March 31^st. Open Education Month is drawing to a close. We’ve decided to make the most of it, right up until the very end.

Thank you to all our contributors. The 14 male and 16 female authors from 15 countries have written 17 articles in 6 languages… Productive exchanges have allowed us to engage with them. Sometimes the conversations and debates took place between the authors themselves.

Thank you also to those we called upon to help. To assist with translation, to ensure wider dissemination. To manage technical, and sometimes legal, aspects. In particular, Javiera Atenas and Víctor Gonzaléz Catalayud for the Spanish versions, and Mary Lavissière for navigating the complexities of translating legal terms into French.

Above all, it must be said that behind the “we” are Solenn Gillouard for the UNOE blog, Erwan Louërat for the EUniWell blog and Lucie Grasset for the RELIA Chair blog.

Each of these blogs has its own editorial policy, but all three share a keen interest in the subject. This year, we have chosen to publish in French on the RELIA blog and in the various languages available on the multilingual blogs of UNOE and EUniWell. However, for an undertaking of this magnitude, it was essential to work as a team and to be able to support one another when necessary.

Finally, thank you to Ahmed Galai, who did us the honour of opening the series with a poetic article on the strong connection to sharing that every teacher has. A Nobel laureate to set the tone!

Some technical details

The objective of publishing each article in at least three languages has been achieved. Systematically, with the help of AI (DeepL Pro), we produced working versions in English, French and Spanish. We were then able to benefit from careful proofreading by one another. This remains, however, a tricky exercise: in some cases, the technical terms used (and in particular legal terms) could still be improved.

We have, of course, paid close attention to the issue of image licences, systematically choosing royalty-free images. In this regard, we would also like to thank the platform The Greats – Fine Acts, as well as the artists who share their works there under a CC BY-NC-SA licence, and who have enabled us to illustrate each of the articles in this series.

We have also had to address the issue of AI-generated images. Following Rory McGreal’s sound advice (see the article on legality), these images should be considered to be in the public domain. However, we did not dare to systematically cross the Rubicon by applying a CC0 licence to them.

What have we learnt?

In reality, we have above all been reassured by the validity of our model. As last year, we invited a large number of experts to bid for topics once the list was shared. And as last year, the topics – which were initially obstacles – were snapped up very quickly. The opportunity to co-author with writers who didn’t necessarily know each other led to transatlantic collaborations.

Our friends at Open Education Global suggested we open up the call for contributions. It was a bit frustrating not to do so, to only reach out to people we already knew. But we had already anticipated that we would sometimes need to discuss matters with the authors and ask them to go the extra mile.

The solution to being among those invited in 2027? Perhaps to submit an article for the blog in the coming months…

We have continued to explore multilingualism. We have also found that this format suits not only readers but also authors: a key rule is that everyone has the right to write in their own language. This is a controversial issue: many believe there is a lingua franca and that everyone should be able to express themselves in that language. With the help of AI, perhaps. At the Chair, we don’t see things that way, and this year we had a case where an article was first written in English, then, at our request, rewritten in the authors’ own language – and was far better in its second version.

We also broke new ground this year by offering a bilingual newsletter which people could subscribe to throughout the campaign to receive an email whenever an article was published. We had over fifty subscribers!

We also learnt (or relearned) that there would be plenty of technical glitches. Towards the end of the month, faced with repeated attacks on our servers, I even considered that this might be proof of our campaign’s success. But beyond (such conspiracy theories), we must thank Séverine Rubin, from LS2N, for her patience and her availability even at ungodly hours. [A golden rule is that servers always crash more easily outside working hours]

But what else have we learnt?

First of all, and this comes as no surprise, that the Open Education community is rich in ideas, analyses and research. By framing our topics this year in the form of sixteen keywords, one per obstacle, we thought we had staked our claim and anticipated every possibility. In reality, our authors have greatly enriched the original ideas we had imagined.

We were also reassured by the importance that must be placed on research. The word “sharing” has been around for a long time and has often been associated with the issue of OER. One can read articles dating back some twenty years in which certain difficulties mentioned here have already been analysed. One might therefore have thought that we were revisiting familiar questions with well-explored answers. This is not the case: the 2026 analyses are based on recent findings, on today’s technologies, and on the new tools that have emerged in recent years. 

We note, however, that a substantial proportion of the bibliography is in English. We see this (in France) as a challenge: do we, today, have enough researchers examining the issues raised by open education in French? The answer is clearly no. That is why, in 2026, we launched a series of French-language webinars. In fact, there is one tomorrow!

The sixteen articles presented cover many shared topics. The angles are different, and the references will depend on local contexts, but several key topics are addressed.es références vont dépendre des contextes locaux, mais quelques sujets forts sont traités.

The question of recognition

Souhad Shlaka has analysed the difficulty of reconciling sharing and competition. At her university, as at so many others, competition is encouraged and, naturally, hinders sharing. She offers us the beginnings of a solution. May the institutions listen to her!

Some of these recognition mechanisms are analysed by Luc Massou (on the theme of gratitude). For him, the sharing of research is centrifugal, whilst the mechanisms for sharing educational resources are centripetal. We must therefore acknowledge that we do not express gratitude in the same way for these forms of sharing.

Javiera Atenas et Leo Havemann came up with a title that greatly intrigued readers: they started from the observation that academics were happy to share their research findings, but far less so their lectures. Like others, they call for a paradigm shift to enable academics to truly benefit from sharing.

The optimistic articles

Some have chosen to share as an act of faith. This is the case with Marcela Morales ho confirms that we are, of course, all fully entitled to share. It is also the case with Zoltan Lantos in his response to the challenge of reciprocity, in which he tells the story of one of his OERs. It seems to come to life… and thus, of course, to become emancipated. Behind his account, we sense the question we will inevitably have to address one day: how can an open educational resource, intimately associated with an author (or authors), become a digital commons in the sense of the Dubai Declaration. 

It is also optimism that drives Pierre-Antoine Gourraud to share, and who tells us: The real danger? It’s not plundering. It’s waste. Alan Levine has chosen the obstacle of ingratitude but instead sends us a message of gratitude, noting that even though people who take his photos can do so without saying a word, they often choose to thank him.

The North and the South

The South is well represented among our authors. And whilst the problems are sometimes the same as those found in Europe or North America, this is not always the case.

The theme of the necessary decolonisation of knowledge is analysed without complacency by Mpine Makoe, Darrion Letendre et Robert Lawson… It could also have been at the heart of the issue of discoverability: but Benedetta Calonaci et Alessandra Gammino chose a different angle, that of information specialists and librarians.

OER is better when working as a team

But perhaps the main lesson from this series is that the collective must come first. Designing and disseminating an Open Access publication can no longer, in 2026, be the task of a single, isolated colleague. We must work together, in networks, by establishing the necessary infrastructure. This is, of course, the message conveyed by Sophie Depoterre, José-Miguel Escobar-Zuniga, Paul Lyonnaz et Nadia Villeneuve, who in Leuven, Laval, Nantes and Sherbrooke are currently building the tools that enable the collective to express itself. It is also the underlying model in South Africa and promoted by Dorothy Laubscher  in her article responding to the challenge of naivety. For Barbara Class, Henrietta Carbonel et Mathilde Panes, it is in order to tackle technical challenges that we must organise ourselves and systematise our approach.

Virginia Rodés et Regina Motz remind us of something essential: “OERs have transformed access to knowledge and remain essential in a world where millions of students still lack affordable and reliable learning materials.” Their article is a conversation between two teachers.

Latifa Chahbi, Loubna Terhaz, Khalid Berrada et Alan Levine remind us that the fear of judgement by others has always been an obstacle to sharing. In their article, they draw on Michel Foucault to analyse this difficulty. But for them, open education can transform perceptions by contextualising each educational experience and providing safe environments for sharing.

The issue of artificial intelligence was addressed in two articles. By Rory McGreal to analyse the question of rights and legitimacy, and by Fawzi Baroud et Mitja Jermol to tell us that we must absolutely continue to share, despite AI (the question raised was that of its usefulness). Precisely because of AI. These articles were widely shared: it is clear that the issue of AI is of great interest. We believe and hope that these articles provide very positive answers!

Finally, many articles highlight the importance of the institution. An institution that supports through recognition mechanisms, that establishes support structures, and that promotes open education is becoming indispensable.

Let’s share

An initiative on sharing… is meant to be shared.

