Re: faculty coursework online

On 02/28/2000, Jim Porter <jep21[_at_]po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Lyda Peters <lydap[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > The college, on the other hand, asked for advice from their
> > lawyers and were told that this work does belong to the college
> > under "work-for-hire" copyright law.
>
> University lawyers typically answer the faculty copyright question
> in this manner --

The dual function of college professors as both "teachers" and also professionals in some field other than teaching leaves endless room for cleverly exploitive argumentation. My late husband, the American sculptor Kenneth Campbell (1913-1986) lived, worked, and exhibited in New York City but taught several days a week at a college in Maryland. In the 1970s, the Maryland Department of Taxation declined to return refunds he was due on his Maryland income tax return. When he appeared in court on the matter, the state's argument was that he was an artist in New York, and they therefore did not question that he was entitled to take his art supplies as a deduction on his federal return. However, they argued, in Maryland he was not a sculptor but "only a teacher" (he taught sculpture), and therefore these expenses should be disallowed on his Maryland return.

As often happens, this stupid "technicality" was resolved by another technicality. The three-judge panel, on learning that Campbell's state tax returns had never been audited by the state, remanded the question to the Maryland department of taxation and told them to audit the return. Turned out (the judges must have know this) that the Maryland department of taxation had no facilities for auditing returns, and therefore no way of complying with the judges' order. We were able to negotiate a "settlement" in which they returned most of the money, but we offered to let them keep $100, the cost of a trip to Maryland for another hearing in the tax court.

On the issue of a college's right to books written by faculty, this has come up many times, as has the question of whether a college is entitled to the proceeds if an artist on the faculty sells works of art. It mostly seems to be bluff on the part of colleges, lots of talk with no substance. I don't see how a college could prevail, or that it would be in the public interest. Would a college be entitled to the proceeds if a physician, engineer, or attorney on its faculty had a private clientele on the side? Is a police department entitled to the proceeds if an officer has a second job? None of these claims are made in good faith, because they all depend on the assumption that one buys a person rather than just a set amount of his or her time for a specific purpose. The "work for hire" at a college is the teaching, and it's none of the university's business if a faculty member writes books or wins golf tournaments or wins the lottery on his or her own time.

Granted, a university could set up a policy where it owned any books or creative works developed by its faculty, and this could be a definite contractual arrangement. But it would severely limit the number of people who wanted to teach at such a college. Also, for those who did teach at such a college, it would be a strong disincentive to write anything.

pat sloane
<patsloane[_at_]aol.com> Received on Mon Feb 28 2000 - 13:33:40 GMT