IP (Intellectual property) Policy
Currently Lincoln University claims the copyright of course material created by staff. Many universties within New Zealand currently do this, but this practice is not in line with best practices in many overseas universities. As more of us move towards providing a larger amount of material for our students (including audio and video recordings) we think it is timely to draw your attention to some of the issues around copyright of course materials. TheAUS committee has prepared a paper on this issue. This paper has been sent to (among other people) our VC and our Academic Deputy VC. We have yet to hear back from them. We welcome your comments.
Recommendations for change to
Lincoln University’s
Intellectual Property (IP) Policy
from the Lincoln AUS branch committee
Contents
Overview 1
Background 1
Major arguments for staff having copyright over course materials they develop 2
Protecting the vulnerability of staff 4
Recommendations 5
References 7
Appendix 1: Section 4.3 of Lincoln University’s IP policy 8
Appendix 2: IP policy examples from Otago Polytechnic, UC Berkeley, and ASTE 9
Otago Polytechnic Intellectual policy 9
UC Berkeley Extension Intellectual policy 14
ASTE’s Intellectual property policy 16
Appendix 3: Video filming agreement 18
Appendix 4: Video filming agreement 20
Overview
These recommendations involve changes to section 4.3 (see Appendix 1) of the IP policy that cover the copyright of course materials developed by staff. This policy is due for review by January 2009. We would like to see amendments made to the current policy so staff retain the copyright over the course materials they create, and consequently control how and when that material can be used.
Background
Increasingly staff have the option of delivering course material in a number of different formats to students. During the past decade students have moved from listening to staff via a traditional lecture format, to expecting the occasional handout, to largely expecting to have copies of all supporting lecture material used in class (e.g., PowerPoint presentations and diagrams). Today it is also possible to record lectures and make them available to students. To help manage the amount of supporting material available to students at Lincoln we use Moodle, a web-based course management system. Moodle enables students to have access to supporting course material 24/7, often in a downloadable format. For example, lecturers may provide pdf files, PowerPoint files, JEPG files, MP3 files, and viewable MWV streaming video clips on their course websites.
From the staff members’ perspective their role as teacher has changed considerably. Increasingly it is no longer sufficient to “just” give a lecture. Lecturers need to develop supplementary materials. This material is moving from being impersonal (e.g., handouts) to more personal (e.g., lecture recordings that include the lecturer’s own voice or image).
Traditionally, academic staff throughout the western world have been given copyright of the course material they develop (e.g., Bobbitt, 2006; Donohue & Howe-Stieger, 2005). Donohue & Howe-Stieger (2005, p. 25) state that “The legal history makes clear that … the faculty member who develops and teaches a course of instruction …owns the supporting courseware.” There appears, with the growing trend of staff to produce easily copied course materials, for institutions to claim copyright over course materials (Scott, 1998). This is perhaps understandable since the universities are paying for their staff’s time. This can be questionable however as staff regularly work outside their 37.5 hours per week, especially those involved in the production of quality material.
We wish to argue that the copyright ownership should reside with the staff that produced the work. There are a number of reasons for this, and we believe that not only is it important that staff retain their own copyright, but that the university should help protect the copyright held by staff over their course material, and that students be restricted in how they use their course materials created by staff.
Major arguments for staff having copyright over course materials they develop
Below are the main arguments for staff having copyright over the materials they produce.
A. Organisations excel on the discretionary effort of their staff, not the efforts required by staff to do an adequate job. Many institutions realise this. Within New Zealand and overseas the institutions who are moving towards flexible learning for students are reasserting, or allowing academic staff to retain copyright over the material they produce for coursework (see Appendix 2 for examples of IP polices). Those institutions who claim the copyright over their staff course work tend to be those institutions that do not have a strong flexible learning component.
Research has shown that there is a lower uptake of web-based course development where there is a lack of staff ownership of course materials. Donohue & Howe-Stieger (2005) hold that if an institution asks staff to relinquish their copyright over course material, the incentive to make available material to students in an easily reproducible format is drastically reduced.
If Lincoln wishes to develop a strong flexible learning element a change in copyright policy could act as an incentive to staff to produce quality material and become involved in flexible learning initiatives. This would bring the university inline with other tertiary institutions that promote staff developing on-line course material for flexible learning.
Quality course material is very time consuming to produce. Again, without staff ownership of the copyright there is little incentive to produce more materials. Further, if staff cannot take the material with them when they leave through owning the copyright, then there is less incentive to develop the material, or to make course materials available through Moodle.
B. Granting copyright of course materials to staff will also give the control over access to the material to whom it belongs, the course expert. This is of particular concern to staff for whom reputations could be damaged if out-of-date material, or out-of-context, was presented to students “under their name”, or even more damming, their image on a video clip published inappropriately. We believe that it is the teacher who is the expert on how and when course material should be presented to students, and by giving them copyright over their course work, the university puts the responsibility for the delivery of course material where it belongs, to the teacher.
C. The concept of kaitiakitanga (guardianship) of any resource such as copyright requires that the individual or group responsible for this resource has control or influence over how the resource is managed. In the case of copyright, the most appropriate mechanism for facilitating kaitakitanga (guardianship) is the vesting of copyright with the creator or disseminator (course examiner) of that intellectual property; but for Maori knowledge the assumption is that copyright remains with whanau/hapu/iwi.
