it gave me a bit of take back to > realise that I'm sure he is inversely and oppositely being > flippant....I wouldnt have stated such a thing....thats his perogative > and not one I necessarily subscribe to.
> Plump white western ?
> Let's keep the conversation going about the universal ( digital ? ) > code that binds all action and inaction that respects all > nationalities and in which ethicity and cultural difference ae > celebrated and honoured.
> On Mar 22, 6:00 pm, rgrozdanic <rgrozda...@gmail.com > <mailto:rgrozda...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > you guys do yourselves no favours when you make jokes like that.
> > i'm sure that people in "developing" countries are just as > concerned about > > their children's welfare, images etc as any plump white western > parent. > > except they have way less power to do anything about it.
> > i absolutely do hope that the OLPC people got permission for the > images. > > otherwise wikipedia should remove them.
> > r
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM, James Neill > <li...@wilderdom.com <mailto:li...@wilderdom.com>> wrote: > > > quick pull them down, the paedophiles are already on the > planes!!!!
> > > Leigh Blackall wrote:
> > > right on Alex!
> > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:07 PM, alexanderhayes < > > > alexanderhayes1...@gmail.com > <mailto:alexanderhayes1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > Did the parents of these children give permission for these > images to > > > > be authored in support of this global initiative to bring > about change > > > > via networked learning and open web publishing ?
> > > > What policies do the educational organisations possess and > provide for > > > > open scrutiny that protect the educators and organisations > involved in > > > > these activities ? Is there are identifiable attributes that > would > > > > connect the image > name > individual ?
" I like Leo I like this wiki " haha , I think this wiki is like a newborn baby , James also wrote a very useful message for people who don't speak Chinese very well 'How to change language settings When you sign-up, everything will be in Chinese. To change the language, find your way into your user preferences, and change the language to English. If you get lost, use another wiki (e.g., Wikipedia) as a simultaneous guide for the navigation.
> " I like Leo I like this wiki " haha , I think this wiki is like a newborn > baby , James also wrote a very useful message for people who don't speak > Chinese very well > 'How to change language settings When you sign-up, everything will be in > Chinese. To change the language, find your way into your user preferences, > and change the language to English. If you get lost, use another wiki (e.g., > Wikipedia) as a simultaneous guide for the navigation.
Hmmm, well, when I worked at TAFE, we had to get sign off from all the kids we photographed or recorded. For under 18s it needed to be parent/guardian.
Anyhoo, the rationale that I remember most being affected by was that we needed to get permission, in case any folks had apprehended violence orders against folks, and had gotten away from risky situations. That is, kinda is a safe place/in hiding/gotten away from an abuser.
If their photo was online, and the other person (who had the AVO on them) saw it, they could work out where the person was, find their victim and go attack them again.
I am torn between "heck that sounds like a full on situation and we should take it into account" and like James, the old "well, has it ever actually happened??"
Thanks, Kylie Training Coordinator Local Government Training Institute
ph: 4978 4016 www.lgti.com.au - browse training calendar online
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Kylie Rowsell <kyl...@lgti.com.au> wrote:
> Hmmm, well, when I worked at TAFE, we had to get sign off from all the > kids we photographed or recorded. > For under 18s it needed to be parent/guardian.
> Anyhoo, the rationale that I remember most being affected by was that we > needed to get permission, in case any folks had apprehended violence > orders against folks, and had gotten away from risky situations. That > is, kinda is a safe place/in hiding/gotten away from an abuser.
> If their photo was online, and the other person (who had the AVO on > them) saw it, they could work out where the person was, find their > victim and go attack them again.
> I am torn between "heck that sounds like a full on situation and we > should take it into account" and like James, the old "well, has it ever > actually happened??"
What are the options?What is an ideal outcome? How close to the specific participants does an effective approach happen?
Maker controls images when: Photographers are allowed to take images of people in public spaces. Public crowd shots are not controlled by the image subject or their representatives. News collecting agencies have special permission and are allowed to take photos of people and use them as they wish except where court issues are pending. School photographers often retain copyright on the images they take and there is rarely permission for students or families to use the images for their own purposes. Same re ultrasounds - the person/organisation who process owns the copyright not the subject of the image.
