Copyright and Distance Ed, from a Professor's Perspective...

Often, when speaking about copyright in this blog, I have focused on the rules and regulations in place to protect those involved in distance education from copyright infringement.  However, in this post, I am going to focus on copyright from the distance ed. professor's perspective.  Does a professor own their rights to an online course, as a piece of their intellectual property?  Can professors claim ownership over the works they produce for an online course and charge fees accordingly?  

Many discussion and debate has resulted over this topic, usually pinning course instructors against college administrators.  However, I found an article that highlights a compromise reached at Stevens Institute in Hoboken, NJ that has proven to be a model for all academic online programs across the nation.

Here are the details...

• Stevens campus college professors should treat their intellectual works as property similar to one who publishes a textbook
• Faculty who develop courses "entirely online, assign their copyright to the school".  This means that the school pays the instructor a fee for the creation of the online course, gives the instructor 30% of all income if the course is leased to others, and then also pays the instructor their teaching salary as well
• Distance ed. faculty members still "own" the rights to any work they create (i.e. outlines, PowerPoint presentations, assignments, syllabi's, tests, notes) and can use them in other situations, if desired (Reid, 2001)

This agreement seems to benefit both the educational institution, who have a good chance of making additional money with the popularity of online courses on the rise, as well as instructors, who should be rightly compensated for the use of their work.  Likewise, instructors benefit from the ability of schools to "market" the material for online courses, giving the instructor a chance to incur additional revenue.  

Likewise, a study referenced in this article highlighted the need for a compromise as such described above.  Out of about 40 universities polled, only 51% actually had a copyright policy pertaining to distance ed. in place.  Furthermore, about 20% had no policy and 16%, were "working on it" (Reid, 2001).  Stevens University indicated in this article that they had over "100 phone calls" regarding the design and implementation of a working copyright policy.  

Citation

Reid, C. (2001). Stevens adopts copyright policy for distance learning, 249(2), 14. Retrieved on

     

      October 21, 2008 from Library and Information Science database.

   

Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics...as it relates to Copyright

As I read Chapter 8 of Richard Rubin's Foundations of Library and Information Science, I cannot help but continue to come across interesting bits of information that I would like to share and discuss on this blog.  

Apparently, a "Code of Ethics" has been established by the Computer Ethics Institute and in some ways relates to our on-going conversation about copyright.  

Here are a few that I thought were especially pertinent:

1. "Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people" (I would assume hurting people could definitely relate to copyright infringement)
2.  "Thou shalt not use a computer to steal" (Especially the works of others, without their consent, so keep your distance education files to yourself!)
3. "Thou shalt not use other people's computer resources without authorization or proper compensation" (No sharing of computer software!)
4. "Thous shalt not appropriate other people's intellectual ouput" (This is pretty self-explanatory)
5. "Thous shalt always use a computer in ways that insure consideration and respect for your fellow humans" (I think this pretty much sums it up with regards to properly using distance education materials and following copyright rules)

Again, I know that most of us may have read this section already, but I had to include it to emphasize the point.  I guess this really provides, for me, the basis of ethical conduct with regards to copyright law.  I was starting to question the never-ending requirements in the T.E.A.C.H. Act and thinking it was starting to get unnecessary.  These "commandments" remind me why those rules and regulations are in place...I hope they do the same for you!

Citation

Rubin, R. (2004). Foundations of library and information science. NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

 

Copyright--An Ethical issue?

In this week's reading for LS 532, Richard Rubin brings up a good point in Foundations of Library and Information Science about copyright issues and ethical responsibility to patrons.  Since librarians have a duty to circulate information, is protecting copyright of authors a violation of this duty?  Is it a conflict of interest to protect works of intellectual freedom yet deny users the right to access that same information?

Where should librarians draw the line with regards to restrictions on the "control and flow of information"? (Rubin, 2004).  Any voiced opinions are welcomed in the comments to this post...

(Again) More Requirements for T.E.A.C.H.

According to the Act, there are some requirements that institutions must meet in order to be considered protected under the T.E.A.C.H. Act for Copyright and distance education.  Below are summarized versions of the requirements as indicated by Kenneth Crews, for the American Library Association:

• Institution must be an "accredited, non-profit institution"--This protects most secondary learning institutions, but could possibly exclude private entities, such as for-profit subsidiaries. 
• Institution must develop a "copyright policy"--What is interesting about this is that the "policy" is not specifically defined, but rather loosely-referred to.  As long as the educational institution has some policy, with rules and regulations in place, they should meet this requirement.
• Institution must prepare and distribute "copyright information"---This means that an educational institution must make available information relating to copyright and ensure that all faculty, staff members, students, and others involved in distance education are aware of the regulations.
• Notice to students--Students must explicitly be made aware of the rules and regulations relating to copyright in their distance education classes.  Likewise, they must be aware that material presented online is subject to various copyright laws.
• Copyright protection extends to only "enrolled" students--Students must be made aware by the institution that if, and only if, they are enrolled in an education institution may they access otherwise protected copyright material.  This requirement does not stipulate what will happen if this requirement is not met...

