# data[].attributes.body
As an educator, a huge part of my job is to generate intellectual property on a near daily basis. These teaching materials are custom developed for curricula designed and shaped by me, in order to best train students to enter the Game industry. These materials leverage skills and techniques developed before I entered the teaching field, and they also leverage techniques learned and developed outside of teaching work.

As such, I don’t believe that my employer has the right to the content I develop, but there is definitely room for joint ownership of material that I develop for a course under their employ. While work for hire is a contentious, and softly defined area in academia, lines are being drawn in the sand as the value of said content is being more commonly regarded as a commodity that has financial value to the owner, whether it be the professor or the institution.

To the letter of the law, it can be argued that institutions own content created by professors and researchers, particularly if the content is developed using college equipment or lab space (Kranch, 2009, pg. 4). However, Springer (2010) argues there is a strong case to be made for the fact that awarding ownership to the institution is a contradiction to the practices of the academic community and violate academic freedom. She states, “Academic freedom requires that faculty be free to produce work reflecting their own views and theories--not those of administration or trustees. If all work belonged to the administration, then its content would also have to be controlled or at least accepted by the administration, which would vitiate any freedom of thought or inquiry.” (Springer, 2010).

How can an institution own our personal views and thoughts? It’s one thing to own designs, facts, or material, but how can they claim the rights to our cumulative experience as an individual? In fact, many institutions claim the opposite, and have historically distanced themselves from the views of “rogue” instructors in many court cases. Should it really be that selective?

Certainly my institution pays me to teach. They also pay me to create learning materials. But they do not own my ideas. Certainly, they should have joint ownership or the right of first refusal for the content I generate for the classroom as a developer, but the things I develop which do not directly compete with the content I teach, particularly things I develop in my own time with my own resources, should remain my own.

References:

Kranch, D. (2009). Who owns online course intellectual property? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 349-356. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/ehost/detail/detail?sid=89a1218f-c249-4b74-a007-104a6cb8e472%40sessionmgr104&vid=0&hid=116&bdata=JnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d#AN=37803013&db=aph

Springer, A. (2010). Intellectual property legal issues for faculty and faculty unions (2005). Academe, 2012(2011). Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/issues/copyright-distance-education-intellectual-property/faculty-and-faculty-unions-2005?wbc_purpose=Basic&WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished%231

# data[].attributes.headline
James Elsdon                                       It is important to have
knowledge of intellectual property to protect yourself from legal issues. It is
imperative you know the policies surrounding intellectual property at your
school or school board. If you neglect to find out the policies regarding
intellectual property you could end up getting yourself in trouble, especially
if you ‘wrongfully’ or ‘illegally’ re-use content that was created at your
school. You may think you own something and use it elsewhere and then find out
you do not own it which could cost you a lot of time, energy and potentially
your new job (if you had a MOOc going and it wasn’t allowed to be used and it
had to be removed mid-class you may be looked at unfavourably by your new
employer). The faculty members may believe they should own the content they
created but most people (besides the teachers and staff), most agencies and
pundits believe that the institutions should own the content created at the university by faculty, research
staff, and scientists (Kranch, 2009, pg. 4). After all, they paid you to make
it, right? If you were a carpenter working for a school board and they paid you
to build a picnic table for their schools courtyard could you take that with
you if you left and went to work for another school board? I know this analogy
isn’t an exact parallel, but it is the logic used by most when determining
whether or not faculty and staff should own specific intellectually property. It
is an interesting debate. I know I use my lessons from school-to-school. If
someone told me I could not, I would probably just use them anyways. I created
them. I should be able to do what I want with them.                                      

References:                                  

Kranch, D. (2009). Who
owns online course intellectual property?Quarterly Review of Distance
Education

