Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Investigates whether and how UK university copyright policies address key copyright ownership issues relating to printed and electronic teaching materials. A content analysis of 81 UK university copyright policies is performed to understand their approach towards copyright ownership of printed and e-learning materials and performances; rights on termination of contract; rights of non-staff contributors. Cross-tabulations are performed with the mission group and age of copyright policy. 90% of copyright policies address teaching materials explicitly. Fewer universities (77%) claim ownership of internal teaching materials than e-learning materials (84%). Only 20% address performance rights, 46% address rights of non-employees, and 44% address rights on termination of contract. Russell Group universities have more liberal copyright policies around ownership of teaching materials than newer universities. Recent copyright policies are more liberal than older policies. Recommends that UK universities work with academic staff to address key copyright policy issues in a way that balances the rights of both parties. This the first empirical study of UK university copyright policy approaches towards the ownership of teaching and e-learning materials.
Association of University Teachers (1999). Your guide to intellectual property rights. Available at: http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/e/6/iprguide_aut_19991.pdf.
Bates, M., et al. (2007). Attitudes to the rights and rewards for author contributions to repositories for teaching and learning. Alternatives Journal, 15(1), 67–82 Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09687760600837066.
BIS (Department for Business Innovation and Skills) (2013). The maturing of the MOOC, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240193/13-1173-maturing-of-the-mooc.pdf.
Blanchard, J. (2010). The teacher exception under the work for hire doctrine: Safeguard of academic freedom or vehicle for academic free enterprise? Innovative Higher Education, 35, 61–69. CrossRef
Bowrey, K. (2002). The ideal copyright framework for academic authors? A bounty to genius and learning. AARL. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 33(4), 37–41 Available at: http://alia.org.au/publishing/aarl/33.4/full.text/bowrey.html.
Cate, B., Drooz, D., Hohenberg, P., & Schulz, K. (2007). Creating intellectual property policies and current issues in administering online courses. Paper presentation, NACUA meeting, San Diego, CA, November 7–9, 2007.
Centivany, A. (2011). Paper Tigers: Rethinking the Relationship Between Copyright and Scholarly Publishing. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 17(2), 385.
Cheverie, J. (2013). Copyright challenges in a MOOC environment. Educause. Available at: https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB9014.pdf.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. (1988). C., 48 .Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/163
Davies, M. (2015). Academic freedom: a lawyer’s perspective. Higher Education, 70(6), 987–1002 Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10734-015-9884-8. MathSciNetCrossRef
Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., & Probets, S. (2003). RoMEO studies 1: the impact of copyright ownership on academic author self-archiving. Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 243–277. CrossRef
General Revision of the Copyright Law of the United States Code (1976). Title 17, Chapter 2, s 102(b). See here for ‘Works Made for Hire’: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html.
Gertz, G.A., 2006. Copyrights in Faculty-Created Works: how licensing can solve the academic work-for-hire dilemma. 267(2004), pp. 1465–1493.
Halme, M., & Somervuori, O. (2012). Copyrighted internet material in education-teacher needs and use arrangements. Education and Information Technologies, 17(3), 331–344. CrossRef
Harvey, K. (1996). Capturing intellectual property rights for the UK: a crtitique of university policies. In A. Webster & K. Packer (Eds.), Innovation and the intellectual property system. London: Kluwer Law International.
Higher Education Funding Council for England (2006). Intellectual property rights in e-learning programmes. Available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2003/03_08.htm.
Jisc (1998). Jisc/TLTP Copyright Guidelines. Available at: www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/elib/papers/other/jisc-tltp/jisc.pdf.
Kiskis, M. (2012). Faculty intellectual property rights in Canadian universities. Baltic Journal of Law and Politics, 5(2), 81–108.
Klein, M.W. (2005). Protecting Faculty Rights in Copyright Ownership Policies. In Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning (pp. 1–5). Available at: http://www.uwex.disted/conference/.
Kolowich, S. (2013). Professors who make the MOOCs. Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Professors-Behind-the-MOOC/137905/#id=overview.
Kromrey, J., Barron, A., & Hogarty, K. (2007). Intellectual property and online courses: policies at major research universities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8, 109–125.