Nantes University has done it: as was highlighted at the launch of Open Education Month, the issue of Open Education now defines the identity of Nantes U. And the Fabrique REL is the kind of organisation that will play a key role in building the sharing tools of the future.

UNOE (UNITWIN Network in Open Education) has now found a firm place at UNESCO. The network is expanding; its policy statements and various initiatives enable us to work on a global scale.

EUniWell has just established an Open Education Observatory: this small scientific committee aims to provide a better analysis of the links between open education and well-being.

And the initiative has been taken up and promoted by UNESCO, the ICDE, the Ministry of Higher Education and, of course, Open Education Global and the Francophone consortium of Open Education Month…

Finally, the entire editorial team would like to thank our readers. Without you, ultimately, all of this would be of little interest: in sharing, both parties have a role to play.

About the featured image of the article

The original artistic intention remains that of the artist and can be different from the editorial intention of our remix. We thank David Espinosa for sharing his work under an open licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Alan Levine, Open Education Global

After connecting a Mac SE/30 server to the Maricopa Community Colleges network in 1993, Alan Levine (https://cog.dog) has not left the web since. As Director of Community Engagement for Open Education Global, he advocates for the generosity of educators who openly share their work.

I was “grateful” that the topic titled Ungratefulness was available with this suggested framing for authors:

• Sharing takes up a lot of my time, and when I do it, no one says thank you. There are few mechanisms in place for recipients to say thank you. Yet in sharing mechanisms, saying thank you is important.

I was puzzled over this assertion that sharing takes time– to me the act of sharing is quick in the click of a publish button. Perhaps the voice stating making this claim is speaking of time spent trying to promote it?  And in my experience, harboring expectations of that is a set up for disappointment.

• “Expectations are resentments waiting to happen.” Anne Lamott in Crooked Little Heart

What follows is largely personal, based on my own experiences benefitting from the connectivity enabled by the internet since the pre-web 1980s.

We do not need mechanisms to deliver gratitude, we ought to make it our regular action. Putting aside expectations allows the serendipity of receiving unsolicited thanks much more powerful. 

I learned almost everything about sharing from photos.

Thousands of Photos Ago

My favorite hobby is photography, purely as an amateur. While experimenting with early digital cameras, in 2004 I came across this site for sharing photos called flickr. From the start, flickr offered a feature to automatically assign a Creative Commons license to all uploads. Its feature set of site wide search, tags, comments, groups were all the working elements of what was being called early on as “social media”. I remain active there for many reasons.

A few years later, a few private messages started coming in via Flickr mail asking permission to reuse my photos for magazines, books, posters, etc. I always responded affirmatively but felt it was my educator duty to explain that the CC BY license meant they could do so without asking permission.

One day a response came back, “Yes, I know all about CC licenses. I just thought you would want to know that your photo was used.” That changed everything, not just my habit of explaining open licenses but also recognizing that a direct message to a content creator was a means not only of saying thanks, but letting them know where their works have gone elsewhere in the world. 

Inspired by a call in 2016 by a Mozilla Maker party, I embarked on my own counter practice experiment to change the license of all my flickr photos to CC0. My photography is solely for my own purposes, not for income. If anyone could make money on them, I congratulate them. More importantly I was curious to see if that had an impact on getting credit or thanked when it was not even a condition of an open license. No, it continued to happen and does to this day.

Always Be Attributing 

The photo I used  for this post is my own photo. I do not need permission to use it! Even more, it is shared into the public domain using CC0. Again, the rules are that I do not have to attribute. Why bother?

If I publish something that uses this unattributed photo, what does it tell a reader? That it’s okay not to attribute? Even more, what if you come across that unattributed image, what if you want to see more works by the same person or similar ones from a collection? 

I adopted this  approach of Always Be Attributing because I see it as a means of expressing gratitude, even once trying to coin it as “thanktribution”.

These are just my humble experiences, what about some research on gratitude in networked environments? Can it be mechanized? 

Gratitude Researched

In no way exhaustive, my web bookmarks hold a few references I discovered through my interest in gratitude. Can automation of reuse help? A 2011 study on an online Scratch community found the automated notification of remix of people’s works was much less valuable than direct expressions of appreciation from one person to another.

J. Nathan Mathias has co-authored several articles on networks and systems of gratitude  including a study of the motivating effect of implementation of appreciation amongst Wikipedians via WikiThanks and WikiLove. In Designing Acknowledgment on the Web Mathias expresses what matches my own experiences:

A system which acknowledges the beauty of cooperative relationships can’t be based on the impersonal idea of hypertext or the egocentric notion of authorship. It can’t rely on licenses to threaten people into acknowledging each other. Instead, we need an aesthetic of acknowledgement that values relationships and revels in the joy of working with people who inspire us. Acknowledgement should be intrinsically exciting and fun, a gift and a party rather than a duty.

The proliferation of “like” buttons in social media (which now appears in email) seems to offer a small and easily dispensed dose of appreciation, but to me likes are cheap– they pale in comparison to the impact of a sincere individual message of appreciation. Yes, finding ways to contact colleagues directly can take much time, and perhaps there is some middle ground for small scale acknowledgement and appreciation. 

A Tip of the Hat As Thanks?

In my role at Open Education Global I am fortunate to support the annual Open Education Awards for Excellence. Submitting a nomination calls for a moderate amount of effort and the idea of awards implies major achievements.  And it happens only once a year. 

I have pondered with my colleagues what might be done for ongoing levels of expressing appreciation for smaller scale acts. In a podcast recording with Bryan Mathers, a well known designer and creator of the Remixer Machine he described a parallel conversation, in which we brainstormed the idea of a way to quickly create and send messages as a “hat tip” (or for where Bryan is from, a “cap doff”).  The act was popularized by a comic artist ironically named Jimmy Hatlo as acknowledgement to contributions by readers. Online the hat tip was popularized amongst bloggers and programmers, abbreviated “h/t” as credit to ideas from other writers or reuse of another’s bit of code.

While recognizing a tip of a hat as perhaps an act more known in limited parts of the world, we hope the act of a gesture of recognition might be widely understood. As Bryan does, he quickly created a new template for creating new remixes of hat tip messages. Making one is a matter of editing the template to choose a different hat style (perhaps it needs more varieties), colors, and the text message. 

Creating a hat tip remix consumes maybe 5 minutes of time. I see it as a means to easily express appreciation for the acts that colleagues do for us on a regular basis. Whether shared publicly or privately, my hope has been that receiving a hat tip message will generate a desire in the recipient to do the same for another person.

You can count on me sending one to my editors! I can only dream of such actions spreading farther, and you as a reader can help make that happen.

Serendipity and Effect of the Unexpected Act

For me, the openness of the world wide web has generated an ongoing wave of serendipitous acts from people I have never met. Nothing can match the surprise effect of a genuine message of appreciation or thanks. So while one cannot expect it, perhaps regular acts of such acts to others creates a pool of positive serendipitous energy.

I have held a long fascination with the amazing things that have happened as a result of openly sharing. It all started with a flickr photo of an orange flower I saw at my home in Arizona.

In 2009 I was giving a presentation far away in Hobart Tasmania on the unexpected positive things that could happen on the web. I shared how I had learned that if I tagged my flickr photos “unknown flower” other people took it on themselves to add a comment with an identification. I showed the flickr photo to the audience and how a person named Kirsty had commented “I suspect it is a ranunculus.”

That’s pretty amazing, right?

Then a hand went up in the back of the room. A woman stood up and said, “That was me!”

The room exploded with astonishment and joy for all of us (and the presentation was de-railed), but the sheer improbability of this act still amazes and inspires me decades later. 

Even in the worrisome present day, I put much hope in the very small scale human to human acts of appreciation, thanks, and generosity. They cannot be guaranteed or promised, but they more than counter feelings of ungratefulness.

Note: GenAI played no role whatsoever in the writing of this article.