# data[].attributes.subject
James Elsdon                                       It is important to have
knowledge of intellectual property to protect yourself from legal issues. It is
imperative you know the policies surrounding intellectual property at your
school or school board. If you neglect to find out the policies regarding
intellectual property you could end up getting yourself in trouble, especially
if you ‘wrongfully’ or ‘illegally’ re-use content that was created at your
school. You may think you own something and use it elsewhere and then find out
you do not own it which could cost you a lot of time, energy and potentially
your new job (if you had a MOOc going and it wasn’t allowed to be used and it
had to be removed mid-class you may be looked at unfavourably by your new
employer). The faculty members may believe they should own the content they
created but most people (besides the teachers and staff), most agencies and
pundits believe that the institutions should own the content created at the university by faculty, research
staff, and scientists (Kranch, 2009, pg. 4). After all, they paid you to make
it, right? If you were a carpenter working for a school board and they paid you
to build a picnic table for their schools courtyard could you take that with
you if you left and went to work for another school board? I know this analogy
isn’t an exact parallel, but it is the logic used by most when determining
whether or not faculty and staff should own specific intellectually property. It
is an interesting debate. I know I use my lessons from school-to-school. If
someone told me I could not, I would probably just use them anyways. I created
them. I should be able to do what I want with them.                                      

References:                                  

Kranch, D. (2009). Who
owns online course intellectual property?Quarterly Review of Distance
Education

# data[].attributes.headline
(Tyler Pollard)  Q. Why is it important
to have knowledge of Intellectual property? 


As mentioned in the video, “Intellectual Property & Why
Do I Care”, every employee for a company “X” should have knowledge of
Intellectual Property (IP) because it could be worth a lot of money!  The example given of how Coca-Cola’s
estimated value of  $100 billion (based
on trademarks, patents, copyrights etc.), well exceeds their $40 billion hard
assets on their balance sheet really emphasizes this point (Juetten,
2015)!  Employees should also be aware of
IP so that they know their rights when it comes to IP and be weary of any
contracts they sign which stipulates that the company owns what its employees
develop.  Lastly, it is important to have
knowledge of IP so that employees do not accidentally infringe upon someone
else’s IP, which could be ground for penalties and/or fines. Q. Who owns created
material?  The creator (Author) or the
workplace?  Explain your answer with
support from this week's readings.

Based on the readings this week, these questions are very
complex as there are many contradictory influences when it comes to
Intellectual Property within the context of the school system, most importantly
the friction between faculty/teacher and administration.  This friction is intensified by the divisions
which exist between  K-12 and higher
education (colleges/university).  In an
attempt to answer the questions, I would like to narrow the scope, and address
this debate from the perspective of higher education.   

I will start off by saying that Jones (2010) makes a great
point when he mentions that the ownership of lesson plans only became an
issue/concern for institutions when they began to “realize the value of those
materials” (p. 1). Kranch (2009) supports this when he talks about the
“long-standing practice of faculty’s retaining the copyright of works they
produce” (p. 352).  It seems that whenever
there is money is present, arguments will soon follow over ownership and
intellectual property and who should reap the benefits!  In the context of the traditional classroom,
my beliefs align with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP),
who see that , “Intellectual property created, made, or originated by a faculty
member shall be the sole and exclusive property of the faculty, author or
inventor, except as he or she may voluntarily choose to transfer such property,
in full, or in part” (Kransh, 2009, p. 352). As such, professors should have
academic freedom to create their own materials, and not worry about losing
rights to something that they have worked hard on to perfect.  

However, when it comes to distance education courses, I feel
that the institution should be entitled to a return on their investments
especially if/when they are investing in new technologies.  In addition, institutions should have, as
Kranch (2008) explains, the control to “prevent faculty from providing the same
courses for competing institutions” (p. 352). 
To this end, the administration should retain the intellectual property
rights to materials produced in conjunction with faculty.  I will temper this by adding that faculty
should still hold on to “use and distribution rights with the authoring faculty”
(Kranch, 2008, p.349).  

To avoid problems and increase transparency when it comes to
Intellectual Property, I support the idea of teachers negotiating contracts,
which supersede the Copyright Law of 1976. 
This will go a long way to protect all parties from legal action.   

