EL7007+Assessing+Academic+Property+and+Organized+Labor


 * ** EL7007-8 ** ||  ||
 * ** Ethical and Legal Issues in an Online Course ** || ** 4 Assessing Academic Property and Organized Labor – Part One ** ||
 * Hi Steve,Most impressive work! Not much to say here. I made a few comments below but you are definitely on the mark! Again, most impressive! **
 * Mark **
 * Hi Steve,Outstanding work as usual! About six learners finish up each year. I try to get them out the door as soon as possible. Some are better than others. You would definitely do well as your writing, expression, and presentation skills are top notch. There is a new system in place here at NCU so my Doctoral learners will migrate to the new full-time chair system soon. I will remain as a subject matter expert. Hope you have a great day! **
 * Hi Steve,Outstanding work as usual! About six learners finish up each year. I try to get them out the door as soon as possible. Some are better than others. You would definitely do well as your writing, expression, and presentation skills are top notch. There is a new system in place here at NCU so my Doctoral learners will migrate to the new full-time chair system soon. I will remain as a subject matter expert. Hope you have a great day! **

=Assessing Academic Property and Organized Labor= The Copyright Act secures for authors ownership of their own literary and artistic works; except for the “ work made for hire doctrine ” ( Definitions, 17 U.S.C. § 101, 2000 ), which grants ownership of such works to the employer. Under this doctrine “ work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment ,” ( Definitions, 17 U.S.C. § 101, 2000 ) unless otherwise agreed upon by both employer and employee, belongs to the employer. Professors and teachers, however, have often been included in a different standard, enjoying a //teacher exception//, “ which grants them copyright ownership of the works and publications created during the course of their employment ” ( Blanchard, 2010, p. 62 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). In 1976 the Copyright Act was supplanted with new statutes, and claims of a teacher exception have become more confused in conjunction with the work-for-hire doctrine. The present case, Pittsburg State University and Kansas National Education Association v. Kansas Board of Regents/Pittsburg State University and Public Employee Relations Board (present case), was adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas in 2005, and provided a number of definitions and tests regarding work-for-hire, scope of employment, and the teacher exception in conjunction with copyright law. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">[Outstanding content]

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Teacher Exception under the Work for Hire Doctrine
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Prior to the adjudication of the present case and following the adoption of the Copyright Act of 1976, several court cases have addressed the teacher exception to works made for hire. In 1987 Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that: <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Faculty members have the authority, not the institution, to grant copyright to academic journals when submitting materials for publication;. . . that faculty ownership of creative works [has] ‘been the academic tradition since copyright law began’ (//Weinstein v. University of Illinois//, 1987, p. 1094). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Blanchard, 2010, p. 63 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">)In 1988 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">to be classified as a work made for hire a copyrightable work must not only ‘be a work for hire but. . . prepared for the employer’ (//Hays v. Sony Corporation of America//, 1988, p. 416) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Blanchard, 2010, p. 63 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">In //Vanderhurst v. Colorado Mountain College District// (1988) a federal district court in Colorado ruled that an outline prepared for a course is “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">directly associated with the duties of the professor’s employment, and, thus, owned by the institution <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Blanchard, 2010, p. 64 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). The same court found in //University of Colorado Foundation, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co.// (1995) that the article resulting from a University funded research project belonged to the University ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Blanchard, 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found there is a teacher exception for “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">published articles by university professors, <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” but not for “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">teaching materials that were never explicitly prepared for publication <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Blanchard, 2010, p. 64 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Since 1976 courts have not recognized a blanket //teacher exception//, but have instead looked to the law to determine whether an instructor’s creation was created within the scope of their employment. The present case includes discussions that further define the meanings of these concepts. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> [Excellent transition]

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Discussion of the Findings of the Court
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">The present case was brought by the Pittsburg State University/Kansas National Education Association (KNEA) before the Court because the Kansas Board of Regents/Pittsburg State University (KBR) unilaterally adopted an “intellectual property policy without meeting and conferring with KNEA” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, Factual Background, para. 1 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). KBR stated that conferring with KNEA was not required because “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">the subject of intellectual property rights was not a condition of employment, was preempted by federal and state law, and was a management prerogative <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, Factual Background, para. 1 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Several conditions were reviewed in this case, including; (a) under the Public Employer-Employee Relations Act (PEERA) an employer must confer with an employee organization when any policy affecting an employee’s condition of employment is changed, (b) whether federal copyright law preempts state law or employer-employee labor agreements, (c) whether state law preempts employer-employee labor agreements, and (d) whether a teacher exemption exists and applies to copyright law.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Conditions of Employment
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">The crux of this case hinges on whether intellectual property rights are a condition of employment for faculty instructors at a state university. The list of conditions of employment between the parties was found in a previous decision to include items outside the list of conditions provided in the statute, “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">target[ing] all subjects //relating// to conditions of employment (233 Kan. at 819) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, Overview of PEERA, para. 3, emphasis in original <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). KBR must meet and confer with KNEA, and may enter into a memorandum of agreement regarding any condition of employment. There are three conditions under which this meeting is exempted; (a) a preemption exception, (b) public employee rights, and (c) managerial prerogatives. A preemption exception includes “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">any subject preempted by federal or state law <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, Overview of PEERA, para. 5 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), and will be discussed in the following sections. The public employee rights exemption was not argued in this case. Due to exemption by federal and state law, KBR claims the third exemption which “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">relat[es] to the rights of public employers <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, Overview of PEERA, para. 5 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). The Supreme Court found that “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">if an item is //significantly related// to an express condition of employment, and if negotiating the item will not unduly interfere with management rights reserved to the employer by law, then the item is mandatorily negotiable <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, Condition of Employment, para. 8, emphasis in original <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). The Court then remanded the case back to “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">the district court with directions to remand to [the Public Employee Relations Board] PERB for <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, Conditions of Employment, para. 8 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">)* “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">additional findings regarding whether ownership of intellectual property is a condition of employment <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, Conditions of Employment, para. 8 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), and the managerial prerogative exemption applies. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> [Outstanding presentation]

