It's not just AASL...
Tuesday, July 21, 2009 at 07:13AM 
Before all of us Librarians 2.0 get our undies in a bunch over what is perceived to be ALA/AASL's overly restrictive copyright protection of its student standards, maybe we ought to see if the rights to use other groups' "standards" are more permissive...
First, from AASL's Standards for the 21st Century Learner pdf booklet:
Permission to use, reproduce, and distribute this document is hereby granted for private, non-commercial, and education purposes only.
Seems pretty positive and friendly to me. But maybe others are more generous?
From the ISTE NETS website:
World rights reserved. No part of this may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system—without prior written permission from the publisher. Contact Permissions Editor, ISTE, 180 W. 8th Avenue, Suite 300 Eugene, OR 97401-2916 USA; fax: 1.541.302.3780; e-mail: permissions@iste.org or visit www.iste.org/permissions/.
Nope.
From the Partnership fo 21st Century Skills:
Permission for use of the Framework for 21st Century Learning or other information produced by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills must be made in writing with a clearly defined request and description of how the material will be used. Permission will be granted provided that the content remain unchanged and that attribution be given to the Partnership for 21st Skills. Please send all requests to eschmidt@eluminategroup.com
Not here either.
Understanding by Design materials are published by ASCD that states:
ASCD recognizes and respects intellectual property rights and adheres to copyright law. The following information will provide you with a better understanding of the rights ASCD exercises in all of its published content and how you can obtain permission for further use of ASCD publications for both academic and non-academic purposes.
Copyright Clearance Center, an authorized agent of ASCD, handles most permission requests to photocopy and for electronic use. However, some requests are handled by other divisions within ASCD, as indicated below.
All permission requests, whether directed to ASCD or Copyright Clearance Center, must be submitted in writing. Please note that using one of our online request forms to submit your request will result in the fastest response time.
All materials in the http://www.habits-of-mind.net Web site not specifically identified as being reprinted or secured from other sources are Copyright © 2000–2008 by Arthur L. Costa and Bena Kallick. Permission to download and make copies for classroom or community use is granted. Reproducing or distributing any material from this Web site for commercial use, however, must have written permission from the authors
OK, friendlier. But did you notice that nobody, nobody, puts their work into the public domain, free of any restrictions. (Even Creative Commons users often specify for "non-commercial" use only.)
I don't want to sound like an apologist for AASL, ISTE or other educational groups, but I've served on enough of their boards to know that finances are a real and ever present consideration to these NPO member organizations - national, international and state. Revenue generation generally comes from only a few major sources - member dues, conference profits, vendor sponsorship/donations, and publications. If revenue from one source drops, others, often membership dues, go up if the organization is to keep offering what it's been offering for member services. An ugly truth...
Chris Anderson's article (and now book) Free expressed the philosophy, hopes and perhaps wishful thinking of the "make everything available for nothing" school of business plans. But before you drink Anderson's Kool-Aid, read Malcom Gladwell's response to the concept in the NYT.
The "free" model will work, I'm sure, for some people, for some organizations, and for some purposes. But to date it is largely an untried model of putting bread on the table.
It's OK for my professional organizations to fiscally prudent as well as cuttin' edge and socially responsible.
My dues are high enough already.
Reader Comments (11)
Doug;
This is kind of what I was trying to say on LM_NET but not so well. I seemed to me that one person "said" they couldn't use the standards in lesson plans and everyone else went off from there without thinking it through. Thanks for making a case for the other side.
Doug, thank you very much for this comparison and the voice of reason from the field.
Does anyone other than me think by not using a CC share alike license, AASL missed a prime opportunity to be a front runner and leader paving the way for other organizations to do the same. After all, many look at ALA and AASL as the gurus of copyright. I don't think it would break the bank of the organization. Perhaps doing so would allow many members who pay their annual membership fees to stop wondering "what return am I getting on this investment?" It might even result in increased membership (and revenue) as folks see that the organization is in tune with the changes that are continuously affecting and shaping it. (Okay off my soapbox.)
Doug,
Thank you for comparing copyright information from each of these organizations/documents. I can understand the reasoning behind the restrictions - hard work was put into the document's creation and they wish to protect their work from being used commercially by another other person or organization. I understand that, I truly do.
However (you knew one was coming, didn't ya?), as a dues paying member of ALA and AASL, I would like to see those organizations reconsider the copyright on the new standards. Yes, I know that I can use them for educational purposes. So why not use a Creative Commons license that prohibits commercial use?