Subject of image is a factor when: Individual photos there are some controls about permission to use the person's image. With collecting information on minors or people who are especially looking for privacy/safety Pending court case Famous or has money re paparazzi and privacy. When the image is taken in a space which is not public.eg No permission to take images within some buildings, issues regarding making a game which featured a unique building as a level of the game was withdrawn. Privacy in your home.
Cultural opportunities I have heard of a community which put together a wireless community network which spanned from the school, church, retirement village. This enabled plays and special sports events to be streamed from the schools to their grandparents at home with no bandwidth costs. Local content shared to a local community. I thought it was wonderful. Imagine if the retirement folks did a play and streamed it back?
This kind of community based peer to peer sharing could make for great opportunities like this if the decisions are made at a focal length which takes on board the fabric of the specific community and adjusts accordingly. Choices about what to film and where to send it could be a local negotiation.
If the negotiations are made on a project by project basis then the participants could decide tehy are making a video for YouTube and make choices based on that audience. If they are making a video for a local community then they might make different choices. Different people might choose to participate perhaps. Or to participate in different ways. There is probably room for a process about planning a project with consultation which includes, intended audience and use, copyright/copyleft, assessment, alternative methods of participation for accessibility or other reasons. Perhaps this happens now?
Case by case permissions from the media subject/participants would mean different kinds of constraints about reuse and mashup which are more about the rights of the participants than the single point of copyright control which is usually about the making process.
If I am a person who is interested in open media and mashups and reuse, what is the best way to negotiate collaborative projects which participants feel happy with. eg. How can the process be smooth and transparent for participants/parents/teachers/policy. That kind of negotiation would be 'real' for purposes beyond school and effective participation in that kind of planning could be a useful skill in itself?
It is probable that if something is really marvelous/funny/odd/interesting/(random value) someone will post it to a friend anyway. At what point does the toothpaste become a public item and forwarding it or changing it is a part of the cultural media. There was a flash game based on the lad from Melbourne who organised the internet party. This is not generally in scope because the whole of the process was not internal to a school. Where are the edges of public dialogue and personal information.
Aaaah, Janet, you really are quite clever, and your thoughts and info below are glorious.
....I even look at photos differently in the media and try to think "OK, do ya think that person gave permission? What is the domain? Whose rights and needs are being served?"
Thanks, Kylie Training Coordinator Local Government Training Institute
ph: 4978 4016 www.lgti.com.au - browse training calendar online
[mailto:teachAndLearnOnline@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Janet Hawtin Sent: Thursday, 27 March 2008 1:28 PM To: teachAndLearnOnline@googlegroups.com Subject: :: TALO :: Re: OLPC Thailand photos
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Kylie Rowsell <kyl...@lgti.com.au> wrote:
> Hmmm, well, when I worked at TAFE, we had to get sign off from all > the kids we photographed or recorded. > For under 18s it needed to be parent/guardian.
> Anyhoo, the rationale that I remember most being affected by was that
> we needed to get permission, in case any folks had apprehended > violence orders against folks, and had gotten away from risky > situations. That is, kinda is a safe place/in hiding/gotten away from an abuser.
> If their photo was online, and the other person (who had the AVO on > them) saw it, they could work out where the person was, find their > victim and go attack them again.
> I am torn between "heck that sounds like a full on situation and we
> should take it into account" and like James, the old "well, has it > ever actually happened??"
What are the options?What is an ideal outcome? How close to the specific participants does an effective approach happen?
Maker controls images when: Photographers are allowed to take images of people in public spaces. Public crowd shots are not controlled by the image subject or their representatives. News collecting agencies have special permission and are allowed to take photos of people and use them as they wish except where court issues are pending. School photographers often retain copyright on the images they take and there is rarely permission for students or families to use the images for their own purposes. Same re ultrasounds - the person/organisation who process owns the copyright not the subject of the image.
Subject of image is a factor when: Individual photos there are some controls about permission to use the person's image. With collecting information on minors or people who are especially looking for privacy/safety Pending court case Famous or has money re paparazzi and privacy. When the image is taken in a space which is not public.eg No permission to take images within some buildings, issues regarding making a game which featured a unique building as a level of the game was withdrawn. Privacy in your home.
Cultural opportunities I have heard of a community which put together a wireless community network which spanned from the school, church, retirement village. This enabled plays and special sports events to be streamed from the schools to their grandparents at home with no bandwidth costs. Local content shared to a local community. I thought it was wonderful. Imagine if the retirement folks did a play and streamed it back?