Juetten, M. (2015, August 27) What is intellectual property
& why do I care?  Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDKxuTi2Cmk

Jones, B. J. (2010). Stake Your Claim: What’s at Stake in
the Ownership of Lesson Plans? Conference on College Comp & Comm

Kranch, D. (2009). Who owns online course intellectual
property? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 349-356

# data[].attributes.subject
(Tyler Pollard)  Q. Why is it important
to have knowledge of Intellectual property? 


As mentioned in the video, “Intellectual Property & Why
Do I Care”, every employee for a company “X” should have knowledge of
Intellectual Property (IP) because it could be worth a lot of money!  The example given of how Coca-Cola’s
estimated value of  $100 billion (based
on trademarks, patents, copyrights etc.), well exceeds their $40 billion hard
assets on their balance sheet really emphasizes this point (Juetten,
2015)!  Employees should also be aware of
IP so that they know their rights when it comes to IP and be weary of any
contracts they sign which stipulates that the company owns what its employees
develop.  Lastly, it is important to have
knowledge of IP so that employees do not accidentally infringe upon someone
else’s IP, which could be ground for penalties and/or fines. Q. Who owns created
material?  The creator (Author) or the
workplace?  Explain your answer with
support from this week's readings.

Based on the readings this week, these questions are very
complex as there are many contradictory influences when it comes to
Intellectual Property within the context of the school system, most importantly
the friction between faculty/teacher and administration.  This friction is intensified by the divisions
which exist between  K-12 and higher
education (colleges/university).  In an
attempt to answer the questions, I would like to narrow the scope, and address
this debate from the perspective of higher education.   

I will start off by saying that Jones (2010) makes a great
point when he mentions that the ownership of lesson plans only became an
issue/concern for institutions when they began to “realize the value of those
materials” (p. 1). Kranch (2009) supports this when he talks about the
“long-standing practice of faculty’s retaining the copyright of works they
produce” (p. 352).  It seems that whenever
there is money is present, arguments will soon follow over ownership and
intellectual property and who should reap the benefits!  In the context of the traditional classroom,
my beliefs align with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP),
who see that , “Intellectual property created, made, or originated by a faculty
member shall be the sole and exclusive property of the faculty, author or
inventor, except as he or she may voluntarily choose to transfer such property,
in full, or in part” (Kransh, 2009, p. 352). As such, professors should have
academic freedom to create their own materials, and not worry about losing
rights to something that they have worked hard on to perfect.  

However, when it comes to distance education courses, I feel
that the institution should be entitled to a return on their investments
especially if/when they are investing in new technologies.  In addition, institutions should have, as
Kranch (2008) explains, the control to “prevent faculty from providing the same
courses for competing institutions” (p. 352). 
To this end, the administration should retain the intellectual property
rights to materials produced in conjunction with faculty.  I will temper this by adding that faculty
should still hold on to “use and distribution rights with the authoring faculty”
(Kranch, 2008, p.349).  

To avoid problems and increase transparency when it comes to
Intellectual Property, I support the idea of teachers negotiating contracts,
which supersede the Copyright Law of 1976. 
This will go a long way to protect all parties from legal action.   

Juetten, M. (2015, August 27) What is intellectual property
& why do I care?  Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDKxuTi2Cmk

Jones, B. J. (2010). Stake Your Claim: What’s at Stake in
the Ownership of Lesson Plans? Conference on College Comp & Comm

Kranch, D. (2009). Who owns online course intellectual
property? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 349-356

# data[].attributes.body
According to the article, the debate surrounding the ownership of property raised, is due to compensation. everyone wants to get paid. it is stated that the differentiation is among unionized and not unionized areas (Rhodes, 2001). if the unionized environment gets paid in their salary for their "time" spent on generating documents then there is no uproar about ownership. if there is no policy in place from the institution pertaining to ownership of property then, the money launders are heard. many times teachers ask the question about compensation for time spent on generating lesson plans and some institution will add this clause into the contract to protect themselves from those that expect their time to be paid for. in the end it is what the true complaint is. "time is money"

# data[].attributes.body
Jones, B. J. (2010).Stake Your Claim: What’s at Stake in the Ownership of Lesson Plans? Conference on College Comp & Comm

Kranch, D. (2009). Who owns online course intellectual property? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9 (4), 349-356