As Cathy said, the ALA is considered the copyright guru. I don't know that more people would consider joining ALA/AASL if the standards were licensed under Creative Commons (as you said, the cost of membership is already high enough) but I do believe that the ALA/AASL would be seen as cutting edge if they chose to be more lenient. Perception is important. After all, seems like librarians have been trying to break that stereotype (perception) of the old lady spinster with the bun for quite some time. Can't we let the bun down, shake out our hair, and welcome change - even with copyright?
I must respectfully disagree with Doug's position and with the comment from Debbie Stafford.
My Response to Doug
Doug, you state in your post, "It's OK for my professional organizations to [be] fiscally prudent as well as cuttin' edge and socially responsible."
Are we developing standards merely for profit? Should standards not be developed first and foremost with the purpose of improving education for students and not as a vehicle for making money? How are we exemplifying cutting edge practices if an organization, whether it be AASL, ISTE, or any of the organizations you identified above, is not modeling 21st century practices by licensing content for use under one of the Creative Commons licenses?
The original wording on the permissions page for use of the standards (which apparently has changed since my blog post on July 15 at http://bit.ly/fQGj8 ) implied room for interpretation by using verbiage indicating permissions were needed to even link to the PDF document. Seriously---telling people (AASL members or not) they need permission to drive people to your document and your organization's website? Standards that are the very heart of what we try to teach? How is that cutting edge? Instead, the appearance is given that control is the driving concern, not innovation.
The original permissions (as well as the examples you have quoted above) are not a "cutting edge" way of providing liberal and unencumbered use of the standards. Instead, that kind of wording is 1.0; it is the old model of protecting one's content. Yes, we can claim "fair use", but I think everyone knows there are always shades of gray and debate as to whether or not something falls under fair use. In addition, fair use rules typically are limited to face to face interaction, not public presentations or other means of public sharing via print or digital medium.
The argument, “Everyone else is doing it this way" and "nobody, nobody, puts their work into the public domain, free of any restrictions" also holds no weight with me---at a time in which I see the clout of our profession declining in the testing and standards driven climate of NCLB, I care about being able to put those standards in as many places as possible with as few restrictions as possible to show the value of what I do every day as a school library professional. At least with a share alike non-commercial CC license, users would have more confidence that they were not violating copyright or have to wonder if their use fell under fair use.
AASL of course has every right to protect its intellectual property, which no one disputes, but the original permissions wording, which as I noted, has seemingly quietly changed to some extent to be "kinder and gentler" (see July 14 cache of the same page at http://bit.ly/z4DZM ) sometime in recent days, was overly restrictive. The original wording included several references to “could be”, “must be”, and “may be charged a fee.” Let organizations market conferences, journals, membership fees, and other services as a means for making profit, but let us not pin our financial hopes on the marketing of ideas and standards that should be produced and shared in the spirit of educational progress.
My Response to Debbie Stafford
Ms. Stafford, if you go back and reference the posts from Chris Harris and Joyce Valenza that I link to in my blog post, I think you will see that no one "went off...without thinking it through." On July 18, even Doug himself had this to say about the situation:
"Judging by the tenor of the discussion on various library lists, the ill-will being generated by the controversy is costing AASL a lot in lost membership and good will. A quick (oh, I forgot that that quick is not in AASL's vocabulary) policy reversal, placing a share-alike, non-commercial use Creative Commons license on the standards would show it listens to its membership. (#FreeTheStandards ) AASL and ALA will need to move into the 21st Century someday, whether they want to or not."
As for the “one person” you reference in your response, Chris Harris merely pointed out some of the legitimate problems with the original permissions wording and shared those concerns with the school library community. Not only did he point out some of the problems, but he also provided a reasonable solution that met the interests of AASL and practitioners. Joyce's concern in her July 13 post, "I get the need for profit, but I wonder if we are looking at profit in a very small picture way in these times. I wonder if our field is seriously misrepresented by our especially conservative approach to dissemination" reflects a serious and very real philosophical question about the purpose and mission of our library organizations. In Joyce's July 14 post, the esteemed David Loertscher shared a thoughtful analysis of the model "Return on Investment" and concluded with these thoughts: "How can our voice get heard? Are we insular or promotional? Are we a business or a professional organization? A reminder, the intellectual content of the standards was given freely by volunteers. What is our intent?"
Obviously, more than one blog post shared similar concerns, and I don't classify other library professionals debating and exploring those concerns in a methodical manner as going off "without thinking it through." Clearly, a great deal of thought was put into these posts if you read them in their entirety.
What can be learned from the #freethestandards debate and dialogue?