D. Claiming what is essentially ownership over course materials through copyright is unlikely to result in any financial gains to the university through being able to sell the materials (Guernsey & Young, 1998). We believe that it is unlikely that the university will be able to sell course materials produced by staff for their regular courses (for instance the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) provides free open access to most of its course material, http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm). In contrast, the potential gains to the university, of staff producing quality materials, if given copyright of the material for current students, could result in retention of students and even gain new students. Therefore it is our view that the university should encourage staff to develop such materials. If staff have no say in how these materials will be used, then the incentive to produce them is diminished. In short, the university has very little, or nothing, to gain from owning the copyright of course materials, but could loose if staff show reluctance to produce quality course material .
E. Previously an agreement between the university and staff set a precedent when the university recognised special issues regarding staff retention of copyright for recorded videos. The agreement was reached between the university and the Association of University Staff, dated 4th May 2001 (see Appendices 3 and 4). Under this agreement, section C stated, “The video shall not be used for any purpose other than the purpose specified in the consent” and section E which stated that there will be “an expiry date after which the video file may not be used for any purpose, unless another consent is obtained”. The agreement also covered restrictions on copying the video, and importantly, in section J that the university will “vigorously protect all intellectual property rights of video files made under this agreement.” Letting staff keep the copyright of the course material they create will continue to fulfil this agreement.
Protecting the vulnerability of staff
In addition to the university not claiming copyright over course material created by staff the university needs to protect the vulnerability of staff in regard course material. This will require several facets:
1. The university needs to not only cede copyright over the course material produced by staff, but should also help protect that copyright. For instance, if an organisation external to the university inappropriately uses copyrighted course material then the university should support the staff member in the protection of that copyright.
2. To support the university in assisting protecting the copyright over course material created by staff, staff should be encouraged to acknowledge that course material was developed for “Lincoln University”, the course (or Division), and the year it was developed within the material. For instance, watermarks could be used in video clips, or identifying information included in the footers of recorded PowerPoint files.
3. Staff need to be educated regarding the potential use of their material, especially that put up onto Moodle, and the relevant copyright issues. For instance, there appears to be a lack of understanding regarding the difference between a streaming video and a (video) flash file (one being easily viewable, the other downloadable and therefore the copyright holder has far less control of where the video ends up).
4. Staff also need to be made aware that coursework that involves multiple creators (e.g., recordings that involve student questions) require the consent of all involved if they are to be used outside of the original intent for which they were made.
5. Staff need to be told who, other than registered students, will have access to their Moodle course sites before they are granted access, as this will help restrict the inappropriate use of such material.
6. Students need to be informed of how they may or may not use their course material (Berkeley University has a good policy on this for students, see Appendix 2).
Recommendations
The following are our recommendations regarding the copyright of course materials:
A. The copyright of course material stay with the creator.
The university should declare it will not assert its interest in copyright for material developed by staff for course work, unless the university contracted such course work in addition to the staff member’s regular work. Further, that the university will help support staff in protecting their copyright over course materials.
B. The students be limited in how they use course material created by Lincoln staff.
That a policy regarding student use of coursework be developed along the lines of that developed by Berkeley University (see Appendix 2 for the full document). Perhaps using similar wording to: “Material provided as coursework is frequently copyrighted. Copyrighted material can include both handouts and audio or video recordings developed for the course. This material should not be used for any purpose except to meet the educational objectives of the course. Any material should not be distributed or shown to another individual or group without the written permission of the copyright holder (normally the creator of the material). Where the coursework contains recordings of more than a single creator these may not be shown to an individual or group without the written permission of every person recorded.”
C. Student rights regarding course material need to be covered by policy.
A policy also needs to be developed regarding student involvement in course material. This is especially important for any audio or video recording made involving students. This might include a statement being made in the course outlines that parts of the course may be recorded, and that students have the right to request that their voice and image be edited out of any recording.
D. Staff and students are to be consulted regarding any changes made to the intellectual policy.
Staff (and student representatives) would like some involvement before the finalisation of any policy, and that the draft amended policy goes out first for consultation before the reviewed policy takes affect in January 2009.
We are accepting of a clause to the new IP policy stating that course material produced while a staff member at Lincoln University will not be used for commercial gain without the consent of the university and arrangements being made regarding the split of profits from any such venture.
References
Bobbitt, R. (2006). Universities, faculty, and the battle over intellectual property: Who owns what's inside the professor's head? New York: Edwin Mellen.
Donohue, B. C., & Howe-Stieger, L. (2005). Faculty and administrators collaborating for e-learning courseware. Educause Quarterly, November, 20-32.
Guernsey, L., & Young, J. R. (1998). Who owns on-line courses? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(39), A21-A23.
Scott, M. M. (1998). Intellectual property rights: A ticking time bomb in academia. Academe, 84(3), 22-26.
Appendix 1: Section 4.3 of Lincoln University’s IP policy
4.3. The exceptions to the University’s waiver on ownership of copyright noted in paragraph 4.1 are as follows: Lincoln University claims copyright on all computer software code and databases, but not text files or any other form of electronic storage used as a medium for the transfer of written or visual information when it concerns the waived ownership items listed in para 4.1. The University also claims copyright on course materials, in whatever form, developed for teaching, including any course material that forms part of a text book or other copyrighted items to which the University otherwise waives its entitlement to copyright, where these are produced as part of a staff member's academic duties. This claim is made on the basis that the University has a right to protect and maintain its competitive position by restricting the application of that material to the courses it offers.
See http://registry.lincoln.ac.nz/LPP/ for the full Intellectual Property Policy (link is only accessible by current Lincoln University staff).
Appendix 2: IP policy examples from Otago Polytechnic, UC Berkeley, and ASTE
Otago Polytechnic Intellectual policy (http://wikieducator.org/Otago_Polytechnic/Intellectual_property)
Otago Polytechnic/Intellectual property
<>
