Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-uk - [Cc-uk] Academic freedom at Reading

cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-uk mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Tom Chance <lists AT tomchance.org.uk>
  • To: cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Cc-uk] Academic freedom at Reading
  • Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 16:28:16 +0100

Ahoy,

Following up on the discussion about academic freedom (I just subscribed
hence
a new message)...

I met with Reading University's Technology Transfer Officer today to discuss
the policy here. According to a new IP code of practice (that is basically
complete but not yet on the web site), the University doesn't assert its
rights to ownership of copyright on "books, textbooks, articles, lectures,
plays and teaching aids in all formats not specifically commissioned by the
University", and "generally assigns copyright to the inventor(s)".

They do asserts rights over "films, typographical arrangements, video tapes,
records, drawings, broadcasts, multi media productions, photographs or other
works made with the aid of University facilities", "courseware, databases,
computer software and firmware", "patentable and non-patentable inventions,
plant varieties and related information", "any University commissioned
works".

According to the lady I spoke to, the reason that some copyrights are
assigned
to the "inventor(s)" is simply that academics would cry foul if it were
otherwise. The policy went through a process involving the unions, academics
and University staff. Apparently none of them objected (strongly enough) to
the University owning photographs, films, software and so on!

She said that if a member of staff or postgraduate student wanted to release,
say, a piece of software under a free software license, they would have to
seek permission from the University, and would most likely get permission
unless they were obviously going to gain financially. Where the IP has
commercial potential, the University demands a 50% cut.

These terms may change if external funding is involved. However, the Arts &
Humanities Research Board (who will hopefully be funding me next year!)
simply pass the buck onto the University, so that means I'm in the clear for
my type of work.

The policy was written this year, so it's not the case, as David Berry
suggested in an earlier email, that things are getting worse. This new policy
is actually clearer and more lenient than the previous one! However, the lady
I spoke to told me that there are people increasingly looking into more
commercialisation of arts & humanities work, where currently it is deemed a
lost cause, and all under the government mantra of "knowledge transfer",
where proprietisation is seen as a better way of transferring knowledge to
industry. She cited one group that she is a part of that is working on this
[1].

What remains to be seen is what actually happens when a member of staff asks
for permission to freely distribute their software, photography, etc. It'd
also be interesting to know the opinion of the staff who are adversely
affected by this... do all the computer scientists really not mind that their
software is owned by the University, but that philosophers get to keep the
rights to their work? :o)

Regards,
Tom

[1] http://tinyurl.com/b9tcj

--
Please send personal emails to tom@... not lists@...




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page