In her June 29, 2009 review and analysis of David Lee King's book, Designing the Digital Experience, Valeria Maltoni (http://bit.ly/ecLAW) breaks down the three steps for “mapping a customer’s journey.” Maltoni identifies the first step:
“Connect the dots between internal preparedness and external needs - the moment of truth in this step is literally overcoming communications barriers, internal bureaucracy, disbelief, and misconception stalls. When you do that, you're taking your business from a position of unattractiveness, to one of interest in figuring out the points of interaction and staying focused on customer needs.”
If we posit ourselves as “customers” of AASL (or substitute any of the organizations mentioned by Doug above), then perhaps this situation with standards is an opportunity for AASL and other organizations to be “cutting edge” and “socially responsible” by focusing on the needs of its “customers”, the people who want to embrace and integrate these standards as seamlessly and as pervasively as possible. While it appears the wording for acceptable use has been clarified on the permission page in recent days, why not go a step further and add the Creative Commons license? Let us draw inspiration from George Bernard Shaw who said, “Some look at things that are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?” Why NOT free the content? What does AASL have to lose except the confidence of its members?
As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing, it seems fitting that our organization could blaze trails for others by taking the bold leap of licensing this important content with the CC license and setting a precedent for idea sharing. Should we really let how everyone else has approached the marketing and sharing of standards dictate our approach? By doing so, AASL would be modeling Maltoni’s second step in mapping the customer’s journey, “Integrate what you say with what you do.” Let us, AASL, be an organization that practices and incorporates the very principles of 21st century digital citizenship.
Finally, Maltoni identifies the third step of mapping the customer experience:
“Innovate at each touch point - whenever you offer a customer something, do you think through the implications of delivering it to them, or them getting it however they find it easiest? What process or tool have you not updated for a long time and needs revisiting, for example? The moment of truth in this one is if your innovation is you-centered, in other words easy for you, or customer-centric, something that will make their experience better.”
This #freethestandards issue is the perfect opportunity for AASL to “innovate at each touch point” by rethinking how content may be “delivered” to its members and those who will want to use its intellectual property. Is having to email or make a phone call to get written permission to use the standards the easiest way to share that content? Absolutely not! Why not “update the process”? Had the CC license been initially applied rather than the original permission wording, confusion and discontent could have been avoided on the part of those who want to reference and integrate the standards on a regular basis. The experience of the AASL member at this particular “touch point” could have been better had intellectual profit been a priority over monetary profit.
Final Thoughts
In conclusion, I call upon AASL to be a leader in the educational realm by being innovative and offering the CC license that users can easily embed when they are using the standards in print or digital medium. As we practitioners in the field attempt to redefine ourselves and bring innovation to the ways that school libraries can make a difference in schools, so too should our organization strive to practice the three steps of mapping the AASL member’s journey to build membership, support, and growth through creative customer service rather than business models that are becoming increasingly irrelevant in today’s culture.
#freethestandards
Doug, you made one mistake in the setup of your initial argument. The "friendly" permissions provided by AASL before covered the use of the DOCUMENT, not the standards. You could print the document, or attach the document, or share the document (but not link to it). You just couldn't do anything with the standards contained within the document. This included an inability to quote the standards in a lesson plan despite the fact that this was not the intention of AASL.
The document itself is just the storage container....we want to use the gems of wisdom contained therein.
A Creative Commons Non-Commercial license (nobody here was calling for public domain that I saw) would have done exactly what you want, Doug. Revenue would have been protected, but use of the standards for any educational, non-commercial use would have been allowed. I don't see how your views are any different from what I was asking for when I asked AASL to #FreeTheStandards.
We are on the same page here...
I very much agree with Cathy and Buffy that AASL could have taken this opportunity to lead in this arena.
Librarians are in the forefront of using so many web 2.0 tools and provide a great deal of leadership in schools regarding these tools, yet that is often something administrators are unaware of. What a better way to inform them than by sharing and incorporating the standards in what we do, publish, and share?
Shouldn't AASL encourage this and take the lead by using CC licensing?
I'm all for an organization to have financial support, but to ask members to contribute content and then charge the collective for them seems of questionable ethics. And to use documents that would enhance and support our mission to garner income also seems untoward.
Buffy makes some excellent points about the ways in which AASL could lead by being customer centric on this issue.
ISTE has faced similar push-back from members active in using "web 2.0" on different issues perhaps--but the hard truth is that many organizations right now are being challenged by their members to incorporate/recognize/support open use of information. I haven't yet read "Free" but it sounds of interest.
Hi, All--the standards are free to use under Fair Use guidelines which means inclusion in lesson plans, curricula, presentations, etc.. The permissions on the standards page are for uses other than Fair Use which is often more liberal than some levels of Creative Commons. Take a look at Joyce Valenza's NeverendingSearch blog posts from April 1, 2008 and November 12, 2008 at slj.com and the archived NECC presentation on Copyright Confusion. As I looked at the new guidelines, Fair Use is very open. A Creative Common license could require MORE permissions not fewer.