——

References

Computers can’t Give Credit: How Automatic Attribution Falls Short in an Online Remixing Community https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/computers-cant-give-credit-how-automatic-attribution-falls-short-in-an-online-remixing-community/ 

Researching Love and Thanks on Wikipedia: CrowdCamp Hackathon Report: https://civic.mit.edu/blog/natematias/researching-love-and-thanks-on-wikipedia-crowdcamp-hackathon-report

Designing Acknowledgment on the Web: https://civic.mit.edu/blog/natematias/designing-acknowledgment-on-the-web.html

Gratitude and its Dangers in Social Technologies: https://civic.mit.edu/blog/natematias/gratitude-and-its-dangers-in-social-technologies.html

Open Gratitude: https://bccampus.ca/2021/02/10/open-gratitude/ 

—–

About the featured image of the article

The original artistic intention remains that of the artist and can be different from the editorial intention of our remix. We thank Riccardo Cianfarani for sharing his work under an open licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Sophie Depoterre – Academic Advisor – Louvain Learning Lab, UCLouvain

José-Miguel Escobar-Zuniga – Librarian, Université de Sherbrooke

Paul Lyonnaz – Open Education Advisor, Nantes Université

Nadia Villeneuve – Coordinator of the Quebec OER Hub, Librarian responsible for Open Education, ULaval

The creation and sharing of open educational resources (OER) are often perceived as time-consuming. In the context of higher education, we seek to answer the following questions: is this perception accurate, false or incomplete? And above all, what conditions are needed to ensure we have the time required to create or adapt the educational resources we wish to make available to everyone?

OER or DER: an introduction

There is often confusion between OER and digital educational resources (DER), hence the need to start by defining them. According to the definition proposed by UNESCO (2021), open educational resources (OER) encompass all materials used for learning, teaching or research purposes, regardless of their format or medium. These resources are either in the public domain or subject to copyright and are therefore made available under an open licence permitting their use, adaptation and distribution.
A DER is not necessarily open, as it does not always grant the permissions for modification, reuse or distribution that characterise OERs. Although all OERs in digital format fall within the category of OERs, the reverse is not true (Potvin and Dubé, 2024).

The transformation of DERs into OERs requires specific considerations related to the open nature of the resource. We describe these briefly below.

Searching for and reusing OER: investing time to save time

Firstly, finding open-access resources in specialised repositories and using suitable search engines can be time-consuming. That said, the ongoing development of AI tools offers the prospect of effective additional support for identifying – and adapting – OER. In any case, judicious use, respect for copyright, the protection of sensitive data and the cross-checking of generated content remain necessary. In other words, even when tools facilitate and accelerate the identification, generation and processing of content, human judgement remains indispensable.

Furthermore, the application of the terms of use – modification, commercial or non-commercial use, sharing under the same conditions – of an OER requires increased attention. Moreover, when combining several OERs, licence compatibility between them is essential. To determine which licence to apply to the derivative work, consult the Creative Commons website. The most restrictive licence takes precedence.

Let us also consider the stage of referencing the resources used. Just as with copyrighted works, the citation of OER references must be rigorous and exhaustive. However, fundamentally, this essential step is not specific to OER.

Collaboration: a dilemma in time management?

The very essence of OERs lies in co-creation, and their development often relies on interprofessional collaboration between teachers, librarians, educational advisers, multimedia technicians, etc. A large-scale project requires coordination at every stage: needs assessment, research, design, development, validation and dissemination (fabriqueREL). Whilst this diversity can sometimes prove costly in terms of coordination, it contributes significantly to the quality and dissemination of OER (Potvin and Dubé, 2024).

To optimise time management and thereby encourage a wider community to adopt open education, we have chosen to share a few points for reflection, which can be utilised either directly by OER creators or at the institutional level.

Analysis of educational needs: avoiding wasted time

Le questionnement préalable du besoin pédagogique est déterminant pour un démarrage optiCareful consideration of educational needs is crucial for an optimal start to an OER project.

• What is the intended purpose of the OER we wish to adapt or create?
• Is it a common topic, simple or complex, one that has already been covered or, conversely, a new one?
• Who is the main target audience: students, the general public or a more specific group?
• What are the educational needs of the target audience in terms of content, tools, learning methods, formats and accessibility? (Depoterre, et al., 2025)
• Are there any OERs that can be adapted to one’s own context?

A preliminary analysis of educational needs enables you to make ingenious and realistic choices when designing and sharing an OER. This step, though sometimes overlooked, is the one that saves the most time later on.

Drawing from and contributing: a virtuous cycle over time

Not reinventing the wheel or attempting to build a cathedral alone is also a fundamental principle of open education and OERs. Being more open-minded may require a shift in perspective and approach to one’s project, and may even seem counterproductive at first, but it helps to optimise design time.

And what if, as well as changing your approach, you adopted a collaborative and iterative mindset? Why not publish a functional version without aiming for completion or perfection, share modular components rather than a complete system, and improve the resource later if necessary? This approach embodies the very spirit of open education (Wiley, 2017; UNESCO, 2021). Adopting a mindset of continuous contribution transforms the creation of OER into a living and sustainable process.

Indeed, early sharing reduces the time invested at the outset, enables a quicker response to identified needs and shifts part of the improvement effort to the user community. Support from peers or the open community facilitates this sharing. Networking opens up opportunities for exchange and generates shared learning through professional co-development. Through “collaboration and interconnection with colleagues”, “additional resources” are created and, reciprocally, professional value is generated in the act of sharing (Mollenhauer, 2023). This is a form of collective intelligence applied to OER.

Open pedagogy: ingenuity, agility and time savings

The involvement of learners in the co-creation process, within open pedagogy (Roy et al., 2023), also helps to maximise the time invested. Pooling their learning needs and their mastery of design tools can prove useful and contribute to the quality and distribution of the OER. And this is often where projects gain unexpected momentum.

Beyond the actions that can be directly undertaken by those creating OER, institutional initiatives or arrangements can also help to optimise the time taken to produce OER.

A supportive and enabling environment

Supporting the development of skills among OER creators is a key factor. To support this growth in autonomy and skills, it is crucial to provide specific training opportunities.

Providing an appropriate digital environment, including reliable platforms, access to document resource banks compatible with OER, and responsible artificial intelligence tools, provides concrete support for the creation and adaptation of OER. These technologies facilitate the exploration, enrichment and transformation of content, making it easier to develop high-quality resources tailored to learners’ needs.

Collaboration between institutions and their constituent parts at local, national or international level acts as a powerful catalyst. This frees up shared time where we did not think any was available.

Finally, adopting an open education policy enables the provision of a clear, coherent, empowering and sustainable environment. This policy offers a framework conducive to innovation, the dissemination of knowledge and the promotion of open initiatives.

Training, supporting, collaborating and recognising: four institutional levers that make all the difference for open education and the creation of OER.

Is sharing OER really time-consuming?

To conclude, the perception that sharing an OER is time-consuming is partly justified by certain tasks specific to the open nature of the resource. But to say that OERs take time without naming the elements that save time is to miss the point!

OERs are rarely created in isolation. Their life cycle — creation, adaptation, reuse, improvement — is naturally marked by contributions from many hands. Everyone adds a brick, then another, sometimes years later. The result: a shared, open, evolving and sustainable heritage that supports lifelong learning. This is undoubtedly the greatest secret of OER: it is bigger than us, it transcends us and brings us together.

Essentially, promoting OER and developing a culture of sharing means promoting a vision of education where knowledge flows freely.

References  :

Depoterre, S., Fromentin, J. & Louette, F. (2025). Les Clés du LLL. Open Education. Enrichir ses cours grâce aux ressources éducatives libres. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12279/1132

fabriqueREL. Le parcours de création. https://fabriquerel.org/processus-de-creation/

Mollenhauer, L. (2023). Conditions pour l’utilisation réussie des ressources éducatives libres (REL). EP Revue suisse pour la formation continue, (2).  https://www.ep-web.ch/fr/article/conditions-pour-lutilisation-reussie-des-ressources-educatives-libres-rel 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (2021). Open Educational Resources. https://www.unesco.org/fr/open-educational-resources 

Potvin, C. & Dubé, M. (2024). Chapter 9. Créer des ressources éducatives libres : un parcours structurant pour une qualité optimale. Dans F. Chevalier et C. Fournier Pratiques pédagogiques innovantes : Construire la pédagogie de demain (p. 141-159). EMS Éditions. https://doi.org/10.3917/ems.cheva.2024.02.0141  

Remixing CC-Licensed Work. In: Creative Commons Certificate for Educators, Academic Librarians, and Open Culture. Creative Commons. https://creativecommons.org/course/cc-cert-edu/unit-4-using-cc-licenses-and-cc-licensed-works/4-4-remixing-cc-licensed-work/   

Roy, M. & al. (2023) Pédagogie ouverte. In: Éducation ouverte et ressources éducatives libres (REL). Guide en ligne du Service des bibliothèques de l’UQAM adapté de celui de l’équipe projet REL des BUQ et la fabriqueREL. https://uqam-ca.libguides.com/c.php?g=736276#s-lib-ctab-16685807-2    

Wiley, D. (2017). Iterating Toward Openness: Lessons Learned on a Personal Journey’, dans R. Jhangiani and R. Biswas-Diener (éds) Open: The Philosophy and Practices that are Revolutionizing Education and Science. Ubiquity Press. https://doi.org/10.5334/bbc.o 

About the featured image of the article

L’intention artistique originale reste celle de l’artiste et peut être différente de l’intention éditoriale de notre remix. Nous remercions Kim Nguyen pour le partage de son œuvre sous licence ouverte CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

This article was originally written in Italian. The original version is available here.

