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

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 

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

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

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

 

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