I also think your comment on “balance” is insightful. These pics seem to provide some small insight into the relative balance between concepts or ideas.

But, ultimately, as you say, they are mostly just a fun curiosity.

And in that spirit, here’s one more:

The 2008 Horizon Report

Also, these Wordles use language that are either specific to a small group of people (in some cases, just you) or are so general that you don’t know what they truly mean.

I do think you should print out the WUB Wordle in poster size and get it framed. Put it on that back wall in your office! :)

I think you’re right about “Best of YouTube” - it is “a bit nutty” in that the interface, at first glance at least, offers significantly less than YouTube itself.

I do like one idea behind it, though: taking a big set of information that someone else has put together, and re-visualizing it.

A better example of this, I think, is something like del.icio.us director, which takes your del.icio.us bookmarks, and gives you a whole new way to see, browse, and interact with them.

You’re right - the Photosynth demo is impressive. I really like how is he is presenting to a very tech-savvy group, and you can still hear jaws dropping in the audience.

John - I’ll be sure to check out your suggestions. Thanks!

And as for radio - it was once my constant companion. Sometimes, now that I have so much more control over what I want to hear and when I want to hear it, I miss my favorite radio station, which didn’t let me pick the song, but was always full of new and exciting surprises.

I’m with Jeff. Photosynth is one of my favorite talks, especially when he remarks “I never thought I would ever receive that kind of reaction when I went to work for Microsoft.”

If I remember right E.O. Wilson, Dan Dennet, and Jill Boldt Taylor were also good talks.

One of my favorites is a demo of PhotoSynth. I don’t even know how to describe it, but it’s a new image retrieval and viewing system. Somewhat like PicLens in how you scroll through a series of images, but much more powerful.

Blaise Aguera y Arcas: Jaw-dropping Photosynth demo
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/129

As for fun while doing dishes, I discovered this old technology called a radio. It can tune in frequencies on the FM radio band. I like the music, but I can’t pick the songs it plays. Much like a podcast, you get what you get. ;-)

For another angle on this whole subject, I recommend Rudyard Kipling’s “When ‘omer Smote ‘is Bloomin’ Lyre”.

Sarah’s comments provide good examples that can be matched up against the UW System policy paper on copyright that Dorethea mentioned earlier. This policy paper describes 5 conditions that can be used to determine the ownership of copyrightable instructional materials:

1. No UW System or institutional support or involvement;
2. Minimal UW System or institutional support or involvement;
3. Substantial UW System or institutional support or involvement.
4. As an assigned duty or pursuant to a work-for-hire agreement;
5. With support from an extramural sponsor.

The projects that Sarah completed on her own time would clearly be examples of conditions 1 or 2 in the policy paper.

But it seems to me that pieces of Ron’s initial example aren’t so easy to plug into that policy. Take the instructional podcast that Ron mentions as an example.

Using the policy paper as a guide, you might say that podcast would be classified condition 2 - minimal support.

But, if the podcast is recorded in a campus recording studio, or with equipment purchased with university funds, you’re now up to condition 3 - “Substantial support.” The policy paper defines “substantial” way down at the bottom of the page:

“Substantial,” as used in this policy, includes, for example, released time from regularly assigned duties; direct investment by the university of funds or staff, or the purchase of special equipment for the project; use of multimedia production personnel and facilities; or extraordinary use of computing resources.

This definition would also seem to cover the second half of Ron’s example, where the podcast is distributed through a campus service or on a departmental server. And, the part that says “direct investment by the university of funds or staff” seems to say that any time an instructor works closely with an instructional technology consultant, you’re already up to condition 3.

And, I’m sorry to say that once you get to condition 3, you run into the following

“Copyrightable instructional materials developed under the conditions identified in section I.B.3. of this policy paper are required to be the subject of a written agreement between the author and the chief administrative officer of the institution involved, or his or her designee, that equitably determines copyright and ownership rights.

Which, to my mind, is a bit much to ask if all you want to do is create a podcast!

When I left my previous employment, of course I left things required to run particular programs, data and materials collected under the auspices of the program, etc. The professional articles and presentations I did were my own intellectual property, and I did them on my own time (if we define that as the work we do after 40 hours, which is a distinction I should make more often!). But the conversation was also that most of the instructional materials (presentations, workshops) I designed were mine to keep or share, as they were my intellectual property. This seems like the “policy over instructional materials” thing that Dorothea cited. I’m not sure whether that officially applies to academic staff at either university, but I think that was the decision and conversation because it’s the right thing to do. For all practical purposes, another person cannot simply pick up these materials and reuse them anyway, as we all know. As a professional, I summarized my work and shared those examples I thought could most help sustain programs and took the rest with a standing offer to share more if needed. I don’t think we (the 3-4 of us) always do a good job of defining our work as intellectual property, or of crediting the intellectual property of others who work in similar capacities.

If you asked me what contracts I’ve signed or what the universities policies are about those things I’ve signed, I have to fess up that I sign what I’m given. Usually, I’m too busy and it’s an afterthought, and I haven’t published all that much. I do know librarians who are more activist about this. I’m usually too relieved that I got the product out the door or have made it through the decision to sign the contract. And want to reclaim the hours I would spend sorting it out as my “own time.”

We have, on rare occasions, had someone challenge our right to make something available in the Digital Collections, even when the depositor asserted to us they had cleared the rights. In each case, we immediately removed the item from access until the issue was resolved, and that took care of it.

(The sticky bit is proof. If you remove the CC license indicator from your work, and then sue a user, it would be the user’s burden to show you ever CC-licensed the work.)

Derivative works get sticky as well. If you make a work, sign over all rights to someone else (as, for example, with a publisher’s copyright-transfer agreement), and THEN make a derivative work, YOU HAVE INFRINGED on a copyright owned by someone else, even though you were the original creator!

Copyright is tough. It’s worthwhile to seek help!

I’m also not a lawyer, but when you’re the creator and owner of a copyrighted work, you have the right to change the terms as you see fit. Obviously, putting something out as creative commons and then taking those permissions away runs counter to the kind of openness I think we’d all like to promote–but I’m pretty sure you could do it.

One way around this would be to upload a piece or derivative of the work to the service. That way you still have a different work that you can grant permissions in any way you see fit.

And I’ll echo Dorthea’s invite to tomorrow’s event. As I understand it, Creative Commons will be a big part of it.