37 CFR §401 and the requirement to disclose copyrightable material/IP created or developed under federally funded grants is not currently addressed in this policy. Suggestion: add language to clarify this.

Related suggestion: Revise 4.B.6 to indicate that OSP should be consulted if any copyrighted material or IP is created under a sponsored project. OSP will know better what is in the PAPPG or Grants Policy Statement.

This document is too broad and not specific enough. There is too much top-down controlling and breaches academic freedom, see AAUP and other universities.

I do not want joint ownership of my books, chapters, articles, or pedagogy. Any university press, Peter Lang, Lexington, Routledge, Roman and Littlefield, etc. would not agree to this and would challenge this in a heartbeat. I think the people writing this policy should be also people writing books, book chapters, articles, editing book series and journals, are managing presses and publishing houses.
______________________
To note curriculum is not pedagogy, that should be articulated. So take this out:

I. Open Pedagogy: a teaching practice that engages students in the creation, editing, or improvement of openly licensed materials to contribute to the knowledge commons or develop learning objects for other students.
____________________
Royalty approval by the provost is not ethical between the professor and the student.

Further, the college owning faculty OER is a bad idea and breaches academic freedom again.

This is way too arbitrary if I may say.
____________
Defined Funded - F. College Resources: college funded time, facilities, or equipment used to create materials.
______________
This should be taken out as no publisher will work with SLCC on this - 4. Marketing materials that are openly licensed should be developed in conjunction with Institutional Marketing.
____________________
Why the provost not the AD and why is this not academic freedom? Just because faculty make money on book sells does not mean the book is not valuable. Further, if this at an R1 the provost would be so busy with this as their full time job. This policy is taking advantage of the college faculty as they do not publish as much as an R1. See should be removed:

(4) Faculty who want to require students in a course they are teaching to purchase a commercialized book or other work from which the faculty will receive royalties must obtain prior approval from the provost, whose decision is informed by a committee of disinterested faculty and academic administrators appointed by the provost.
______________
What is college time and funded? To broad. This needs to be re-written:

E. Scope of Employment: the combination of tasks, activities, projects, or other work for which the employee was hired, whether or not specifically listed in the employee’s job description.

F. College Resources: college funded time, facilities, or equipment used to create materials.
_______________________
SLCC should not be involved in the following professional relationship between faculty and students such as I publishing my students in books or journals. This should be taken out. Royalties have no business with SLCC.

(4) Faculty who want to require students in a course they are teaching to purchase a commercialized book or other work from which the faculty will receive royalties must obtain prior approval from the provost, whose decision is informed by a committee of disinterested faculty and academic administrators appointed by the provost.
________________
My workshop skills and activities and games I own and use them in my nonprofit and I do not plan or allow SLCC to own them. This is again limiting my community work for example I do in the prisons, jails, juvenile detention facilities, UN, or in other countries.

Work fitting into this category includes, but is not limited to:

(1) Instructional material such as syllabi, assignments, exercises, prompts, slide decks, quiz banks, course shells, and multimedia elements.
_______________________________
c. The relevant vice president or provost must approve the copyright ownership agreement or condition of work statement, which may include the following among other possible provisions:
(1) Copyright ownership.
____________________________
I hope you can sit down with me to give share my knowledge and experience as someone who has published over 45 books, edits five journals, and manages 7 book series. I look forward to a deep conversation on this.
__________________________
Define this and take this out - C. Work: a creation that is capable of copyright protection.

This above is everything written in the world. SLCC wants to own everything in the world written by their faculty. I never seen such a broad sweeping policy in my experience teaching all over the country and working with AAUP and writing on academic repression and neoliberalism.

This policy revision is much better than the original. The move to joint ownership gives faculty more rights and privileges over their work. I also am very happy to seen OER officially included into policy. I thought it fit nicely in this policy. I would hate to see the policy be delayed by another 15 day review and delay some much needed changes.