# data[].attributes.body
The video was an excellent way to open the dialogue about Intellectual Property and the importance about having knowledge of it.  In HE, when signing contracts as a faculty member, researcher, etc., it is important to know what you can, and cannot, do outside the classroom.  Unfortunately, as outlined in this weeks articles, some people are finding that their IP does not actually belong to them.
In terms of created materials, it comes back to what was agreed upon or discussed at the time of hire.  As noted in Jones (2010), teachers need to become more proactive in obtaining clear intellectual property agreements.  Although he is referring the K-12 teachers being afforded the same flexibility as HE, it should be noted that HE faculty have been stripped of the IE as outlined by Bunker, 2001 (as cited in Kranch, 2008) whereby employers were the ones who exercise control of the production of the finished work, despite the relationship between the producer and the supervisor.
Being knowledgeable about the policies in place at a particular institution can go a long way in ensuring that personal work is not in conflict with work being done at the institution; in addition, understanding your rights and ability to negotiate "work on the side" would be a good first step when taking on a role that requires any sort of creativity.

References

# data[].attributes.headline
Vicky Tsiantis: “I own my own course content,”

# data[].attributes.subject
Vicky Tsiantis: “I own my own course content,”

# data[].attributes.body
What do we think?

If a faculty member swaps institutions, who keeps the intellectual property rights to the massive open online course-- the professor, the university, or both? (Straumsheim, 2014)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When faculty members move from one institution to the next, so do their courses, but after having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare those courses to a massive audience, are universities entitled to a share of the rights?

The question has so far gone unanswered (though not undiscussed) even at some of the earliest entrants into the massive open online course market, including Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Since MOOC providers have gotten out of the intellectual property rights debate by saying they will honor whatever policy their institutional partners have in place, it falls on the universities to settle the matter.

Almost two years after Harvard and MIT jointly launched the MOOC provider edX, Sanjay E. Sarma, director of digital learning at MIT, said his institution has "figured it out."

"Faculty have always had certain expectations and rights, and we want to respect them," Sarma said. "In other words, we don't want any new policy to change any rights they have right now."

Instead, Sarma said, MIT will introduce an interpretation of its intellectual property policy -- which appears to support both the faculty members' and the institution's position -- in the coming months.

MIT's policies and procedures note that the institution's "mission has generally been best served by allowing the individual faculty member to decide when, how, and in what form [teaching materials] should be disseminated." Only a few sections before that, the institution carves out an exception for intellectual property created "with the significant use of funds or facilities administered by MIT."

That makes MOOCs a borderline case. They're courses, but in addition to spending six-figure sums to develop them, universities also devote hundreds of hours of effort by instructional designers and production staff.

Sarma shared some of the principles guiding the new interpretation, which will be revisited after one year. If faculty members who have created MOOCs with significant use of MIT's resources leave MIT, they still own their rights to teach their course elsewhere, though without the produced recordings. MIT keeps that footage, as well as a license to continue the MOOC based on the course materials it helped produce.

"The word we're using is stewardship," Sarma said.

Harvard's intellectual property policy contains similar language, encouraging faculty members to disseminate their work "in ways that are meaningful in the public interest." If the university's "involvement in the creation and development of copyrighted materials is more than incidental," however, Harvard and the faculty member should share the rights.

Robert A. Lue, faculty director of HarvardX, spoke about that changing model of course development at a recent conference on online learning held at the University of California at Berkeley.

"There's a cluster of individuals -- a village -- that works with each faculty member," Lue said, listing media specialists, instructional designers and students. "What that village really represents is the beginning of a symbiosis across the entire institution that ultimately represents an ecosystem for how we can think about creating exciting learning experiences not only at scale, but also for our students on campus."

Other institutions, such as Princeton University, have reframed the question in more familiar terms, with one faculty member there casting the MOOC as a "21st-century textbook." Duke University, one of the first institutions to join Coursera, appears to have put an end to the debate by equating MOOCs with face-to-face courses.

Cathy N. Davidson, who taught her first MOOC via Coursera this spring, recently announced she would leave Duke for the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. The move could have been complicated by a intellectual property rights dispute -- especially since CUNY is not a Coursera partner, But after checking with the MOOC provider and the university, Davidson said her developing a MOOC at Duke is a non-issue.

"I own my own course content," Davidson said in an email. "No one at Duke (or anywhere) can teach with my videos without my permission. I can reuse my videos and course materials at CUNY, but need to acknowledge that they were produced at Duke."

