Talab c2c i_pand_moocs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.)

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

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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)

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

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”

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

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

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

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

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/

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?

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

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

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-
/

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

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

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

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/

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+.

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+.

Talab c2c i_pand_moocs

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Talab c2c i_pand_moocs

Talab c2c i_pand_moocs