According to Wikipedia ; Edwin Ted M.
Ownership of Faculty Work: The distance education craze of the 's pushed the question of faculty ownership of scholarly work into the forefront of higher education legal debate. The creation of classes where the entire course is taught on-line, where reading material, syllabus, teaching notes, commentary and all other aspects of a class are conducted remotely, and most influentially, the possibility of significant profit from that class, forced faculty and administrations to start thinking about who owned that material, and who had control over its future distribution, revision and maintenance.
Teaching and scholarship were increasingly broken down into component parts, and we all continue to attempt to put that round peg of academic work into the square hole of copyright law. While the headlong rush toward computerized distance education has slowed down considerably, it has permanently changed our way of thinking about copyright ownership in academe.
The concept of academic work as individual tasks, each with separate, discrete owners, continues to resurface, calling into question the very fabric of academic thought and scholarship. Faculty are hired to be independent thinkers.
That is their value. And this model does not fit into the corporate notion of copyright ownership and work for hire. A Kansas court recently faced these issues in determining whether copyright ownership was a mandatory subject of bargaining. The court, in a rather bizarre decision, concluded it was not, because, it said, mandatory bargaining would conflict with federal law's provision that an author may to negotiate away his or her intellectual property Lawful contracting essay but is not required to do so.
To reach this conclusion, the court assumed faculty intellectual property was work-for-hire, and thus the property of the University—a very questionable legal assumption.
Yet the case raises interesting questions in that if the reverse were true, namely if faculty scholarly work is held to be the property of the faculty author, then the same argument would hold true in that the faculty author could not be forced to negotiate away that copyright.
The Regents argued that intellectual property could not be considered a condition of employment because the subject had been preempted by federal and state law. The court concluded that making intellectual property rights mandatorily negotiable conflicted with federal law because federal copyright law allows an author here presumed to be the university to negotiate away his or her intellectual property rights but does not require the author to do so.
The basic question remains: Is copyright a federally protected ownership right which cannot be governed by collective bargaining contracts? Or is it a matter of employment rights, and essential in the bargaining process?
Is it an hours and rewards question, or a fundamental ownership question or an academic freedom question?
The answer, it seems, is "yes" to all, but this complexity seems to present an impossible conundrum for the courts. The basic law on copyright is fairly straightforward: Copyright law protects original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium See 17 U. Thus copyright belongs, most simply, to the author as soon as the author "fixes" it in writing.
This standard is a fairly easy one to meet; it is much less stringent than that for getting a patent see Appendix A, Distinctions Between Copyright, Patent and Trademark. Consequently, copyright offers much less protection than patent.
Copyright owners don't have to record their copyright. Copyright can simply be asserted once the work is fixed in a tangible medium. While copyright can be registered and, if a lawsuit is filed to enforce a copyright, must be registered at that timesuch registration is not necessary to create the copyright protection.
Covered Works are anything fixed in a tangible medium. It also includes anything else fixed, no matter how it is fixed. Thus it includes documents "written" on a computer disk, web pages, notes on scraps of paper, even your grocery list.
Anything fixed qualifies for protection. Copyright does not protect ideas, nor does it protect the labor that goes into creating a written work.
If a work shows some originality or creativity in the way it is put together, that creative presentation might itself be copyrighted, but the data is not. Rural Telephone Service Co. In this case the Supreme Court held that alphabetical listings in telephone directory white pages are not copyrightable.
The Court allowed copyright protection for compilations or directories only for any original and creative elements of the arrangement or selection, and excluded protection of the underlying data.
In doing so the Court rejected a number of decisions supporting a "sweat of the brow" doctrine which allowed copyright protection based on the amount of work involved, rather than strictly on originality or creativity.
The Court concluded that the sweat-of-the-brow doctrine went too far in that it "extended copyright protection in a compilation beyond selection and arrangement--…to the facts themselves.Polygamy.
Polygamy as a doctrine was introduced into the LDS Church by Joseph Smith. The practice continued after Joseph’s death in , and was publicly announced in , five years after the Saints arrived in Utah. People depend on you to keep their workplaces safe — so when it’s time to earn your master’s degree, you shouldn’t have to leave your job to do it.
With Georgia Tech's Professional Master's in Occupational Safety and Health (PMOSH), you'll elevate your career with instruction from top leaders. You'll learn how to produce first-rate action plans, improve current safety and. Risk is the possibility of losing something of value.
Values (such as physical health, social status, emotional well-being, or financial wealth) can be gained or lost when taking risk resulting from a given action or inaction, foreseen or unforeseen (planned or not planned).Risk can also be defined as the intentional interaction with uncertainty.
Doing Business considers the following list of papers as relevant for research on the role regulations and institutions play in economic growth. Some papers—denoted with an asterisk (*)—use Doing Business data for their empirical lausannecongress2018.com we've missed any important research, please let us know.
A forward contract is a private agreement between two parties giving the buyer an obligation to purchase an asset (and the seller an obligation to sell an asset) at a set price at a future point in time..
The assets often traded in forward contracts include commodities like grain, precious metals, electricity, oil, beef, orange juice, and natural gas, but .
1. Introduction. This bibliographic essay collects scholarly, government and professional sources in an effort to show how court-ordered human-rights based decisions and legislative responses in U.S.
nationality law, coupled with an American notion of nationality as “allegiance” and accidents of history in matters of taxation and a longstanding principle of "citizenship-based taxation.