Not every author - note the situation of journalists, who generally write for hire/sell their souls in droit d'auteur countries as they do in the lands of copyright.
Chris Chris Zielinski Director, Information Waystations and Staging Posts Network Currently External Relations Officer, HTP/WHO Avenue Appia, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland Tel: 004122-7914435 Mobile: 0044797-10-45354 e-mail: [email protected] and [email protected] web site: http://www.iwsp.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Lang" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 6:25 PM Subject: Re: Distance Learning and Copyright > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 03:14:52PM -0000, Charles Oppenheim wrote: > > The UK Higher Education Funding Councils and UUK (representing > > vice-chancellors/principals/rectors of UK Universities) is about to publish > > guidelines on copyright ownership in e-learning materials. These include > > recommendations for contractual clauses of employment between staff and > > universities on this very topic. > > > > I have to say, though, that I find it hard to see what the problem is here. > > The doctrine of work for hire in the USA (as I understand it) and copyright > > law in the UK is that if someone ids in paid employment to do a particular > > task, then the employer owns the copyright in what is being created. This > > seems to me to be equitable. > > not to me ... and it is against the law here. > > A creative piece of work belongs primarily to the author ... who then > decides what becomes of it. That is droit d'auteurs ... but > copyright always denied authors' rights. Under copyright regime, you > can sell your soul, if it is marketable. > > Bernard > > > What is more contentious is if the employer > > sells the distance learning material and makes a lot of money from it, then > > the member(s) of staff involved in its creation should get some payment > > above their salaries. > > > > Charles > > > > Professor Charles Oppenheim > > Department of Information Science > > Loughborough University > > Loughborough > > Leics LE11 3TU > > 01509-223065 > > (fax) 01509-223053 > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Stevan Harnad" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 9:02 PM > > Subject: Distance Learning and Copyright > > > > > > > [Inquiry with identifying information removed]: > > > > > > > I'm contacting you because of your tremendous contribution in the area > > > > of free-for-use open access of research articles. > > > > > > > > My current concern lies in the area of teaching material and distance > > > > learning. > > > > > > I'll do my best (but my only area of quasi-expertise is refereed > > > research papers, before and after peer review...) > > > > > > > I currently teach [subject deleted] courses for which I have either > > > > prepared or am about to prepare lecture notes. > > > > > > > > My university has a policy of claiming copyright for all teaching > > materials, > > > > recognising that copyright for books (textbooks or otherwise) belongs > > > > to the author, except where the material was prepared for distance > > > > learning. > > > > > > > > My situation is this: > > > > > > > > I currently use very little written teaching material, a few overheads, > > > > a few notes to myself some talking and a lot of questions. > > > > > > > > Like many other institutions, mine is positioning itself in the distance > > > > learning market, and very soon the courses I teach may be offered as > > > > distance learning courses. > > > > > > > > In order to teach these courses I will be required to provide extensive > > > > written teaching material, over which the university will claim > > > > copyright > > > > > > > > I am not happy with this situation, and find it hard to believe other > > > > academics can just accept this. My concerns centre round the fact that > > > > in writing this material I would not simply summarise existing > > > > knowledge, but put into my own ideas and thoughts. As such I would not > > > > be happy to relinquish copyright. > > > > > > > > My questions for you are: > > > > Do you know of anyone working on, concerned about, discussing this > > > > issue? > > > > > > Yes, there are many people. One of the most active and able is called > > > (suitably) Hal Abelson, at MIT: [email protected] > > > See his video at http://mit.edu/mitworld/content/libraries/scdw.html > > > Boyle is good too! > > > > > > And Peter Suber of FOS is also very knowledgeable in this. > > > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ > > > > > > > Most of the material I've read seems to be either: non-UK; assuming > > > > academics will accept this; taking the view of the institutions. > > > > I know you have initiated Skywriting courses and wonder what your own > > > > thoughts are on these issues > > > > > > On the one hand, I've always drawn a clear line between author-give-away > > > work (for which refereed-research papers are the paradigmatic case) > > > and author-non-give-away work (such as most books and textbooks), for > > > which authors want royalties and/or fees. > > > http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00001700/ > > > > > > I know that it takes a lot of time and effort to write a textbook -- > > > time and effort many instructors would not invest if there were no > > prospect > > > of royalties or fees. The university never tried to lay claim to their > > > paper-textbook copyright, nor did they claim a share in any royalties > > > because they were written on academic-salaried time. We are paid to teach > > > and do research, not to write textbooks, so if we put more into our > > > teaching materials because we anticipate that they can also be used for > > > a textbook that might bring