Spice Ethics Paper

8/7/2019 Spice Ethics Paper

1/21

InstitutionalIPPolicy-1

IntellectualPropertyPoliciesinHigherEducation:

acasestudyatWashington&LeeUniversity

C.GrahamSpice

MSMTGraduateStudent

IUPUIMusicandArtsTechnology

Fall2010


2/21


Statementofobjective

Ownershipofintellectualpropertywithinthecontextofhighereducationhasbeena

contentiousissueforthepastquartercentury.Institutionsofhigherlearninghave

addressedtheseconcernsbyestablishinginstitutionalpoliciesthatdefine

ownershipofintellectualpropertyauthoredbyuniversityprofessorsandthrough

facultycontracts.

WashingtonandLeeUniversitysPolicyonIntellectualPropertywillbeusedasa

vehicleforexploringIntellectualPropertyownershipinhighereducation.The

PolicyonIntellectualPropertyusedbyWashingtonandLeeUniversitytakesthe

generallyacceptedstanceofastudyofliberalartsversusthatofresearch

institutionsandhistoricalbusinesspractice:

Incontrasttohistoricalbusinesspractice,thetraditionofacademicinstitutions

istogivefacultymemberstherighttoretainownershipoftheirIntellectual

Property.(University,2004)

Historicalbasisforcopyright

Theoriginsofcopyrightlawbeganasadirectreactiontotheinventionofthe

printingpress.Copyrightstatueswereinitiallyestablishedasalegalmethodfor

churchesandgovernmentstolimitdissentandcriticism.Thefirstlegislation

enactedtodirectlyaddresscopyrightlawwasEnglandsStatuteofAnnein1710.

Thefirstcopyrightstatuteprovidedlegalprotectiontotheauthorofaworkfor14


3/21


yearsandwasintendedtoencouragelearnedMentocomposeandwriteuseful

Books.(Deazley,2006)

TheStatuteofAnneestablishedalegalrightoftheauthortocontroltheeconomic

concernsofacopyrightedwork.Othercountriesbegantoestablishtheirown

copyrightlegislationtoestablishsimilarrights.Francewasinstrumentalin

expandingtheconcernsofthislegislationtotherightsoftheauthor,ordroit

d'auteur.Frenchcopyrightlawsplittherightsoftheauthorintotwodistinctsets:

proprietaryrightsandmoralrights.Thisbroaderscopeoftherightsoftheauthor

hasbeenaprimaryinfluenceonthedevelopmentofinternationalcopyrightlaw

suchastheBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks.

(Wikipedia,2010b)

TheBerneConventionisaninternationalcopyrightagreement,firstacceptedin

1886.EachcountryintheBerneUnionconfirmsthattheywillprovideautomatic

protectionforworksofauthorsfromothersignatorycountries.TheBerne

Conventionalsoestablishedtheprincipleofnationaltreatment:legalcopyright

protectionshouldbeequalineverywaytothecopyrightprotectionsexercisedby

itsowncitizens.(Service,2009)

CongressenactedthefirstUnitedStatescopyrightlawin1790,rejectingtheFrench

approachofinformalgrantsofcopyrightadaptedfromtheStatuteofAnne.Because

theUnitedStatesdidnotjointhemanynationsatBernetoconsideramultilateral

treatyoncopyrightprotection,Congresswasunderpressuretoamendthe


4/21


copyrightlaws,resultingintheInternationalCopyrightActof1891.Thisact

extendedAmericancopyrightprotectiontoforeigners.(Mak,1989)

FollowingtheRomerevisiontotheBerneConventionin1928,moralrightswere

addedtotherequirementsasfollows:

Independentlyoftheauthor'seconomicrights,andevenafterthetransferof

the...rights,theauthorshallhavetheright...toobjecttoanydistortion,

mutilation,orothermodificationof,orotherderogatoryactioninrelationto,

the...work,whichwouldbeprejudicialtohishonororreputation.

