Image by foko_madagascar via Flickr
I continue to be amazed by the lack of understanding regarding copyright in the academic community. It's not that our universities don't try to get our faculty learned-up. You can go to any university web site and you will find extensive resources on copyright, and fair use.
That said, I can also guarantee that with very little effort you can find many examples of copyright infringement on these sites. Universities don't have the resources to police their faculty and students, and as institutions of higher learning they have done a miserable job of teaching on this topic. That old saying comes to mind, "If the student hasn't learned, the teacher hasn't taught." (Siegfried Engelmann).
So it is with interest that I read this study on the use of Creative Commons licenses and what options creators were most frequently selecting: The Creative Commons and Copyright Protection in the Digital Era: Uses of Creative Commons Licenses. The study found that for those allowing the creation of derivative works (82%), 71% were also requiring the share alike provision. Which means, if you want to use their stuff, you must license what you create using that identical license: derivatives allowed, and share alike. For most of us, where our institutions insist on a university owned all rights reserved license, the materials we create in the course of our work; e.g. instructional materials we are prohibited from using most of the great photos, videos, music, audio, texts, etc. that have been contributed to the commons.
Most of this great stuff: 30+ Places To Find Creative Commons Media (thank you @jasonadamyoung) is off limits. When our institutions insist on restrictive, rather than permissive copyrights, we have effectively been removed from the conversation.