University Copyright Policies

The “stakeholders” whose interests are represented in university copyright policies are almost exclusively the institution and its academic staff. Very few references to the interests of publishers occur in university copyright policies because publishers are not part of the contractual relationship between a university and its staff.

“Clear allocation of rights that balance the interests of all stakeholders” (Principles 1 and 4.)

The following scenarios can be found in the copyright policies of many universities across the world. Whatever the situation regarding ownership of copyright, most university policies balance the interests of stakeholders by reserving rights or benefits to the party not owning copyright. A variety of approach can exist even within one country, and the following examples from the UK illustrate three ways in which the interests of stakeholders may be met.

Scenario A : individuals own copyright with a licence to the institution
University College London, UK: “UCL recognises the rights of its staff to ownership of copyright in research publications, books and other similar academic publications in all formats…… UCL will seek to secure, free, unconditional and perpetual, non-exclusive licence to use academic and teaching materials in all formats which are generated by members of staff arising out of employment by UCL.” The policy is available at www.ucl.ac.uk/staff/resources/copyright-policy/

Scenario B : institution owns copyright but university agrees not to benefit from individuals’ work
University of Bristol, UK: “University policy adopts and imposes UK Statute [Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988]. University policy is set out in the Standing Orders of Council e.g. section 12.3 of the Standing Orders of Council governing the appointment of members of the Non-professorial Academic Staff. Normally, therefore, the University is the first owner of intellectual property and intellectual property rights generated by its employees…. The University will not in normal circumstances seek to benefit from any rights it may have as employer in the academic publications of members of the Academic Staff.” The policy is available at http://www.bris.ac.uk/research/ip/policy/ownership.html

Scenario C : institution owns IPR but publications excepted or rights waived
University of Oxford, UK: “The University claims ownership of all intellectual property… devised, made or created… by persons employed by the University in the course of their employment…… Notwithstanding section 6 of this statute, the University will not assert any claim to the ownership of copyright in… artistic works, books, articles, plays, lyrics, scores, or lectures, apart from those specifically commissioned by the university.” The policy is available at http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/rso/policy/ip.shtml

“Thoughtful development and implementation of policies, contracts, and other tools” (Principle 2.)

University copyright policies - where they exist and are publicly accessible - are often part of the formal regulations approved by the governing body of the university for its administration. Some universities also incorporate copyright arrangements into employment contracts for their staff. Many universities have now developed formal copyright policies, in response to the growing awareness of the importance of copyright in academic life. Where no copyright policy exists in a university, reliance is placed upon “custom and practice”. Yale University has turned “custom and practice” into a positive feature of its formal policy, which starts by recognising the legal position of employer-ownership and then modifies that position with “tradition“ : “It is traditional at Yale and other universities for books, articles and other scholarly writings by a faculty member to be deemed the property of the writer, who is considered to be entitled to determine how the works are to be disseminated and to keep any income they produce.” This policy is available at http://www.yale.edu/grants/copyright.html

A similar approach has been taken by Columbia University, where the Provost’s Office has set out a detailed “Preamble to the Columbia University Copyright Policy”. The Preamble states that “this copyright policy is intended to maintain those traditional norms and values that foster, in various ways, the open and free exchange of ideas and opinions.” The “open and free exchange of ideas and opinions” is linked to faculty ownership of copyright and to the “common good”, which “depends upon the free search for truth and its free expression”.

While “the dramatic changes in information technologies and the ways in which they are employed provide an occasion to examine and clarify policy for copyright”, these changes are perceived as modifying rather than substantially changing the principle of faculty ownership. When authors “make substantial use of financial or logistical support from the University beyond the level of common resources provided to faculty”, the University will hold copyright, but “even when intellectual property rights are held by the University, revenues from new digital media and other property should be shared among its creators”.
The Columbia University policy also recognises that “it is inevitable that this copyright policy and its implementation will require interpretation and review” and describes a committee “to provide such oversight and adjudicate disputes.”

Other universities may have copyright policies which are not publicly accessible but are being developed as internal working documents. In brief, while many universities have considered or are considering their copyright policies, there is no consistency in the way in which policies have been developed. However, most do show signs of “thoughtful development and implementation” in that they do not adopt a rigid position on either institutional or faculty ownership but appear to have matured from one starting-point or another.