What do you think of these requirements?  Are they adequate to dictate who and what institutions qualify for protection against copyright infringement by the T.E.A.C.H Act?

Benefits of T.E.A.C.H.

According to Kenneth Crews, Professor of Law and Director the Copyright Management Center at Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis, T.E.A.C.H imposes more restrictions and limitations that our original U.S. Copyright Law for traditional face-to-face classroom situations. However, there are some steps in the right direction.  Crews indicates the following benefits of the T.E.A.C.H. Act:

1. Greater range of works (a vareity of works are applicable under this law to                          be transmitted via distance education programs)

2.  "Expansion of locations" (basically, works can be utilized in not only traditional classrooms, but online via distance ed. programs as well)

3.  "Storage of transmitted content" (incidental copying or storage of information for  technical reasons is ok under this act, however, it is understood that students will  have access to info only for short period(s) of time)

4.  Allowance of digital works (allows works to be digitalized if they haven't been done so  already)

Crews most notably point out that these allowances are not to be made for educators unless they have met certain criteria and requirements.  More about those requirements to follow...

Citation

Crews, K. D. (2003, November). New copyright law for distance education: The meaning and importance of the T.E.A.C.H Act. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/teach_summary.htm 

*Side note:  I downloaded this picture from the Flickr: Creative Commons search engine.  This websites provides downloadable images that can used, without having to worry about copyright infringement.  You can access these websites through eblogger's helpful hints for copying and pasting images.  

T.E.A.C.H Guidelines

Taking a look at the TEACH Act guidelines set forth in Carol Simpson's Copyright for Schools, I could not help but think that some of the provisions for audio and video materials seemed unrealistic.  For example, the act apparently allows the sharing of audio/visual materials for the following situations and with the following conditions:

1. Only if there is a direct "connection" to the current curriculum (this makes sense, but who establishes whether information is "direct" or not?)

2. Only "officially-registered" students can view the materials (does this mean I cannot share the humoruous YouTube clips with my husband?)

3. Copies of works transmitted must be "removed quickly", which is otherwise known as "flushing the cache" (I believe the reason for this is hacking and unlawful stealing of copyright information during this exchange period, but don't filters and firewalls protect us against this, already?  Or do I need to be aware that my husband might have unlawful access to copyrighted works when he checks his email on my computer?)

4. The "transmitting body" (i.e. our professors, fellow students, and the larger Clarion University) are responsible for protecting copyrighted information (this is a BIG responsibility, and definitely one that isn't to be taken lightly!) (Simpson, 116).

I am still exploring the possibilities of how this would relate to us in our own library media centers, but I found these guidelines somewhat ambiguous and unrealistic.  What do you think?

It's all about T.E.A.C.H!

T.E.A.C.H. also stands for Technology, Education, and Copyright Act Harmonization Act.  Although I felt like I've heard of this legislation before, turns out, I hadn't.  Carol Simpson relates that T.E.A.C.H. (which was signed into law Nov. 2, 2002 by current President George W. Bush) provides details on rules and regulations pertaining to copyright materials and distance education.  Apparently, T.E.A.C.H. totally revised the original copyright law and sent those copyright protectors in a frenzy...check out the Copyright Clearance Center's web document via the link below to see more detailed info on the act:

http://www.copyright.com/media/pdfs/CR-Teach-Act.pdf

*More discussion and postings about T.E.A.C.H. to follow...

Distance Learning--The Black Eye?

Carol Simpson refers to distance learning as the "black eye" to copyright adovactes in her very first line of Chapter 8, Copyright for Schools (Simpson, 115).  I had to chuckle a little out loud when I read this, because I really didn't see how distance learning could negatively affect those who are deovted to protecting intellectual freedom.  What are they up in arms for anyway?  Well, it appears that much has to do with the new advancement of the technological age.  But before we go any further, let's take a step back and look at the history of the distance learning and copyright...

What is Distance Learning?

We all know that we are a part of a School Library Media Specialist cohort through Clarion University and that our 100% online program is an excellent example of distance learning. What is exactly meant by distance learning? Take the poll question and let's see how many people have participated in learning via satellite, videoconference, or the worldwide web? (Simpson, 115).

Distance Ed and Copyright Law--How are they connected?

I'm very excited about starting this new blog, even with the topic being copyright. Many people, when they think of copyright, struggle to muffle a yawn. Who needs copyright anyway? Who is really affected by copyright law? Well, it turns out, just about each and every one of us in LS 532 are affected on a weekly, if not daily basis, by copyright law. The fact that we are participating in this class via the Internet, utilizes some aspect of copyright law. My blog will focus on some of the issues raised by distance education learning, as well as some of the history of copyright law as it pertains to the Internet. I look forward to hearing other's opinions and questions, WELCOME!