(Convention,1979)

AlthoughU.S.copyrightlawwassignificantlydifferentfromthatestablishedbythe

BerneConvention,resultingintheUnitedStates'refusaltoaccepttheConvention

forseveralyears,theUnitedStateschangeditscopyrightlawsquitesignificantlyin

the1970sandsubsequentlysignedtheConvention.(Mak,1989)

TheBerneConventionrequiresthattermofcopyrightbeaminimumoftheauthors

lifetimeplus50years.AnadditionalrequirementofBerneisthattherenotbeany

formalregistrationfortheestablishmentofcopyright.Althoughanofficialmember

oftheBerneConvention,theUnitedStatesstillrequirescopyrightregistrationto

receivecertainlegalcoverage.

AmajorcriticismoftheBerneConventionwasitslackofenforcementmechanisms.

TheWorldTradeOrganizationcreatedtheAgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsof

IntellectualPropertyRights(TRIPS)in1995toaddresstheseconcernsbycreating


5/21


strongenforcementmechanisms.OtherobjectivesofTRIPSweretoprovidemore

orderandpredictability,andfordisputestobesettledmoresystematically.

(Organization,2010)

Exclusiverightsguaranteedbycopyright

Copyrightisliterally,therighttocopy,thoughinlegalterms"therightto

controlcopying"ismoreaccurate.Copyrightareexclusivestatutoryrightsto

exercisecontrolovercopyingandotherexploitationoftheworksfora

specificperiodoftime.Thecopyrightownerisgiventwosetsofrights:an

exclusive,positiverighttocopyandexploitthecopyrightedwork,orlicense

otherstodoso,andanegativerighttopreventanyoneelsefromdoingso

withoutconsent,withthepossibilityoflegalremediesiftheydo.(Wikipedia,

2010a)

TheFrenchcopyrightnotionofmoralrightsisstillofinteresttoday.Thesemoral

rightsdifferfromeconomicrightsintheworkthatcanbetransferredbytheauthor

tootherpeopleinthesamewayasanyotherproperty.Moralrightsarenon-

transferrableandgenerallyincludeattritionalongwiththeabilitytokeepthework

freeofmutilationordistortion.

Copyrightoriginallywasintendedtocoverthewrittenwordbutwiththe

proliferationofanalogandmorerecentlydigitalmediumsthescopeofcopyrightis

muchlarger.Copyrightnowcoversawiderangeofmediaincludingvideos,audio


6/21


recordings,computersoftware,maps,photographs,etc.Itisalsoimportanttonote

thatcopyrightisnotabletoprotectideas,onlytheirfixationorexpression.

FairUse

FairuseisatermthatoriginatedintheUnitedStatesdescribinganexceptiontothe

exclusiverightsprovidedbycopyrightlaw.Manycountrieshaveanexemptionfor

educationalusealthoughthescopeoftheseexemptionsvaries.TheWikiofEnglish

Teachingmaintainsalistofwhatcopyrightexemptionsexistforteachersinvarious

partsoftheworld.(Teflpedia,2010)

ChapteroneoftheCopyrightlawsofTheUnitedStatesinsection107states:

Notwithstandingtheprovisionsofsections17U.S.C.106and17U.S.C.

106A,thefairuseofacopyrightedwork,includingsuchusebyreproduction

incopiesorphonorecordsorbyanyothermeansspecifiedbythatsection,

forpurposessuchascriticism,comment,newsreporting,teaching(including

multiplecopiesforclassroomuse),scholarship,orresearch,isnotan

infringementofcopyright.Indeterminingwhethertheusemadeofaworkin

anyparticularcaseisafairusethefactorstobeconsideredshallinclude:

1. thepurposeandcharacteroftheuse,includingwhethersuchuseisofacommercialnatureorisfornonprofiteducationalpurposes;

2. thenatureofthecopyrightedwork;


7/21


3. theamountandsubstantialityoftheportionusedinrelationtothecopyrightedworkasawhole;and

4. theeffectoftheuseuponthepotentialmarketfororvalueofthecopyrightedwork.

Thefactthataworkisunpublishedshallnotitselfbarafindingoffairuseif

suchfindingismadeuponconsiderationofalltheabovefactors.