General Comment:
There was a spirited robust debate regarding this draft policy. While we recognize that this draft policy abandons the “work made for hire” classification and gives employees joint ownership in intellectual property rights for work that is done in the course of their employment, the draft policy needs substantial revisions and reorganization, so it clearly depicts college and employees’ copyright ownership rights. Among the most significant changes that should be made are as follows:

1. The employees who develop work without using college resources have sole ownership of Intellectual property rights.
2. A provision that one joint owner cannot prevent another joint owner from using a copyrighted work in a manner the other owner wishes.
3. The exceptions to joint ownership need to be more clearly stated and better organized within the policy.
4. The process by which a copyright agreement is developed should be outlined in the policy.

Specific Comments:

1. Policy Statement- revise this statement to state: “fruits of their expertise for the benefit of the College, faculty, staff and students and the community at large.”
2. References: Section 4.A.1 and 2 which sets forth General Principles for Copyright Protection should either be recharacterized as “General Copyright Principles” in section 4.A or these terms should be added to the reference section.
3. Definitions
   1. In section 4.B.1.a, the procedures reference “instructional materials” and “professional development,” these terms should be defined.
   2. In section 4.C.1.c, the policy uses the term “independent effort.” This term is defined in the existing policy. A shorter version of this definition should be incorporated into the definitions section of the draft policy.
4. Procedures
   1. In section 4.B.1 creates a subsection which clearly states when an employee has sole ownership in intellectual property rights In the current policy, section IV.B.1 has this language which is as follows:
      1. Employee Ownership of Copyrights
         1. The college will not assert an ownership interest in the copyright of scholarly works, or the products of independent effort related to the author's academic or professional field, regardless of the medium of expression.
         2. The original creator of the copyright protected work retains ownership rights to the copyright of such work, unless:
            (1) the work is a work made for hire;
            (2) the work is commissioned by the college as a work made for hire under a signed copyright ownership agreement;
            (3) the work is created because of an agreement between the college and a third party that assigns copyright ownership to either the college or the third party (this includes grant funded projects);
            (4) the work is considered a core element of curriculum; or
            (5) the work is created using significant college resources” Consider using language to this effect so the employee’s ownership right is clear when they create the work independent of the college. Adding language to this effect will make the policy clearer.
   2. Somewhere in section 4.B.1, add language as follows: “Unless a court order is obtained, one joint owner cannot prevent the other joint owner from using the copyrighted work in the manner desired” or words to this effect.
   3. Somewhere in section 4.B.1, add language as follows: “Unless a court order is obtained, one joint owner cannot prevent the other joint owner from using the copyrighted work in the manner desired” or words to this effect.
   4. In Section 4.B.2.a (1) and (2), you distinguish between incidental and substantial use of resources. In (1) you define “incidental” in the subsection as “meaning that it imposes no significant wear and tear, use of consumables, additional cost or loss” to the college. This should be included in the definitions section. Likewise, there should be a definition for what “substantial” means. Consider looking at Employee Conduct Policy section IV.12 as a guide for these definitions.
   5. In section 4.B, if there is joint ownership for use of course materials, what happens if the faculty member with joint ownership rights prohibits another faculty member from using his or Copyrighted material. How would the college manage this circumstance? This situation has occurred before at the college.
   6. In section 4.B.2.b.(2) (a) why does there have to be prior vice president approval if the faculty member creates a commercially valuable publication when his or her use of college resources is incidental? Consider revising that section to state “Employees wishing to make substantial use of College resources to engage in work that will produce commercially valuable publications, patents, or other intellectual property may do so only with a copyright ownership agreement which is previously approved by both the applicable vice president and employee.
   7. In section 4.B.2.b we reference a “copyright ownership agreement,” the policy should include a subsection outlining how to create a copyright ownership agreement.
   8. In section 4.B.2.b(4), consider revising to ensure that there is at least one Dean, Associate Dean and a faculty member who is knowledgeable on the book’s subject matter, so an informed review is conducted. Otherwise, this is a good provision.
   9. In section 4.B.3 add the word “specifically” between “may” and “commission.”
   10. In section 4.A.1.d, section 4.B.3 is referenced as “exceptions to joint ownership,” yet section 4.B.3 really does not discuss these exceptions. It seems like this subsection is specifically limited to “commissioned works.” Section 4.B.3 or this joint ownership exception section needs considerable reorganization and revision. Consider reorganizing in the following manner:
       3. Exceptions to Joint Ownership Rule
          1. Employee work developed independent of use of college resources
          2. Employee work developed with incidental use of college resources
          3. Employee work specifically commissioned by the college over which the college wishes to retain sole ownership
             (1) supplement this with provisions in section 4.B.3 of current draft policy.
          4. Where the appropriate Vice President and employee have entered a copyright ownership agreement stating each respective party’s copyright interests. This agreement must be negotiated with the assistance of the Office of General Counsel.”
   11. In section 4.B.3 which will list exceptions to the “joint ownership rule,” add a provision which states: “the college waives its copyrighted ownership property right unless there is an executed copyright agreement between the college and employee.”
   12. In section 4.B.3 move the last sentence in the first paragraph which states “They may also determine that the college retains sole copyright of all work produced under the employee’s scope of work.” This sentence should be made 4.B.3.d.
   13. In section 4.B.4, is a student’s written consent required for a faculty member displaying the student’s work to the class and an example of “good work” or “how an assignment should be done.”?
   14. In section 4.C, it was not clear why this was in the policy. This is a copyright policy and why does the policy discuss Openly Licensed Works. The college should have a separate policy addressing Openly Licensed Works and Open Educational Resources.
   15. In section 4.C, state that there is no joint ownership for Opened Licensed Works.
   16. In section 4.C.1.c, the term “independent effort” is referenced. This should be a definition. In the current policy section III.E defines “Independent effort.” Consider incorporating a shorter version of this definition in the policy.

