In the UK, a number of universities tried to specify in
their
employment contracts their (perfectly legal) right to the
copyright in faculty's writings. It's my understanding that
there
was such an outcry, they had to back down
Sally Morris
Email: sally morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Sandy Thatcher
Sent: 30 October 2007 23:42
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: NIH Public Access Mandate Passes Senate
It has always been my understanding that the law allows for
universities to define all faculty writing that is done in
relation to the work for which they are paid (e.g.,
scholarly
monographs and journal articles tied to their career
advancement,
or textbooks tied to their role as teachers, in contrast,
say,
with a novel they might write for fun and profit on the
side) as
"work made for hire," and indeed that there have
been a few
attempts by universities to so define faculty writing.
Generally,
however, academic "tradition" has led universities
not to make
this kind of claim, and when it has been attempted, it is
met
with stiff resistance from faculty. The one area where
universities have tried more vigorously to assert ownership
rights is courseware, though this is not always done via the
"work made for hire" definition.
Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press
>I can't speak to the bill's expectations regarding a
veto, but I
>am troubled that none of the questions that are at the
center of
>this discussion (center as defined by yours truly) have
come up
>anywhere that I have seen. So, my list of questions:
>
>1. Do you believe an author should have the right to
ownership
>of his or her own work? That right would include the
ability to
>charge for access if anyone is interested in
participating in a
>market. Or should an author (at least of scholarly
materials)
>have no presumption that he or she owns his written
work?
>
>2. If you are comfortable with #1 (that is, you support
an
>author's choice to assert traditional copyright), do you
believe
>an author should be able to transfer that right to
another
>entity, whether a publisher or any other institution?
Does an
>author have the right to enter into a contract
concerning his
>copyrights?
>
>3. Most academic authors do their work while being
compensated
>by others--a university, for example, or a grant-giving
body.
>Should that fact alone (being paid to write up research)
be
>sufficient reason to assert that the copyrights belong
to the
>funding body? In effect, is an academic author's
writing a work
>for hire under the copyright law? (A corporate employee
who
>writes materials or software or whatever does so as work
for
>hire.)
>
>4. If you take the position in #3, should the
work-for-hire
>status extend to other intellectual property created
while in
>the employ of a university? Patents? Textbooks? If
textbooks
>(which in some instances literally provide hundreds of
thousands
>of dollars in royalties to authors who teach at
universities)
>are to be covered by work-for-hire, how will this policy
be
>introduced to faculty? Also, how would you handle
related
>activity such as consulting? Is this all work for
hire?
>
>The principle that sits behind all these questions is
that of
>authors' rights. The open access movement is all about
readers'
>rights, but should an author have the right to own the
fruits of
>his own labor and the right to contract for the sale of
that
>work?
>
>Incidentally, while I personally lean toward points ##1
and 2,
>the case for #3 is not unreasonable. I simply can't
square it
>with #4. Someone else may have the privilege of telling
the
>faculty of the Stanford Business School that they have
to turn
>over their consulting income (including stock options)
to the
>university.
>
>Best,
>
>Joe Esposito
|
