It is worth noting that, under UK law, 1) journalism is (and thus
journalists are) specifically excluded from moral rights and 2) that moral
rights claimed by any qualifying author are waivable (so that the author can
be pressured into renouncing his/her moral rights by a publisher or
producer - this is the norm in UK script writing contracts, for example),
and that, in continental jurisdictions, droit morale and droit d'auteur are
distinct.
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: zielinskic_at_who.int and informania_at_supanet.com
web site:
http://www.iwsp.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fytton Rowland" <J.F.Rowland_at_LBORO.AC.UK>
To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:23 PM
Subject: Distance Learning and Copyright
> The droit d'auteurs that Bernard refers to is surely what we in the UK
call
> "moral rights" - that is, the right to be named as the author of what one
> wrote, not to be named as the author of something one did not write,
etc. -
> which have nothing to do with making money. These rights canot be
> transferred anyone else. In the EU, the present law (inspired by the
French
> I believe) provides these rights separately from copyright, which is about
> creating intellectual property that can be bought and sold. In EU
countries
> we have both copyright and moral rights.
>
> In UK copyright law (I don't know about the French) it has been the case
for
> many years that anything that one writes strictly as part of one's
> employment duties belongs to one's employer, not oneself. This would
apply
> to the work of journalists employed on a fulltime and permanent contract
by
> a particular newspaper, for example. The application of this to research
> publications written by academics in fulltime employment of a university
has
> always been a moot point, but custom and practice seems to be that the
> rights belong to the individual, not the university. The current
> controversy is about academics' teaching materials as opposed to their
> research publications.
>
> Fytton Rowland, Loughborough University.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bernard Lang" <Bernard.Lang_at_INRIA.FR>
> To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:25 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" <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> > > To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
> > > 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: hal_at_mit.edu
> > > > 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: american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org
> > > >
> > > > 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
> >
> > Bernard.Lang_at_inria.fr ,_ /\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
> >
> >
Received on Tue Jan 07 2003 - 13:42:22 GMT