Even Jokes Are Copyrighted!

When I was young and naïve, I used to think that jokes were merely for putting smiles on people’s faces or satirizing people in power to expose corruption, for the benefit of society, and suchlike. It turns out that some people make money out of jokes, so one must be careful when repeating them. If they are not “in the public domain,” copyright permission may be needed.

I recently came across some light-hearted jokes on academia, university life, and professors that I wanted to share with my readers to lighten up my blog. Then it suddenly struck me that unless a joke was really old, worn, and part of “popular culture” such as the one below, rather than original or traceable to a specific source, it would be plagiarism to simply repeat it:

Q: Why did the teacher wear sunglasses during class?
A: Because her students were so bright!

As the screenwriter John August aptly put it, “If you can’t find a source for a joke, and you’ve heard it enough times and enough different ways that you feel it’s graduated to cultural meme status, you can probably get away with putting it in your script. Then the only question becomes, if you’ve heard it so many times, is it still original enough to be worthy of your script? Nothing is less funny than a joke that’s been played out.” Famous comedians can face lawsuits because of jokes as explained by Laurel Wamsley on National Public Radio (“Can You Copyright Your Dumb Joke? And How Can You Prove It's Yours?”). Comedy writer Alex Kaseberg apparently challenged the comedian Conan O’Brien in court once over a few jokes. Not all jokes can be copyrighted of course; copyright law requires that an item be original and fixed in a tangible form (such as writing, audio, or video) to be eligible for copyright protection. Jokes that are only communicated verbally are not eligible.

On another note, jokes can liven up language learning. Sean Tomas Fleming, a teacher of English as a Second Language, has created a useful site for this purpose, encouraging readers to share the link to his site, for which he receives no money, just to share some humour and learning: “Explain the Joke”. Here are a few of his jokes, each of which he explains in detail for second language learners:

“Classical Gas”
•        Q: Why did Beethoven get rid of all of his chickens?
•        A: All they ever said was, “Bach, Bach, Bach!”

“We’ll Always Have Paris”
•        Q: What do the Eiffel Tower and wood ticks have in common?
•        A: They are both Paris sites/parasites!

“Milk It”
•        Q: Why did the man go to the yogurt museum?
•        A: To get a little culture!

Disruptive Innovation in Education

 

The term “disruptive” always sounded entirely negative to me until the concept of disruptive technology gained currency.

When computers were first used in teaching and learning, no one described them as “disrupting” education; instead, they were seen as enhancing it. The same goes for the internet; rather than being seen as disruptive to education in the negative sense, it was viewed as a godsend. Controversy or debate surrounding the use of the internet in teaching and learning mostly revolved around reliability or recognition of completely online work. In fact, the term “disruptive technologies” was first used in a 1995 Harvard Business Review article, "Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave" by Clayton Christensen, who later expanded on the topic in the book The Innovator's Dilemma, published in 1997. He soon replaced the term “disruptive technology” with “disruptive innovation” as it is not the technology itself that destabilizes the status quo but rather the way it is used. The internet was in fact disruptive in the newer sense of the term when it spread, but the expression “disruptive technology” had not yet been coined in the early nineties.

Going a step further, today, artificial intelligence, a transformative power which is beginning to infiltrate teaching and learning, is viewed by some as “disruptive”; there is emphasis on the hassle, risks, and side-effects, not just the benefits. So, what are “disruptive technologies”? They are innovations that substantially alter processes and the way people operate. Examples are electronic commerce, which has partially replaced traditional shopping; online news sites, which have greatly affected traditional newspapers, causing many to close; and innovative transport services, affecting the taxi industry.

Speaking back in 2018, Anastasia Lauterbach, author of The AI Imperative, stated that the Internet had already disrupted about 20 percent of the global economy, and that AI would transform the rest. Interestingly, she also claimed that this was happening even though “AI is not, by some measures, all that intelligent yet…. Some compare the technology’s intelligence to that of a 4-year-old, while others compare it to that of a rat.”

Five years later, the 4-year-old has grown into a clever big magician – or monster, depending on your view. AI has succeeded so far in personalized learning solutions, improving test scores and general academic performance. It has also helped through virtual tutors and personalized learning assistants. Additionally, it can provide students with feedback on their homework, besides delivering more engaging content, as in interactive language learning. AI can simulate students in the training of new teachers; it can also provide metrics on lessons, including student speaking time, as well as providing educational updates for teachers. Furthermore, AI is showing promise in improving accessibility for students with disabilities and other special needs, making education more inclusive and accessible. Still, there are challenges and concerns regarding replacing teachers with this innovation. Many believe that, if allowed to be more than a mere tool or assistant in the hands of educators, it could become “disruptive” in the negative sense of the term. Other challenges include privacy and data protection, besides infrastructure and availability of training and support for educators.

The disruption in the workforce is a concern for many, including hard working students. Claire Chen has reported from Stanford University that a Computer Science faculty member was recently faced with a crying student in his office. The student was worried that ChatGPT would reduce job prospects in coding, after long years of learning how to code (Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence – Education News). While it is true that AI will diminish some job opportunities, it will open new possibilities and leave humans to focus more on critical thinking, ethics, and the more creative side of work. No need to cry: hope remains for all!