Benedetta Calonaci is a librarian at the Social Sciences Library of the University of Florence. After graduating in Classical Literature from the University of Pisa (1996), she worked in research libraries and, since 2006, at the Social Sciences Library of the University of Florence.She is also Coordinator of the UniFi Library System Working Group ‘Support to open access and research evaluation’.

Alessandra Gammino is a librarian at the Science Library of the University of Florence.

Creating an open educational resource is a process that certainly does not end with its physical creation, organization, and presentation of content.

Once created, an OER must be able to circulate freely in the vast sea of the internet; in other words, it must be easily retrievable, clearly interpretable in terms of content, and fully accessible on different systems. Only in this way will it be possible to bring the resource together with its “ideal” user, but also with unexpected users, exploiting the serendipity of the internet. In a word, it is a matter of optimizing its discoverability.

Complying with all these requirements is not easy and can become an additional workload for creators. It is assumed that they are well informed, that they know the different repositories and how they work, that they have active accounts for the relevant non-institutional platforms and are familiar with their interfaces, and finally, that they know metadata and the best way to generate efficient ones. Finding information and acquiring skills, as well as the mechanical process of uploading products, takes up the creator’s time, who may come to view the process as a whole as disadvantageous, especially given the fear that the resource will not be discovered, used, and therefore valued. Sharing an OER is an act of care. Doing so should be as easy as possible, which is why we offer a summary of the main points to keep in mind in order to optimize discoverability and thus social impact.

The repository

Carefully choosing the repository in which to store your products, selecting from among the so-called “Trusted repositories,” is of fundamental importance. Certainly, opting for platforms promoted by academic and cultural institutions that adhere to descriptive and technical standards guarantees the completeness of the description and interoperability across multiple systems. Even more important would be to be able to choose specific repositories for educational resources, designed according to the specific characteristics of this type of digital object and indexed by the main OER search engines or in the relevant meta-OPACs (Open Educational Resources Search Index – OERSI, Openly Available Sources Integrated Search – OASIS, Mason OER Metafinder).

Among the EUniWell partners, we would like to mention the Nantes institutional OER repository -NÉO, Open ILIAS Universität zu Köln, Zentrale Repositorium für Open Educational Resources – ZOERR. For the University of Florence, MOOC platforms Ipazia and Federica.

In addition to the chosen institutional repository, it may be useful to make use of other commercial but freely accessible platforms, such as YouTube for multimedia materials, which, thanks to their popularity and widespread use among the global population, can benefit the visibility of a given resource.

Unique identifiers

Assigning a unique identifier (DOI, URI, Handle, etc.) to a digital object guarantees stability on the network and is the easiest way to find the resource, even after some time has passed. This identifier is generally provided by default by institutional platforms.

Metadata

Institutional or interdisciplinary OER repositories offer, above all, the possibility of accompanying resources with a large amount of standardized and interoperable metadata.

Metadata is essential for the online retrieval of any digital object. Without it, even the best resources remain invisible. Metadata analytically describes an item in all its aspects (content, format, updates, level of educational detail, duration, etc.): on the one hand, it facilitates correct understanding, evaluation, and use; on the other, it allows for retrieval by search engines and indexing systems. The richer, more standardized, and more interoperable the metadata, the better the search engine ranking, harvesting by library discovery tools, and interoperability between OER platforms will be.

The standardization of metadata is a fundamental aspect. Only by using universally shared descriptors can we convey descriptive, technical, and management information between heterogeneous systems without running the risk of ambiguity or loss of information.

Over the last 20 years, starting with initiatives such as the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) or industry requirements (such as those of major search engines), specific metadata models have been developed for educational resources.

Two main approaches have been used: the first is “education-based” and the second is “search engine-based.” The initiatives arising from the two approaches have ended up influencing each other over time.

Specific standards for educational resources introduce data on their specific characteristics and relationships, such as the prerequisites required to take a certain course, or the level of preparation that the resource aims to achieve in that subject, and so on.

With this in mind, we would like to point out to authors some practical measures to take when uploading their educational resources to a repository in order to improve their discoverability:

1. Enter metadata that is as complete and detailed as possible, using AI if necessary.
   Artificial intelligence tools are capable of extracting key data with often satisfactory results, although these should be reviewed. Improved or more relevant output can be obtained by specifying the reference metadata standard to the tool.
2. If permitted by the platform, provide metadata not only in the language of the document, but also in another internationally recognized language, either in general or in your field of study.
3. Carefully choose keywords that describe the resource and, if possible, avoid using overly specific vocabulary.
4. Ensure that the metadata describing the resource includes information about the license.
   It is not sufficient for this to be explicitly stated in the document; it must also be declared in the form of metadata so that search engines can apply the relevant filter.
   Please note that the recommended licenses for open educational resources within the Creative Commons project are CC BY and CC BY SA.

Take care of updates

The invitation is not to abandon your resource, but to take care of updating content, links, and formats. A resource with outdated content will be less likely to respond to user search queries, for example. A resource with broken links is more difficult for users to interpret and use, and they may feel discouraged and consider it an “outdated” resource, thus inhibiting the natural process of word of mouth. Finally, a disused file format could render the resource unusable, even if the end user is very interested in it. Similarly, it will be essential to check that the links pointing to the resource, inserted by the author in contexts other than those of the repository (e.g., syllabi, etc.), are still correct and working. In this sense, as we said, the DOI offers a guarantee of persistence and retrievability.

In conclusion

Unique identifiers, metadata, open licenses, updated data, and links are not only useful for web retrieval or selection by the end user.

They also allow retrieval systems to work to their full potential, drawing on pools of content in which the various elements also carry “meaning” (semantic web).

Working on discoverability is not an ancillary exercise, but an essential component of creating open educational resources: an act of care towards one’s users, which increases the quality of the content itself.

About the featured image of the article

The original artistic intention remains that of the artist and can be different from the editorial intention of our remix. We thank Joshua Rush for sharing his work under an open licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Luc Massou is currently a scientific adviser at the Directorate-General for Higher Education and Professional Integration (DGESIP) at the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Space, where he is responsible for coordinating initiatives on open educational resources and open education for the Ministry’s 2023–2027 digital strategy, including ongoing work on the design of a national strategy for open education.

Some fellow teachers sometimes ask themselves: I am a civil servant, and my institution makes it clear that it is my duty to share my digital teaching resources, without necessarily being paid for it, even though it takes up a lot of my time. But is this really the case?

Taking the French context as an example, we offer several responses to these various assumptions here, and then outline four courses of action to transform a perceived obligation into a shared recognition of commitment to open education.

Is creating OER really an obligation (particularly for civil servant teachers)?

To answer this, let us take the example of higher education in France, as it leads us to qualify this first premise. In fact, this ‘obligation’ to create open educational resources (OER) is more closely linked to requirements set out in calls for proposals funded by public money to support pedagogical innovation through digital technology, much like what is required for publications from scientific projects also funded by public money. It may also be linked to an institution’s internal policy in favour of open education, but this scenario remains – for the time being! – still relatively uncommon to date.

In these publicly funded projects, the aim is thus to help produce educational resources that are shared – or shareable – well beyond the initial scope of the funded project, as part of a drive towards open access to knowledge. The term ‘digital commons’ is often used to describe these outputs, emphasising the importance of the widest and most diverse communities possible (academic, but not limited to!) being able to take ownership of and develop these OER over the long term.

