Category Archives: Intellectual property

#CapilanoUniversity censorship of #GeorgeRammell case progresses #caut #bced

dismantled_sculpture

George Rammell with the remnants of Blathering On in Krisendom, which Capilano university officials confiscated and dismantled.

Elizabeth Redden, Inside Higher EdOctober 8, 2014– It took 53 days for George Rammell to get back a sculpture he’d made caricaturing his university’s president and, when officials at British Columbia’s Capilano University finally returned it to him, it was in pieces.

“They gave it back to me all smashed up,” said Rammell, a former instructor at Capilano whose sculpture was seized from the studio arts building last spring by university officials on the grounds that it constituted “harassment” of Capilano President Kris Bulcroft.

“They claim they had to destroy it in order to move it, which is absolutely ridiculous. I’ve moved it myself.”

The original sculpture, titled Blathering On in Krisendom, depicted the president and her poodle as ventriloquist dolls draped in an American flag and was conceived, as Rammell explained it, as an “anti-monument” to the president in protest of her role in carrying out program cuts. Bulcroft oversaw the elimination of several programs, including the studio arts program in which Rammell taught, in a process that was later deemed by British Columbia’s Supreme Court to be contrary to the province’s University Act in that Capilano’s Senate was not consulted.

Rammell described the original sculpture as an example of constitutionally protected caricature, but Capilano’s former board chair, Jane Shackell, directed that it be confiscated from university property because it was, she said, being “used in a manner amounting to workplace harassment of an individual employee, intended to belittle and humiliate the president.”

In order to reclaim his artwork, Rammell said, he signed an agreement that stated that he would be permitted to work on the piece in the studio arts building until his employment at the university ended on July 31. After that time, he would remove the sculpture from campus and would not bring it back. Rammell said the agreement also stipulated that he would not display any photographs of the sculpture on campus until five years after the president’s retirement. (Rammell declined to share the text of the agreement he signed but described its contents to Inside Higher Ed. Capilano officials declined to comment on the specific terms of the grievance agreement, which a university spokeswoman described as related to a personnel matter and thus confidential.)

In compensation for the damages to the sculpture, Rammell said, he received the equivalent of four days’ teaching wages.

“In retrospect I should never have signed the stupid thing; I could have finished the sculpture without getting the heap back,” said Rammell.

Finish the sculpture he has. The new sculpture, made up of pieces of the original as well as newly created components, was unveiled last week in an event at the Emily Carr University of Art and Design, in Vancouver. The piece has two faces, or fronts: a newly sculpted depiction of the president holding a mace backs up against the reassembled components of the original sculpture. Among the new elements of the sculpture, Rammell said a mace is intended to signify the trust placed in the university president, and a pen is intended to represent Bulcroft’s “unilateral” signing authority in eliminating the studio arts and other Capilano programs. The new piece is entitled Margaux and the Monarch, Margaux being the name of Bulcroft’s dog.

As for the American flag, Bulcroft previously worked at Western Washington University. Rammell said that while he has nothing against international hires, he did object to Bulcroft’s seeming disregard for a Canadian law, specifically the University Act.

“The whole piece is about academic freedom and everybody seems to be under threat,” Rammell said.

Bulcroft declined an interview through a Capilano spokeswoman, Borjana Slipicevic. A statement emailed by Slipicevic that repeatedly misspelled Rammell’s name said that “Capilano University is aware of Mr. Rammel’s current actions. The university is committed to a safe and respectful workplace for all faculty and staff; the decision to remove Mr. Rammel’s sculpture from campus was made in this vein. Capilano University and Mr. Rammel’s union negotiated a mutually acceptable settlement that resulted in giving the sculpture to Mr. Rammell; thus Capilano University considers this matter closed.”

As for the condition of the sculpture upon its return, the university’s statement said, “The effigy was dismantled to facilitate its removal; Mr. Rammel was advised that this was the case.”

Read More: Inside Higher Ed

#CapilanoUniversity faculty want answers: Day 13 of art censorship #bced #bcpoli #caut #GeorgeRammell

puppettotem

George Rammell, Day 13, May 20, 2014–  Day 13 of the art seizure of Blathering On in Krisendom at Capilano University and I want answers. What does the vice-president Cindy Turner mean when she says my piece has been dismantled? Cindy, you were responsible for the destruction of our protest banners last Spring, (as if we were not allowed to voice our concerns about Bulcroft’s illegal cuts),we never received an apology or compensation. Is this a repeat of last year?

