Apparantly, not me. But maybe that will change?
from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
"The American Association of University Professors has an informational outline on intellectual-property issues that says the 'prevailing academic practice' is for faculty members to own the copyrights of scholarly works and teaching materials that are 'created independently and at the faculty member's own initiative.' However, some faculty work is considered 'work for hire' — documents made by faculty members for the university to fulfill their contractual obligations, and owned by the university.
"It is much easier for institutions to claim to own the copyright for syllabi and other teaching materials than for published research. 'Some argue that faculty are hired to teach,' the AAUP outline says, 'that teaching and the byproducts thereof are thus within the scope of employment, and this additional control by the employer institution transform syllabi into work-for-hire.'
But maybe not. As Gary Rhoades writes in 'Whose Property Is It? Negotiating with the University,'
from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
"The American Association of University Professors has an informational outline on intellectual-property issues that says the 'prevailing academic practice' is for faculty members to own the copyrights of scholarly works and teaching materials that are 'created independently and at the faculty member's own initiative.' However, some faculty work is considered 'work for hire' — documents made by faculty members for the university to fulfill their contractual obligations, and owned by the university.
"It is much easier for institutions to claim to own the copyright for syllabi and other teaching materials than for published research. 'Some argue that faculty are hired to teach,' the AAUP outline says, 'that teaching and the byproducts thereof are thus within the scope of employment, and this additional control by the employer institution transform syllabi into work-for-hire.'
But maybe not. As Gary Rhoades writes in 'Whose Property Is It? Negotiating with the University,'
'increasingly, faculty members' intellectual products, including those generated from their basic research and teaching activities, are being considered as commodities.' Much of that push comes from courses delivered online, where the syllabus and other course materials are purchased and both faculty members and universities have the potential to make money.
As was the case with the printing press, it is the commodification of teaching materials that might eventually render the syllabus irrefutable intellectual property. While recent lawsuits seen to favor faculty members in broadening their claims to intellectual property, I couldn't find any mentioned online that relied on the syllabus as a test case for plagiarism" ...continued here
As was the case with the printing press, it is the commodification of teaching materials that might eventually render the syllabus irrefutable intellectual property. While recent lawsuits seen to favor faculty members in broadening their claims to intellectual property, I couldn't find any mentioned online that relied on the syllabus as a test case for plagiarism" ...continued here
I have just finished teaching my first online class. It is demoralizing to think that all the materials I uploaded are now no longer my own, and that someone can be hired after me who can take those materials and "teach" the class. If we're going to play the education game as capitalists, then why shouldn't those of us who create new courses and go to the effort of setting them up on Moodle or Blackboard or whatever be remunerated
But to be forced to entertain the very idea of "owning" a syllabus or intellectual materials is disturbing to me. I resent having to stoop to this level. Like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, once you admit it, your situation as a teacher is changed. Teaching shouldn't be a game, with winners or losers. Nor should it be a business, with capitalists and proletariats. It is a relationship between student and teacher, nd some things just shouldn't be commodified: friendships, parenting, teaching. Alas, we live in a culture where, if anything is to be valued, it must have a price.
2 comments:
spoken by someone who did not spend three weeks each semester trying to get their syllabus right at every turn. Every assignment I labored over - every service learning assignment I lost sleep over at night - this is all just a commodity? I should be thinking of the student? Well guess what... I am thinking of the student. Why else would I labor so hard to present a syllabus that was perfect. When someone comes along and takes my intellectual property that was invented to service students and not for my college to steal from me and dole out to new hires for a nice "how to guide".
My work in that syllabus is my property - who I choose to allow to use it is my business, but it is wrong for the school to use it at will.
Actually, you DO NOT own your syllabus. Under 17 USC 102 (b), your syllabus does not qualify as a protected work. It is in fact public domain and subject to fair use without attribution to you, or even acknowledgement of your very existence. A syllabus constitutes information, and a method of practice, both of which are EXPRESSLY denied copyright protection by US Copyright Law.
Post a Comment