However, these projects rely on authors (teachers or teacher-researchers in our example here) who volunteer to contribute to them. They are usually assisted by support staff (engineers or educational advisers, in particular) to design these OER. To summarise, the obligation we are discussing here is therefore largely determined in advance by the sponsor (and funder!) of these public projects, but does not fundamentally undermine the academic freedom of the authors who choose to participate… or not!

Is creating OER time-consuming and unpaid?

Yes and no. Designing an OER is indeed time-consuming, as it involves creating an educational resource for others, preferably with minimal contextualisation so that it can be easily adapted to educational contexts different from those of its original authors. One must therefore be able to put oneself in the shoes of other teachers or trainers, who will be potential re-users of this resource and who may also develop it further. This requires adherence to specific technical, legal and editorial constraints in order to make this OER modifiable, interoperable (i.e. independent of technical formats requiring specific software licences), inclusive and indexable (to facilitate its discovery via catalogues or search engines).

Producing an OER therefore requires support in educational, digital and documentary engineering, which is not always available depending on the schools or universities where the teacher-authors are based. Some countries, such as France, also co-fund national digital operators responsible for pooling these educational resources, who are thus tasked with disseminating and promoting them on a national and international scale via freely accessible online catalogues.

Finally, regarding authors’ remuneration, it is not systematically absent. It may be covered, most often in the form of overtime, by the publicly funded projects mentioned earlier, or through internal recognition schemes within institutions (such as bonuses for educational innovation). It may also rely on mechanisms to reduce teaching hours, thereby freeing up time to devote to creating these resources. Here again, these mechanisms depend heavily on the prevailing local and/or national contexts.

An additional task… or not?

In our view, the real fundamental debate is this: should the creation of OER be considered an ‘exceptional’ task, added on top of teaching duties, or is it already statutorily included in teachers’ duties? Let us again take the example of French higher education. The decree of June 1984 establishing the status of teacher-researchers is very clear: whereas scientific duties include the need to promote their findings and disseminate scientific and technical culture and information, the educational mission remains focused primarily on the transmission of knowledge through teaching.

The scientific aspect therefore fundamentally incorporates a ‘centrifugal’ dimension, that is to say, one that moves away from its centre in order to reach the widest possible audiences outside its own institution: a researcher publishes in order to give maximum visibility to their work, and thus allow knowledge to circulate freely. On the educational side, the dynamic seems – at first glance – to be rather the opposite; it is a more ‘centripetal’ mission that tends first and foremost to draw closer to its centre: teaching is geared towards meeting the internal training needs of the institution in which a teacher works.

This concrete example certainly explains why producing OERs for a potentially very broad audience (far beyond one’s home institution) is not necessarily self-evident and may be perceived as an additional workload by some teachers, whereas benefiting from the pooling of educational resources among teaching communities could save them time (particularly when preparing lessons) and also contribute to the wide and open dissemination of knowledge.

Transforming a perceived obligation into a recognised commitment to open education

As things stand, it therefore seems counterproductive to us to make the production of OER compulsory for teachers, as there is nothing in their terms of employment that actually obliges them to do so.

The challenge here is rather to provide them with better support to transform what is currently perceived as an obligation (or an additional workload) into a shared and recognised commitment based on common values that align, in particular, with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) number 4: “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.”

How can this be achieved? Here are four possible courses of action, inspired by our current work to design a national strategy for open education in French higher education, with a view to gradually supporting this transformation in the medium term:

• Provide training in the principles, values and tools of open education from the outset of teacher training, and subsequently as part of their continuing professional development;
• Support and equip the creation of OER, to avoid asking teachers to do everything themselves. They need to be supported by specialised staff (in pedagogy, digital technology and documentation) on the technical tasks of engineering, media production, indexing and hosting/distribution of their educational materials. These tasks must be able to rely on digital working environments offering the appropriate tools to produce and distribute OER;
• Encourage teachers to collaborate in co-designing these OER as a group, as co-design has the potential to strengthen the collective ownership of a resource by a much wider user community, which must then be facilitated so that these resources become digital commons that will continue to evolve and circulate over time;
• Value and recognise the professional commitment of OER authors, whether they are teachers or support staff (such as educational engineers or librarians, for example). This institutional recognition can take several forms: recognition in career progression, bonuses, reduced teaching loads, awards… or inclusion in their terms of employment!

About the featured image of the article

The original artistic intention remains that of the artist and can be different from the editorial intention of our remix. We thank Andrius Banelis for sharing his work under an open licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Virginia Rodés is a Research Professor at the Institute for the Future of Education in Europe. She has a PhD in Equity and Innovation in Education from the University of Santiago de Compostela. Her research focuses on open and digital education, higher education, and lifelong learning in global contexts.

 Regina Motz is a full professor at the School of Engineering at the Universidad de la República in Uruguay. She has a PhD in Computer Science from the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany. She is the UNESCO Chair in Open Education and is part of the global UNITWIN network in Open Education.

-“OERs work because they are open.”
-“Yes… but openness alone does not guarantee good use.”

The conversation arose in a staff room at the end of the day, when two teachers who had been working for years with open educational resources (OERs) were exchanging views on their day-to-day experience. Both fully agreed that OER had broadened access to knowledge and enabled more flexible and adaptable forms of teaching, but they disagreed on a more subtle point: whether openness, understood as availability and freedom of use, was sufficient in itself to ensure quality educational practices or whether, on the contrary, it needed to be accompanied by reflective forms of use that developed within teaching practice and educational communities.

This conversation, which might seem anecdotal, actually reflects a tension that runs through many debates in open education today, not as an irreconcilable opposition between visions, but as a sign of the maturing of a field which, after decades focused on expanding access, is also beginning to ask about the pedagogical and social conditions in which that access becomes meaningful learning. In this sense, the question is not whether OERs are valuable — something that has been amply demonstrated — but how they are integrated into real, diverse and often complex educational contexts.

Openness as a shared starting point

At the start of the dialogue, one of the lecturers insisted that openness in itself constitutes a profoundly ethical act because it removes economic barriers and allows knowledge to circulate freely between teachers and students in different regions of the world, whilst the other emphasised that this freedom only leads to educational transformation when resources are critically integrated into specific teaching contexts. Although they started from different perspectives, both agreed on one fundamental point: OERs have transformed access to knowledge and remain essential in a world where millions of students still lack affordable and reliable educational materials.

In fact, in many regions, OERs remain the only way to access up-to-date, contextualised and pedagogically relevant content; therefore, openness—even when imperfect—remains preferable to scarcity or dependence on inaccessible resources. Therefore, any reflection on their use must begin with a recognition of this historic advance, which has expanded educational opportunities on a global scale and enabled teachers and students to participate more actively in the production and adaptation of educational knowledge.

When flexibility does not always translate into adaptation

However, the other voice in the dialogue pointed out that openness alone does not guarantee pedagogical quality, cultural sensitivity or alignment with learning outcomes, as these aspects depend on processes of design, review and contextualisation that are not covered by the licence. Research supports this concern by showing that both open and closed materials can present similar limitations in the representation of certain groups or contexts, particularly in fields such as health education, where the diversity of patients and clinical situations requires careful pedagogical attention (Gromer et al., 2025).

Here, the disagreement in the dialogue becomes particularly illuminating: whilst one teacher was confident that the ability to adapt OERs allows any limitations to be corrected, the other pointed out that such flexibility requires time, pedagogical training and institutional support—resources that are not always available in everyday practice. Consequently, the actual capacity for adaptation can vary significantly across educational contexts. Consequently, the use of OERs depends not only on their technical properties, but also on the structural conditions in which teachers work, such as workload, access to training and institutional culture.

From this perspective, the fact that a resource is open does not automatically guarantee that it will be adapted, revised or contextualised, just as the existence of pedagogical tools does not ensure their full use, suggesting that openness creates educational possibilities that require favourable conditions to be fully realised.

Openness and responsibility as complementary dimensions

At another point in the dialogue, a common concern in open education was raised: the possibility that the introduction of quality criteria, guidelines for responsible use or review processes might reintroduce forms of control that openness sought precisely to overcome by shifting from trust in communities to institutional regulatory mechanisms. The response suggested that responsibility need not be understood as external control, but rather as a shared pedagogical commitment that emerges from the reflective use of resources in educational contexts.

This distinction is key, as it allows us to understand that openness and responsibility are not opposing dimensions, but complementary ones: openness defines legal freedoms of reuse, adaptation and redistribution, whilst responsibility refers to the way in which those freedoms are exercised in concrete pedagogical practices that seek relevance, equity and quality. In other words, openness enables action and responsibility guides its educational purpose.

