Can college and university teachers take their course materials, presentations, notes, slides, PowerPoints, syllabi and other teaching resources with them when they leave their current positions? Can they sell or license these materials to online universities or market them through Amazon?
For a group that tends to dispute everything even a position that would presumably only side in their own interest, academics too must concede the legal ambiguity of the copyright law’s “work for hire” doctrine when applied to the academic setting. What is probably not in dispute is, as one commentator describes it, that “Traditionally, it was presumed that educators owned copyrights to academic work they have authored or created.”
True, it was (and is still) assumed, but it was never codified in the Copyright Act and never directly established by caselaw. That too is not in dispute. Thus to characterize a theoretical university’s position, on the bare facts of the employment relationship: “Educational institutions … claim an interest in the work and point to the faculty’s use of their resources in its creation. Institutions also can assert that producing such work is part of the educators’ employment obligation.” (http://ow.ly/18O9A)
To be sure, with exceptions for adjuncts and other guest lecturers, most teachers would be considered employees of their colleges and universities. It is hard to imagine that most teachers would care to dispute that claim, as evidenced by their benefits eligibility, academic protections and broad use of school resources, among other obvious indicia.
The reality is – or, until recently, was – that none of this really mattered. Not much was at stake in the pre-online and –distance education days. In one of the rare but prominent pre-internet era cases addressing the issue at all, an “academic exception” to the copyright work for hire doctrine was acknowledged based both on tradition and policy. The University of Chicago’s and Federal Judge Richard Posner wrote for the 7th Circuit in Hays v. Sony Corp. of America (847 F.2d 412, 416 (7th Cir. 1988)):
“Although college and university teachers do academic writing as part of their employment responsibilities and use their employer’s paper, copier, secretarial staff, and (often) computer facilities in that writing, the universal assumption and practice was that (in the absence of an explicit agreement as to who had the right to copyright) the right to copyright such writing belonged to the teacher rather than to the college or university.
“Nevertheless it is widely believed that the 1976 Act abolished the teacher exception [citations omitted] – though, if so, probably inadvertently . . . . To a literalist of statutory interpretation, the conclusion that the Act abolished the exception may seem inescapable . . . . But considering the havoc that such a conclusion would wreak in the settled practices of academic institutions, the lack of fit between the policy of the work-for-hire doctrine and the conditions of academic production, and the absence of any indication that Congress meant to abolish the teacher exception, we might, if forced to decide the issue, conclude that the exception has survived.”
In any event, a university’s hard-line position on this might only be ‘theoretical’ because, as noted by the Sloan Consortium, “[m]any institutions have created policies that formally recognize the academic exception and have voluntarily given faculty ownership of scholarly and teaching works.”
Any actual kerfuffle over this issue was one of recent making, illustrated by a dispute about ten years ago between Harvard Law School and Harvard law professor member Arthur Miller. Without permission from Harvard, Miller had contracted with Concord University School of Law to videotape law lectures for use by Concord’s students. This despite Harvard’s policy prohibiting faculty from outside teaching without permission. (Miller evidently argued that, since the sessions were videotapes only and not live lectures, he was not technically “teaching” and not thereby violating the Harvard policy.)
As already noted, this issue hardly mattered until the relatively recent rise of the internet and the accompanying explosive commercial growth of online education. In 2000, for example, the New York Times described this venture involving Williams College:
“Global Education Network, a company founded partly by Herb Allen, the president of the venture-capital firm Allen & Co., has approached Williams and Brown University, among others, with an invitation to contribute course material to a proposed for-profit Web site providing on line liberal arts education for adults. Officials at Williams have said that the venture could earn the institution upwards of $250,000 per year, per course, for up to 10 courses.”
The looming academic food fight was noted only in parenthetical, discussing a different venture involving the University of Chicago where “Payment to participating professors has not yet been set.”
So, then, there is academic research and publishing tradition, there is copyright “work for hire” doctrine, there is caselaw including from one of the foremost conservative federal judges (and, not incidentally, academic heavy-weight). There is analogy from patent law and university technology transfer practices, where inventions and discoveries are almost always owned by the institution for which a researcher works. But there is no “academic exception” to “work for hire” doctrine, leaving faculty and non-faculty researchers and teachers potentially subject to the uncertainties of a fast-changing academic and commercial marketplace. Academic copyright and research policies have attempted to allay faculty concerns, as have teacher participation in commercial ventures like those described above for Williams and Chicago.
I will write more on this subject shortly.
Add Comment