< back
to full column list
< back
to academic authors column list
< back
to textbook authors column list
What
I Create Is Mine, and I Can Tell a Difference
By
Paul Tippens
PAUL
TIPPENS
was elected to the TAA Council in 1997 and re-elected in 1999.
He writes on physics and teaches at Southern Poly.
"When
I create a chapter of my textbook while in my office at the university,
using a university computer, that chapter belongs to me!" |
Should colleges
lay claim to royalty income of their professors who write textbooks?
This is a critical and timely issue we face every time a college decides
to explore the possibilities of sharing in the intellectual property
that authors create.
Although not a legal expert nor a tax adviser, I can recognize easily
what is my property and what is the college's property. When I create
a chapter of my textbook while in my office at the university, using
a university computer, that chapter belongs to me!
If the college wants to bill me or deduct from my salary the portion
of that work that it says belongs to it, then I will submit a bill to
the college for the work I do at my home using my equipment to do university
work. I see nothing cloudy about this issue. If, indeed, the law says
the university can take away my creative work on such inconsequential
grounds, then I will challenge that law, and I believe a jury of my
peers will support me. However, I believe in most states the law is
not that rigid.
For example, when a rather rigid interpretation of intellectual property
was proposed at our university, I and others opposed it vigorously,
and I believe we came to a reasonable compromise that is reflected in
the board of regents policy. Current policy clearly recognizes and encourages
creative activity on campuses in Georgia. It makes distinctions between:
- Sponsor-supported
efforts.
- Institution-assigned
efforts.
- Institution-assisted
efforts.
- IIndividual efforts.
With individual efforts,
ownership rights reside with the creator provided that there is no use,
"except in a purely incidental way" of institutional resources. The "purely
incidental" stuff, just like the "suitable time" clauses in our royalty
contracts, are open to interpretation. However, the incidental use clause
demonstrates that colleges and state boards acknowledge that such work
can occur, at least in Georgia.
The University of Texas has worked out a much better statement. There, an employee owns intellectual property if it is "embodied in a
professional-, faculty-, researcher- or student-authored scholarly, educational,
artistic, musical, literary or architectural work in the author's field
of expertise, even though such a work may be within the scope of employment
and even if System resources were used -- unless it is a scholarly work
created by someone who was specifically hired or required to create it
or commissioned by the System or a component institution of System, in
either of which cases, Board, not the creator, will own the intellectual
property.
The point is that university faculties often determine their own policies
within state guidelines. We in TAA need to continue to help faculties
resist the efforts of some colleges to extract whatever they can from
young authors. Stating our opinion and perhaps drafting a model policy
that might be used by authors to keep what is rightfully theirs seems
to me an appropriate activity for TAA. The debate is going on, with or
without us, and I believe we should attempt to shape those discussions.
|