It’s becoming apparent that the Board at Capilano University is now realizing they do not have the authority to seize or damage my art. Why have the RCMP been told this is just an internal matter, as if I’m guilty of insubordination. This is theft and I’ve lost valuable Professional Development studio time, I have every right to complete that work in the Studio Art studios. I have other exhibition plans for that work.

The wrongful firing of a single professor at the University of Sask. is pale compared to the illegal gutting of entire programs at Cap. that cannot be restored in this economic climate.

There are a few dedicated faculty on the Capilano U Board who are attempting to save our institution, but they can only do so much when the rest are asleep at the wheel.

Is Bulcroft going to waste more of Cap’s dwindling financial resources to appeal the BC Supreme Courts ruling that she violated the University Act by planning cuts without due process? Shall we buy her a ticket to Blaine?

#CAUT begins censure of #UBC for course copyright policy #highered #bced #bcpoli #yteubc #criticaled

Faculty Association of UBC, March 20,  2014– At its meeting on March 14 & 15, the CAUT Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee considered UBC’s Policy 81 and all of the associated documentation.  Following that consideration, the committee voted unanimously to recommend to the CAUT Executive that it bring a motion to CAUT Council in early May to begin the censure process of the UBC Administration. If they approve the recommendation, the Executive would bring a motion to Council that “CAUT will censure the UBC Administration at its November 2014 Council meeting unless the University ends the policy that the University may use, revise, and allow other UBC Instructors to use and revise a faculty member’s teaching materials, unless the faculty member specifically prohibits such use.”
Read More:

#UBC passes course copyright policy with minimal consultation #bced #bcpoli #highered #caut

The University of British Columbia’s Board of Governors passed a new “Use of Teaching Materials” policy on February 26 with minimal consultation with the Faculty Association of UBC (FAUBC). Unless faculty members indicate on course materials that their use is protected or unless they file “a prescribed Use of Teaching Materials form” form each course each time its offered, the University now claims the right to use the materials as administrators see fit:

…if a UBC Instructor makes his/her Teaching Materials available for use by others, unless that UBC Instructor places restrictions upon the Teaching Materials he/she shares in accordance with Section 2, UBC may, through its Faculties, Departments and individual Instructors, use, revise, and allow other UBC Instructors to use and revise the Teaching Materials to facilitate ongoing offerings of Credit Courses. The contribution of all UBC Instructors to the development of such Teaching Materials will be acknowledged in accordance with accepted scholarly standards unless the UBC Instructors advise UBC, at any time, that they do not wish such acknowledgement.

FAUBC President Nancy Langton cautioned faculty members:

If you share your teaching materials without taking any additional steps, you will be deemed to have given permission for anyone in the UBC teaching community to use and revise your materials at will. This deemed consent is irrevocable. It is not clear what the policy means when it refers to “sharing” teaching materials. This may include situations such as if someone asks to see your syllabus, or a case you wrote, or you post your materials on a public website.

In addition, you will have to ask UBC to “relinquish the rights” it will apparently acquire through Policy 81 prior to trying to publish your teaching materials. Although you will still technically own the copyright, this a hollow right if others may use and/or revise your material without your explicit agreement or permission.  Generally, under the Copyright Act, only a copyright owner can use, revise, or reproduce a copyrighted work or give others permission to do so.  We do not believe that Policy 81 is fully compatible with your rights as copyright owners under the Copyright Act.

The Association very much supports the notion of sharing teaching materials, and many of us do that. But traditionally, letting someone see your syllabus (or case, etc.) has not been equivalent to granting that person the legal right to use and revise the material as they see fit. Under the new policy, that’s what this will mean.

While the policy was being developed, the Association advised the University that the only acceptable version of Policy 81 is one that would involve opting into the policy, rather than opting out. Under an opt-in policy, members who want to share their teaching materials for others to use and revise without the copyright owner’s permission could mark them as such. The University refused this compromise. Instead, if you do not opt-out, your deemed consent to the use and revision of your teaching material is irrevocable.

The Association advises you that, given Policy 81, if you do not wish others to have the right to use, revise and/or reproduce your teaching materials, it is important that you mark anything that you do share in a manner that indicates that the material is for reference only.

