.png)
Author Information
Public Access, Copyright, Use of Freire Materials
Notice to users of this site:
Please be advised that you are welcome to use any of the work on this site as an Internet-based teaching tool. If you desire to use publications posted, please write directly to me for permission, which will be granted for your personal and educational use for no cost, but we retain copyright. If you wish to download and re-post a video, we also have the copyright to those videos, all photographs, and your request for permission is required. Public access in this case does not mean random use of these materials. The images and videos have been used for purposes antithetical to our philosophy. This is not a university website, it is privately maintained.
This has always been the case, and has been abused, that abuse has become a serious issue. We also ask that bloggers only use their own blog to re-post, and if you would like to post something from another blog, simply post the url to the blog, or ask that writer for permission. If you are using a blog conversation for a citation in your writing, refer to APA for correct reference style and include date of retrieval. This site attempts to create a safe environment in which to express our views. Part of a critical community is respecting that others may not want their words cited out of context on another blog or site.
All materials on this site are copyrighted (by either the original author or by us). Any publisher interested in reproducing any article on this site or from the hosted journals, must, again, contact me: msgramsci@aol.com. Again, you are welcome to use anything on this site for no cost, we just ask that you notify us when doing so. If this is for a for-profit enterprise, like a reprint for a book, or use of a photo, there is a cost involved which goes back to the maintenance of the website.
Thank you so much, Shirley
- Shirley Steinberg's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
- Topic Tags:
Comments
Contradictions -
I recognize that control over content is a big deal for a lot of folks, but I have to admit I find this strategy disappointing. It aligns the politics of the site against my principles. Perhaps my reading of the literature is in error, but I think critical pedagogy is generally antagonistic with hierarchies of power - which includes access to information. Additionally, I think this sets the opposite example of the epistmic frames needed for the future. Given that dissonance in values, in the future I'll have less enthusiasm in advocating for the site.
I...
...stand with you. Perhaps a site needs to be made independent of McGill.
Public access, Website
Issues of power were not involved in this, we have always retained copyright. This should not affect you in the least, unless you wanted to use something from the site and gain profit. This protects our intellectual work, and in the past year, it has been stolen for for-profit use. We have stated copyright from the beginning, however the posting was too small. This is a private website, not maintained by a university.
Uhhh...
"Issues of power were not involved in this"
I'm *shocked* to hear such naivite here! Of course issues of power are at play! Critical pedagogy is no stranger to cultural studies (i.e. cultures of power), and that makes me begin to wonder whose running the show - and to what ends.
Profit -
It's wrong to mine content from here and use it to make a profit (was it MSNBC? haha). I'm glad to know it's a private site. That makes me feel better somehow. Thanks for clarifying the situation.
Profit?
The fear of 'mining content from the site for profit' is a straw man.
While I thought...
...Shirley's original explanation was thin and veiled, I understood her clarification to mean that someone in particular had taken content from here and made a profit from it. If this is true, then how can it be a straw-man? Curious here...Maggie
It's not a straw-man thing
Kephra,
I can't agree that this is a "straw-man" situation at all. This site has served as a place for discussion and learning, for dialogue and the generation of responses to crucial matters attracting the attention of those who might see critical educative work as a contribution to the reconstruction of genuinely democratic social relationships and forms of engagement. The resources that have been built up here - and which we can all use freely in our work - are not only powerful in the messages they carry, they are inspirational and encouraging. I've had more than a few students who've found an orientation for their work as intending educators through something on this site. However, much as I think most members of this site would be outraged over the the extraction of profit from unpaid labour, it now seems that this is what is happening with the material on this site. If someone - individual or corporate, or both - is looking to extract profit from the efforts of those who have built this site without permission to use the material, or with little concern for the appropriateness of the uses of this material, then I would think that the administrators of the site are not only justified, they're almost obliged to use whatever (peaceful) means of preserving the integrity of the material and the site they have available to them. I personally don't see anything in Shirley's recent statement regarding the spirit of use of the site that I would have anything to fear or be constrained by. I suspect that almost all other members/contributors/ users of this site would be in exactly the same situation. The message does, I think, give clear notice to any who might look to violate the spirit of engagement that has characterised this site and been a marker of its strength that they need to acknowledge certain protocols and expectations.
Jon
Straw Men & Hegemony -
According to the explanation given, content produced by or through the site has been co-opted by for-profit educational ventures. This is dishonest, and Freireproject.org has every reason to call-out such parasites. But this misuse of content does not, IMO, justify hoarding over content. Further, the idea of "intellectual property" in and of itself is explicitly elitist. If we accept that knowledge is socially constructed, the prejudice that one can have "ownership" of ideas is inappropriate. Prof. Hawking has admitted that he stands on the shoulders of giants. He doesn't claim "ownership" over his ideas at all. Likewise, every idea I have has a history that originates long before me. Thus, claiming that I have ownership of some idea does violence to that history.
If someone takes an essay that was written here and attempts to profit from it, that's not kosher. But that's such a strong minority of user it's irrelevant to the overall aim of the project (as I understand it) - i.e. to raise awareness of issues in critical pedagogy.
As a general rule, if a site restricts access to its vids or content I will not include it in my curriculum. That's a strong political bias, but I'm interested in supporting sustainable ideologies. Freireproject, unfortunately, doesn't seem intent on going that route.
