Faculty discuss copyright policy at meeting

The faculty discussed a motion to accept revised guidelines regarding online courses under the University’s copyright policyat the faculty meeting on Monday.

The motion was rejected due to a lack of consensus and deferred for later discussion.

The University began offering noncredit courses online in April 2012 on Coursera and launched its first massive open online course that summer.

The University’s copyright policy says it does not normally make claims on the copyrights of the products of the teaching and research of its faculty. However, it says the University is entitled to reimbursement of some share of the income derived from these copyrights if faculty use "substantial resources specifically designated for the development of intellectual property."

According to a letter passed out to members of the faculty during the meeting, “The main point of the proposed changes is (a) create the presumption that use of the Broadcast Center counts as the use of ‘substantial resources specifically designated for the development of intellectual property’ and, (b) to specify a mechanism for recovering costs.”

The University is entitled to reimbursements generated from the materials,Gideon Rosen GS ’92, a philosophy professor, chair of the Council of Humanities and chair of the ad hoc committee on revisions to the copyright policy, said.

The proposed changes were minor and would set some guidelines that would aid in clarifying existing policies,he added.

“I wouldn’t want us as a faculty to get into the habit of chewing on any proposed change of this sort," Rosen said, adding the guidelines would be worthwhile to the faculty.“It’s beneficial to the faculty for there to be standard terms … to clarify existing policies."

Accepting the proposed guidelines would be a logical step in the process,Jeremy Adelman, a history professor and also a member of the faculty ad hoc committee recommending the changes, said.

“I never understood the teaching that I do as locked in," he said. "My courses change all the time. I teach in order to learn. I just see this as a deepening of the process that we’ve been involved in for many years."

Another letter handed out to the faculty and signed by a number of faculty members urged the faculty to vote against the motion to adopt the changes.

"There is nothing in this motion that benefits the faculty,” the letter read. “The motion in question comprises revisions to the Rules and Procedures of the Faculty claiming a tax on royalty income you might generate from online course materials. It also, for the first time, would establish a University right to use your scholarly output at Princeton without your permission."

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Robert Sedgewick, a computer science professor, said he did not see a need for a contract with the University regarding intellectual property.

“Having been an author of a best selling textbook for many years, I know the academic industry. This is not a money-making activity” he said. “I don’t understand the need for a contract … We have a relationship that is based on trust in a thousand dimensions. The University is trusting me to use the course materials that I’ve developed."

The guidelines proposed by the ad hoc committee had been used for some time when University President Emeritus Shirley Tilghman appointed the committee, but there was no formal meeting to approve the guidelines, Dean of the FacultyDeborah Prentice said.

“Other universities are grappling with this issue too, of who owns the intellectual property of [these online courses]," she said.“Nobody makes money off these courses. It’s all free.”

The meeting was valuable in revealing the differing opinions on the matter, Prentice noted.