Indeed, many communities of practice in open education operate precisely on this basis, where resources circulate freely and their quality is gradually strengthened through use, review and collaboration among teachers, without the need for rigid external controls. This suggests that accountability can emerge from collective practice without contradicting the principles of openness.

An open ecosystem that is now more complex

In the current context, where OER circulate among teachers, are integrated into digital platforms, combined with AI-generated content and reused on a global scale in diverse educational settings, the balance between openness and reflective use takes on greater relevance, as new questions arise regarding the traceability, authorship and verification of educational knowledge.

Recent research shows that teachers and students are still learning to distinguish between open educational resources, freely accessible digital materials and content generated by artificial intelligence, which introduces uncertainties regarding the reliability and traceability of the educational materials used (Khalil et al., 2024; Alm, 2024). Thus, the concern regarding the reflective use of OERs is not due to mistrust of openness, but to the growing complexity of the information ecosystem in which they now operate.

Final reflection

OERs do not need less openness or more formal regulation, but rather reflective use that recognises both their potential and the real-world conditions in which they are employed—something that is already happening in numerous educational communities where teachers adapt materials with care, collaborative networks collectively review resources, and institutions support open practices through training and support.

As they left the staff room, the two teachers resumed their conversation whilst walking towards their classrooms.

—So, is openness enough? —asked one, with a smile.
—It’s enough to start with —replied the other—. But it’s the use that turns it into learning.

They exchanged a knowing glance.

—Perhaps that’s the good thing about OERs —added the first—: that they leave room for both.
—For freedom… said the second.
—…and for responsibility concluded the other.

Both nodded, because deep down they knew that open education thrives precisely on that balance.

——–

References

Alm, A., & Ohashi, L. (2024). A worldwide study on language educators’ initial response to ChatGPT. Technology in Language Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.29140/tltl.v6n1.1141

Gromer, A. L., Chesnut, S. R., & Patel, S. E. (2025). Curricular resources used in nursing education to teach diverse patient care: A discursive paper. Journal of Professional Nursing, 61, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2025.08.011  

Khalil, M., Er, E., & Gunes, N. (2024). Generative AI in higher education: Seeing ChatGPT through universities’ policies, resources, and guidelines. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100178  

——–

About the featured image of the article

The original artistic intention remains that of the artist and can be different from the editorial intention of our remix. We thank Edgar Ludert for sharing his work under an open licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Souhad SHLAKA, Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Science in Rabat, part of Mohammed V University. She holds a PhD in ‘Educational Engineering’. She is a designer, producer and trainer of online courses and has been involved in several projects. She is also a member of the ICESCO Chair for Open Education and an expert for ICESCO.

Sharing allows knowledge to grow and improve in quality. Sharing also offers a large number of learners the chance to benefit from knowledge that is not always accessible. In an educational context, Open Educational Resources (OER) act as a key driver of openness, providing a framework for sharing structured by rules such as open licences. These licences define the conditions for reusing, modifying and distributing content, with the aim of fostering collaboration, accessibility and pedagogical innovation.

However, embracing the ethos of sharing and openness is, above all, a personal decision driven by intrinsic motivations. These motivations, or the reasons behind such sharing, remain largely absent in the academic sphere as they are influenced by factors such as the fear of being plagiarised, the fear of facing negative judgement from peers, or the exploitation of content by other teachers. Another key factor that can hinder this desire for openness is the competitive spirit that prevails in universities. In the Moroccan context – and I mention this because I am part of it – promotion to a higher rank or status involves an evaluation process based on the academic, pedagogical and scientific performance of the lecturer-researcher. In this context, it becomes difficult to share one’s course or resources at the risk of losing precious points! But limiting one’s course to a handout or a PowerPoint presentation intended exclusively for students enrolled in the module confines access to knowledge to a lecture theatre and condemns it to remain frozen in time and space.

So, how can this be remedied? Answering this question must be part of a holistic approach that requires the involvement of all stakeholders in the system.

1. Changing teachers’ mindsets through a proper understanding of the benefits of sharing

Many express reluctance and resistance to sharing their resources (course content, exercises, PowerPoint slides, etc.). They feel they put in a huge amount of effort and spend a great deal of time on them. Consequently, sharing with a colleague can sometimes seem impossible. The first step towards overcoming this resistance is the need for reassurance! This involves raising awareness of the use of an open licence (such as Creative Commons), which allows the creator to define the permissions for distribution and use whilst ensuring attribution of authorship. Furthermore, teachers must be made to understand that openness leads to improvements in quality and time management. Teachers are strongly encouraged to rethink their educational and teaching practices so that they are geared towards collective intelligence and collaborative work between peers within a dynamic of sharing and openness.

2. Institutional changes through the promotion of collaborative work within the department and/or between departments

In our institutional context, delivering a course individually is worth a full mark, whereas a course co-delivered with colleagues results in a lower mark. This simple situation is enough to stifle any initiatives for collaborative work. In this regard, it is up to the institution to encourage and promote the harmonisation of courses (in the case of cross-disciplinary modules and courses taught by several lecturers), particularly as the syllabus is the same. And, of course, the assessment framework must be revised so that it focuses on criteria relating to the quality of work, innovation and openness.

3. National collaboration through the creation of open disciplinary networks supported by a national strategy

If the accreditation of a degree programme necessarily requires validation by the ministerial committee, this implies the approval of the modules (disciplinary and cross-disciplinary) that constitute it. Thus, it would be wise to create open disciplinary networks that would pave the way for the collective enrichment of content. To achieve this, a genuine data protection policy must be developed, underpinned by a legal framework derived from a well-established national strategy.

In conclusion, embracing sharing means moving beyond an individualistic and competitive mindset to engage in a dynamic of collaboration and continuous improvement in the quality of resources. In the Moroccan university context, taking the step towards sharing relies on the pooling of efforts by all stakeholders in the sector (teachers, decision-makers and managers). It is therefore not only a matter of making resources available, but above all of freeing up practices and mindsets, so that knowledge can circulate, evolve and benefit as many people as possible.

About the featured image of the article

The original artistic intention remains that of the artist and can be different from the editorial intention of our remix. We thank Lorenzo Miola for sharing his work under an open licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Barbara Class has been in educational technologies for 25 years and contributes to advance the field of Open Education. She currently works at UniDistance Suisse on assessment in Open Education. Homepage:https://tecfa.unige.ch/perso/class/

Based at the University of Teacher Education, State of Vaud, Mathilde Panes leads Open Science initiatives with a focus on open educational resources (OER). Over three years, she has worked to promote OER among university lecturers. She holds degrees in Information Science and Business Administration, and a CAS in Data Stewardship.

Henrietta Carbonel, PhD, is an instructional designer in the Educational Development Unit in Distance Learning (EDUDL+) at UniDistance Suisse. Henrietta supports faculty in developing their pedagogical skills and in designing distance learning modules. Her research focuses on digital technologies in higher education, including the university of the future, the use of AI in learning, and remote assessment. She is particularly interested in speculative methods as tools to anticipate and critically examine possible educational futures.  

“I can’t open your file”, “the font is all over the place”, “this software is not available at my institution” “which software shall we use to collaborate?” 

We have all been there.  Sharing openly is not just a mindset, it is a set of practices, tools and workflows. Formats break, platforms lock you in and licences raise questions at every turn. Let’s explore what makes sharing feel complex and how to navigate it with some freedom.

A challenge is defined in English as a difficult task or problem potentially providing enjoyable intellectual stimulation. In French, the definition underlines the objective: why do you want to take on this challenge? It is therefore essential to identify the objective, i.e. the purpose of sharing. 

Do we share in order to create knowledge together? Do we share to make ourselves visible? Do we share to provide access? 

These few examples show how essential it is, first and foremost, to understand where we stand in the culture of sharing. The key is to identify the why. 

Next comes the question of how to share. Is sharing conceived upfront as an overall structuring principle? Is it used upfront to orient the pedagogical design? Is sharing rather a later decision once the output has already been created? 

Finally, comes the what. What are you going to share? The (co-)creation process? The output? A README file? The aim is to identify the how and what (see The Golden Circle by Simon Sinek) in terms of micro-societal organisation, with its values and rules (see for example Bollier, D. (2024). Challenges in Expanding the Commonsverse. International Journal of the Commons).

