Tag Archive for 'policy'

On the possibility of openly publishing course materials at BYU

Published
by
david
on August 13, 2008
in open content
. 2 Comments

A good friend suggested to me yesterday that openly publishing my course materials may not be possible at BYU due to the Brigham Young University Intellectual Property Policy. Curious that such a restriction on my ability to openly share my course materials might exist, I explored the policy in more detail. Here’s what I found.

1. Course materials are Creative Works as defined by the IPP:

Intellectual properties are divided into two categories: technical works and creative works. Technical works include intellectual properties that are generally of a scientific, engineering, or technical nature—such as patentable or unpatentable inventions, devices, machines, processes, methods, and compositions; computer software; and university collections. Creative works include all intellectual properties not covered in technical works that are of an artistic, scholarly, instructional, assessment, or entertainment nature. Examples of creative works might include creative productions, such as works of art or design; musical scores; books, poems, and other types of scholarly or creative writings; films; video and audio recordings; and instructional materials, such as textbooks and multimedia programs. All computer software is included in technical works except that which is clearly developed for entertainment or for instructional purposes, e.g., electronic textbooks and textbook supplements, classroom and self-study tutorials. (Section I Para 1)

2. The university does not claim ownership of Creative Works when these are created with only nominal use of university resources.

The university retains ownership rights to all technical works but relinquishes ownership rights to the developer(s) of creative works when “nominal” use of university resources are involved in the production of the intellectual property. When “substantial” university resources are used in the production of creative works, however, the university will retain its ownership position, and income from the project will be shared with the developers. (Section IV Para 2)

3. “Nominal Use” of university resources is defined as things done within the normal scope of your employment at BYU.

Nominal use of university resources is use that is within the required activity of one’s appointment at BYU…. maintaining assigned levels of teaching, scholarship, and citizenship activities, so that anticipated performance in these areas is at the expected level. (Section IV.b Paras 1-2)

4. Course materials are explicitly mentioned in the Nominal Use section of the IPP.

Course or instructional materials may not be generated with the use of support units financed by the university (e.g., the Center for Instructional Design [note from David: this is now called the Center for Teaching and Learning]). Courses or instructional materials generated in the normal course of teaching, without such support, are allowed. (Section IV.b Para 3)

Conclusion: As long as I produce course materials myself, without additional funding or support from the university, courses and instructional materials I produce to support my own courses are created with only nominal use of university resources, and the university does not claim ownership. Therefore, as the rights holder, I will be able to continue openly licensing the materials I use in teaching my courses.

Hooray!

This Class (c) 2008

Published
by
david
on April 5, 2008
in open content
. 10 Comments

I suppose if faculty deliberately choose to misunderstand their role and torment students, they’re free to do so. As Wired reports, another faculty member is claiming that notes students take in his class infringe his intellectual property rights. Michael Moulton, pictured right, and his publisher Faulkner Press (no link love for you!) are asserting what they suppose to be their right to control what students do with the information he teaches in his classes. While this all seems very confusing, the lawyer representing his publisher (a Mr. Sullivan) makes it quite clear:

But if a professor’s lectures are copyrighted, aren’t students already infringing just by taking the notes in the first place?

Yes, Sullivan answers, student notes do infringe, but they are protected infringement.

Ever wonder why students hate teachers? Try telling your students that their class notes infringe your copyright.

We may assume that Prof. Moulton’s / Faulkner Press’s understanding of fair use, or “protected infringement,” is restricted to educational circumstances. The use of student notes from his class for profit-making purposes is all that bothers them. And surely that’s appropriate, right?

Then, once students graduate and go on to employment, what should happen to these class notes whose infringement was once protected? When students take these infringing notes out of the educational setting and into the workplace with them for “review,” surely the protection those dastardly, infringing notes enjoyed in the dorm room finally disappears, doesn’t it? If a graduate is hired by a company, and course-related information makes it’s way into the corporation, that organization might financially benefit from the professor’s intellectual property - without the professor’s or publisher’s permission and without the professor or publisher receiving any compensation! Oh, the humanity! This growing crisis in the academy leads me to ask:

What can be done about the slow, leaking escape of faculty knowledge out of universities via graduating students?

In other words, how can we isolate and contain faculty intellectual property, so that enough students pass exams that our departments maintain their accreditations, but we guarantee that students leave with no more information or expertise than they entered with?

Oh, wait. THAT’S THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT OF THE UNIVERSITY.

The teaching act is a sharing act. I’ll say it again. The teaching act is a sharing act. To hold the sacred title of “faculty” means to be a person who dedicates his or her life to making sure that every student you come in contact with takes with them as much of your knowledge, skills, expertise, and positive attitudes as possible when they graduate. It means to work to facilitate and mediate student learning. It means to enculturate those students as deeply into your professional community and practice as possible. There is simply NO place for selfishness, for withholding, for secrecy, or especially for threats of legal action against students for taking, sharing, or even - gasp - selling - class notes. If it helps students learn what you’re tying to teach, why would you interfere???

The only answer can be that student learning is no longer your first priority. And that’s sad.

The distinctions will slowly become clearer and clearer. The “free market” of student registrations will declare open educators who truly teach and share of themselves with students to be the winners, while the intellectual misers will be left to sit alone in their ivory towers counting their publications, unable to understand why students no longer sign up for their classes (or attend the universities whose policies uphold these attitudes) and unable to understand that they don’t own the copyrights in their publications - the publishers do.

It’s unclear how much of this lawsuit is Moulton’s publisher, and how much of it is him. We expect this kind of behavior from publishers. Let’s hope that Moulton is just caught in the crossfire here. But if a person is concerned about protecting their intellectual property, teaching just isn’t the right profession for them. They need to find a new one.