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Federal and State Copyright Preemption
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Federal copyright law preempts state and local statutes regarding copyrights. KBR claimed that since federal copyright law is the de facto standard regarding copyrights, the agreement they have with KNEA is preempted by this law; making consultation nonmandatory. In effect, KBR claimed that all intellectual property of their employees belonged to the university “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">by operation of the federal work for hire doctrine <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, Copyright Law, para. 2 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) and was therefore not a condition of employment. The Supreme Court found that since the copyright law includes a proviso in which the parties may agree to a different result, the law “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">creates a presumptive result <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, Copyright Law, para. 2 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) not a preemptive one. Therefore the Court found that rather than precluding the parties from negotiating regarding intellectual property rights, 17 U.S.C. § 201(b) identifies that a written agreement between the parties can specifically identify expectations regarding the disposition of those rights.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Work-for-Hire Doctrine
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Works made for hire belong to the employer unless a written agreement is entered into between the parties identifying another arrangement of ownership ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Works, 17 U.S.C. § 201(b), 1976 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Section 101 of the Copyright Act further defines a work made for hire as one “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Definitions, 17 U.S.C. § 101, 2000 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) or one that is contracted for. The Court noted that a restatement of scope of employment has been defined to determine whether a work is a work for hire, or not. The restatement contains three conditions, “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">(a) it is of the kind he [or she] is employed to perform, (b) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; [and] (c) it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, “Work-for-hire”, para. 9 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). The Court found that works of faculty are not works-for-hire just “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">because those faculty are employees of <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, “Work-for-hire”, para. 14 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) Pittsburgh State University, but that additional considerations must be taken into account. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">[Excellent]

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Teacher Exemption
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">KNEA argued that a teacher exemption exists and “that faculty scholarly works are not considered works for hire under federal copyright law” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, “Work-for-hire”, para. 3 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). The Court identified a number of cases involving a claim for teacher exemption including some of those contained in the introduction, but found disagreement “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">on the current state of law with regard to this issue <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, “Work-for-hire”, para. 12 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). The Court admitted that the teacher exemption would have to be determined on a task-by-task basis, and “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">whether any particular creative work of a faculty member constitutes work for hire will depend on whether the work meets the Restatement test <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, “Work-for-hire”, para. 13 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Affect on Ownership and Distribution of Materials Developed for Online Learning
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">According to the present case there is no absolute teacher exemption from the work-for-hire doctrine. This means that the only sure means for an instructor to own the copyright to their scholarly works is to enter into a written agreement with his or her employer.* In this written agreement the employer must agree that any works developed by the instructor will be owned by the instructor and not by the employer, and both parties must sign the agreement. If a written agreement is not entered into between the parties, the presumption is that any works developed within the scope of employment are owned by the employer. The present case identifies that without a written agreement regarding the expectations of both parties in relation to intellectual property rights, it becomes incumbent on the instructor to demonstrate according to the restatement of scope of employment that a work is (a) “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">different in kind from <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Present Case, 2005, “Work-for-hire”, para. 10 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) what is normally created in the scope of employment, (b) produced outside of work time or space, and (c) not motivated by the works usefulness in serving the employer. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">These considerations affect how the created works can be distributed for online learning. If the instructor owns the copyright to a work, he or she can utilize that material in any way he or she sees fit online. If, on the other hand, the employer owns the copyright to the works, the instructor is limited in how he or she can use the material to conditions within the scope of employment or in ways the employer decides they will be used.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Recommendations for Protection
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">My recommendations for the protection of both institutional and individually created academic property include for instructors to have a clear understanding, and written agreement, regarding what is their copyright and what belongs to the employer.* Secondly, I would recommend that each item of academic property bear the appropriate copyright notice regarding the works owner. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> [OK] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> Finally, students should be taught or reminded of standards regarding plagiarism, fair use, and ethical considerations about using copyrighted materials. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> [A definite must] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> By following these recommendations there will never be a question regarding what belongs to whom.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">[K1] Excellent format <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">[K2] Most definitely! <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">[K3] Definitely


 * = References ||
 * * Blanchard, J. (2010). The teacher exception under the work for hire doctrine: Safeguard of academic freedom or vehicle for academic free enterprise? //Innovations in Higher Education, 35//, 61-69. doi:10.1007/s10755-009-9124-1
 * Definitions, 17 U.S.C. § 101 (2000).
 * Pittsburg State University/Kansas National Education Association v. Kansas Board of Regents/Pittsburg State University and Public Employee Relations Board, 91,305 (Ks. Nov. 10, 2005). Retrieved from http://www.kscourts.org/cases-and-opinions/opinions/supct/2005/20051110/91305.htm
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Works made for hire, 17 U.S.C. § 201(b) (1976). ||