Cc-uk mailing list

[Tom Chance <lists AT tomchance.org.uk>]

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@...