CAUT and CFS withdraw from Copyright Board Hearing #ubc #yteubc #bced

CAUT, December 23, 2013– The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) announced today that they will withdraw their participation from the Post-Secondary Educational Institution Tariff (2011-2013) hearing before the Copyright Board of Canada. Access Copyright has been attempting to use this tariff to force colleges and universities to pay a dramatically higher per-student fee in order to use works in their repository.

“When the university and college associations dropped out of the process, the CAUT and CFS were left as the last institutional adversaries to the tariff,” said CAUT Executive Director James Turk. “We had to weigh the potential positive impact we can have in the hearing against appearing to legitimize a process of which we are increasingly doubtful. In the end we believe it would be better to withdraw.”

Universities and colleges across Canada are opting out of licensing agreements with Access Copyright, relying instead on open access journals, fair dealing, and direct licenses with publishers. Throughout the hearing, the Copyright Board has shown little interest in CAUT’s and CFS’s request to first address fundamental legal questions relating to the scope and authority of the tariff. In this context, the likelihood of CAUT and CFS influencing the outcome of the hearing, and the relevance of the hearing itself, have become increasingly remote.

“Remaining involved in the Copyright Board hearing is no longer advantageous in defending students against exploitation by Access Copyright,” said Jessica McCormick, National Chairperson of the CFS. “We will continue this fight on our campuses and in our classrooms until students’ right to use materials for educational purposes takes precedence over private profits.”

The Copyright Board hearing is scheduled to begin February 12, 2014. CAUT and CFS filed a formal objection to the tariff in August 2010. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the Association of Community Colleges of Canada withdrew their objections on April 24, 2012 and October 25, 2013 respectively.

The Canadian Federation of Students is Canada’s largest student organisation, uniting more than one-half million students in all ten provinces. The Canadian Federation of Students and its predecessor organisations have represented students in Canada since 1927.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers is the national voice of more than 68,000 academic and general staff at over 120 universities and colleges across the country.

Read More: CAUT

UBC surrendering principles for contract with Pfizer #ubc #bced #bcpoli #education

CAUT, November 20, 2013– Open for Business: On What Terms examines twelve research and program collaboration agreements between universities, corporations, donors and governments to determine if universities have protected their academic integrity.

An agreement between UBC and Pfizer provides a good example of just how much the universities are willing to surrender.

The pharmaceutical industry’s investment in British Columbia is substantial. Pfizer alone has invested approximately $25 million in research and development in the province since 2007. Other drug companies, such as Takeda Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca,5 have donated funding to the Vancouver Prostate Centre (VPC) specifically. UBC and Vancouver General Hospital operate the VPC as a National Centre of Excellence and a Centre of Excellence for

Commercialization and Research, with numerous other partners, including Genome Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society, and the government of Canada, contributing in various ways. The collaboration with Pfizer is only one small part of the VPC’s work.

The agreement is not a public document. It was obtained for review through an access to information request, and significant portions of the initial research plan were redacted.

The agreement is silent on academic freedom. It may be presumed from this silence that, for UBC academic staff involved in the project, the academic freedom language of the UBC Faculty Association (UBCFA) collective agreement applies.9 However, as the VPC is a separate legal entity from UBC, there is significant ambiguity on this question. Can UBC faculty members whose research falls under the aegis of the VPC expect academic freedom in their work? We believe they can, and as such, the terms of the agreement threaten academic freedom.

The dissemination of research results is tightly controlled by the terms of the agreement.13 While the agreement recognizes “the traditional freedom of all scientists to publish and present promptly the results of their research,”14 it requires that any proposed publications be presented to Pfizer for review at least 45 days before submission to a third party. This period may be extended by an additional 30 days. If Pfizer finds any material in the publication objectionable, the parties “agree to work together to revise the proposed disclosure or remove or alter the Objectionable Material in a manner acceptable to the relevant Parties,”15 although in all cases the objectionable material must be removed.16 If either UBC or BCCA wish to publish research results that contain material that Pfizer finds objectionable, it must wait six months to do so.

Read More: Open for Business: On What Terms

Canadian universities sacrifice principles in pursuing collaborations #bced #bcpoli #education

CAUT, November 20, 2013– In their drive to attract new revenues by collaborating with corporations, donors, and governments, Canadian universities are entering into agreements that place unacceptable limits on academic freedom and sacrifice fundamental academic principles, according to a report released today by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT).

Open for Business: On What Terms examines twelve research and program collaboration agreements between universities, corporations, donors and governments to determine if universities have protected their academic integrity.

