Last year at NECC (the largest ed tech conference in the U.S.), there was quite a stir when the organizing group, ISTE, issued a statement prohibiting audio/video recording without the written permission of both the presenter and ISTE.
After a huge outcry, they hastily revised this to say that “non-commercial” recording would be permitted with written permission of the presenter.
This year, they have opened this topic up for public discussion. Here is the discussion; my response is also below.
It will be interesting to watch how this all plays out.
———-
First, kudos to ISTE for having an open, inclusive discussion of these issues before policy is set for this year.
For me, three major questions come to mind regarding this:
1.) Is this policy in keeping with the spirit of ISTE and NECC and its community?
To me, ISTE and NECC are about the progressive use of technology to further learning, whether that is student learning or our own learning as professionals. In doing that, NECC community members mixup and mashup content; we podcast, stream, and share content; we collaborate and learn through the ensuing dialog.
A policy that does not support that — as, in my opinion, neither of last year’s policies did — does not seem to make sense.
2.) Who owns copyright to the content in NECC sessions?
Legally, I think the creator of the content, in this case the presenter, owns copyright to the content and as such, has control over how he or she chooses to license it. Most presenters have spent considerable time and effort developing this content in exchange for no consideration by ISTE. What legal basis then would ISTE have to assert licensing control over this content? (An exception could be made for the few presenters who are paid to speak. This is a different legal arrangement.)
Further, if such terms are put in place, they need to be done before proposals are submitted. It is not fair to have presenters spend so much time developing content for ISTE without knowing the full extent of the agreement.
(I understand that ISTE does not want someone to come in and tape the conference content and sell it for a profit that ISTE does not share in. However, I think that is up to the presenters who own the content, and I don’t think we would let that happen. I also think it is up to ISTE to provide enough value-added that the conference itself, not just taped content, has unique benefit. If it cannot do that, the conference will not prosper regardless of this policy.)
Based on this, it is my belief that most presenters would be willing to share their session content through some sort of Creative Commons or other sharing license. If they choose to do so and agree to audio or video recording, this should be clearly posted at the door and even in the program, so that any audience members who do not wish to appear in such a recording can opt out of attending.
The bottom line is that this should be the choice of the copyright holder, in this case, the presenter. Each presenter should be able to choose whether content is open licensed and, if so, which license they choose. Most NECC presenters are savvy about these licenses and have their own feelings about licensing.
3.) If a policy such as the one adopted last year is put in place, what are the specifics — for example, what exactly is “non-commercial”?
Even within Creative Commons, there is not agreement on this issue. Does “non-commercial” mean only that no third party can sell the content. Or does it mean, as many contend, that no commercial entity can reuse or distribute the content. If that is the case, what is a commercial entity? Many can probably agree that a large for-profit like Pearson is “commercial.” However, what about the myriad small businesses that do work in education? What about consultants, many of who may make considerable salaries from their work in education? What about bloggers who may or may not also work for commercial companies or are consultants? What about private schools or universities who charge tuition? How about tutors?
The definition of terms like “non-commercial” need to made explicit.