(Government,2010)

Thereisnosimpletesttodeterminewhatisfairuse.Section107oftheCopyright

Actsetsforththefourfairusefactorswhichshouldbeassessedineachinstance,

basedontheparticularfactsofagivencasetodeterminewhetherauseisfairuse:

(Committee,2007)

1. Whatisthecharacteroftheuse?2. Whatisthenatureoftheworktobeused?3. Howmuchoftheworkwillyouuse?4. Whateffectwouldthisusehaveonthemarketfortheoriginalorfor

permissionsiftheusewerewidespread?

IntellectualPropertypositionsinhighereducation

Thetermintellectualpropertyhasrecentlyenjoyedameteoricriseinusage

althoughithasbeentracedasfarbackas1845.TheBerneConventioncreatedan

internationalorganizationin1893calledtheUnitedInternationalBureauxforthe


8/21


ProtectionofIntellectualProperty(BIRPI).Thetermbegantocommandmore

attentionin1967whentheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization(WIPO)was

establishedasanagencyoftheUnitedNations.(Lemley,2005)

ThreeoptionsexistfortheownershipofIntellectualPropertyinhighereducation:

authorownership,institutionalownershipandsharedownership.Liberalarts

institutionsgenerallyleantowardsauthorownershipwhileresearch-oriented

schoolsrelyoninstitutionalandsharedownershiptomaintainfundingcontracts.

WashingtonandLeeUniversityinLexington,Virginia,isaprivateliberalarts

institution.LeannShank,theGeneralCounselatWashingtonandLee,offeredher

thoughtsontheUniversitysPolicyonIntellectualProperty:

TheunderlyingphilosophyofWashingtonandLeesIPPolicyistoencourage

facultytodoresearchandcreateIPthattheywillown.Theyareexpectedtogive

theUniversityperpetualrightstouseit.Bigresearchinstitutions(likethe

UniversityofTexas)areadifferentanimal.Theyrelyonthirdpartyand

governmentgrantstofundthecreationofcopyrightablematerials.Oursis

meanttobeflexibleandtoencourageartisticexpression.Therewardisallowing

theauthorstoowntheIP.(Spice,2010)

Shankoutlinesaclassicargumentinfavorofcopyright:ownershipencouragesthe

creatortobemoreproductiveasaresultoftheworksabilitytobemonetarily

successful.Whentheinstitutionclaimsownershipthisargumentwouldsuggestthat

theauthoroftheresearchwouldnothavetheincentivetoproducequalityor


9/21


quantitywork.Thisargumentisinfluencedbythelengthylegalhistoryofviewing

anindividualscreativeoutputwithinthecontextofcommonlawpropertyrules.

Theconceptofviewingintellectualcreationsaspropertycanbedatedbackasfaras

the16thcentury.TherearepassagesintheTalmud,theancientJewishtextfrom200

CE,thatdisallowmentalcrimessuchasstealingideasfromothersminds.Perhaps

theideaofframingintellectualoutputaspropertycamefromthetragedyofthe

commonsasexplainedbyLemley:Thecentralideahereisthatjointorpublic

ownershipofapieceofpropertyisinefficient,becausenon-ownerswhousethe

propertyhavenoincentivetotakecareofitandwillthereforeoveruseit.(Lemley,

2005)

TheintroductiontoWashingtonandLeeUniversitysPolicyonIntellectualProperty

reliesontheUniversitysmissionasthejustificationfortheauthorownership

position.McPhersonmakesasimilarargumentforauthorownership,claimingthe

missionofhighereducationistocreateanddistributeknowledgeinordertoenrich

andimprovethelivesofindividualsandtostrengthensociety.Withthismissionin

mind,McPhersonarguesthattheincentivetoinvent,createandimproveintellectual

propertyisgreatlydiminishedwhentheauthordoesnotowntheproducedwork.

(McPherson,2009)

Inadditiontothepossiblemonetarysuccess,thereareotherbenefitstoanauthor

ownershipIPpolicy.Publishableworksenhancecareeropportunitiesby

establishingtheauthorasanexpertintheirfield.Secondly,theauthorisableto


10/21


shareresearchinconjunctionwiththeinstitutionsacademicmission(e.g.,inthe

classroom,atlectures,etc.)Third,publicationoforiginalworksisofgeneralbenefit

tosociety.Finally,thesebenefitsofauthorownershipcanpromotethecontinued

developmentoftheresearchastheownercontinuestoestablishhimorherself

withinthecontextofthecopyrightedwork.

