|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minutes of 26 February 1999 Present: David Broome, Mark Crowell, David Danehower, Scott Despain, Lisa Grable, Peggy Hoon, Sandra Newville, Rebeca Rufty, Luke Zettlemoyer. Agenda 1. Drafting And Review Of Task Force Policy Recommendations For Copyright Management 2. Other Business The meeting was called to order by co-chair Ross Whetten at 2:10 p.m., and Whetten distributed copies of two draft documents on policy recommendations for review and discussion. The drafts represented two perspectives on copyright ownership and management: one in which the university owns everything by default except in the case of students, and the other perspective one in which the creator maintains copyright. Lisa Grable pointed out that graduate students currently sign away their rights to material they create, but Whetten answered that they also usually receive a stipend for their work, and undergraduate students do not. Whetten stated that the focus of the day's meeting was to establish the objectives of what the policy recommendations should accomplish and to decide how to achieve those objectives. He initiated discussion by defining four policy objectives--creating incentives and not barriers to faculty creativity, equitable sharing of benefit for both creator and university for any works produced, helping faculty retain control of journal article copyrights, and educating students to help them gain an understanding and an appreciation for copyright. Danehower extended the fourth objective to include the public of North Carolina in the education initiative. Whetten pointed out that the model of the university providing a public good is breaking down and that these institutions are becoming commercialized. Commercial publishers regard the university now as a source of profit--a market. Publishing contracts both within and outside the university are frequently following a business model with noncompete clauses throughout. The group decided that noncompetition would not be an objective of this committee's recommendations. The group discussed the ramifications and effects of both policy approaches, and the group examined joint ownership and its implications. Who would have licensing control? To what level would the sharing extend? There was consensus on making any policy uncomplicated as and on not creating the need for case by case arbitration. Hoon suggested that this task forces' recommendation should elucidate what has arguably always been university policy--works that employees -faculty and staff create within the scope of their employment belong to the employer, i.e. the university. The university then gives the copyright back to the faculty (not staff), retaining the right to use the material for having supported its creation with resources. Broome suggested that there are not that many university owned copyrights right now. Broome contended that the long term university and faculty goal is to draw more students with high quality course material and publications. Hoon stated that when a high quality, new course is created, it is important who has the copyright and who gets to use it because students are lost when a course is lost because of copyright ownership elsewhere. Does the university need to claim ownership, access and/or the right to use course materials made with standard or minimal resources? What is the important issue? Broome contended that, on some level, there needs to be consideration of these questions, but challenged the need for setting up an independent unit to make such decisions. The university will want to protect its long-term interests from those beyond the university who might use or access the material for their own purposes. Danehower reemphasized the default position of faculty and staff ownership which he explained in his draft document. Does this model have merit? This approach would assume that proper licensing agreements would be developed and secured initially. Crowell suggested that even in this scenario, specific exceptions would need to be carved out for materials like software and in cases of significant use of resources vs. works for hire. Danehower suggested that the business model and money-making potential was a valid concern for this endeavor, but that money did not necessarily need to be the primary focus. The group discussed the implications of including the staff in copyright ownership and the volume of material staff generates which would have to be protected--memos, minutes, messages, etc... What are the merits of such an ownership policy? What would be the inherent problems? Danehower pointed out that the "staff" demarcation is blurred in cases of research associates and assistants. Where does one draw the line? One policy extreme is to say that staff and faculty are all employees of the university and all work is a "work-for-hire." Publishing is arguably necessary for faculty job security, and thus, within one's job description. The other extreme position is that nothing is a "work-for-hire." Danehower emphasized that he thinks copyright law clearly defines what an "employer" is and this is crucial in determining what is a "work-for-hire." Whetten suggested that, in the interest of time, the members should independently review the two written policy drafts and determine what among them is defensible. He stated that the members should correspond through e-mail to work on the document draft. The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m. Submitted by Annis Barbee
|
||||||
|
Return to Ad hoc and Task Forces Return to COTF home page |
Comments may be sent to academic@ncsu.edu
Last Updated:3/8/99