These questions, which are directly related to pedagogical design, are already complex and involve entangled elements. They become even more complex when legal, economic or technical dimensions are added, as illustrated below. 

From good intentions to real world constraints

Behind the concept of open educational resources (OERs) lie convictions, intentions, and complexity. To move from a conviction to sharing one’s own productions as OERs, one must navigate this complexity, either alone or with support.

From finding material to reusing, transforming and publishing it, an OER enthusiast will face a lot of uncertainties. For example, simply discovering an OER is a multi-step process: defining your needs; searching across multiple repositories (if the resource is even stored in one); and evaluating the resource’s quality and fit for purpose, including both the accuracy of its content and the soundness of its pedagogy. As a side note, AI can be very helpful here to help you identify where to find relevant OERs. 

Once you have found an OER, you will probably need to transform it. This means understanding what you are allowed to do or not. Creative Commons (CC) or Traditional Knowledge (TK) licenses are particularly useful here, if you know what the different CC or TK licenses mean. 

The topic of artificial intelligence is also adding to the complexity of OER creation: a new fear might arise “will my content be unfairly used by AI?”. Uncertainty is high.

Moreover, underlying all these steps is the technological challenge.

Literacy to break free from specific technology, tools and formats?

Openness is about redesigning power relations at the pedagogical level to co-create knowledge among a community of engaged stakeholders; it is also about redefining knowledge as a commons; furthermore, it is about transforming the governance of knowledge and technology. In practical terms, openness is closely tied to technological issues. Indeed, the choice of a given technology comes with its own set of constraints and freedoms. Creating an OER involves several steps: content, pedagogy, design, copyright/attribution, publication, and each step comes with technology and tools. That is where friction appears: files that only open in one software, layouts that break elsewhere, missing fonts, paywalled platforms, “not available at my institution or for citizens more generally”. The resource may be shareable on paper and digitally in pdf format, but not usable in practice. 

Moreover, institutions often push “safe” tools that are supported internally, stable and integrated. The downside: users are locked in. OER creators thus have the responsibility to strike a balance between tools and formats that are commonly known and used, and others that are more open, portable and editable. This can lead to uncertainty and extra workload because contributors need to be literate in the use of a large set of technologies, tools, formats, and potential conversion tricks. Technical issues feel overwhelming because they add up and seem to affect the form when one wants to focus on the substance and create. But technology does affect the substance, increasing the responsibility of the creator and subsequent users. The choice of platform, format, or template today can create problems later down the line. The ideal of sharing can rapidly become a burden. 

Fostering openness through support 

Complexity is not a reason to quit. It is a challenge to overcome and a reason to provide a supportive ecosystem around OERs and Open Education more generally. Literacy – not to say fluency – with technology takes time to experience. It comes step by step, by learning which decisions make co-creation and reuse easier and by pooling and sharing this information. So, nothing better than a sandbox to become OER-savvy from the technological perspective. 

Support can be technical, such as formats, exports, and accessibility checks. It can be editorial, such as structuring a resource for reuse. It can be legal, such as licence compatibility and third-party content. And, crucially, it has to be social. Knowing who to ask, having a community that shares templates and tips, and learning from real examples turns trial and error into a shared practice.

This is also where the “purity” trap shows up. It is tempting to think “open versus closed” or “open versus broken”, as if you need a perfectly open workflow from start to finish. Thinking about openness in a continuum is more productive. An orientation towards Openness through sharing in multiple formats or providing an editable version alongside a stable one, is more valuable than chasing an ideal and publishing nothing. The point is to leverage and enable as much as possible for anyone who wishes to act on this resource. 

Recommendations for practical reduction of complexity 

• Publish in pairs: one “easy to read” format (PDF/HTML) plus one or two “easy to edit” source files (for instance, Markdown files, but also DOCX and ODT, PPTX and ODP, etc.).
• Choose portable formats early on: avoid tool-specific features that do not survive export (exotic fonts, heavy animations, embedded proprietary widgets)
• Document the basics: include a short “How to reuse/edit” note (tools needed, where source files are, licences, attribution, etc.)
• Prefer “good enough” openness over no co-creation and/or no sharing at all: partial openness and clear documentation beats an ideal OER that is never enacted

How can we overcome the challenges of complexity when it comes to sharing and creating a commons?

At the personal level, set aside all forms of fear (fear of being judged by a colleague, fear of how time-consuming sharing can be, fear to change, etc.) and trust your professional practices, always doing the best you can, being aware that mistakes are possible and can also be corrected. “Exposure” should not be seen as a risk but as a way to grow and improve your expertise through the constructive feedback of others.

At the organisational level, adopt a caring systemic approach that prioritises the commons and collective coexistence. Sharing then becomes a structuring principle. 

At the pedagogical level, choose learning theories oriented toward sharing. For example, the theory of situated and distributed learning developed in the 1970-1990s (see the work of David Perkins) which conceptualizes the person-solo and person-plus competencies. The latter refers to the capability to draw on both internal and external resources such as communities of practice and/or technologies. 

At the technological level, use free software as much as possible: sharing is in their DNA and beyond the possibility for any citizen to access them, their adoption is also about reclaiming a form of democracy. Free software is experiencing renewed momentum, so it is the right time to join a community of practice and change! (See, for example, the Framasoft community).

Ultimately, sharing is much simpler than we think: just think differently as Bawden (1991) said: “It is so much easier, and thus pervasive, to deal with unfamiliar issues in a familiar way than it is to deal with familiar issues in an unfamiliar way”.

About the featured image of the article

The original artistic intention remains that of the artist and can be different from the editorial intention of our remix. We thank Andrius Banelis for sharing his work under an open licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

This article was originally written in Hungarian. The original version is available here.

Zoltan Lantos, Semmelweis University (Budapest, Hungary), Faculty of Health Sciences.
A digital health expert with a background in immunology, behavioural economics and art therapy, and Founder and Head of the Department of Virtual Health Guide Methodology. Following professional experience in the pharmaceutical industry, international health-sector consulting and social innovation laboratories, he currently takes an active role in the development of the European Health Data Space by leading the development of the common European digital health public service backbone network. His current professional interests focus on the development of a data-driven shared economy and on community-based support for a healthy society.

It is required … well, I do share

For a long time, making my teaching materials openly available, especially choosing an appropriate licence and then publishing them accordingly, felt like a compulsory chore. I did it because I had accepted others’ arguments that it was useful, but I did not experience any real benefit in my own work. That changed completely when I developed a practical simulation case and the associated learning tasks.

When I completed this teaching unit, I genuinely felt that I had done very good work. Its structure was clear, the tasks worked well, and the examples reflected exactly the kinds of everyday situations that professionals encounter in practice. It was very well received by domestic students, it also worked well with groups in neighbouring countries, and I could see that most European students understood and engaged with it.

Later, I started teaching the same material on a course with a large proportion of students from outside Europe. From the very first session, it was obvious that something was not right. They seemed confused, asked a large number of clarifying questions, and appeared to lack what I had assumed to be basic background knowledge. The tasks did not trigger the discussions I had become used to. I assumed that they must have studied very different material in earlier years, and I even thought that perhaps they were already at a disadvantage compared to our students from secondary school onwards.

Like many of my other teaching materials, I also made this one openly available. Rather mechanically, as I usually did.

Surpriiiise!

Several colleagues adopted the material and, this time, they did not only use it but also modified it, and shared their changes openly as well. Some replaced situations that were based on typically European student life with examples drawn from their own contexts. Others simplified the language because, for most of their students, understanding more sophisticated English was difficult. Someone else added a short teaching note to examples that touched on culturally sensitive issues in their local context.

As these small adaptations started to arrive and I began to take them into account and apply them in my own teaching, the atmosphere and dynamics of my classes also changed. The material started to work in several different educational and cultural environments.

It was then that I truly understood what the Open Educational Resources mindset means to me. It is not about creating something once and simply putting it online. It is about entering a shared development community and a continuous cycle of improvement.

In this cycle, it is not the original author who matters most. What matters far more is that the material is constantly tested in real teaching situations and that the experiences gained are fed back into the material itself.

Sharing is caring

This type of reciprocity is, for me, very similar to the way the sharing economy works. There, too, the key point is not simply having one-off access to a service, but the fact that many users continuously shape and improve the system. The more experience is fed back, the better the system becomes for everyone.

