Design of the Study

            The purpose of this study is three-fold.  First, a framework for analysis of policies based on current law, common law and case law will be developed.  Second, policies will be collected from around the nation to be analyzed based upon the framework created.  Third, a model policy will result which institutions may use to formulate their own policies regarding intellectual property.

                        The use of the Internet by institutions of higher education to provide information to students has risen dramatically in the United States.  Many educational tools have been created by facutly members for use by their students via the Internet.  With the move toward higher education courses offered over the Internet as well as supplemental materials distributed the same way, there are several new issues and concerns that will have to be addressed.  One of these issues is ownership of information created by faculty members for use via the Internet.  Many institutions have no policy concerning ownership of intellectual property or do not have policies that adequately reflect how the law applies to the ownership of intellectual property.  There is a need for policies that effectively reflect this issue to be in place prior to the creation of electonic materials by faculty members.

            With this concern just beginning to surface at higher education institutions, there is a knowledge void relative to what is the most appropriate way for institutions to establish polices for dealing with ownership of intellectual property.  How do institutions arrive at policies that are fair to both the  faculty member creating information and to the institution that may benefit from that information?  Institutional policy needs to reflect these issues as well as the rule of law found in current copyright law, common law and case precedence.

            One possible solution is to develop a framework that will address these issues.  This framework can be used to evaluate policies in existence.  Additionally, policies may be collected from institutions and analyzed based upon this framework.  Finally, as a result of the analysis of current policies, a model policy may be developed which addresses the legal implications, faculty concerns, and the interests of the institution.  Below is a logical framework (see Figure 1) depicting the process of developing a framework for analysis of current policies, collecting policies from institutions in order to analyze them based upon the framework developed, and creating a model policy that encompasses each of the issues involved relative to the law, the faculty, and the institution.

  In searching for adequate guidelines for institutions to utilize in developing ownership policies, this study is divided into three phases.  These phases include analyzing existing law, acquiring current policies in effect around the nation, and the creation of a model policy.

Phase one will analyze existing law as well as the precedence set by past cases and common law.  This will result in a rule of law that can be applied to the ownership of electronic materials.  This phase will end with the development of a framework to be used for analysis of policies secured in phase two.  Richard Elmore (1998) is a demographer who had completed a significant amount of work in the area of developing policies in education.  According to him, educational reform operates on three levels: policy, adminsitration, and practice.  He poses that in order to be effective long-term there must be dialogue between these three levels of reform.  He further implies that practioners should be involved in the formation of policy in order to close the gaps between these levels.  In other words, all individuals affected by such policies should be involved in the creation of policy and should have their concerns represented in the policy.

Phase two will consist of acquiring current policies from around the nation and analyzing them based upon the framework which originated in phase one.  Policies will be categorized into three areas differentiated by the degree to which they are, or are not, supported by the rule of law as it now applies.  The first category will include policies that cannot be supported.  The second category will include polices that may be supported.  The third category will include policies that are supported. 

Phase three will result in the creation of a model policy based on the framework created in phase one and the resluts from the analysis of policies completed in phase two.  This phase will culminate in the creation of a model policy which is supported by the law and is sensitive to both the institution and faculty members.  Institutions may then use this model policy to create and implement a policy which is acceptable to everyone. 

Research Objectives and Questions

The objectives of this study are as follows.

1.      To develop a framework to be used in the analysis of current intellectual property policies which deals with copyright law, common law, and case law with regard to intellectual property in higher education and considers both institutional concerns and faculty interests.

1.1  What current copyright laws are applicable to dealing with who owns intellectual property in higher education?

1.2  What does common law indicate to be current practice concerning who owns intellectual property in higher education?

1.3  What are the case precedence with respect to who owns intellectual property in higher education?

1.4  What are characteristics of policies which violate the rule of law concerning who owns intellectual property in higher education?

1.5  What characteristics of policies are indicated by the rule of law to be acceptable in addressing who owns intellectual property in higher education?

2.      To collect policies in existence around the nation and analyze them using the framework developed in this study.

2.1  What policies are in existence around the nation which could be analyzed as acceptable, not acceptable or questionable?

3.      To create a model policy which incorporates the concerns of legality, rights of the author, and the interests of the institutions in dealing with the ownership of intellectual property.

