Re: faculty coursework online

On Wed, Mar 01, 2000, Art MacCord <amaccord[_at_]rcblaw.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 29, 2000, Robert A. Baron <rabaron[_at_]westnet.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/27/00, Art MacCord <amaccord[_at_]rcblaw.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems to me that any copyrightable material that a college
> > > instructor prepares as part of his or her job is likely to be
> > > owned by his or her employer unless there is a contract provision
> > > providing otherwise. See 17 US Code 101 for the definition of a
> > > work made for hire.
> >
> > Think of the consequences of the above assertion. Academics moving from
> > one institution to another would not be able to take their courses or
> > their prepared lectures with them. Universities, for fear of being held
> > responsible for infringements on the part of new faculty would have a
> > great disincentive to hire faculty who had worked elsewhere. Clearly,
> > the tradition that permits academics to own their own intellectual
> > property is there for a reason and should be respected by the law as it
> > is now respected by common practice. Such traditions typically develop
> > because the interest of the public is well served by them. The law,
> > such as it does not accommodate such traditions, is generally faulty.
> >
> > There are a few situations when institutional interest in a faculty
> > member's intellectual property should perhaps be allowed to prevail --
> > at least temporarily: when the use of materials created at one
> > university aids another to the detriment of the university that employs
> > the teacher, or when the association of a teacher with an educational
> > institution may harm the reputation of his regular employer. But, even
> > here, each situation must be weighed and judged on its own merits. For
> > instance, if a teacher is prevented from teaching a course at his own
> > school, but another school provides that opportunity, it would seem
> > logical that the demands of academic freedom should predominate.
> >
> > In courses that tend to rely on textbooks -- typically survey courses --
> > or courses in technical subjects, teachers usually prepare their
> > lectures by depending heavily on the texts. Strictly speaking such
> > faculty may be held to be infringing the text, if not by overly quoting,
> > then by using of the material copyrighted in compilation or in use of
> > textbook examples. Naturally, since it is in the interest of the
> > textbook publishers for faculty to depend on the texts they assign,
> > there will be no claim of infringement for such uses. But what if a
> > teacher bases his lectures on a text he does not use or if he adapts
> > lectures he heard elsewhere -- all common practices. Obviously,
> > strict adherence to the letter of copyright law as far as classroom
> > teaching is concerned is contrary to the public interest. Teachers
> > and faculty must be given a license to use materials for their needs
> > consistent with educational traditions and needs -- even if that
> > means a somewhat generous interpretation of fair use. Good teaching
> > often depends upon the use of tradition and departures from tradition.
> > The above notwithstanding, the content of any individual class can
> > vary instantaneously. To expect teachers to exert the same duty of
> > care demanded of publishers, for instance, would be to subject
> > teaching and teachers to standards that cannot be met.
> >
> > If a university claims ownership of a professor's lectures, notes,
> > exams and study guides, it is quite possible that their ownership
> > will be compromised by not being able to claim fair use in their
> > ownership of materials the teacher regularly uses.
>
> The reply sets forth a lot of good policy, and perhaps those are the
> reasons that copyright ownership is rarely, if ever, touted by the
> universities, historically.
>
> However in the coming days, the very best professor/lecturer of any
> given subject, such as 18th Century European History (let's call him
> the superstar), can be made available to 100,000 students via distance
> learning instead of the mere 500 or so students who fit into the
> amphitheaters that pass as college classrooms. Note that the lecturers
> who would have had jobs lecturing to the other 99,500 freshmen not
> reached by the superstar traditionally will need to find something
> else to do. The value of the notes and performance of the superstar
> is going to be augmented. That augmented value will be the incentive
> for more disputes.

I wouldn't be too sure about this last. When I was in college, one of the superstars of economics was Paul Samuelson, who wrote the standard Econ 101 text. A friend of mine who actually had him as a professor in Econ 101 said he was one of the worst teachers he had.

I also think that the opportunity to interact personally with the professor teaching the course is at least as important and you can't do that via distance learning.

Harold Federow
<haroldf[_at_]bsquare.com> Received on Thu Mar 02 2000 - 16:53:42 GMT