At the recent ALA conference in Chicago, AASL highlighted the work of three groups who have used the standards statewide including a comparison of ISTE's NETS standards, AASL's standards and state standards. That work as well as individual work is encouraged by AASL. And Allison Cline, Deputy Executive Director of AASL, to whom requests for permissions are addressed, is very friendly.
Am loving the debate here. Just a comment on Ms. Johns statement that CC could require more permissions than fair use. It depends upon what CC you apply - and please correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking. If you apply attribution/non-commercial, then it is a heck of a lot less restrictive than fair use. Fair use restricts to face-to-face instruction with students and to student created works and/or limits amount of the original work you can use. Doesn't allow me to take the material and use in a workshop for other educators or at a state conference. CC would allow me to use without having to seek permission first - which can be a hassle. Under a CC license, I can use and remix as needed for any presentation, curriculum guide, standards comparison, etc. (as long as I'm not selling the material/making a profit) by simply giving credit to my source - and as a common courtesy, I should provide the author/source with a copy or dropping him/her a note on how I've used the material.
As far as #FreeTheStandards, as a librarian who is supposed to educate my stakeholders in the use of these standards, having to request permission to use them anytime outside of face to face instruction (which is how the original permissions read) is ridiculous. Having to request permission to LINK to them for heavens sake! I would have thought an organization such as AASL would be out to share vs. restrict usage. Goes back to Buffy's comment about customer service - AASL showed poor customer service to it's members - however unintentional - when they should have been less concerned with profit and more concerned with spreading the message and allowing us to share the standards freely. Releasing the standards with a CC license would have shown AASL to be forward thinkers - which is what I had always thought was one of its aims.
I am taking the liberty of adding this statement by Cassandra Barnett, AASL President, lifted without permission from the AASL Forum:
Dear AASL members,
In a sincere desire to put to rest the questions regarding use of the learning standards, I offer the following:
In October of 2007, the American Association of School Librarians released “Standards for the 21st Century Learner”. The task force charged with writing the learning standards spent close to two years developing them, presenting them for public comment (of which there were many), revising, submitting for additional feedback and revising again. The end product was a vetted set of learning standards that had the authority of a nationally recognized association behind it.
Our goal is (and always has been), that educators all over the world, led by school library media specialists, adopt this document as their conceptual model of teaching and learning. School library media specialists are encouraged to disseminate the document widely for informational and educational purposes. The document is freely available for download at http://www.ala.org/aasl/standards. We are heartened by the many creative ways that the learning standards have been implemented in the educational community, and we are committed to developing additional tools and resources to assist you.
While we are encouraged by the dissemination of the learning standards document as well as the implementation of the learning standards, we are also committed to preserving the integrity of that document. As you continue to use the learning standards in your buildings and districts, keep in mind these dual goals. If you have questions about permissible use, a revised Rights & Permissions Statement with select examples is posted on the AASL website: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/guidelinesandstandards/learningstandards/permissions.cfm
Please accept my personal invitation to be a part of AASL’s implementation of the learning standards and our new guidelines, “Empowering Learners: a Guide to School Library Media Programs”. The goals and objectives of our initiative, Learning4Life, can be found at http://www.ala.org/aasl/learning4life. Your participation is critical to bringing about the educational change envisioned in “Standards for the 21st Century Learner”.
Cassandra Barnett
AASL President, 2009-2010
School Library Media Specialist, NBPT
Fayetteville High School Library
1001 W. Stone St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
479-445-1208
cassandra.barnett@fayar.net
Hi Debbie,
I think it may have been a post to LM_Net about ISTE's copyright restrictions that gave me the idea for this post.
Thanks!
Doug
Hi Cathy, Fran, Carolyn and Buffy,
I do think there may be some symbolic value in putting a CC license on this work - which is not an unimportant thing. But from a practical point of view, my sense is we can do with the standards what we want under educational fair use provision. I can really see both sides of this issue.
Read all the replies to this post. Pretty interesting!
Doug
Hi Chris,
I guess I don't separate document and contents - the implication is that that which is in the document is what is useful.
Interesting conversation that is asking ALA/AASL to re-think some old assumptions I expect.
Doug
Thanks, Sara. Very thoughtful comment!
Doug
Hi Heather,
It looks like ALA/AASL is modifying its stance for some of the reasons you and others have suggested.
I've enjoyed reading these differing views as well. A learning experience for ME!
Doug