AN ACADEMIC POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED CONTENT

Report published in November, 2016

Randal C. PickerLawrence S. BacowNancy Kopans

WHAT IS TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED CONTENT?

Massive Open Online Courses

• Integrated courses.

• Courses with modular components.

THREE CONTEXTS FOR TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED CONTENT

1. The relationship between the platform provider and the institution.

-Academic institution as content producer

-Academic institution as content user

2. The relationship between the faculty member and

the home institution.

3. The relationship between the faculty member and

outsiders.

FOUR ISSUES RAISED IN EACH CONTEXT

Online courses—whether as produced by a university or consumed by a university—raise issues in key areas:

1. University Governance

2. Faculty conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment

3. Academic freedom

4. Intellectual property

FOCUS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

“Authoring” technology-enabled educational materials typically requires substantial university resources:

• Faculty responsible for content

• Producer

• Instructional designer

• Web designer

• Camera and sound operators

• Editors and software developers.

What rules apply to technology-mediated education?

TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED CONTENT RAISES MANY IP QUESTIONS

• Who owns or controls the IP represented by these new courses—the faculty, the institution, or some combination?

• What about third-party content embedded in the course, such as videos?

• Who should be responsible if the rights of third-party content owners are breached?

TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED CONTENT RAISES MANY IP QUESTIONS, CONT’

• Once created, what rules or principles should govern modification of future editions of such courses?

• What should be the respective role of the faculty and the institution in approving such modifications?

• How should the university name and brand be managed?

• How should revenue created by these course be split among the relevant parties?

Also issues regarding data privacy. Online, personalized learning can track student responses. Valuable data for pedagogy. Risk of privatization

THREE CONTEXTS

I.A. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PLATFORM PROVIDER AND THE INSTITUTION

Academic Institution as Content Producer

Institutional norms that prevailed prior to the digital era should continue to guide the use of the institutional brand and the ownership of the content as between the platform and the institution.

Academic institutions should have broad authority in structuring arrangements between the institution and

the platform when the institution is providing content for the of external users.

Strong internal scrutiny is likely given institution’s name attached to the content.

I.B. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PLATFORM PROVIDER AND THE INSTITUTION

Academic Institution as Content Consumer

Continuing application of institutional norms. Core role of institution is certifying that students have met a particular standard, recognized through diplomas bearing the institution’s name.

Academic institutions should have full rights to use the data associated with the technology-mediated content and will need to ensure student privacy with regard to those data.

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FACULTY MEMBER AND THE HOME INSTITUTION• Key differences in producing books and journals vs. T-MC, a team

production. Should application of copyright in T-MC be different?

• Patents developed through faculty work using university resources are often assigned to the university, with reasonable division of royalties.

• Given the scale of institutional investment, a cost recovery and royalty sharing arrangement is likely.

• And, there may be a need to re-envision who assumes responsibility for course content.

HOW SHOULD RIGHT BE DETERMINED IF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSTITUTION AND FACULTY MEMBER CHANGES?

What if professor is no longer employed by the university?

• Can course still be taught at prior institution?

• Can it be taught at new institution?

• Can it be modified?

• What types of attribution are appropriate?

Academic institutions need sufficient rights in the T-MC to ensure resources will be provided to create and sustain that content

• Further use of the course by prior institution.

• Faculty need derivative works rights so as not to limit creation of new materials at new institution.

III. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FACULTY MEMBER AND OUTSIDERS • University seeks to hire a professor at

another institution to record a series of lectures.

• A traditional academic textbook publisher expands its offering and creates a video coursepack platform.

• A university offers an executive education program at its business school. A third-party firm asks the pr0fessor to provide content for its online executive education program.

III. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FACULTY MEMBER AND OUTSIDERS • Potential brand conflict issues can

arise if the videos are created and distributed without institutional permission.

• But traditionally, faculty have some latitude to spend time on outside professional activities (though usually not re teaching at another institution).

• Issues of academic freedom and conflicts.

3 CONTEXT WHERE TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED CONTENT CAN RAISE IP ISSUESI. The relationship between the platform provider and the institution

2. The relationship between the faculty member and the home institution.

3. The relationship between the faculty member and outsiders

ITHAKA is a not-for-profit organization that helps the academic

community use digital technologies to preserve the scholarly record

and to advance research and teaching in sustainable ways.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources.

Ithaka S+R is a not-for-profit

research and consulting

service that helps academic,

cultural, and publishing

communities thrive in the

digital environment.

Portico is a not-for-profit

preservation service for

digital publications, including

electronic journals, books,

and historical collections.

Artstor provides 2+ million high-quality images and digital asset management software to enhance scholarship and teaching.

NANCY KOPANSGENERAL COUNSEL

Nancy.Kopans@ithaka.org

2 RECTOR STREET

18TH FLOOR

NEW YORK, NY 10006

TEL 212 358.6400

FAX 212 358.6499

ithaka.org