Institutionalownershipofprofitableintellectualpropertyallowsforobvious

financialbenefitstotheuniversitybutmostinstitutionalIPpoliciesarequickto

pointoutthattheprimarygoalofuniversitiesisnotfinancialgain.Federallaw

requiresthattheuniversityownallintellectualpropertythatresultsfrom

sponsoredprogramsgrants,cooperativeagreements,andcontracts.Institutions

thatrelyonthirdpartyfundingforresearchneedtoofferguaranteesthatthese

privatepartiescanhaveaccesstotheworkscreated.Institutionalownershipof

intellectualpropertygeneratedbyemployeesensuresthattheuniversitycancreate

suchguarantees.(Myers,2003)

Historically,controlovercopyrightshasnotbeenasfirmlysettledasthe

practicesgoverningtrademarksandpatents,probablybecausethemonetary

rewardsforacademicworkthatiscopyrightablehavebeenperceivedasso

small.Manycollegesanduniversitieshavelonghadpoliciesasserting

institutionalownershipoverthecopyrightstofaculty-createdworks,butthey

seldomtriedtoenforcethemuntilrecently.Withtheadventofdigitaltechnology

andthegrowthofdistanceeducation,however,thepotentialrewardsseem

morepromising,andthecostsandeffortrequiredtocapturethoserewards


11/21


morereasonable.Asaresult,facultyandadministrationsinitiatedasometimes

contentiousexchangeinthe1990sovercontrolofacademicwork.(Smith,2002)

Workscreatedbyemployeesofaninstitutionthatarespecifiedinajobdescription

orconsideredgeneraldutiesarereferredtoasdirectedworksinmanyIPpolicies

inhighereducation.Thesedirectedworksareownedbytheemployinginstitution.

Additionally,non-traditionalworksthatmayfallunderinstitutionalownership

wouldincludeprojectsfundedbytheUniversityabovenormalcontractual

obligations.Intellectualpropertypoliciesinhighereducationgenerallyleantowards

flexibleapplication.Assuch,mostpoliciesprovideforexceptionstotheserules.

(Committee,2003)SomeIPpoliciesevenallowforincomesharingwithauthorsof

directedworks.(University,1998)

Sharedownershipofintellectualpropertycancomeintoplaywhenanindividual

effortismorethanincidentallyassistedbyUniversityresources.Sharedownership

canalsocontributetothefairdistributionandmanagementofincomecreatedby

intellectualproperty.

TheIPPolicyatWashingtonandLeeUniversityencouragesauthorstoconsider

sharingprofitofIPwiththeuniversitytoaidincopyrightenforcementand

promotion.Thepolicyalsoallowsforthissharedownershiptotakeequity

positionsincompanieslicensedtomarketoruseIntellectualProperty.(University,

2004)


12/21


TrendsinInstitutionalIntellectualPropertyPolicies

Thetypeofuniversityconsideringthepolicycaninfluencethedecisionofwhich

modeltofollowforaninstitutionalIntellectualPropertyPolicy.Mostoftheprivate,

liberalartsuniversitiesIPPoliciesreviewedfollowtheauthorownershipmodel.

Mostofthelarge,research-focusedinstitutionshaveIPpoliciesthatputthe

ownershipofemployee-generatedIPwiththeinstitution.

AnothertrendininstitutionalIPPoliciesisaflexibilitytoallowforjointownership.

Becausethepolicyattemptstoregulatetheunseen,flexibilityintheenforcementof

andgenerationofIPagreementsisnecessary.AllreviewedinstitutionalIPPolicies

include,atminimum,royaltysharingagreementsthataddresstheBerne

Conventionsattributionrequirements.Anyonewhocontributesthekindof

expressionprotectedbythelawisajointauthorifthecontributionisintendedtobe

partofanintegratedwhole.(Counsel,2006)

ThesetrendsinoverallIPpolicyinhighereducationmaynotapplytodistance

learningresources.Astudyconductedin2001ofdeansofcollegesofeducationin

regardstotheirownershipofdistanceeducationcoursesfoundthat45%ofthe

institutionownedtherights,11%indicatedthefacultyhadtherights,and24%

indicatedthoserightswereshared(20%indicated"other,"whichwasnot

explained).(Meyer,2002)