Davidson called her MOOC a "one-time experiment," but David Jarmul, associate vice president for news and communications at Duke, confirmed that she is free to offer it again from CUNY. Duke's intellectual property policy, which includes a specific section on "Internet courseware," grants all faculty members a license "to make 'all traditional, customary or reasonable academic uses' of course content ... whether they are teaching on campus, off campus or online."

Harvard isn't rushing to come up with any new policies just yet. Its ad hoc Committee on Outside Activities in the Online Environment, formed last year to gather input on intellectual property rights and other issues, delivered its report in October, and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences discussed the findings last month. But as Harvard Magazine reported, the committee did not make any legislative proposals. Additionally, "the matters under review did not change Harvard understandings about the ownership of intellectual property."

As a HarvardX spokesman put it, "That is an issue that is being discussed right now (without a clear answer as of yet)."

Perhaps most importantly to HarvardX, and despite the unresolved issues: Faculty members are still lining up to experiment with MOOCs.

"Despite the fact we're in the 'trough of disillusionment' about MOOCs, which I think much has been written about, faculty continue to come," Lue said. "So we have about 50 projects in flight, and our biggest problem right now is we can't meet faculty demand for doing these online experiences."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If a MOOC instructor moves, who keeps the intellectual property rights?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When faculty members move from one institution to the next, so do their courses, but after having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare those courses to a massive audience, are universities entitled to a share of the rights?

# data[].attributes.body
As the video on intellectual property (IP) explains, IP affects us all in the workplace and in our personal lives as well. As an educator my course materials are something I work hard on and constantly update each semester and I don’t believe my employer should be able to commandeer those for other courses or instructors without my agreement. Fortunately, my employer is very respectful in this regard in our faculty and I have never been asked to hand over course materials without my consent. In most cases I will provide materials to another instructor sharing a course with me but I do feel it is important for any instructor to put their own mark on any course outline and especially the daily lesson plans in a college environment.

Having said that, however, I do also respect that the work I am doing is paid for by the college and they should have first rights to the materials because of the concept of “work for hire” Kranch (2009) and perhaps some ability to promote or reuse the content in limited ways that do not infringe on IP.

Outside of my teaching, intellectual property is important to me because of my professional writing and the photography that I do for personal and professional reasons. I have had images stolen and used without permission on websites and had to fight to have them removed or have compensation paid. I’m also very careful about how I use the work of others in presentation and make sure to use advanced search options to make sure images and graphics that I use are free to use and share and that I respect any copyright claims.

Kranch, D. (2009). Who owns online course intellectual property? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 349-356

# data[].attributes.headline
Vicky Tsiantis: Selling teaching materials 

# data[].attributes.subject
Vicky Tsiantis: Selling teaching materials 

# data[].attributes.body
Some great arguments have been unpacked in the recent posts. Educators find themselves in a bind as they struggle to differ between intellectual property and the institutions property.

In an article I located during my case study response I was regarding teachers (K-12) and also applicable to higher education. Where sites like Teachers Pay Teachers have been created with the sole purpose of educators selling their own created work for cash. Where teachers argue that they should have the choice to sell their lesson plans. This platform not only provides teachers with a small cash allowance but also creates a network of online sharing that benefits other educators teaching similar subjects  (Hu, 2009).

In a higher education universities are not completely against selling course materials or research created by their employees. Their policy states that in this situation a portion of the profits must be distributed to the university. This is called: 1.14 “University Revenue” means the portion of Net Revenue received by the University under this Policy" (University of Toronto, 2007).

Furthermore, teachers have argued that created materials are their own intellectual property, meaning they should not have to divide profits. Thoughts?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Beyond the unresolved legal questions, there are philosophical ones. Joseph McDonald, a professor at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development at New York University, said the online selling cheapens what teachers do and undermines efforts to build sites where educators freely exchange ideas and lesson plans.

"Teachers swapping ideas with one another, that's a great thing," he said. "But somebody asking 75 cents for a word puzzle reduces the power of the learning community and is ultimately destructive to the profession."

Teachers like Erica Bohrer, though, see the new demand for lessons as long-awaited recognition of their worth.

"Teaching can be a thankless job," said Ms. Bohrer, 30, who has used the $650 she earned in the past year to add books to a reading nook in her first-grade classroom at Daniel Street Elementary School on Long Island and to help with mortgage payments. "I put my hard-earned time and effort into creating these things, and I just would like credit."