Lape, L.G., 1992. Ownership of Copyrightable Works of University Professors: The Interplay between the Copyright Act and University Copyright Policies. Vill. Law Review, 37(2).
Levin, D. A. (2000). Who owns course materials prepared by a teacher of professor? The application of copyright law to teaching materials in the internet age. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2000(1), 1–20.
LisCopyseek. (2015). Lis-Copyseek Discussion List. .Available at: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/LIS-COPYSEEK.html
Literat, I. (2015). Implications of massive open online courses for higher education: mitigating or reifying educational inequities? Higher Education Research & Development, 4360, 1–14 Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07294360.2015.1024624.
Loddington, S. et al. (2006). Copyright ownership of teaching materials. Available at: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/2702/1/CopyrightOwnership%5b1%5d.pdf.
Loggie, K. A., et al. (2006). An analysis of copyright policies for distance learning materials at major research universities. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(3), 224–242.
Longdin, L. (2004). Copyright Dowries in Academia: Contesting Authorship and Ownership of Online Teaching Materials in Common Law Jurisdictions. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 35(1), 22–45.
Marshall, S. (2008). Copyright policy issues facing tertiary institutions engaged in e-learning. Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008 (pp. 582–592). Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228601995_Copyright_policy_issues_facing_tertiary_institutions_engaged_in_e-learning/file/e0b495241f8bd930b5.pdf.
Matkin, G.W. (2006). The Open Educational Resources Movement: Current Status and Prospects, pp. 1–5. Available at: http://unex.uci.edu/pdfs/dean/matkin_apru_paper.pdf.
McCann, C. (2014). Employees: restraint of trade, Westlaw. Available at: http://westlaw.co.uk.
McSherry, C. (2001). Who owns academic work? Battling for control of intellectual property. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Monotti, A., & Rickeston, S. (2003). Universities and intellectual property: ownership and exploitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Newman, M. (2010). Hold on, that slide looks very familiar…. Times Higher Education, 20, 12.
Noble, D. F. (1998). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. Science as Culture, 7(3), 355–368.
Packard, A. (2002). Copyright or copy wrong: an analysis of university claims to faculty work. Communication Law and Policy, 7(3), 275–316. CrossRef
Pila, J. (2010). Who owns the intellectual property rights in academic work ? European Intellectual Property Review, 609, 1–7.
Porter, J. E. (2013). MOOCs, “Courses,” and the Questions of Faculty and Student Copyrights. CCCC Intellectual Property Annual, 8, 2–18.
Rahmatian, A. (2014). Make the butterflies fly in formation? Management of copyright created by academics in UK universities. Legal Studies, 34(4), 709–735.
Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed professionals: unionized faculty and restructuring academic labor. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Secker, J., & Morrison, C. (2016). Copyright and e-learning (2nd ed.). London: Facet Publishing.
Strauss, N. (2011). Anything but academic: how Copyright’s work-for-hire doctrine affects professors, graduate students, and K-12 teachers in the information age. Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, XVIII, 1, 1–47.
University and College Union (2006). Post-92 Contract of Employment. Available at: https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/1972/Post-92-contract-of-employment. Accessed 12 Jan 2017.
University and College Union,[n.d.] Intellectual Property Rights. Available at: http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2386 [Accessed December 10, 2015].
Universities UK (UUK). (2015). Available at http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/. Accessed 31 Jan 2017.
Weedon, R. (2000). Policy approaches to copyright in HEIs. Jisc; Centre for Educational Systems and Technology, Stratchlyde.
Weinstein vs University of Illinois (1987). 811 F.2d 1091, 1093–94 (7th Cir 1987).
Williams vs Weiser (1969). 78 Cal Rptr 542 & 273 Cal. App. 2d 726.
Zhang, K., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2006). Courseware copyright: whose rights are right? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 173–186. CrossRef
- Copyright ownership of e-learning and teaching materials: Policy approaches taken by UK universities
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA, Best Practices für die Mitarbeiter-Partizipation in der Produktentwicklung/© astrosystem | stock.adobe.com