This kind of community based peer to peer sharing could make for great opportunities like this if the decisions are made at a focal length which takes on board the fabric of the specific community and adjusts accordingly. Choices about what to film and where to send it could be a local negotiation.
If the negotiations are made on a project by project basis then the participants could decide tehy are making a video for YouTube and make choices based on that audience. If they are making a video for a local community then they might make different choices. Different people might choose to participate perhaps. Or to participate in different ways. There is probably room for a process about planning a project with consultation which includes, intended audience and use, copyright/copyleft, assessment, alternative methods of participation for accessibility or other reasons. Perhaps this happens now?
Case by case permissions from the media subject/participants would mean different kinds of constraints about reuse and mashup which are more about the rights of the participants than the single point of copyright control which is usually about the making process.
If I am a person who is interested in open media and mashups and reuse, what is the best way to negotiate collaborative projects which participants feel happy with. eg. How can the process be smooth and transparent for participants/parents/teachers/policy. That kind of negotiation would be 'real' for purposes beyond school and effective participation in that kind of planning could be a useful skill in itself?
It is probable that if something is really marvelous/funny/odd/interesting/(random value) someone will post it to a friend anyway. At what point does the toothpaste become a public item and forwarding it or changing it is a part of the cultural media. There was a flash game based on the lad from Melbourne who organised the internet party. This is not generally in scope because the whole of the process was not internal to a school. Where are the edges of public dialogue and personal information.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Kylie Rowsell <kyl...@lgti.com.au> wrote:
> Aaaah, Janet, you really are quite clever, and your thoughts and info > below are glorious.
> ....I even look at photos differently in the media and try to think "OK, > do ya think that person gave permission? What is the domain? Whose > rights and needs are being served?"
heh no just thinking with my hands too close to the keyboard as usual.
my intended outcome is for open access so i am having second and third thoughts(pratchett) about seeing participation and sharing restricted along a second axis(in addition to copyright) but it feels like perhaps it is a choice people can choose to make
i feel that projects which are more open for whatever purpose will be the ones which are valuable long term and that models which prefer that kind of openness will have more effect and impact but perhaps putting the questions and tools there as negotiation points means people can try things and prove it right or wrong for specific uses and communities/cohorts/students/coursework.
agree with kylie - you really should think closer to the keyboard more often janet
i think context is everything and choice a fundamental part of any genuinely empowered/ing model - that's why i get so crotchety in here at times when i start hearing "thou shalt" coming from the pulpit (open or closed i don't care - it's zealotry that bothers me most).
am following the conversation with interest. keep talking.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Janet Hawtin <lucych...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Kylie Rowsell <kyl...@lgti.com.au> wrote:
> > Aaaah, Janet, you really are quite clever, and your thoughts and info > > below are glorious.
> > ....I even look at photos differently in the media and try to think > "OK, > > do ya think that person gave permission? What is the domain? Whose > > rights and needs are being served?"
> heh no just thinking with my hands too close to the keyboard as usual.
> my intended outcome is for open access so i am having second and third > thoughts(pratchett) > about seeing participation and sharing restricted along a second > axis(in addition to copyright) > but it feels like perhaps it is a choice people can choose to make
> i feel that projects which are more open for whatever purpose will be > the ones which are valuable long term > and that models which prefer that kind of openness will have more > effect and impact > but perhaps putting the questions and tools there as negotiation > points means people can try things and prove > it right or wrong for specific uses and > communities/cohorts/students/coursework.
Open ( no pulpit....I promise ...sitting on butt on ground ) could
well be just that which has some light shining on it. Turn the heat up
and it's sure to go from illunminated to fried.
It also ( the concept for some )sold the next level of internet
applications and it suprising how closely the human social sciences
have followed suit.
It seems to be used of late in polar opposities rather than the ying
in the equation.
I came a cropper just bringing a camera into a community...never mind
turning the thing on.
It's context, time and some common sense mostly.
On Mar 27, 8:33 pm, "Janet Hawtin" <lucych...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Kylie Rowsell <kyl...@lgti.com.au> wrote:
> > Aaaah, Janet, you really are quite clever, and your thoughts and info
> > below are glorious.