AnothercommonfeatureofinstitutionalIPPoliciesisaclausethatallowsthe

universitytoutilizetheIPgeneratedbytheiremployeeforfreeinteaching,

extension,research,etc.inperpetuity.Thisoptionalsoallowstheinstitutionto


13/21


continueusingthegeneratedIPwhenothersteachthecourse.Theseclauses

generategoodwillbetweentheauthorsandtheinstitutions,encouragingboththe

authorandinstitutiontouseemployee-generatedIPinpedagogy.

Aninstitution'sinterestsmayalsobechanginginthepresentenvironment.

Collegesanduniversitiesmayhaveaninterestingainingcopyright

ownershipinordertocontrolthedisseminationofeducationalmaterialsto

rivalinstitutions,toensurecontinuedaccesstomaterialsusedinkeycourses,

andtogainlicensingfeesfrommaterialsthatprovepopularorvaluable.

However,aninstitutionmayhaveequallystrongcountervailingdisincentives

againstgainingownership.Thefullbenefitsofcopyrightcannotbeachieved

withoutregistrationofthework,andtrackingsuchregistrationsmaybe

costlyandtime-consuming.Vigorouslicensingofsuchworksmaybeequally

costly.Someinstitutions,especiallysmallercollegeswithoutanestablished

technologytransferofficeorpreviousexpertiseincopyrightdevelopment,

maynothavetheresourcestodevotetothetypeofintellectualproperty

managementprogramthatwouldattendacquisitionofalargecopyright

portfolio.

Clearallocationofcopyrightownershipandcontrolisnecessarytoavoid

disputesoverelectroniccoursematerials.Althoughthelawconcerning

authorshipofeducationalworksisnotclear,muchoftheconfusioncreated

bytheacademicexceptiontotheworks-made-for-hiredoctrinecanbesolved

bycarefullicensedrafting.(Burk,1998)


14/21


Creatingandmaintaininghighethicalstandardsiscriticalforthereputationofan

institution.EstablishingastrongIntellectualPropertyPolicyisoneofthestepsthat

auniversitycantaketohelptheiremployeesknowtheirlegalrightsandalsocreate

apublicrecordoftheinstitutionalintent.JohnsHopkinsUniversitysConflictof

InterestPolicyreinforcesthisconclusion:publicconfidenceintheUniversitys

integrityundoubtedlyranksamongitsgreatestassets.(University,)

CaseStudy:WashingtonandLeeUniversitysIntellectualPropertyPolicy

WashingtonandLeeUniversitysIntellectualPropertyPolicywasformalizedin

March2004inresponsetoquestionsfromprofessorsabouttheirintellectual

propertyrights.Thepolicywascreatedbyacommitteeoffacultyand

administrationandisbased,inpart,onrelatedpoliciesfromTuftsUniversityand

LehighUniversity.IthasnotbeenrevisedsincetheoriginalissuebutShanknotedin

arecentinterviewthatitistimeforustotakeanotherlookatourcopyrightpolicy.

(Spice,2010)

ThegeneralformatofWashingtonandLeesIPPolicyfollowstheSample

IntellectualPropertyPolicyavailableattheAmericanAssociationofUniversity

Professorswebsite,beginningwiththeIntroductionthatcontainsthePolicy

StatementandApplicabilitysections.Thecreationofintellectualproperty

simultaneouslycreatesrightsthatcouldbesharedbyavarietyofplayers.Thegoal

ofthepolicyistoencouragethecreationofIPandhelpemployeesoftheuniversity

bemoreawareoftheirroleintheownershipofcopyrightsandpatents.ThePolicy


15/21


Statementconcludesbyrelatingthegoalsofthepolicywiththeacademicmissionof

theuniversitythroughtheencouragementofintellectualpropertygenerationby

theirfaculty,staffandstudents.Followingabriefdeclarationaboutdefinitionsof

applicabletermsbeingfoundwithinthedocument,theactualPolicyisdefined.