3.1  What characteristics of a policy are needed in order to satisfy authors of electronic materials?

3.2  What characteristics of a policy are necessary to satisfy the interests of the institution?

Population and Sample

            The population for this study will consist of two-year and four-year colleges and universities nationwide.  An instrument will be sent to each of these institutions requesting policies currently in use at those organizations with regard to the ownership of faculty authored electronic materials.  The policies obtained will then be analyzed determining the extent to which they are acceptable according to the law as it applies to intellectual property in higher education.

            Due to the nature of this study and the possible applicability of the findings to all institutions of higher learning, a high return rate is expected.  To help ensure a high return rate, each participant who returns the instrument will be provided with the findings of the study upon its completion.  The issue of ownership of intellectual property in higher education is not clearly provided for in the law and therefore continues to be of significant interest to colleges and universities.  Virtually every college and university is affected by the increased use of electronic materials and should be willing to participate given the benefit of being provided the findings of the study upon its completion.

Instrumentation

            This study will utilize a survey instrument in which institutions will be asked to provide copies of policies currently in effect with regard to the ownership of faculty authored electronic materials.  The instrument will explain that the request for policies is not limited to policies that apply only to online course materials.  The request encompasses any material created by a faculty member to be used in an electronic format such as notes, quizzes, assignments, or other material to be disseminated online.

Treatment of the Data

            In the initial phase of the study a framework will be developed to use in analyzing current policies in existence around the nation.  The framework will be designed in an effort to consider current law and precedence nationwide when developing criteria for an applicable policy.  The framework will be used to analyze policies which have been collected from two-year and four-year colleges around the nation.  Policies collected will be analyzed and placed into one of three categories: acceptable, not acceptable, or questionable.  Policies will be placed into each of these categories based upon the degree to which they are or are not acceptable with regard to the rule of law as it applies to intellectual property in higher education.  The policies which are placed into the acceptable category will provide data to be used in the creation of a model policy that will consider the rule of law applying to intellectual property in higher education. 

Validity

To promote the validity of this study, each institution selected to participate in the study will receive the exact instrument as all other institutions in the study.  Furthermore, a follow-up letter will be sent to the non-respondents within the same timeframe following the initial mailing.  Because this study will investigate the rule of law as it applies to higher education institutions across the nation and because current policies will be collected for analysis from every area within the nation, the likelihood of generating findings that can be generalized to the entire nation is increased.

References:

American Association of University Professors.  1999.  Statement on Distance Education. 

   Policy Statement.  [Online] http://www.aaup.org/newweb/govrel/distlern/
   SPCDISTN.HTM

Barone, C. A., German, R. F., Katz, R. N., Long, P. E., and Walsh, B. "Information

   Technology, Systems, and Services in Higher Education." Educause (September, 2000).

Brown, J. K.  "Leadership, Technology and schools." Converge (March 2000) 54-60.

Bruwelheid, J. H.  "Intellectual Property and Copyright:  Protecting Educational Interests

   and Managing Changing Environments."  Educause (1999).  [Online] http://www.
   educause.edu/confernece/e99/proceedings.html

Carbajal, B. and Krauth, J.  "Guide to Developing Online Student Services."  Western

   Cooperative of Educational Telecommunications.  2000.  [Online] http://www.wiche.
   edu/telecom/resources/publications/guide1003/guide/wfdigest.htm

Council for Higher Education Accreditation.  Distance Learning in Higher Education. 

   2000.  Washington, DC.  [Online] http://www.chea.rog

Cyrs, T. E. "Teaching at a Distance with the Merging Technologies:  An Instructional

   Systems Approach."  Center for Educational Development, New Mexico State

   University.  1999.

Elmore, R. F. 1983.  "Forward and Backward Mapping:  Reversible Logic in the Analysis

   of Public Policy." Seattle Institute for Public Policy and Management. Washington.

Elmore, R. F. and McLaughlin, M. W.  1998.  "Steady Work.  Policy, Practice, and the

   Reform of American Education.  National Institution of Education.  Washington, DC.

Gellman-Danley, B. and Fetzner, M.J. 1998.  Asking the Really Tough Questions:  Policy 

   Issues for Distance Learning.  Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration.

   1(1).  [Online] http://www.westga.edu/~distance/danley11.html

Gorman R. A.  "Intellectual Property:  The Rights of Faculty as Creators and Users." 

   American Association of University Professors (May/June1998).