royalties, that's a bonus for our teaching. > > > > > > Having said that: most instructors (including me) have no interest in or > > > intention of writing a textbook, and put what they put into their course > > > materials because they want to. I don't think I would transfer copyright > > > for my course materials to my university, but not because I am planning > > > to make any revenue from them -- on the contrary, I want them to be > > > open-access, just as my research is! > > > > > > Universities (like everyone else!) are still *extremely* confused and > > > short-sighted about all these things, both with research publication > > > and courseware. Yes, they have their eyes on distance-education revenues > > > (and they need them), but it is not at all clear that the way they will > > > make those revenues is by making their instructors transfer copyright for > > > their courseware to their universities! That is certainly one possible > > > "business model" -- but then they will have to make special contracts with > > > their staff, hiring them to do contractual writing or video-lecturing > > > for hire, which is something many instructor/researchers may again not > > > be interested in doing (and it might be the good ones especially who > > > are least interested!). > > > > > > So the universities, in thinking this through, have a few anomalies and > > > conflicts of interest to resolve yet. MIT -- no small player -- has taken > > a > > > very decisive position on this: Its courseware will be open-access: > > > http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html > > > > > > Is there a danger that if there are no royalties to be earned either > > > instructors won't bother or MIT will lose potential revenue from the > > > eventual distance-education market? I rather doubt it: > > > > > > First, the best institutions, with the best instructors, are the ones > > > from which students will want their instruction and degrees. So the > > > institution is far better off not discouraging its instructors' > > > creativity. But those are just words. Here is something more concrete: > > > > > > I am certain that in *exactly* the same way that research impact -- the > > > scientometrically enhanced counterpart of "publish-or-perish" -- has > > > become a significant part of the academic coin-of-the-realm (with > > > salary, promotion, tenure, grant-funding, prestige and prizes depending > > > on it), *so will teaching impact*! > > > > > > And just as the open-access era for research will generate more, powerful > > > and sensitive new measures of research impact through scientometric and > > > semiometric measures derived form the online research corpus -- new > > > measures of usage ("hits"), co-citation "hubs and authorities," and > > > many more rich and diverse correlates of research uptake and influence > > > > > > http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search > > > http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs > > > http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php > > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2325.html > > > > > > -- so there will evolve an increasingly rich and predictive set of > > > teaching-impact indicators along similar lines, quantifying which > > > open-access courseware is being used, how, and how much, what has > > > influenced and grown out of what -- perhaps even how it eventually > > > feeds into research impact! > > > > > > And with such objective scientometric and semiometric measures of teaching > > > impact will come the reward mechanisms for reinforcing and encouraging > > > their production, just as with research impact. > > > > > > So I would suggest you simply ignore what your university administrators > > > are noisily contemplating doing at the moment. These are early days, > > > and it will be the spontaneous creation of courseware by innovative > > > instructors, and its use by students, that will determine the > > > direction things actually take -- not administrators fumbling around > > > a-priori, trying to second-guess creative forces that are beyond their > > > imaginations! And I'm fairly confident that that direction will be mostly > > > open-access (along with the teaching-impact reward system it engenders) > > > rather than coursework-for-hire. > > > > > > Just keep doing your online courseware. And if you want to keep it safe > > > from toll-grubbing hands, put it in open-access archives so it's too > > > late for anyone to try to cash in on it! > > > http://www.eprints.org/ > > > http://www.dspace.org/ > > > > > > Stevan Harnad > > > > > > NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open > > > access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at > > > the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02): > > > > > > > > > http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html > > > or > > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html > > > > > > Discussion can be posted to: > > > [email protected] > > > > > > See also the Budapest Open Access Initiative: > > > http://www.soros.org/openaccess > > > > > > the Free Online Scholarship Movement: > > > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm > > > > > > the OAI site: > > > http://www.openarchives.org > > > > > > and the free OAI institutional archiving software site: > > > http://www.eprints.org/ > > > > > > > > -- > Non aux Brevets Logiciels - No to Software Patents > SIGNEZ http://petition.eurolinux.org/ SIGN > > [email protected] ,_ /\o \o/ Tel +33 1 3963 5644 > http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fax +33 1 3963 5469 > INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France > Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion > CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX
