Locally Owned Content Work Group - 2008.04.17

Present: Members present: Laura Barrett, Ruth Bogan (recorder), Matthew Conforth, Erika Gorder, Tom Minnefor. Other participants: Sandie Miller, Tom Nemeth

Agenda:

1. Deciding a new chairperson
2. Defining videos as belonging to the locally-owned content collection
3. Scenarios of use
4. Prioritizing collections
5. Metadata
6. Future meetings

1. Deciding a new chairperson:

Laura is available to assist after May 21; Erika also, after July. Tom Minnefor is already chair of Lectures-on-Demand work group, so it would be unfair to ask him to chair this group as well. Matthew may be persuaded, particularly if he has help in the form of co-chair.

2, 3 and 4. Discussion of these agenda items overlapped:

The roll-out date for the NJVid Commons is toward the end of summer, 2008. The Commons was described as being free, i.e. common, to the world. The critical characteristics of content for the Commons are a) material is not currently distributed commercially, and b) it may be viewed by the public at large. In the course of defining 'locally-owned', it was noted that what is currently called 'Lectures On Demand' is envisioned to be a body of content that is a) not distributed commercially, and b) is restricted in access to a defined group of users. The name may be changed to better reflect this definition.

Various criteria for determining or defining 'locally-owned' were proposed and discussed, including:

• Content is unique (no consensus)
• Created by or donated to the owning institution (no consensus)
• Not necessarily unrestricted copyright; freely viewable, not necessarily freely available for download or copy; not requiring authorization for viewing, i.e., freely viewable by public at large without login/password
• Not distributed commercially
• Possessing explicit written permission from creator and those depicted in video (as well as parents if participants are minors) as determined by the owning institution
• Of sufficient interest to students

Note: Format should, for the time being, not be considered as a criterion for eliminating potential Commons content.

Examples of categories and possible content for Commons:

• Historical
• 16mm film about Fort Lee
• Paul Robeson film
• Current concerns
• Rutgers' New Jersey symposia
• Rutgers Forum
• pBS films that are available to the public
• Promotional
• Film of Georgian Court in the '20s
• Examples of content to be discouraged:
• News

A suggestion was made to name a content review committee with broad perspective of project.

The emphasis is on going forward, rather than resolving all issues of currently held content.

Schools will make content decision with guidelines from Work Group.

Schools will identify key decision makers (public relations, faculty, university relations, marketing personnel, etc.) and develop appropriate workflows for approval of content, format assessment, and assurance of copyright adherence.

Digitized videos can be split into smaller, more usable pieces.

Commercially-distributed content in public domain and movie trailers in public domain are to be considered commercial video rather than locally-owned, regardless of their legal status.

Action: By Advisory Board meeting, April 28, 2008, Work Group members will work with home institutions to develop 'scenarios of use', i.e. to identify content that they would like to see in Commons. Members will classify content as 'easy' or 'difficult' with regard to permissions, format and cataloging. Content appropriate for the Commons, with permissions granted and without need of format conversion will be considered ready for contribution.

Action: One member of Work Group will attend April 28 meeting to present scenarios of use.

Action: Work Group will be provided with a visual aid depicting interrelations between work groups.

Action: Sandie Miller will share the William Paterson University permission slip, which outlines potential uses.

Action: The task of creating a document of "granted permissions" will be presented to the Intellectual Property & Copyright Work Group during their initial meeting.

Action: Clarify which technologies, e.g. Flash, QuickTime, accommodate open viewing without necessitating download.

Action: Clarify which tape decks are currently installed at Rutgers, and find out whether Rutgers will purchase additional tape decks or convert tapes elsewhere to formats Rutgers currently supports.

5. Metadata:

not discussed.

6. Next meeting:

Wednesday, April 23, 10:00AM conference call, at same phone number and code.

Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Bogan