Hello there!
As creators and users of works, it is crucial to comprehend copyright and its related issues in higher education, especially in the digital era. A better understanding can help individuals refrain from committing violations inadvertently or intentionally. This discourse therefore provides insights to give you a better apprehension of the major copyright issues that affect academics like professors, researchers, and other professional staff members in the higher education sphere. Let’s dive right in!
For numerous years, academics have been leaders in the creation of scholastic work like published articles and many of them have been advocating for increased educational awareness on copyright issues that affect professionals in the field. Essentially, copyright laws serve as a shield and protection for creators of content or original works. The copyright law first passed in 1790 and revised on several occasions up until 1976 protects a wide array of works such as musical, dramatic, literary, choreographic, pictorial, sculptural and sound recordings produced by professionals in higher education (Storm, 2002). Most notably, all these works must be expressed in a fixed tangible form in order to be considered copyrightable. Although these works are protected by copyright law, there are still growing concerns among copyright owners. Precisely, many authors worry about their works being reproduced and electronically distributed. Meanwhile, others are concerned about the ownership, control, and use of their works. Among these major concerns is a common violation called copyright infringement. According to Kenton (2022), “copyright infringement is the use or production of copyright-protected material without the permission of the copyright holder” (para. 1). Simply put, copyright infringement occurs when someone breaches, infringes, or even violates the exclusive rights of the copyright holder or uses their protected work without consent.
Some of these exclusive rights include the right to reproduce, distribute, display, and perform the work publicly. Courant (2006) addressed this copyright issue by examining the costs of seeking consent. He specifically highlighted that there is an insurmountable cost associated with gaining permission and finding rights holders which according to Convey (2005) can be quite prohibitive (as cited in Courant, 2006). Moreover, these costs among other factors in the rights environment pose a challenge when using these protected materials to produce scholarly works. Meanwhile, other complications arise in the rights environment specifically concerning fair use, ownership, and control. Generally, the author has control over the use and distribution of their copyright protected work(s). Storm (2002) noted that fair use usually “occurs in the context of criticism, comment, news reporting or research as well as some personal use materials” (p. 7). However, he added that “there are no hard and fast rules as to what constitutes fair use in a given situation” (p. 7).
As an example, he stated that “we live in an age when it is possible for an academic to use someone else’s quote in a class and then discover, in an instant, that the student copied it, expanded on it, criticized or bowdlerized it and sent the resulting piece to thousands and thousands of people all over the country” (p. 9). This suggests that the use of protected works can be a delicate and perplexing matter. Its complexities have therefore resulted in the establishment of set rules and guidelines as it pertains to the fair use of works. Interestingly, copyright issues that revolve around ownership have also led to the development of academic policies that address the matter. Before delving into institutional policies, here’s a quick breakdown of ownership concerns.
Generally, employers can claim ownership of works created within the realm of employment or under employment terms and conditions. In the copyright world, this is considered as the work for hire doctrine. However, this concept can become complex and result in serious consequences for all parties involved. More specifically, lines become very blurry in the distance education and remote learning landscape. Scholars have asserted their distinction as imperative especially when addressing intellectual property concerns. This issue became apparent during the covid-19 situation where courses had to be delivered online and remotely in keeping with safety measures. This meant that professors had to digitize their lectures, syllabus, and other teaching resources. In so doing, professors became concerned that their higher education institutions would try to make power grabs by claiming ownership of the content that they created and digitized for remote learning.
Purdue’s IP policy, for instance, was considered to be controversial as faculty members worried that the institution “could try to claim ownership of lectures and coursework from any course moved online as a result of the pandemic -- not just those courses conceived of as “distant” to begin with...” (Flaherty, 2020, para. 13). In light of this, the American Federation of Teachers in conjunction with the American Association of University Professors released a joint statement urging institutions that they ought not to take advantage of global crises and emergency situations in so far as to claim ownership of teaching resources that must be moved online in these cases (Flaherty, 2020). To remedy this issue, some institutions of higher education created IP policies. Dartmouth’s intellectual property policy, for example, states that “rights in works of authorship (including teaching materials) are generally retained by the faculty members or other academic staff members who create them; Dartmouth does not claim rights of ownership in teaching materials, including when faculty are teaching remotely, except in very narrow circumstances as outlined in the IP policy” (Dartmouth University, n.d.). Such strides made by several higher education institutions globally help alleviate copyright issues regarding fair use, ownership, and infringement in the educational landscape.
Notwithstanding, the digital era complicates and perplexes these issues. As such, users and consumers of content ought to proceed with caution when producing scholarly works. The curtains have now come down on this copyright discourse. However, let’s continue the conversation below with your perspectives on the matter! I anticipate your feedback!
Krista
MDE student
University of Maryland Global Campus
University of Maryland Global Campus | UMGC
References
Courant, P. (2006). Scholarship and academic libraries (and their kin) in the world of Google. First Monday 11(8). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i8.1382
Courant, P. (2008). Scholarship: The wave of the future in the digital age. In R. N. Katz [Ed.]. (2008). The tower and the cloud: Higher education in the age of cloud computing. (2008). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. https://www.educause.edu/research-andpublications/books/tower-and-cloud/scholarship-wave-future-digitalage1
Dartmouth University. (n.d.). Sharing scholarship for remote teaching and learning. Dartmouth University. Sharing Scholarship for Remote Teaching and Learning | Dartmouth Library
Flaherty, C. (2020). IP Problems: Copyright ownership concerns abound in the rapid shift to remote instruction. Inside Higher ED. Who owns all that course content you're putting online? (insidehighered.com)
Kenton, W. (2022). Copyright infringement: Definition, meaning, example and criteria. Investopedia. Copyright Infringement: Definition, Meaning, Example and Criteria (investopedia.com)
Storm, D. (2002). Intellectual property issues for higher education unions: A primer. AFT Higher Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497906.pdf