“Our findings should raise alarm bells on campuses across the country,” said CAUT executive director James Turk. “In the majority of the agreements we reviewed, universities have agreed to terms that violate basic academic values.”

According to Turk, seven of the twelve agreements provide no specific protection for academic freedom, and only one requires the disclosure of conflicts of interest. Only five of the agreements give academic staff the unrestricted right to publish their research findings and just half provide that the university maintains control over academic matters affecting staff and students.

“Universities have allowed private donor and corporate partners to take on roles that should be played by academic staff,” stated Turk. “They have signed agreements that side-step traditional university decision-making processes and undermine academic freedom.”

The report concludes by recommending a set of guiding principles for university collaborations to better protect academic integrity and the public interest.

“Collaborations can be beneficial to faculty, students, institutions, and the public, but only if they are set up properly,” Turk added.  “Universities owe it to the academic community and to the public to do more to safeguard the independence and integrity of teaching and research.”

The research and program collaborations examined in the report were:

  • Alberta Ingenuity Centre for In-Situ Energy (AICISE)
  • Centre for Oil Sands Innovation (COSI)
  • Consortium for Heavy Oil Research by University Scientists (CHORUS)
  • Consortium for Research and Innovation in Aerospace in Quebec (CRIAQ)
  • Enbridge Centre for Corporate Sustainability
  • Mineral Deposit Research Unit (MDRU)
  • Vancouver Prostate Centre
  • Balsillie School of International Affairs
  • Munk School of Global Affairs
  • Partnership: University of Ontario Institute of Technology/Durham College/Ontario Power Generation
  • Partnership: University of Toronto/Pierre Lassonde—Goldcorp Inc.
  • Partnership: Western University/Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP

Copies of the report are available on-line.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers is the national voice of more than 68,000 academic and general staff at over 120 universities and colleges across the country.

– See more at: CAUT

Two Scandals, One Connection: The FBI link between Penn State and UC Davis

Two Scandals, One Connection: The FBI link between Penn State and UC Davis
Dave Zirin

Two shocking scandals. Two esteemed universities. Two disgraced university leaders. One stunning connection. Over the last month, we’ve seen Penn State University President Graham Spanier dismissed from his duties and we’ve seen UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi pushed to the brink of resignation. Spanier was jettisoned because of what appears to be a systematic cover-up of assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky’s serial child rape. Katehi has faced calls to resign after the she sent campus police to blast pepper spray in the faces of her peaceably assembled students, an act for which she claims “full responsibility.” The university’s Faculty Association has since voted for her ouster citing a “gross failure of leadership.” The names Spanier and Katehi are now synonymous with the worst abuses of institutional power. But their connection didn’t begin there. In 2010, Spanier chose Katehi to join an elite team of twenty college presidents on what’s called the National Security Higher Education Advisory Board, which “promotes discussion and outreach between research universities and the FBI.”

Complaints Force Company to Retreat From Selling Scholarly Papers Online

The Chronicle News Blog: Complaints Force Company to Retreat From Selling Scholarly Papers Online

Surprised. Disappointed. Violated.

Those are some of the words that scholars have used over the past few days when told that their work was being sold online without their knowledge. The scholarly papers and presentations have been available for a fee through All Academic, a Web site hired by academic associations to handle submissions for conferences.

Universities’ Intellectual Property Stance Criticized

Inside Higher Ed: Universities’ Intellectual Property Stance Criticized

Getting medicines to people who need them in developing countries is a top goal of public health experts worldwide, many of whom note that people are dying all the time of diseases for which treatments exist. Universities, whose scientists’ research is crucial to many of those drugs and which enjoy a share of royalties on some of those drugs, are finding themselves drawn into a debate that has as much to do with the economics of the pharmaceutical industry as anything that takes place in a laboratory.

Defending the Property of an Anti-Property Marxist Scholar

The Chronicle: Defending the Property of an Anti-Property Marxist Scholar

Guy Debord, the Marxist and French philosopher who died in 1994, may be rolling over in his grave.

