The White House has announced the solicitation of the initial grants in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program. About $500 million in grant funding will be available in the first round of grants.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan ushered in a new era of hope and opportunity for millions of Americans today when they revealed the innovative application criteria for the first $500 million in grants under the four-year, $2 billion Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program. Grants will support the development and improvement of a new generation of free, post-secondary educational programs of two years or less that prepare students for successful careers in emerging and expanding industries.

This effort, which was developed and designed in consultation with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, sets the stage for what promises to become one of the most significant expansions in access to high-quality education and job training opportunities ever. These new investments will also play a major role in helping the Nation achieve the goal set by President Obama last year that by 2020 the United States will once again have the most highly educated workforce in the world.

But what matters most is what these new freely-available resources will mean to individuals.

By relying on evidence-based approaches and requiring that all materials produced be openly licensed for free use, adaptation, and improvement by others, this groundbreaking federal effort will bring free, high-quality curriculum and employment training opportunities within reach of anyone who has access to the Internet.

Open Educational Resources are learning materials that have been released under an intellectual property license that allows their free use by others. The materials produced as a result of these grants will carry the Creative Commons BY license, which also permits their free derivative use for commercial purposes. That means companies, schools, entrepreneurs, and others will be free to bundle,adapt, or customize the learning materials to create new offerings, products, and services. Schools will be able to affordably offer courses in subject areas and at levels of expertise previously beyond their reach. Students will be able to access free educational materials, including complete courses, and supportive services designed to help them accomplish their educational and job-training goals.

Millions of students around the world have already benefited from Open Educational Resources in the decade since then-Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) President Charles Vest established MIT's pioneering OpenCourseWare project, the first of its type, based on a proposal from members of his faculty. The goal, Vest explained in 2001, was to make all of the learning materials used by MIT's faculty in the school's 1,800 courses available via the Internet, where they could be used and repurposed as desired by others without charge.

| Digital Scholarship |

The OER IPR Support Project has released the Risk Management Calculator.

Here's an excerpt from the press release :

As more and more open content finds its way online, licensing and rights have become a key issue on a global level.

Licensing is complex and the more open you make content under an end user licence the greater the risk if you haven't sought the necessary permissions. In partnership with the Higher Education Academy, JISC is funding a support project on IPR and licensing issues for Open Educational Resources. The latest addition to their suite of support resources is a new tool—the Risk Management Calculator—designed to help understand levels of risk associated with publishing open educational materials. Typical examples of this might include materials which are still in copyright, but for which the rights holders cannot be traced or are unknown (so called "Orphan Works"). The calculator helps those relatively new to licensing to make the right decisions when creating open content. . . .

More and more organisations are realising the benefits of releasing their content under Creative Commons Licences, or similar open content licences such as the Open Government Licence, which explicitly grant the end-user permission to use materials, modify or redistribute them. Institutions like the British Library are releasing their bibliographic records to be reused without attribution and Creative Commons Licences are increasingly used by developing countries to open up content.

| Digital Scholarship |

Consumers International has released Access to Knowledge: A Guide for Everyone.

Here's an excerpt:

Access to knowledge (A2K) is the umbrella term for a movement that aims to create more equitable public access to the products of human culture and learning.

Fields of advocacy that it subsumes include most centrally copyright and patent law reform, open access, open data and open standards, but also access to public information, broader communications rights such as freedom of expression, and issues around ownership of and participation in public media.

Lawrence Lessig has published "Getting Our Values around Copyright Right" in the latest issue of EDUCAUSE Review.

Here's an excerpt:

The existing system of copyright cannot work in the digital age. Either we will force our kids to stop creating, or they will force on us a revolution. Both options, in my view, are not acceptable. There is a growing copyright abolitionist movement—people who believe that copyright was a good idea for a time long gone and that we need to eliminate it and move on in a world where there is no copyright. I am against abolitionism. I believe copyright is an essential part of the cultural industries and will be essential in the digital age—even though I also believe it needs to be radically changed in all sorts of important ways and doesn't apply the same in science and in education. Copyright is essential to a diverse and rich (in all senses of that word) culture.

In "Five Dozen Doctoral Students Chose Bits and Bytes over Ink and Paper," Kathleen J. Sullivan discusses Stanford University's ETD program.

Here's an excerpt:

Most of the Stanford graduate students who uploaded their dissertations—47 out of 60—chose to display their dissertations in their entirety.

Most of the students—52 out of 60—selected the "attribution non-commercial" license from Creative Commons. . . .

More than half of the doctoral students—36 out of 60—chose to release their dissertation immediately. Ten of them chose to delay the release for six months; nine chose a one-year embargo; five chose a two-year delay.

The Creative Commons has released Defining "Noncommercial": A Study of How the Online Population Understands "Noncommercial Use".

Here's an excerpt:

In 2008-09, Creative Commons commissioned a study from a professional market research firm to explore understandings of the terms"commercial us" and "noncommercial use" among Internet users when used in the context of content found online.

The empirical findings suggest that creators and users approach the question of noncommercial use similarly and that overall, online U.S. creators and users are more alike than different in their understanding of noncommercial use. Both creators and users generally consider uses that earn users money or involve online advertising to be commercial, while uses by organizations, by individuals, or for charitable purposes are less commercial but not decidedly noncommercial. Similarly, uses by for-profit companies are typically considered more commercial. Perceptions of the many use cases studied suggest that with the exception of uses that earn users money or involve advertising—at least until specific case scenarios are presented that disrupt those generalized views of commerciality—there is more uncertainty than clarity around whether specific uses of online content are commercial or noncommercial.