Harper, G.  Crash Course in Copyrights.  Office of General Counsel of the University of

   Texas System.  2001.  [Online] http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/
   intellectualproperty/cprtindx.htm#top

Hershovitz, M. B.  "The Trailer Clause and the Rights of the Inventive Employees and 

   Their Employers." Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Fall 1995), 187-

   212.

King, J.W., Nugent, G. C., Russell, E. B., Eich, J. and Lacy, D.  2000. Policy

   Frameworks for Distance Education:  Implications for Decision Makers. Online Journal

   of Distance Learning Administration. 1(1).  [Online] http://www.westga.edu/~distance/
   danley11.html

McDonnell, L. M. and Elmore, R. F. 1987.  "Alternative Policy Instruments." Center for

   Policy Resolution in Education. New Brunswick, NJ.

McLendon E. and Cronk, P. 1999. Rethinking Academic Management Practices:  A case

   of meeting new challenges in online delivery.  Online Journal of Distance Learning 

   Administration. 2(1).  [Online] http://www.westga.edu/~distance/mclendon21.html 

   (5/25/99)

Saez, C. "Enforcing copyrights in the Age of Multimedia." Rutgers Coputer & 

   Technology Law Journal, Vol. 21 (1995), 351-393.

Salomon, K. D. Copyright Considerations in Distance Education and Technology-

   Mediated Instruction. American Association of Community Colleges. White Paper (Fall

   1999).  [Online] http://www.aacc.nche.edu

Additional References:

Alger, J. R. "Going Global With Your Work -- Or is it Yours After All?"  Academe, Vol.

   84, No. 3 (May-June 1998), 80.

Barnes, M. M.  "Ethical Considerations in the 1990s:  Intellectual Property Rights and the

   Revolving Employee."  Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute Journal, Vol. 36, No.

   20 (1990), 1-24.

Beagle, J. W.  "New Remedies in Protection of Intellectual Property."  Florida Bar

   Journal, Vol. 63 (April 1989), 55-7.

Bennett, S. (1993).  Copyright and Innovation in Electronic Publishing:  A Commentary. 

   The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 19, 87-91.

Berg, G. (1997).  Digital Copyright Policy Issues in Higher Education.  Distance

   Learning in Higher Education, 12, 34-36.

Blumenstyk, G.  "Campuses in Cyberspace."  Chronicle of Higher Education, December

   15, 1995, A19.

Burk, D. L. (1997).  Ownership of Electronic Course Materials in Higher Education.  20

   Cause/Effect No. 3, 13-18.

California State University, State University of New York, & City University of New

   York, (1997).  Ownership of New Works at the University:  Unbundling of Rights and 

   the Pursuit of Higher Learning.  Consortium for Educational Technology for University

   Systems.

Chew, P. K. "Faculty-Generated Inventions:  Who Owns the Golden Egg? 

   Wisconsin Law Review (1992), 259-314.

Coolley, R. B. "Recent Changes in Employee Ownership Laws:  Employers May Not

   Own Their Own Inventions." Business Law, Vol. 41 (1985), 57-59.

Coppula, D.  "Intellectual Property:  Policies, Practices, and Possible Time Bombs." 

   ASEE Prism, Vol. 7 (October 1997), 18-29.

"Copyright Issues in Colleges and Universities."  Academe, Vol. 84, No. 3 (May/June

   1998), 39-45

Cross, J. T. "Intellectual Property and the Eleventh Amendment."  DePaul Law Review,

   Vol. 47 (1998), 519-63.

Dreyfus, R. C. (1987).  The Creative Employee and the Copyright Act of 1976, 54 U.

   Chi. L. Rev. 590.

DuBoff, L. D. (1984).  An Academic's Copyright:  Publish and Perish, 32 J. Copyright

   Soc'y 17, 26.

Emperson, G. M. and Mahn, T G.  "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights With

   Employment Agreements."  The Practical Lawyer, Vol. 35 (January 1989), 25.

Gerhardt, L. A. "Capitalizing on Intellectual Property."  ASEE Prism, Vol. 6, No. 7

   (March 1997), 12.

Gerrard, L.  "When a University Faculty Member Develops Academic Software, Who

   Should Share in the Profits?"  Chronicle of Higher Education, July 22, 1987, A-64.

Gilbert, S. W. and Lyman, P.  "Intellectual Property in the Information Age."  Change,

   May/June 1989, 23-28.

