This document discusses intellectual property issues related to MOOCs. It provides an overview of the MOOC landscape, issues around ownership of online course content and intellectual property, basics of copyright law, examples of relevant bills and lawsuits, and guidelines for faculty developing MOOCs. Key points covered include the rapid growth of MOOCs, debates around who owns online course content and intellectual property, and how copyright law and institutional policies apply to MOOCs.

1. Online Intellectual Property in
the Age of MOOCs
Rosemary Talab,
Professor, K-State
talab@ksu.edu
Slideshare

2. Disclaimer
Opinions are my own
Audience participation requested
Audience survey

3. The “Hype”

4. Overview
MOOC Landscape
Ownership Issues
Intellectual Property
Copyright Basics
Bills/Lawsuits
Faculty Guidelines

5. Overview
MOOC Landscape
Ownership Issues
Intellectual Property
Copyright Basics
Bills/Lawsuits
Faculty Guidelines

6. MOOC Landscape
3.17 million students
196 countries (Outsell, 2013)
edX self-sustaining
Coursera & Udacity commercial
Spinoffs – MITx, Berkeleyx, etc.

7. MOOC Landscape
Bill Gates (2013):
“Decoupling” of degree from knowledge
acquisition
Use of alternate evidence (badges,
certificates, etc.)
“Global phenomenon”
http://tinyurl.com/musst8v

8. MOOC Landscape
 EU Mooc Production Fellowship (2013)
 Uses iversity
 Fellows - 25,000 Euros and assistance
 Fellows retain all rights to content
https://moocfellowship.org/info
 Coursera in Canada and Australia
 Udacity has 606 communities worldwide

9. MOOC Landscape
Online courses time-consuming
Merit, tenure/promotion variable
Online use more university resources
Multi-national/multi-campus universities
Territory?

10. Ownership Issues
Growth of course “production values”
Result is increased use of institutional
resources
Shutterstock - art and photographs
online
27 million images
Jon Oringer is billionaire
 Forbes, June 2013
http://tinyurl.com/p9m7v7b

11. MOOC Landscape
Decreased tenured faculty
Increased adjunct faculty
Increased costs/tuition
Decreased federal/state support
Rise of online for-profits (Capella,
Walden, U of Phoenix, etc.)

12. Overview
MOOC Landscape
Ownership Issues
Intellectual Property
Copyright Basics
Bills/Lawsuits
Course Guidelines

13. Ownership Issues
Who owns a course?
Who decides?
Who gets what in MOOC licensing?
Is there a MOOC IP model?
Do old IP models apply?

14. Ownership Issues
University owns/wants to own online IP
Instructional design
Technical/infrastructure investment
Personnel
Faculty
MOOC IP ownership varies
Various MOOC license models

15. Ownership Issues

16. Overview
MOOC Landscape
Ownership Issues
Intellectual Property
Copyright Basics
Bills/Lawsuits
Course Guidelines

17. Intellectual Property
Michigan/Coursera contract
Revenue bulk to host/provider
Substantial university investment
 “Multi-media content”
 “High-production-value”
 Disabilities, badges, etc.
(Chronicle, 2012, p. 2)
Course IP - Instructor/University decision

18. Overview
MOOC Landscape
Ownership Issues
Intellectual Property
Copyright Basics
Bills/Lawsuits
Course Guidelines

19. Copyright Basics
Make a copy
Make a derivative work
Distribute copies
Perform work in public on website
(videos)
Display work (still image, each
copyrighted)
Section 101, Title 17 U.S.C.

20. Copyright Basics
Faculty Own:
Negotiated IP (“life of course”, alterations,
etc.)
Syllabus – copyright
Original materials
Derivative works
Ideas
Presentation

21. Copyright Basics
Faculty must know:
Federal law, state, institutional policies
Contract law supersedes copyright law
Definitions:
Substantial use
Work for hire
Definitions vary by institution/state

22. Contract Law
K-State – “written statement…from…
unit leader concerning level of use of …
support/facilities…”
Extra compensation
IP protection

23. Substantial Use
K-State – “creator received staff, salary
or material support beyond that normally
provided to the creator”
Instructor-initiated or otherwise
Institution-provided support
(technical/monetary/other)

24. Substantial Use
“Substantial resources”:
Used for many distance courses
 Institution as owner
Also depends on:
Platform requirements
Contract
IP policy

25. Work for Hire
K-State owns:
Rights associated with works produced
as ‘works made for hire’ or
Works that make "substantial use of
institutional resources”

