Yes, attribution is important. Yes, teachers have to model the appropriate use of digital media.
Silvia Rosenthal’s work at Graded, together with Meryl Zeidenberg helps address this perceived lack of time in two ways. Firstly, by providing a sweet flowchart that lets designers know what type of attribution is necessary when borrowing work. Secondly, by inviting designers to create their own digital media, thus removing the concerns around correct attribution or any at all.
On my own blog posts up until this point, there is a mix of digital works. The photos I took were assigned a Creative Commons, attribution license. Tweets and other embedded material were linked to the source. The blurred line, for me, is when citing images from academic texts: I resorted to APA for those.
Memes are tough! They’re too recent to be in public domain, and too ‘remixed’ to identify the original source. I also question who deserves the attribution: the creator of the image itself (Drake?) or the first person to give it a pop culture meaning?
Lessig’s point, supported by Julian Sanchez, is that creativity should be encouraged in an environment where proprietary rights and a remix culture can co-exist: attributing authors, but allowing pop culture to do its thing.
A typical high school student thinks there aren’t enough hours in a day. I try to minimize the added stress of attribution by suggesting that students use a few sources.
Particularly in Biology, students often have a misconception of the types of illustrations that must accompany their work – if any at all. So the papers come out dull and too ‘academic’ for my taste. I encourage student creativity by point out the opportunities to include digital media that is student-created. Because of the audience of these papers (teacher/moderator only), I typically never worry about the attribution of the student’s work. Should I?