|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minutes of 19 January 1999 Present: David Danehower, Scott Despain, Peggy Hoon, Ernest Knowles, Carolyn Miller, Sandra Newville, Everette Prosise, Michael Rappa, Rebeca Rufty, Ross Whetten. Guests: Annis Barbee 1. Discussion of Process to Arrive at Draft Copyright Ownership Policy 2. Discussion of January 20 Copyright Ownership Town Meeting 3. New Business 4. Adjourn The meeting was called to order at 12:03 P.M. 1. Discussion of Process to Arrive at Draft Copyright Ownership Policy Ross Whetten distributed an example draft copyright policy David Danehower had developed. The group discussed makingthe policy one of a more constitutional nature with less detailed material--a detailed policy requiring constant updating with technological changes. Whetten called for discussion. Hoon suggested that the e-reserves policy is a good model because it has a broad statement followed by specific guidelines implementing the policy in more detail. Hoon stressed the necessity of having a default position in any policy recommendation the group makes. Danehower questioned the possibility of crafting a policy with no distinction between traditional and electronic resources. The group further discussed the need for a policy if it will make no distinction. The status quo has prevailed so far without a policy, and if nothing new is being distinguished, what is the purpose of a new document? Rappa suggested that the task force's objective is to clarify existing policy in light of technological changes. The group further stressed that its role is to make recommendations for university guidelines that support policy enacted by the board of trustees. Rappa stated that the policy must clearly define or suggest a mechanism for determining what is an "overwhelming use of university resources." Prosise noted that there are minimum provisions that the university should provide in the scope of one's job--office, phone, computer, for example. Should there be specifications of that in the policy to aid in determining "significant use of resources"? Is there a committee that decides when a researcher or faculty member has used significant resources such that the university can claim some or all ownership in the resulting material. There was further discussion on the concept of joint ownership, and Danehower suggested the group also consider use of student works. The task force discussed making recommendations for a particular committee to be formed for or reassigned to adjudicating such matters as they arise. The intellectual property committee was one group identified. Danehower initiated discussion on where the policy guidelines should eventually be published--in the faculty handbook or some other prominent place for access. Rappa suggested that when multiple levels of staff are involved in a long-term project, participants should have access to clear policy guidelines, so they can engage in discussions of part or joint ownership of the output. The group agreed that access to the guidelines should be part of their recommendations but that the immediate recipient of their work would be the provost. Discussion continued on methods for gathering faculty, staff, and student input on policy recommendations, citing the CHASS textbook project as a potentially informative process to study. The group also mentioned the two remaining town meetings--January 20 and February 16--and considered one on south campus or the Centennial Campus. Whetten suggested evaluating the upcoming meetings' response before scheduling a third meeting prior to the March 15 deadline. After debate, the members agreed to compose general guidelines and to gather specific, thorny cases by which to test the guidelines' effectiveness, revising as necessary. Members will gather "test cases" for the next task force meeting. 2. Discussion of January 20 Copyright Ownership Town Meeting Whetten distributed handouts on the revised Powerpoint presentation for the upcoming town meeting. Hoon described the structure of the first town meeting, stating that the program follows the presentation given by Karen Hersey at the November 12-13, 1998, NACUA conference--"Evolving an Intellectual Property Policy." The group discussed the differences between copyright and patent assignment processes. Rappa pointed out that most patent research on campus is already sponsored, eliminating most university involvement. He pointed out, however, that it might be useful for the task force to look at the patent procedures in its work. Hoon suggested that, to better focus the town meeting attendees on issues, the task force should develop key questions to initiate discussion. Miller suggested that the less obvious concepts needed to be highlighted to raise faculty, staff, and student awareness. The members further discussed asking the attendees to be the source of test cases for the policy, and they agreed to work to reduce the fear that faculty copyright ownership is in jeopardy. Whetten proposed that a slide showing the task force membership should be added, demonstrating how representative of faculty, staff, and students the task force is. He also suggested that a separate slide briefly reviewing other university policies would also be informative and should be included. Whetten contended that the issue is one of control and not money. The meeting concluded with two pertinent questions: To what extent is production of materials a standard part of the job, and does the university have a right to dictate that the materials will be shared? How substantial should university investment be before one would consider that they have the right to have access to or partial ownership of materials? Whetten announced that the next Copyright Ownership Task Force meeting will be on February 10, 1999, from 1:00 to 2:30 P.M. The meeting was adjourned at 1:34 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:3/23/99