Artists Don\u27t Get No Respect: Panel on Attribution and Integrity

When I was considering the question of the moral right to attribution and how unauthorized fan creativity relates to that concept, it struck me that there are two interesting issues from a theoretical perspective. The first is: who gets the credit? When I was in law school and discovered fan fiction, the reason why I got into intellectual property was because most of these stories had a disclaimer-no copyright infringement intended, these characters aren\u27t mine, I\u27m not making any money, please don\u27t sue. And as a student, my question was – does that work? Is that good enough? I was interested in these disclaimers because copyright law does not have an explicit place in the fair use test for evaluating disclaimers as a factor favoring a defense in the way that trademark law does. I, nonetheless, concluded that, in general, fan fiction was going to be fair use. It has yet to be litigated to any particular conclusion. Although cease and desist letters do so still go out, and fans still either comply or they say no, generally there is no result. That is, I think a lot of the copyright owners are unwilling to deal with the publicity and the possibility of finding this as fair use in a litigated case

The Whalesong

A semester at sea -- A deadly call: could this cell phone be a gun? -- Where's the love Governor Murkowski? -- Channel surfing anyone? -- Parking tickets on campus -- The truth about parking lights -- Cross cultural communication -- Bellagh banned -- Smile! You're on campus camera -- Tidal Echoes: what to expect? -- The fine print of finance 101 -- Searching for summer options? -- Miss Informed advice? -- Humanities conference: to go or not to go -- Breaking bread to feed the hungry -- Arts & entertainmen

Do bold shakeups of the learning-teaching agreement work? A commognitive perspective on a LUMOS low lecture innovation

Mathematics undergraduates, and their lecturers, often describe the transition into university mathematics as a process of enculturation into new mathematical practices and new ways of constructing and conveying mathematical meaning (Nardi, 1996). Whatcharacterises the breadth and intensity of this enculturation varies according to factors such as (Artigue, Kent & Batanero, 2007): student background and preparedness for university level studies of mathematics; the aims and scope of each of the courses that thestudents take in the early days of their arrival at university; how distant the pedagogical approaches taken in these courses are from those taken in the secondary schools that the students come from; the students’ affective dispositions towards the subject and their expectations for what role mathematics is expected to play in their professional life. On their part, lecturers’ views on their pedagogical role may also vary according to factors such as (Nardi, 2008): length of teaching experience; type of courses (pure, applied, optional, compulsory etc.) they teach; perceptions of the goals of university mathematics teaching (such as to facilitate access to the widest possible population of participants in mathematics or select those likely to push the frontiers of the discipline); and, crucially, institutional access to innovative practices, e.g. through funded, encouraged and acknowledged research into such practices.In this paper I draw on my experiences as a member of the International Advisory Board of the LUMOS project (Barton & Paterson, 2013) to comment on aspects of aforementioned student enculturation. Here I see this enculturation as the adaptation of different ways to act and communicate mathematically. I take a perspective on these ways to act and communicate as discourses and I treat the changes to the mathematical and pedagogical perspectives of those who act as discursive shifts. To this purpose, I deploythe approach introduced by Anna Sfard (2008) and known as the commognitive approach