The humble lesson plan has gained value as focus on testing and individualized instruction has increased. At the same time, the Internet has diminished the isolation of classroom teachers. Just about every imaginable lesson for preschool through college is now up for sale - on individual teachers' blogs as well as commercial sites where buyers can review and grade the material.

Teachers Pay Teachers, one of the largest such sites, with more than 200,000 registered users, has recorded $600,000 in sales since it was started in 2006 - $450,000 of that in the past year, said its founder, Paul Edelman, a former New York City teacher. The top seller, a high school English teacher in California, has made $36,000 in sales.

Another site, We Are Teachers, went online last year with a "knowledge marketplace" that includes lesson plans and online tutoring.

Kelly Gionti, a teacher at the High School for Law, Advocacy and Community Justice in Manhattan, has sold $2,544 worth of unit plans for "The Catcher in the Rye" and "The Great Gatsby," among others, helping finance trips to Rome and Ireland, as well as class supplies.

Margaret Whisnant, a retired teacher in North Carolina, earns an average of $750 a month from lessons based on her three decades of teaching middle school classics like "The Outsiders," enough to pay for new kitchen counters and appliances.

"I have wanted to redo my kitchen for 20 years, and I just could not get the funds together," she said. "Well, now I'm going to have to learn to cook."

Lisa Michalek, 40, who taught for six years in Rochester and now works for Aventa Learning, a for-profit online education company, said she spent about five hours a week tweaking old lesson plans and creating new ones, like an earth science curriculum that sells for $59.95.

"I knew I had good lessons, so I thought, 'Why not see what other people think of it?' " Ms. Michalek said.

After $31,000 in sales, she has her answer. Alice Coburn, 56, a vocational education teacher in Goshen, N.Y., said she saved two to three hours each time she downloaded Ms. Michalek's PowerPoint presentations instead of starting from scratch. "I hate reinventing the wheel," Ms. Coburn said.

Others find comfort in having a class-tested lesson by a more experienced teacher. Lauren Perreca, 24, used a $10 lesson on the Vietnam War novel "Fallen Angels" as a reference last year while creating her own lesson for her classes at Weston High School in Connecticut. She also revised her reading questions about "Lord of the Flies" after comparing them with two other lesson plans.

"At first I was self-conscious I had bought something, because what did that say about me?" she said. "But I realized I wasn't just taking it and using it, I was adapting it to fill in the gaps of my knowledge."

Now Ms. Perreca has started selling her own lesson plans, like a 54-page "Macbeth" unit with quizzes and homework assignments ($10) that she wrote in graduate school. She said she spent $140 of her $523 in earnings on cookies and books for her students, and used the rest to splurge on dinners out that she could not otherwise afford.

Her students are incredulous. "They're like, 'Who would want to buy those? They're so boring,' " Ms. Perreca said. "I'm like, 'Hey, I'm making money.' "

In Ms. Bohrer's class the other day in Lindenhurst, N.Y., five children were counting M&Ms while she made sure they digested the lesson before the candy. The exercise, which comes with directions, sorting mats and work sheets, has sold 31 times for $3 a pop. A variation with Lucky Charms is popular around St. Patrick's Day, she said.

"M&M sorting is not a new concept," said Ms. Bohrer, who has been teaching since 2001. "I made it easier for teachers to do. They just have to click and print."

Daniel Street's principal, Frank Picozzi, said he supported Ms. Bohrer's online business because his students reaped the benefits of her initiative and creativity.

Ms. Bohrer recalled that when she used to share her lesson plans at no charge, a poster of her reading strategies was passed around so many times that it ended up with a teacher in another school who had no idea where it came from.

"I'll share with friends," Ms. Bohrer said, "and if anyone else likes it, I'll tell them where to buy it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Selling Lesson Plans Online, Teachers Raise Cash and Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beyond the unresolved legal questions, there are philosophical ones. Joseph McDonald, a professor at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development at New York University , said the online selling cheapens what teachers do and undermines efforts to build sites where educators freely exchange ideas and lesson plans.