A lawyer representing his widow has threatened Alexander R. Galloway, an associate professor of culture and communication at New York University, with legal action. Mr. Galloway said the lawyer sent him a letter demanding that he cease and desist from distributing his online war game, claiming it infringes on the copyright of the Debord estate. The philosopher had created a similar war game.

iTunes Opens a Special Section for Free Collegiate Content

The Chronicle: iTunes Opens a Special Section for Free Collegiate Content

It would take a miracle for Hubert Dreyfus’s hourlong lecture “What Is Existentialism?” to unseat Rihanna’s R&B tune “Umbrella” as the top seller on Apple’s iTunes music store. But Mr. Dreyfus, a professor of philosophy at the University of California at Berkeley, has scored a minor iTunes hit with the talk, one of 27 lecture-hall sessions recorded last year during his course on existentialism in literature and film.

Now, more professors may get a chance to follow Mr. Dreyfus’s lead. Today the iTunes store unveiled its new iTunes U portal, a spot on the site that will collect college lectures, commencement speeches, tours, sports highlights, and promotional material, all available at no cost.

Some of the content — like Mr. Dreyfus’s lecture series — has been publicly available on iTunes for some time. But that material had languished on colleges’ own sections of the iTunes store, which were not commonly viewed by off-campus iTunes users. “Certainly, if you were not on the campus, there’s no way you were finding this stuff,” said Eddy Cue, Apple’s vice president of iTunes, in an interview today.

The new portal should make it much easier for shoppers to happen upon collegiate content. The store’s home page now features a link to the special iTunes U section, and recordings offered through iTunes U now show up in search results.

For good measure, iTunes U has added college content that was previously not available to the public. As of today, 16 colleges — including longtime iTunes U users like Berkeley and Stanford University and more recent additions like Concordia Seminary and the Otis College of Art and Design — have contributed recordings to the online shop.

Mr. Cue said the new portal will help colleges reach broader audiences and provide something of value to their own alumni. “As an alumnus, when do you hear from a university? Usually when they’re asking you for money,” he said. “This is a way of having an online dialog with alumni that’s not just a one-way process.” —Brock Read

Students sue antiplagiarism website for rights to their homework

Christian Science Monitor: Students sue antiplagiarism website for rights to their homework

In a table-turning episode in the digital copyright wars, four teenagers are suing a business for allegedly trampling on their copyrights. Their product: homework.

The saga began last year when McLean High School in Virginia adopted a widely used antiplagiarism service called Turnitin. Under the system, students electronically submit essays to be stored and compared against millions of others in a massive database. Teachers can see if students are lifting work – a valuable tool given that research has found that 40 percent of undergraduate students admit to copying and pasting passages from websites.

Blackboard Makes a Pledge

Inside Higher Ed: Blackboard Makes a Pledge

After months of criticism that its patent policies had the potential to squelch important education projects, Blackboard on Thursday announced a “patent pledge” under which it vowed not to assert its patent rights to sue open source projects or home-grown software used by colleges and universities.

Kansas Supreme Court Partly Sides With Faculty Union in Intellectual-Property Dispute

The Chronicle of Higher Education: Court Partly Sides With Faculty Union in Intellectual-Property Dispute

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a long-running dispute between the state Board of Regents and the Kansas National Education Association over intellectual-property rights must be decided by the state’s employee-relations board.

The dispute began in 1997, when Pittsburg State University’s faculty union, which is affiliated with the Kansas National Education Association, objected to a policy proposed by the Kansas Board of Regents, the governing board for state colleges. Under the proposal, the board claimed ownership of any intellectual property created by faculty members at the university — a sweeping policy that apparently would include research findings, scientific inventions, books, software, online courses, and more. The Kansas NEA argued that the ownership of intellectual property should be subject to negotiation, just as faculty salaries or health benefits are.

Related story: Inside Higher Ed

NY Times: Writers sue Google, accusing copyright violation

Writers sue Google

Three authors filed suit against Google yesterday contending that the company’s program to create searchable digital copies of the contents of several university libraries constituted “massive copyright infringement.”

The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court in Manhattan, is the first to arise from the Google Print Library program, the fledgling effort aimed at a searchable library of all the world’s printed books.

Google intends to make money from the project by selling advertising on its search pages, much as it does on its popular online search-engine site.

CUNY faculty win right to bargain IP

PSC Wins Decisive Victory on Right to Bargain IP

The Professional Staff Congress/CUNY (PSC) struck a blow for the right of public employees to have a say in their working conditions when, on June 7, the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, 1st Department, unanimously held that City University of New York violated New York State law by refusing to negotiate with the union over a new policy governing faculty members’ ownership rights of their intellectual property. The court’s decision overturned a ruling by the State Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”). The case now returns to PERB for the agency to formulate a remedy for CUNY’s violations.