ThePolicybeginsbydefiningwhattypesofmaterialsarecoveredbythepolicy.The

typesofIPcoveredbythepolicyincludetext,videosandmotionpictures,music,

imagesandcomputersoftware.Additionally,patentableworkssuchaspatents,

devicesandsoftwareexcludedfromcopyrightedmaterialsareconsideredIP.Finally,

trademarkedmaterialsandtradesecretsarealsocoveredunderthispolicy.

Afterdefiningthetraditionalandnon-traditionaltypesofIPcoveredbythePolicy,

therulesofOwnershipandUsearedetailed.TheGeneralRuleisashortsummaryof

theauthorownershipmodelandthebenefitsfortheuniversityanditsemployees.

TheOwnershipandUsesectioncontinueswithPatentableIntellectualProperty

definitions.WhileWashingtonandLeespatentpolicymaintainstheirauthor

ownershipstance,circumstancesaredefinedwheretheUniversitycanasserta

sharedownershipmodelwiththecreator.WashingtonandLeehasreviewedafew

situationswherepatentscouldhavebeencreatedbuttheywereneverfiledfor.

(Spice,2010)

TheUniversityspolicyonOtherIntellectualPropertycontinuestheauthor

ownershipstance.Facultyisencouragedtodiscusscopyrightedworksthathave

commercialvaluewiththeUniversity.Oninitialreading,thismightsuggestthatif

thereismoneytobemadetheUniversitywantstogetapieceofit.Inreality,the


16/21


motivationforthistextistohelpcopyrightcreatorsknowtheirrights.Shank

responds:Facultymayunknowinglysigncontractstocreateworksforacontracted

thirdparty.Thisisheads-upforfacultytosaverightsforthemselvesandbewareof

veryone-sidedcontracts.(Spice,2010)

ThelasttwosectionsoftheUniversityspolicyonIntellectualPropertydescribes

situationswhereaprivatepartysponsorsresearch.Undertheseconditions,the

sponsoroftheresearchprogramgenerallyrequiresthattheUniversityownallthe

createdintellectualproperty.ThefinalsectiondescribesSpecialAgreements,

providingtheflexibilitytocreateagreementsbetweentheUniversityandthe

creatortodeterminecopyrightownership.

TheremainderofWashingtonandLeeUniversitysIntellectualPropertyPolicy

focusesontheAdministrationofthepolicy,howRoyaltieswillbereceivedand

administered,howdisputeswillberesolvedanddefinitionsoftheuseofUniversity

trademarkednamesandlogos.Thesesectionscontinuetofollowthestandard

practiceofreviewedIPPoliciesatotherinstitutionsandalsofollowthesampleIP

PolicysuggestedbytheAmericanAssociationofUniversityProfessors.(Professors,

2010)

Conclusions

AfterreviewingguidelinesfortheestablishmentofIntellectualPropertyPoliciesin

highereducation,theIPPolicyatWashingtonandLeeUniversityfollowsthese

guidelines.Althoughthemotivationsforcreativitywillalwaysbeatopicofdebate,


17/21


theargumentsfortheauthorownershipmodelarenotatoddswiththese

motivationsastheothermodelsofIPownershipcouldbe.

UnitedStatescopyrightlawanddigitalmediahavebothgonethroughmajor

changesinthelast30years.Asaresult,highereducationhasreactedbycreating

strongIntellectualPropertyPoliciestohelptheemployeesunderstandhowthese

changesapplytotheownershipoftheirworksandencouragethemtocontinue

creating.

Mostimportantly,institutionsandauthorsofintellectualpropertyshouldbesureto

framethediscussionofcopyrightownershipwithinthecoremissionofeducation.

AsliteraryscholarF.O.Matthiessenwroteinthebeginningofhis1941book,

AmericanRenaissance,Thetruefunctionofscholarship,asofsociety,isnottostake

outclaimsonwhichothersmustnottrespassbuttoprovideacommunityof

knowledgeinwhichothersmayshare.(Smith,2002)


18/21


References

Professors,A.A.o.U.(2010).SampleIntellectualPropertyPolicy&Contract

Language.Retrievedfrom

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/DE/sampleIP.htm

Convention,B.(1979).BerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtistic

Works.Retrievedfrom

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html

Burk,D.L.(1998).Ownershipofelectroniccoursematerialsinhighereducation.