# data[].attributes.body
Q: Who owns created material? The creator (Author) or the workplace? Explain your answer with support from this weeks readings.

A: It’s almost uncanny the timing of this week's topic.  I just wrapped up my case study addressing these very questions.  It would have been beneficial if I looked ahead at the readings from this week as it would have certainly helped me with my analysis.  Anyways, on to the activity at hand.

The simple answer to this question is that in lieu of any local organizational policies, the educator owns his or her instructional material.  Section 13 of the Canadian Copyright Act (1985) speaks directly about ownership of copyright.  It states that if a piece of work was created during a period of employment, and there was no pre-defined agreement put in place, then the person who created the work is in ownership.

However, the law is never that simple.  As Jones (2010) points out, most Universities have a caveat in their hiring contract that any instructional material created while employed with the school belong to them.  Nothing is in place though for K-12 educators.  Although this article details the laws from the view of the United States, one can assume the same laws (or lack of) exist in Ontario for K-12 teachers.  The situations get even cloudier when we look at online intellectual property.  Kranch (2009) mentions the challenges of ownership in distance learning.  Instructional material created for online purposes require more prep time, and can exist beyond the life of an educator's employment.  Should teachers be able to take this material with them when they leave?

In my world, workplace learning, there are no local intellectual property policies, so I am free to use my training materials in any way I wish.  However, my professional and personal ethics tell me something different.  I am not comfortable selling instructional material that I created while employed at my current organization.  I am being paid to design training to meet the organization's needs, not my own.  If I were to sell instructional material, I would lose the trust and respect from my employer.

References

Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42). Retrieved from the Government of Canada Justice Laws Website: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/

Jones, B. J. (2010).Stake Your Claim: What’s at Stake in the Ownership of Lesson Plans? Conference on College Comp & Comm

Kranch, D. (2009). Who owns online course intellectual property? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 349-356

# data[].attributes.body
In this case, I truly believe that knowledge is power. It is important to understand what your ownership rights are concerning the work you produce while employed by a company/institution. First of all, it allows you to protect your IP and also ensures you do not infringe on other people's IP when creating materials (docstocTV, 2013).
According to section 13(3) of Canada's Copyright Act,  "in the absence of any agreement to the contrary" the employer will be first owner of the copyright (Copyright Act, 1985). This may open up the possibility of collective bargaining, but in K-12 teaching, this usually means that materials prepared as works made for hire belong to the employer (Jones, 2010). This is not the case in higher education, though. According to Triggs (2005), academics employed by a university have first copyright of their creations, known as academic exception. I think that this makes sense on many levels. First, it encourages employees to create new materials and conduct research without the fear that whatever they create will belong to someone else.  It allows for academic freedom, and ultimately, is in the best interest of the authors/creators, the students and the university. In terms of protecting the investment made by the university, most higher education institutions have specific policies in place to deal with issues such as use of the materials (if the author/creator leaves the institution) and division of profits in the case of commercialization of materials.

Copyright Act, 1985. Retrieved from
http://lawslois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/

docstocTV. (2013, Aug. 27). What Is Intellectual Property & Why Do I Care? [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDKxuTi2Cmk

Jones, B. J. (2010). Stake Your Claim: What’s at Stake in the Ownership of Lesson Plans? Conference on College Composition & Communication

Triggs, S. (2005). Academic Freedom, Copyright and the Academic Exception. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor. Retrieved from http://ices.library.ubc.ca/index.php/workplace/article/view/182188/182196

# data[].attributes.headline
Vicky Tsiantis: Do institutions own intellectual property?

# data[].attributes.subject
Vicky Tsiantis: Do institutions own intellectual property?

# data[].attributes.body
A few great questions that Ron has brought to this discussion. This is a fantastic transition into Activity 3 (for those who are not yet there... your thinking in on the right track). Take a peek at the University of Toronto's Copyright policies. Instructors who are employed by an institution when creating their course materials assign property (rights) of the material to the university. "Works" meaning any architectural, artistic, choreographic, cinematographic, dramatic, literary, musical, scientific, technical or other work in which copyright may subsist under the Copyright Act and applicable law, but excludes any Computer Software that is not Instructional Software (University of Toronto, 2007).
Now, how can we gauge whether or not an author created their material on their own time if employed by the institution? Do you agree or disagree with this policy? Explain?