In my own teaching practice, this had very tangible effects. Material that had previously worked really well only with certain student groups gradually became much more accessible to a wider range of students. Feedback from my non-European students improved noticeably, group work became more relaxed and confident, and I no longer had to spend so much time explaining the background of the example situations when assigning tasks.

It was then that I truly understood that my material was not poor, it had simply been designed for a narrower cultural context than that of my students. It was built on cultural and educational assumptions that I had previously taken for granted, but which no longer worked in a fully international student community.

The greatest gain, however, was not that a single teaching unit became better. It was that I no longer had to work out on my own how to improve it. I became part of an almost invisible, yet strong professional community. Sharing my teaching materials did not reduce my professional autonomy; instead, it created a new form of professional collaboration that I can engage with in a very concrete and practical way.

And, ultimately, it is the students who benefit the most from all of this. Of course, my classes are much better too. ☺

About the illustration

The original artistic intention remains that of the artist and can be different from the editorial intention of our remix. We thank Nebojša Cvetković for sharing his work under an open licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Rory McGreal is the UNESCO/International Council for Open and Distance Education Chair in Open Educational Resources (OER) at Athabasca University, Canada. He is Editor of IRRODL, the highest ranked open access journal in  EdTech. He is also founder of the OER Knowledge Cloud, a repository of articles on OER. He is the recipient of several international awards and has presented at conferences in more than 60 countries.

Introduction

The rapid emergence of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) has ignited profound legal and ethical debates within open and online education. At the heart of these debates lies a critical question: who owns AI-generated content, and is it protected by copyright? For educators and content developers, GenAI presents both a remarkable opportunity and a significant source of anxiety. It offers access to a vast commons of digital material for inspiration and use, yet many feel they are navigating a legal minefield without guidance. This uncertainty stifles collaboration and sharing, primarily due to two paralyzing concerns:

1. The Paralysis of Legal Uncertainty. The core issue is not a reluctance to share, but a fundamental lack of accessible legal understanding. Complex copyright laws and nuanced licensing terms are often perceived as an exclusive legal language. This fosters a climate of fear, where educators are less concerned with how to share responsibly and more preoccupied with the dread of making a costly legal mistake. In short, educators want to participate but are terrified of the “what if.”

2. The Crisis of Trust in Shared Content. Compounding this fear is a growing awareness of contaminated sources. The widespread problem of copyrighted material being improperly repackaged and relicensed as “free” erodes confidence in the entire sharing ecosystem. If the license attached to a work cannot be trusted, how can it be used safely? This leads to the debilitating question: “In my effort to do the right thing by using shared material, am I actually exposing myself to undue risk?”

This article confronts these intertwined problems directly. We move beyond generic advice to address the specific apprehensions that hinder creators. Our goal is to demystify the legal landscape, provide current information on using shared material, and rebuild the confidence needed to engage with the digital commons—not recklessly, but with informed and empowered knowledge.

Presently, a clear legal trend is emerging that strongly supports openness in education. The evolving copyright landscape for GenAI, characterized by the denial of protection for purely AI-generated works, aligns with fair use/dealing doctrines and statutory exceptions for education. This creates a novel and powerful foundation for a new class of fully accessible Open Educational Resources (OER), democratizing content creation and freeing it from traditional copyright restrictions.

The Legal Landscape: Denials of Copyright Protection for AI Content

A consensus has solidified in key jurisdictions: copyright protection is denied to works generated solely by AI, as copyright requires a human author. In the United States, the Copyright Office and federal courts have consistently held that works created “without any creative input or intervention from a human author” are ineligible for copyright, a stance affirmed in the Thaler v. Perlmutter court decision. Similarly, the Beijing Internet Court and the European Union in the AI Act have ruled that AI lacks the legal personhood for authorship. Therefore, exclusively AI-generated content resides in the public domain and can be freely used without copyright restrictions. As of 2026, no major jurisdiction recognizes an autonomous AI system as a legal author or copyright owner.

Human-AI Collaboration: The Grey Zone

Ambiguity arises when humans collaborate with AI. Courts are assessing the degree of human “intellectual input, creativity, or interactivity” required for copyright to vest. Guidance suggests that if a human is substantively involved through prompt selection, iterative refinement, or substantive editing, they may be considered the author. The U.S. Copyright Office evaluates such cases on a continuum. For educators, this means that when they significantly edit, refine, or localize GenAI content, they can claim authorship and should apply an open license (e.g., Creative Commons) to the resulting OER.

Substantial Contribution or Statutory Exceptions

In Common Law countries (e.g., UK, USA), copyright infringement requires the taking of a substantial part of a protected work. Insignificant copying is not infringement, and such content is effectively in the public domain. GenAI synthesizes original responses from its training; it does not copy and paste substantial portions from specific sources. Thus, its autonomous output is designed to be “insubstantial” copying. Educational uses are further protected for substantial copying by fair use or fair dealing clauses.

In Civil Law countries (e.g., many EU nations), the freedom to use content comes from specific strictly enumerated exceptions for purposes like teaching and research. These exceptions are statutory and closed-list. The law focuses on the nature of the use rather than the substantiality of the portion taken. Educators must still cite specific sources if GenAI references them.

Training Data Controversies

The use of copyrighted works to train AI models is contentious. However, legal trends are recognizing this as fair use. The U.S. landmark settlement Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC described LLM training as “among the most transformative uses,” qualifying it as fair use if legal copies are used and close reproductions are avoided. In the EU, the text and data mining exception provides similar protection for research purposes. Critics argue this practice devalues authors’ labor, leading to proposals like levies on commercial AI systems or standards like Really Simple Licensing (RSL) which could affect future GenAI pricing and attribution. While critics may seek to reshape the process, the legal momentum firmly favors treating AI training as a permitted foundation for innovation, meaning the future of GenAI can be built, legally, on the works of the past.

Authorship, Plagiarism, and Academic Integrity

Major publishers and bodies like the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) prohibit listing AI as an author, as AI cannot meet criteria for accountability. Human authors are ultimately responsible for all content, including AI-generated portions.

GenAI also blurs the line between plagiarism and fraud. Plagiarism involves claiming another person’s work; AI is not a person. However, submitting AI-generated work without disclosure may constitute academic fraud, as it deceives others about the nature of the work. This distinction makes transparency and updated academic integrity policies crucial.

Conclusion

The legal trajectory of AI-generated content presents a pivotal opportunity for open education, directly addressing the twin problems of legal uncertainty and eroded trust outlined at the outset.

First, it resolves the Paralysis of Legal Uncertainty. The clear consensus that purely AI-generated works are not copyrightable and belong to the public domain provides a stable legal foundation. Educators can use such content without fear of copyright infringement, licensing fees, or complex attribution chains. This demystifies a major part of the “minefield,” transforming the “what if” from a source of dread into a clear guideline: autonomous GenAI can be used to create OER lessons that can be created reused, revised, remixed, redistributed and retained.

Second, it helps rebuild the Crisis of Trust in Shared Content. When content is verifiably AI-generated (and not merely repackaged human work), its public domain status is a legally robust, trustworthy fact. This creates a new category of shared material with unambiguous ownership rules with no hidden copyright claims. Furthermore, when educators do contribute substantial creative input to AI-assisted works, applying a standard open license (like Creative Commons) to the resulting OER reinstates clear, trustworthy signals for the sharing ecosystem. For the open education movement, this convergence is transformative. GenAI becomes a powerful engine for producing and localizing high-quality OER at scale, free from traditional copyright constraints.

However, this opportunity is tempered by enduring responsibilities. The academic community must uphold principles of authorship, accountability, and transparency. Using public domain AI content does not absolve educators of the need for due diligence, citation of specific sources, or ethical disclosure of AI assistance in human-AI collaborations.

Ultimately, the ownership of purely AI-generated content may belong to the public domain. But the stewardship of its integration into education belongs to educators. By leveraging this legal clarity with ethical foresight, the open education community can harness GenAI to advance its core mission: expanding equitable access to knowledge through resources that are not only open but also built on a foundation of clear rights and renewed trust.

(Authoring this paper with the help of Generative AI (POE, Perplexity, DeepSeek), I have reviewed and edited the content as necessary and take full responsibility for it.)

About the featured image of the article

The original artistic intention remains that of the artist and can be different from the editorial intention of our remix. We thank Daniela Yankova (Shadowschaser) for sharing her work under an open licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.