Uses that are more difficult to classify as either commercial or noncommercial also show greater (and often statistically significant) differences between creators and users. As a general rule, creators consider the uses studied to be more noncommercial (less commercial) than users. For example, uses by a not-for-profit organization are generally thought less commercial than uses by a for-profit organization, and even less so by creators than users. The one exception to this pattern is in relation to uses by individuals that are personal or private in nature. Here, it is users (not creators) who believe such uses are less commercial.

The most notable differences among subgroups within each sample of creators and users are between creators who make money from their works, and those who do not, and between users who make money from their uses of others' works, and those who do not. In both cases, those who make money generally rate the uses studied less commercial than those who do not make money. The one exception is, again, with respect to personal or private uses by individuals: users who make money consider these uses more commercial than those who do not make money.

Timothy K. Armstrong has self-archived "Shrinking the Commons: Termination of Copyright Licenses and Transfers for the Benefit of the Public" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

Federal law limits the free alienability of copyright rights to prevent powerful transferees from forcing authors into unremunerative bargains. The limiting mechanism is a statutory provision that permits authors or their heirs, at their sole election, to terminate any transfer or license of any copyright interest during a defined period. Indeed, the applicable provisions of the Copyright Act go so far as to invalidate purported waivers by authors of their statutory termination powers.

These statutory provisions may constitute an impediment to the effective grant of rights for the benefit of the public under widely used "open content" licensing arrangements, such as the GNU General Public License ("GPL") for software or the Creative Commons family of licenses for other sorts of expressive works. Although recent case law suggests that such open-source or open-content licensing arrangements should be analyzed under the same rules that govern other copyright licenses, doing so necessarily raises the possibility of termination of the license. If GPL or Creative Commons-type licenses are subject to later termination by authors (or their heirs), and this termination power cannot validly be waived, then users of such works must confront the possibility that the licenses may be revoked in the future and the works effectively withdrawn from public use, with potentially chaotic results.

Although a number of judge-made doctrines may be invoked to restrict termination of a license granted for the benefit of the public, the better course would be for Congress to enact new legislation expressly authorizing authors to make a nonwaiveable, irrevocable dedication of their works, in whole or in part, to the use and benefit of the public—a possibility that the Patent Act expressly recognizes, but the Copyright Act presently does not.

Copycense has published an editorial asking "Is Creative Commons Good for Copyright?"

Here's an excerpt:

We conclude now, as we did in 2007, that the continued use and prominence of Creative Commons licenses actually obscures the real copyright issues we face in this country, and keeps Americans from settling on the proper parameters of digital information use, access, retrieval and preservation in the 21st century.

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society has released An Evaluation of Private Foundation Copyright Licensing Policies

Here's an excerpt:

This project, a joint effort of the Berkman Center, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Ford Foundation and the Open Society Institute, with funding from Hewlett and Ford, undertook to examine the copyright licensing policies and practices of a group of twelve private foundations. In particular, it looked at the extent to which charitable foundations are aware of and have begun to use open licenses such as Creative Commons or the GPL. We surveyed foundation staff and leaders and examined a number of examples where foundations have begun to take advantage of new licensing models for materials and resources produced by their own staff, their consultants and their grantees. The complete results of our study and our comprehensive analysis and recommendations are contained in the full Report of this project.

In "Bringing the Power of Creative Commons to Google Books," Xian Ke, Associate Product Manager of Google Books, describes Google's new Creative Commons license options for rights holders, and indicates that, in the future, users will be able to restrict searches to works that have such licenses. Users will be able to download complete Creative Commons licensed books, and if the license permits, modify them.

The UK Office of Public Sector Information has released the Bunnyfoot User Testing Report: OPSI—Crown Copyright.

Here's an excerpt:

75% of respondents did not recognise this image [Creative Commons Attribution License symbol].

Lack of recognition was highest amongst the "general public"—87%. And lowest amongst respondents from the OPSI website—55% did not recognise the image.

The majority did not understand the meaning of the image. Understanding was highest amongst the OPSI website respondents—35%.

This is not surprising as this group was also the group in which the most had heard of Creative Commons licences before—47% (vs 10% of the "general public" and 29% of the OPSI database).

Only those likely to be more familiar with copyright (inferred from their route to the survey) are likely to have a previous understanding of Creative Commons terminology and imagery. One might argue that if these are used moving forward, more people will become more familiar with these, however, the benefits at this stage of shared/added meaning would only really apply to a minority—a minority who are likely to have a strong understanding of Crown copyright already.

Fred Benenson has released a Creative Commons License Facebook application.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Last weekend I spent Saturday morning writing the Creative Commons License Application for Facebook. The premise is simple: installing the application allows Facebook users choose and place a CC license badge on their profile page indicating which license they want their content to be available under. Alongside the badge is text that explains what content (Photos, Videos and Status & Profile text are currently available as options) is licensed.

This surrounding text also contains RDFa, though this is of limited utility to search engines since Facebook profiles are not yet publicly indexed.