1. I liken this policy to a parent who gives their house to all their children in their estate. It may seem like a gift that benefits the children, but what happens when financial considerations are involved? What if one wants to sell and the other doesn’t? How are profits divided? How are costs assessed? Who shares the liability if the owner of the house is sued?

“Joint Ownership” of works created by college employees and the college is atypical and may be fraught with legal questions and disagreement, unless the procedures are extremely clear and can account for all situations. I found this policy to be very confusing, as compared to the original policy, and the current draft brought up more questions than answers. I think the procedures are not specified well enough to answer questions such as: Will the college share the profits as well as the costs and liabilities? What if a creator is sued for violation of another’s copyright? Will the college share the liability and expense to defend the college employee with whom the college jointly shares the ownership?

2. In Section 4.B.2.b.(3): This policy references the following policies: the Acceptable Use of College Computing Resources and Conflict of Interest, External Employment, and Consultation policy.

I think that these policies should be reviewed at the same time as the Copyright Ownership Policy to guarantee clarity and consistency.

3. The University of Utah policy on Copyright Ownership states in part: “This Policy preserves the practice of allowing faculty to own the copyrights to traditional scholarly works, and at the same time seeks to protect the interests of the university in works that are created with the substantial use of university resources (see Section III.B). Although this Policy provides guidelines for determining copyright ownership, faculty are strongly encouraged to clarify issues of ownership and revenue sharing by specific written agreements with the Technology Licensing Office at the outset of the project or otherwise as soon as practicable.”

I would like to see SLCC’s policy give ownership of employee creators’ works, sole ownership of their works, unless there are exceptional circumstances as identified in the policy.

4. In Section 4.B.2.b.(2).(b): it may be unknow to the creator if a work is commercially valuable until after it is created. Essentially this means that ALL creative work of every employee must be disclosed to their supervisor and vice president.

5. In Section 4.B.2.b.(4): The college’s oversight interest in this provision of the policy is obvious and reasonable; however, because it is a major change from the existing policy, faculty who are affected by this provision may need time to adjust their curriculum if the provost does not grant approval. Also, in the case where approval is denied, that decision may affect other professors who teach the same course and choose, as part of their academic freedom, to require students to use the same materials. Perhaps a ”limited grandfather clause” should be included in the policy.

Also, to ensure fairness and equitable treatment to all faculty to which this provision applies, I suggest that the evaluation rubric that the provost uses should be made a part of this policy. Without that rubric, it may impact talented prospective faculty who own their teaching materials or receive royalties, and perhaps dissuade them from wanting to seek employment at SLCC.

6. For the above reasons, and those of the Joint Faculty/Staff Policy Review Committee, I am hoping that this policy proposal will be pulled from 15-day review so improvements can be made to the policy and reviewed at a later date in conjunction with the policies referenced in item 2 of these comments.