Gorman, R. A.  "Copyright and the Professorate:  A Primer and Some Recent

   Developments."  Academe, September-October 1987, 29-33.

Guernsey, L. and Young, J. A.  "Who Owns On-Line courses?"  Chronicle of Higher

   Education, June 5, 1998, A-21.

Kulkarni, S. R. (1995).  "All Professors Create Equally:  Why Faculty Should Have

   Complete Control Over the Intellectual Property Rights in Their Creation."  The

   Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 47 (November 1995), 221-56.

Lane, K. E. (1998).  Who Owns Intellectual Property Used in the Electronic Classroom? 

   Annual Conference of the Education Law Association at Charleston, South Carolina.

Lang, S.  "Who Owns the Course?  Online Composition courses in an Era of Changing

   Intellectual Property Policies."  Computers and Composition, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1998),

   215-28.

Langford, J. W.  "Secrecy, Partnership and the Ownership of Knowledge in the

   University."  Intellectual Property Law Journal, Vol. 6 (June 1991), 155-69.

Lape, L. G. (1992).  Ownership of Copyrightable Works of University Professors:  The

   Interplay between the Copyright Act and University Copyright Policies.  37 Villanova

   Law Review, 223-269.

Latchaw, J. S. and Galin, J. R.  "Shifting Boundaries of Intellectual Property:  Authors

   and Publishers Negotiating the WWW."  Computers and Composition, Vol. 15, No. 2

   (1998), 145-62.

Loughlan, P.  "Of Patents and Professors:  Intellectual Property, Research Workers and

   Universities."  European Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 18 (June 1986), 345-51.

Lutzker, A. P.  "Technology and Intellectual Property."  Community College Journal,

   Vol. 64 (December 1993-January 1994), 26-7.

Mann, C. C.  "Who Will Own Your Next Good Idea?"  Atlantic Monthly, September 

   1988, 57-82.

McIsaac, M. S. and Rowe, J.  "Ownership and Access:  Copyright and Intellectual

   Property in the On-Line Environment."  New Directions for Community Colleges, No.

   99 (Fall 1997), 83-92.

Newell, L. J. and Spear, K. I.  "New Dimensions for Academic Careers:  Rediscovering

   Intrinsic Satisfactions."  Liberal Education, Vol. 69 (1983), 109-116.

Patry, W. F. (1994).  Copyright Laws and Practice, Vol. 1, The Bureau of National

   Affairs (1994).

Pisacreta, E. A.  "Distance Learning and Intellectual Property Protection."  Educational

   Technology, Vol. 33 (April 1993), 42-4.

Rhoades, G. and Slaughter, S.  "Changes in intellectual Property Statutes and Policies at a

   Public University:  Revising the Terms of Professional Labor."  Higher Education, Vol.

   26 (October 1993), 287-312.

Rhoades, G. and Slaughter, S.  "Professors, Administrators and Patents:  The Negotiation

   of Technology Transfer."  Sociology of Education, Vol. 64 (April 1991), 65-77.

Ricketson, S.  "Universities and Their Exploitation of Intellectual Property."  Bond Law

   Review, Vol. 8 (June 1996), 32-46.

Sacoff, R. W. and Kessler, E. J.  "Products of the Mind."  Trial, Vol. 20 (July 1984), 40-

   42.

Salomon, K. D.  "A Primer on Distance Learning and Intellectual Property Issues."  West

   Education Law Reporter, Vol. 96 (March 9, 1995), 305-13.

Scott, M. M.  "Intellectual Property Rights:  Ticking Time Bombs in Academia." 

   Academe, Vol. 84, No. 3 (May/June 1998), 22-6.

Simon, T. F.  "Faculty Writings:  Are They Works for Hire Under the 1976 Copyright

   Act?"  Journal of College and University Law, Vol. 9, No. 4 (1982-83), 485-513.

Versteeg, R. (1990).  Copyright and the Educational Process:  The Right of Teacher

   Inception, 75 Iowa L. Rev. 381.

Walker, J. R.  "Copyrights and Conversations:  Intellectual Property in the Classroom." 

   Computers and Composition, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1998), 243-51.

Y'Baro, D.  "On Legal Protection for Electronic Texts."  Journal of Intellectual Property

   Law, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Fall 1997), 195-233.

  <Back