“Appropriate Copyright Management… will vary according to… the nature of the work” (Principle 3.)

Many university copyright policies list a variety of forms of publication but do not treat them differently. The way in which universities distinguish “the nature of the work” in their copyright policies tends to be between teaching and research content, or alternatively between electronic or paper format. Research content may be distinguished from teaching content by the waiving of employer rights for research publications while employer rights are retained for teaching packages. This distinction is particularly marked in respect of electronic publications.

University institutions in many countries have wished to make adequate copyright arrangements for teaching or instructional materials. This interest reflects the growth in electronic teaching packages and their potential for revenue-generation. A good example of a policy developed specifically for instructional materials is the “Memorandum of Understanding Assuring Rights of Use of Instructional Materials” developed by the Copyright Management Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, USA. One university which has adopted a radical approach to its electronic teaching materials is MIT, which has made the content of its OpenCourseWare “free and open to the world” under a licence which provides open access while protecting the interests of MIT and its staff. The url is http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html

Respect the interests of all stakeholders involved”
(Principle 5.)

University copyright policies express respect for stakeholder interests in various ways:
* By relating stakeholder interests to stakeholder needs. The University of Queensland (Australia) policy describes the “need for flexibility”, the “recognition that the University has … the authority to enter into agreements with outside organisations”, the “confirmation that staff and students have the substantial freedom to determine how to disseminate research outcomes”, and clarification that enrolment as a student does not, in itself, lead to an institutional interest in intellectual property created by that student.” This context of need assists an understanding of the priorities of the various stakeholders. The Queensland policy is available at their website.
* By linking explanations of their own copyright policy to information about the policies of other stakeholders. This approach demonstrates an awareness of the interests of stakeholders other than the author and the university, and also integrates the interests of one group of stakeholders - e.g. the university - with others - e.g. publishers. While not removing the conflict of interests which sometimes arises, a university copyright policy is in this way seen in a broader context. Some university web-sites now provide a very wide range of copyright information. An excellent example is the University of Michigan copyright website.
* By involving their academic staff (who are also authors) in the process of forming a copyright policy. University administrations which have undertaken consultation with their academic staff as part of the formulation of a policy have been able to publish policies which have general support from stakeholders. Unfortunately in some universities the discussions on copyright have become a cause for dispute between university administrators and academic staff. Understanding of and respect for the interests of all stakeholders have been essential in resolving disputes as they have arisen. The process of forming a copyright management policy has proved to be as important as the words of the policy itself.

“All stakeholders… have an interest in attaining the highest standards of quality, maximising current and future access, and ensuring preservation”
(Principle 6.)

There are few examples of the importance of maximising access appearing in university copyright policies, but some US university policies consider the interests of those outside the university. An example is the University of Texas, where the “Policy and Guidelines for Management and Marketing of Copyrighted Works” states that “careful management of these assets will benefit the authors, the citizens of Texas, state government, the component institutions and the U.T. system”. The University of Texas also takes the prize for the most intriguing link to a copyright policy through the words : “ It's time we woke up and smelled the coffee.” The document is available at the website of the University of Texas.

“All stakeholders should actively promote an understanding of the important implications of copyright management” (Principle 7.)

University authorities and academic authors have become much more aware of the need for good copyright management policies. Many university web-sites now contain information about the university’s own policy and about the copyright implications of the use of published information in teaching and research. Organizations such as SPARC, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition have set up advocacy campaigns to raise copyright issues within universities. Stakeholders within universities have also worked closely with publishers to address issues such as the balance of rights and responsibilities necessary to manage the copying of electronic content. These discussions between stakeholders have led to a greater awareness of the implications of decisions by one group of stakeholders for the interests of another group of stakeholders.

(May 2003)

This document was prepared for SURF by Frederick J. Friend (ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk). It is a “work in progress”, to be revised by the Zwolle Group as new policies develop, and users of this website are invited to notify SURF of interesting developments.

The full document including the Publisher Agreements with Authors is also available in pdf.
'Copyright Policies and Agreements: implementing the Zwolle Principles' (201 Kb)