Campus-WideInformationSystems,15(4),142-147.Retrievedfrom

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=863331&show=abstr

act

Committee,C.(2003).CopyrightUseandOwnershipPolicyoftheUniversityof

NorthCarolina.Retrievedfrom

http://www.ncsu.edu/policies/governance_admin/gov_gen/REG01.25.3.php

Committee,C.(2007).WashingtonandLeeUniversityPolicyfortheUseof

CopyrightedWorks.Retrievedfrom

http://library.wlu.edu/copyrightpolicy.html

Deazley,R.(2006).Rethinkingcopyright:history,theory,language.EdwardElgar

Publishing.Retrievedfrom

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dMYXq9V1JBQC&oi=fnd&pg=P


19/21


R5&dq=Rethinking+copyright&ots=4q5aMxPVyz&sig=P9I4I6jTXjFLNhHi31-

VtbhitsQ

University,G.S.(1998).GeorgiaSouthernUniversityIntellectualPropertyPolicy.

Retrievedfrom

http://welcome.georgiasouthern.edu/president/Intellectual_Property_Policy_f

inal.pdf

University,J.H.UniversityPolicyonConflictofInterestandConflictofCommitment.

Retrievedfromhttp://jhuresearch.jhu.edu/Policy_onConflict_of_Interest.pdf

Lemley,M.A.(2005).Property,intellectualproperty,andfreeriding.TexasLaw

Review,83,1031.Retrievedfrom

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=582602

McPherson,P.(2009).OnEnsuringThatIntellectualPropertyPublicPolicy

PromotesProgress.EDUCAUSEReview,vol.44,no.1,45.Retrievedfrom

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineV

olume44/OnEnsuringThatIntellectualProp/163581

Meyer,K.A.(2002).Doespolicymakeadifference?Anexplorationintopoliciesfor

distanceeducation.OnlineJournalofDistanceLearningAdministration,5(4).

Retrievedfrom

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter54/meyer54.htm

Myers,P.E.(2003).Developinganintellectualpropertypolicyatapredominantly

undergraduateinstitution.JournalofResearchAdministration,34(1),8-13.


20/21


Retrievedfrom

http://direct.bl.uk/research/4E/3F/RN129798105.html?source=googleschola

r

University,O.o.G.C.a.W.a.L.(2004).PolicyonIntellectualProperty.Retrieved

fromhttp://www.wlu.edu/x32958.xml

Mak,S.&.(1989).CopingwiththeBerneConvention.Retrievedfrom

http://www.usip.com/pdf/Article_Patents/BerneConvention.pdf

Smith,M.F.(2002).IntellectualPropertyandtheAAUP.Academe,88(5),39-42.

Retrievedfrom

http://aaup.org/AAUP/CMS_Templates/AcademeTemplates/AcademeArticle.

aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID={921D53EF-CDF5-435E-9AD4-

2F08E1B66755}&NRORIGINALURL=/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2002/SO/Feat

/Smit.htm&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest

Spice,C.G.(2010).PersonalinterviewwithLeannM.Shank.

Teflpedia.(2010).CopyrightinEnglishlanguageteaching.Retrievedfrom

http://teflpedia.com/index.php?title=Copyright_in_English_language_teaching

Counsel,U.T.S.O.o.G.(2006).U.T.SystemIntellectualPropertyPolicyInPlain

English.Retrievedfrom

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/ippol.htm

Service,U.K.C.(2009).FactsheetP-08:TheBerneConvention.Retrievedfrom

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p08_berne_convention


21/21


Government,U.S.(2010).USCODE:Title17,107.Limitationsonexclusiverights:

Fairuse.Retrievedfrom

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Wikipedia.(2010a).Copyright:Exclusiverightsgrantedbycopyright.Retrieved

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Exclusive_rights_granted_by_copyrig

ht

Wikipedia.(2010b).Frenchcopyrightlaw.Retrievedfrom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_copyright_law

Organization,W.T.(2010).Intellectualproperty:protectionandenforcement.

Retrievedfrom

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm

Documents

Spice Ethics Paper