Shotcut: An open video editing tool

For a long while now, I’ve been looking for a free, preferably open source, video editing tool that was reasonably full-featured but also easy to get started with. With the recent demise of Windows Movie Maker, the need for this kind of tool is more urgent than ever.

Looking around a few weeks ago, I found Shotcut, and I’ve been really impressed with it. (Shotcut has been around for a while but has recently been completely rewritten.) This tool is cross-platform (Windows, Mac, Linux) and does most of what you’d want to do in terms of basic video editing. Once you open the timeline window, the tool will look familiar if you’ve done video editing.

Here is a quick start guide I’ve put together for this tool (Word, PDF). If anyone has suggestions for improving it, let me know. Otherwise, I’d recommend checking out this tool if you’re looking for an open video editing tool.


Remix attributions

I think attributing borrowed work is important, and I see a lot of remixes that don’t include attributions to the borrowed work. Instead they attribute only the remixer/compiler.

Best practices for attribution require that “when you are using a work that is an adaptation of one or more pre-existing works, you may need to give credit to the creator(s) of the pre-existing work(s), in addition to giving credit to the creator of the adaptation.” (Creative Commons).

So for example, for a photo that includes other (open licensed) photos from someone other than the creator of the adaptation, the attribution could read:

“Photo by Karen Fasimpaur, © 2016, licensed under CC BY 4.0; includes picture of apple by Alan Levine, licensed CC BY 4.0 and illustration of the moon by Brad Emerson, licensed CC BY 3.0″

Here’s another example (see Source section).

This gets more complicated with all the web sites that produce images for you (e.g. memes, quotes) like the one created with

Image credit: Created by Karen LaBonte with

In this case, I know who wrote the words and compiled the image on (Karen LaBonte), but I don’t know where the typewriter image came from. Most likely though, this composite image cannot be open licensed unless it can be determined that the components are themselves open licensed. While this can sometimes be sussed out from the creating web site, often it can’t. ( for example doesn’t appear to have any info on the licensing terms or even terms of use. The site is marked “Copyright 2015 | All rights reserved.” but this doesn’t tell us much. Obviously it is designed to create images that are meant to be reshared, but there is no supporting license for this. As is often the case, the creators probably didn’t think of it. In other cases, the licenses seem to run counter of the intent, most likely because of overzealous lawyers.)

The credit I included above was the best I could come up with. No Creative Commons license on the composite image.

This may seem like a lot of nuance for most people, but the salient points are: 1) you should include attributions for all the works that made up the final piece and 2) you can’t open license something that contains borrowed work that isn’t open licensed.


Student voices: An invitation

This year, I’m convening a strand on Student Voices for the K12 Online Conference, and I’d like to invite you and especially the youth you work with to get involved.

There are several ways you can participate:

We think having a strong student voice both as an input and an output of our learning environments is super important. We hope you agree and that you’ll help us make this part of this year’s K12 Online conference.



Credit: gurmit singh

I am often prompted to reflect on why people don’t borrow and remix high quality, open licensed educational content more often than they do.

There are many projects that have created amazing content and licensed it under a Creative Commons license. But the degree to which this content is used and especially remixed is often lower than people expect.

The reasons for this are many — ranging from the culture of some schools that holds instructional materials as sacrosanct to the lack of time and/or expertise to do this work. In addition, the engagement timeline on this kind of work is long, and many projects don’t have the wherewithal to endure that. However, I think another key element is the very nature of instructional materials.

When I think about the thousands of open licensed items I have created and published, two categories stand out to me as having gotten significant uptake in terms of being reused and remixed: Flickr photos and the open dictionary. I am particularly pleased with the fact that I get regular requests to reuse the content in our public domain dictionary. This has been a long term labor of love that we’ve put a lot of time in, and it’s good to see it being used. Unlike Flickr, this is a relatively unknown and unpublicized site, so this speaks to some real need.

Something both these categories of content have in common is a very small level of granularity. Photos and definitions are not only very granular but they are relatively generic and can be used in a wide variety of contexts without a lot of rework.

This contrasts with most instructional materials, which by their very nature are complex and carefully designed, often with spiraling content, interwoven assessments, and a variety of pedagogical features. It is possible that such materials do not lend themselves well to being chopped up and reassembled in new and different ways. And in fact, the history of various designs that leverage chunks or learning objects has not been one of great success.

So is the quest to allow customization through OERs for naught? Or does it make more sense to look at customizing OERs in terms of larger “full course” materials? I’m not sure, and I believe that customization and open learning bring a deeper level of learning. But the fact still remains that uptake on these materials can make it difficult to justify the investment.

What I can say is that if your goal is significant reuse, think granular.