> > ....I even look at photos differently in the media and try to think "OK,
> > do ya think that person gave permission? What is the domain? Whose
> > rights and needs are being served?"
> heh no just thinking with my hands too close to the keyboard as usual.
> my intended outcome is for open access so i am having second and third
> thoughts(pratchett)
> about seeing participation and sharing restricted along a second
> axis(in addition to copyright)
> but it feels like perhaps it is a choice people can choose to make
> i feel that projects which are more open for whatever purpose will be
> the ones which are valuable long term
> and that models which prefer that kind of openness will have more
> effect and impact
> but perhaps putting the questions and tools there as negotiation
> points means people can try things and prove
> it right or wrong for specific uses and communities/cohorts/students/coursework.
Questions I am asking myself about making a best practice web2 or open education policy for school:
Process for local choice Good web2.0 or read/write education policy is likely to be about good process, eg parent/student consultation etc, rather than a central decision about all material or practice of N kind will be closed.
Shared responsibility If work can be oriented around around shared responsibility it is likely to be more effective for making a good process because there is not the system/maverick/scapegoat approach it is more about the parties involved negotiating for the best opportunities with the agreed risk factors and with the parent prepared for what might be tried, so they can be helpful at home.
The student is responsible for making school online and offline safe as well. Bullying is an issue which is not specifically digital but which does impact safety and opportunity for students. As the students are older they can be more responsible for their own choices if the teacher and parent agree. This is useful because peer2peer bullying is a larger part of the challenge statistically and the closed models do not seem to have good answers for that. Perhaps because the students are not considered participants in the challenge from a policy perspective.
Informed consent Keeping the choice point in the hands of the student/parent/teacher partnership means technology can be used in adaptive ways to suit the course/teacher/student so that constructivist or student centred learning is more possible. This kind of adaptability in the school context is useful for other reasons eg accessibility, ability
If that is the case then * What are the key friction points for participative and open education * What is a good simple/effective process for negotiation. * Core goal is to make it about shared responsibility(including parents and students) * How might duty of care graduate to include the students as the child becomes a more responsible participant. * Teachers need more room to move. eg Large class sizes with diverse needs is a handful * Sometimes this mght be helped by working with students as mentors and cadets http://waraku-education.wikispaces.com/IT+Students+online+community This feels congruent with the planned closer relationship between vet and schools * If there is a good process with local responsiveness there is less likely to be single concern shutting down a whole system of opportunities. Better ability to tackle concern at the right scale and to work with new opportunities at the right scale.
Trickiness: A shared approach would be more locally contentious in practice because people are negotiating an outcome including parents and students. What would the ubersafe options look like. What would the more open options enable. How do students collaborate with different levels of access/opportunity. Dealing with the those choices constructively could be a challenge. How do you work with groups of students with different kinds of permissions to see or post different kinds of work.
If there is a more participative approach to school and it is more adaptive this will make it more complex This then needs more support than using processes which reduce risk and increase efficiency by working through known paths to optimise standard test outcomes?
Bulk processing students with minimal contention may not be an optimal model from a pedagogy perspective but it is some flavour of cost effective for dealing with industrial quantities of students with minimal support.
How do you share files including images media and projects where participant rights are a part of the licence for reuse and distribution not just copyright.
The choices may not be generic enough to make it possible to make tools which take those kinds of things on board if you want to do a search by licence/permission for reuse etc.
Does this mean changing the way that this is expressed so that it is about whether the media can be distributed mashed reused for whatever reason not just copyright? Not the same edges because copyright has some fair dealing and exemptions whereas privacy/use of student material doesnt.
Lots more questions than I have answers for but my gut feel is that there needs to be some more room to move and for parents and teachers to be able to make some agreements. It would also be valuable to make it possible for older students to find their own way and to be the authors of the proposal with teacher and parent signing off rather than the other way. Exchanging literacies should be ok. Sometimes students do know things which can be useful in a school context. (wikipedia contributors, open source coders, general techy aptitude can be a useful kind of leadership)
I am not close enough to this kind of situation in reality to know what is already in play. There are probably a range of approaches.
If the process is sound then there is more likely to be a first action which is a local negotiation. This would be more useful in a context where teachers are being encouraged to try things they have not used before. Students need freedom with responsibility, parents need to be partners in the process too.
|