For an ideologic counterbalance, I invite the admin team to consider exploring alternative - more *critical* - ideologic modalities. Or, from a more accessible and popularized angle, see "Us Now" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_Now). It's got a UK-centric focus, so I might also recommend Charles Leadbeater's "We Think" (http://www.wethinkthebook.net/home.aspx).
I™ want™
I™ want™ to™ live™ in™ a™ world™ where™ my™ intellectual™ property™ is™ protected™ at™ all™ times.
Scary -
What a terrifying worldview.
protection is also important
I hear what you are saying Khephra about open access, but there is another side to this-- copyright also protects from the content being misused toward inappropriate ends, including, but not limited to for-profit purposes. I have been a part of this site for a few years now, and there have been instances of aggregious abuse. While the law can serve to preserve power, it also protects people in cases like this. I don't think anyone here is saying there shouldn't be open access-- notice that no content has been prohibited from use for educational purposes, and in fact, I think anyone would say that students and teachers should feel free to visit the site and access the content we have collectively compiled here. However, the content on this site should not be available for people to use in ways that might be harmful or exploitative. Both of these types of abuse, unfortunately, have occurred. I do not think that it is terribly productive to make blanket statements about the motives behind people's actions without having a deeper understanding of the history and context that has spurred those actions.
Access to this site
There was nothing thin nor veiled. I sense a tempest in a teacup. The issue here is anyone who uses this site has free and open access to use it, if it is pulled off the site for use, we ask to be notified if possible, and to be correctly cited. That should not upset anyone on this site.
However, if our information is pulled off for a for-profit gain, that is for publication in a book, images to be used for profit, etc., then there is a charge for one time use only.
We have been able to maintain the web through donations (few) to the Kincheloe Foundation or by payments for use of our materials. We do not want to have random advertisers flashing all over the site like some educational sites have, just to maintain the cost of the site.
If that is not clear enough, this possibly indicates 1. a lack of contextual information 2. a naive view of how intellectual property needs to work 3. a view that critical pedagogy implies no boundaries 4. an alternate agenda...
No one has stated what they don't like here. Just complaining about a decision to make sure that corporate-inspired interests and capital gains are not part of lifting off this site. Nor that people "claim" ownership over someone on this site's work.
This has happened several times, and all of a sudden, seeing for-profit adverts with a photo taken by Nita Freire, noted with copyright on this page, is promoting something of which she would never be a part. Entire articles taken from this site, without reference, citation, or permission, with the author's name removed. Organizations opened under the auspices that they are involved with this group, using names of endorsement. The list goes on.
Critical pedagogy is aware of the power of intimidation and appropriation. There is nothing in the philosophy of critical pedagogy which claims free-for-all abandonment.
Just what is the issue here? As mentioned originally, there will be a box on the site which will state the availability of the work here, it was not meant to stay a blog. For legal reasons, it needed to be posted prominently.
Poor word choice.
The words "thin" and "veiled" are too harsh - I should have used softer vocabulary among friends. However, I chose them because the original statement was quite vague and though it alluded to a particular situation, one could not easily identify that it was a case of profit-making from site content. I see the posting has been modified now to avoid confusion. I still believe it is wrong to mine content from this site to make a profit and stand in agreement with you. I honor this site as an invaluable resource - thank you!
What a great shame
Folks,
I'm utterly saddened and enraged to read these posts and to learn that the intent and purpose of this brilliant site has been disregarded so callously. The beauty of this site is the connection it provides to each of us in this critical community, and to see work, ideas and legacies re-appropriated is nothing short of distressing.
We must keep in mind here that while this site has as its prime motivation the open and shared access to ideas, this does not equate to intellectual theft. 'Open access' is a wonderfully democratic development in our web 2.0 world, but this does not in any way suggest that intellectual fraud, plagiarism, scholarly misconduct (or whatever you wish to call it) is in any way acceptable. These things are far from synonymous. What is at stake here is largely a question of respect and integrity in recognising the source and provenance of ideas- ideas that must never be separated from those whom they are generated and according to the personality and 'frame' from which they must be understood. In making available this space in a non-partisan, institutionally neutral and 'open' manner, we have a site that lives up to the Freirean ethic and gives us all access to each other and a community in which we might dialogue and share our experiences. What a great shame that this appropriation of ideas has occurred. This is surely the antithesis of what critical educators are about.
Andrew
scholarship and ethics
A community of scholars honoring the ideas and people of that community. . .I believe this is exactly the heart of critical pedagogy. . .Let's honor shirley, and joe, and paulo as critical scholars. . .paul thomas
Public access and respect
I am always shocked and saddened to hear of another incident of intellectual theft. Those of us who use this site are forever indebted to the the literally tens of thousands of hours of work that Shirley, Joe and others with whom they have worked to build the resources available on this site. It is a unique resource that has been made possible through their commitment to sharing their ideas and their work ina way that is accessible to anyone with a computer and the desire to learn more about critical pedagogy. I applaud their efforts and am continually grateful to have this site be a global resource for our community of critical scholars and activists.
Stopping the theft of content from this site without permission or proper citation by those who would seek to profit from this theft is a goal we should all support.
Shirley, please continue to let us know how we can help support the spirit of the Freire Project and ensure that this online community continues to thrive for countless years to come.
Grateful for all the work and selfless sharing of ideas that you have inspired and continue to make possible,
Andrew
Paul and Andrew-- well said
You both summed up this discussion so very eloquently and positively. Thank you for that.
Supporting Shirley
We all know this is an amazing place. I agree with Tricia, Paul and Andrew have eloquently supported Shirley's position. Thank you for putting it so well for all of us!