26. Overview
MOOC Landscape
Ownership Issues
Intellectual Property
Copyright Basics
Bills/Lawsuits
Course Guidelines

27. Bill/Lawsuits
 California SB 520:
Grants for high demand courses to be
offered online
 Arizona State professors’ lawsuit
Violated the ABOR Intellectual Property
Policy
Appropriated course
Used former prof’s syllabus, assignments,
name and image

28. Overview
MOOC Landscape
Ownership Issues
Intellectual Property
Copyright Basics
Bills/Lawsuits
Faculty Guidelines

29. Faculty Guidelines
Know Applicable IP policies
State Board of Regents or other
Institution
Pertinent sections (work for hire, etc.)
Claim rights to original materials
Claim rights to class lectures and course
materials
Negotiate a reasonable approach

30. Faculty Guidelines
Creative Commons approach
Faculty committees
Purdue MOOC RFP Committee
Online Course Committees
IP discussions

31. Faculty Guidelines
Rutgers Advisory Council
Credit bearing guidelines
Non-credit bearing guidelines
MOOC offered through Rutgers approved
through Rutgers curricular review
regardless of format
Time is now to voice concerns
Finding a balance helps everyone

32. Summation
Carly Nelson (former AAUP President)
"If we lose the battle over intellectual property,
it's over”
"Being a professor will no longer be a
professional career or a professional identity”
Faculty will find themselves in "a service
industry”
 http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/139743/

33. Summation
Do faculty want compensation based on
intellectual property rights or collective
bargaining?
Will tenured faculty IP rights be
reduced?
Will institutions become courseware
Walmarts?
Will research universities will be
separated?

34. Fini

35. Fair Use Resources
Visual Resources Association:
http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/codefairuse/index.shtml
Visual Resources Association Statement on Images
http://www.vraweb.org/organization/pdf/VRAFairUseGuidelines
Fair Use Evaluator
http://librarycopyright.net/resources/fairuse

36. References
 Purdue MOOC proposal
https://www.distance.purdue.edu/
 Rutgers Statement on MOOCs
 http://senate.rutgers.edu/ICAConMassiveOpenOnlin

37. References
 BerkeleyX (3-year MOOC development)
 https://www.edx.org/school/uc%20berkeleyx/allcourses
 MITx
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/oeit-joins-office-of-digital-
 UC Irvine prof replaced
https://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/professor-leaves-a-
/

38. References
 Bart, M. (2010). Intellectual Property, Copyright, and
Harassment: Navigating the Murky Legal Waters of
Online Teaching. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from
http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/intellec
 Chronicle of Higher Education. (2012). The U. of
Michigan's Contract With Coursera. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Document-Examine-the-U-of/1330

39. References
 Rivard, R. (2013). Who owns a MOOC?
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/19/u-c
 E-Literate. (2013). California’s Online
Education Bill SB 520 Passes Senate.
 http://mfeldstein.com/californias-online-education-bi

40. References
 Porter, J. (2013). MOOCs, outsourcing and
restrictive ip licensing
 http://aims.muohio.edu/2013/02/26/moocs-
outsourcing-and-restrictive-ip-licensing/
 Berkeley Resource Center for Online
Education. UC Berkeley. Berkeleyx.
http://online.berkeley.edu/moocs/berkeleyx

41. References
 Voss, B. (2013). Massive Open Online Courses
(MOOCs): A Primer for University and College Board
Members. Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges.
http://agb.org/sites/agb.org/files/report_2013_MOOCs.pdf
 Kolowich, S. (2013). Harvard professors call for
greater oversight of MOOCs. Wired Campus.
http://tinyurl.com/ojbgr7o
 Schmidt, P. (2013). AAUP sees moocs as spawning
new threats to professors' intellectual property.
Chronicle of Higher Education.
http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/139743/

42. References
 Talab, R. (2008). Using digital materials in
online courses: A cautionary tale of Georgia
State University. TechTrends, 4(52), (in
press).
 Talab, R. (2007). Distance education, public
domain, free and “fair use” resources: A
webliography. TechTrends, 4(51), pp. 9+.
 Talab, R. (2003). An initial look at the TEACH
Act. TechTrends 2(47), pp. 2+.

43. References
 Talab, R. (2007). Faculty distance courseware
ownership and the “Wal-Mart” approach to
higher education. 5(51), TechTrends, pp. 9+.
 Talab, R., & Butler, R. (2007). Shared
electronic spaces in the classroom: Copyright,
privacy, and guidelines. TechTrends 1(51), pp.
12+.
 Talab, R. (2003). An initial look at the TEACH
Act. TechTrends 2(47), pp. 2+.