# data[].attributes.body
One of the primary reasons for having a good understanding and knowledge of intellectual property is stated in the video, “you might be infringing on someone else’s intellectual property” (docstocTV, 2013). Maybe it’s an image or an audio clip, you need to be sure that you are allowed to use the content. For educators, it’s also a good idea to be familiar with the fair dealing exception in the Copyright Act of Canada which allows educators to use copy protected material as long as it is for educational use and the work is fair (Copyright Act). Fair is the important word here as it governs how much and how often the work is used.

I believe the author should own the material if it is something they created in their own time and using their own resources. Consider a situation where a teacher creates considerable content for their course in their own time and then moves to another province. Can they still use the learning material or is it no longer their intellectual property? Under the language of the Canadian Copyright Act, work made in the course of employment fall to the employer (Copyright Act). However, there has long been an academic exception for academics that gives them first copyright (Triggs, 2005). Academic institutions have typically avoided taking educators to court over the copyright of learning materials but with the advent of technology and the establishment of a real monetary value on the content (Jones, 2010), legal disputes are going to increase (Triggs, 2005).

Copyright Act. R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42: Retrieved from http://laws‑lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/

docstocTV. (2013, Aug. 27). What Is Intellectual Property & Why Do I Care? [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDKxuTi2Cmk

Jones, B. J. (2010). Stake Your Claim: What’s at Stake in the Ownership of Lesson Plans? Conference on College Composition & Communication

Triggs, S. (2005). Academic Freedom, Copyright and the Academic Exception. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor. Retrieved from http://ices.library.ubc.ca/index.php/workplace/article/view/182188/182196

# data[].attributes.body
The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (2015) looks at intellectual property as intellectual assets. Intellectual assets are intangible assets that include inventions, new technologies, brands, etc. (Canadian Intellectual Property Office, 2015). When watching the video, What is Intellectual property and why do I care? (2013), it talks about figuring out what your intellectual property is so that you do not lose it, because it is something that is very valuable. Once we know what our intellectual property is we have better means of protecting it from competitors.

I feel that ownership of materials should be that of the institution when the employee is asked to develop the curriculum and/or the lesson plan for the class they are delivering. Farrington (2001), agrees especially when faculty are specifically hired for course development (as cited in Kranch, 2009). If a faculty member is hired on the basis that they will develop material and help the institution implement it, why would the institution want that faculty member selling the course to a competitor. Just as Penn State has prohibited faculty from selling materials to the competitor (Kranch, 2009). Institutions take these developments of courses very seriously, and like to have them as an advantage over their competitor. In the private career college sector, institutions are to register their program, and if they see programs that they would like to have, they can buy it from another PCC. Interesting how the institutions can sell to one another for profit, but the faculty are unable to sell to one another to make some extra money.

Kranch (2009) also speaks about dual ownership of the intellectual property. By AAUP provision, anything that is created in collaboration with others or with the institution should be joint ownership (Kranch, 2009). This doe make sense that the two would both own the intellectual property, but the question still remains, who gets to keep it if the faculty leaves the institution?

According to Jones (2010), there was not really question of who owned the intellectual property until money started coming into the equation. Teachers presumed that what they developed was theirs and the institutions did not question it until digital technology increased.

Part of me feels that the situations may be circumstantial, but is that really a way to set the precedent for the ownership of intellectual property? Are we prepared to make the “it is based on your situation” statement? Are we prepared to be that ambiguous?

Canadian intellectual Property office (2015). Understanding the Basics. Retrieved from http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/wr03585.html?Open&wt_src=cipo-ip-main

Kranch, D. (2009). Who owns online course intellectual property? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 349-356

Jones, B. J. (2010). Stake Your Claim: What’s at Stake in the Ownership of Lesson Plans? Conference on College Comp & Comm

# data[].attributes.headline
Welcome to week 8: Higher Education - Intellectual Property 

# data[].attributes.subject
Welcome to week 8: Higher Education - Intellectual Property 

# data[].attributes.body
Why is it important to have knowledge of intellectual property ? Who owns created material? The creator (Author) or the workplace?
Explain your answer with support from this weeks readings.