FNL HomePage

Editorial Board

E-mail FNL

FNL Archives

Faculty Bulletin Board

MIT HomePage

Digital technologies have changed the environment in which faculty members teach and disseminate their intellectual work. We are at the beginning of what will be many years of change. The new digital order that greatly expands our opportunities to share and disseminate ideas also alters the ability to control the dissemination. The Institute has a continuing obligation to encourage the unfettered propagation of ideas. But we also want to protect the Institute and advance its mission.

This article initiates a discussion about how intellectual property issues should be viewed in the new digital world.

Case 1
Professors Lexington and Newton decide to transform their biomedical engineering course by creating a Web-based platform containing content, images, and simulations. Their department funds the TA’s to help develop the content, and an NSF grant plus MIT Alumni-sponsored funds support the work by the Educational Media Creation Center (EMCC) staff, who design the Web-based platform. Who should own the intellectual property rights? What rights should Professors Lexington and Newton have, and what should be owned by MIT? Is the contribution made by the TAs and the (EMCC) staff considered part of their work assignments (“work for hire”)? Finally, if a Web-based publishing company wants to commercialize this course, who should negotiate a deal? How should the resulting profits (if any) be distributed?

The hypothetical cases described in this article (which are based on similar scenarios developed by the Association of American Universities [AAU] and Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology [HST]) are becoming more common as members of the faculty increasingly use educational technology, and particularly Web-based environments, as part of their courses. One of the most challenging questions that arises in this new environment is of the ownership of the intellectual property contained in these materials. MIT’s policies reflect a tradition in which faculty members own the copyright in their textbooks and course materials. Given the role that technology now plays in the development and dissemination of course content does this understanding need to change in any way?

To address these issues, Provost Robert A. Brown has asked Associate Provost Phillip L. Clay to chair an Ad Hoc Faculty committee to explore issues related to intellectual property for educational material and conflict of commitment. Members of the Committee are Professors Hal Abelson, EECS; Randall Davis, EECS; Peter S. Donaldson, Literature; Steven R. Lerman, Civil and Environmental Engineering; D. David Litster, vice president and dean for Research; Dava J. Newman, Aeronautics; Steven Pinker, Brain and Cognitive Science; Thomas M. Stoker, Applied Economics, Sloan School.

The charge to the committee is to develop a set of guiding principles that will address the following areas:

• Faculty Commitment to MIT: Implicit in faculty governance is the notion of a faculty member's commitment to MIT. What is that commitment and what constitutes a conflict of commitment in the new world of educational delivery?

• Ownership of Intellecual Property: Traditionally MIT has exerted ownership over intellectual property created from research and only rarely done so in the arena of educational material. Ownership has been determined based on the use of MIT resources in the development of the intellectual property. What constitutes intellectual property in the arena of new educational technology and how should our principles apply in deciding whether the intellectual property was developed using Institute resources?

• Faculty Dissemination of Scholarly Material: A critical part of the academic enterprise is the control by the faculty of the dissemination of the products of their scholarly work. Any new principles must be consistent with this understanding. How has the new media changed the dissemination of the faculty's work and how would the principles be effected?

   

The Provost has asked the Committee to submit their report by December 2000.

Case 2
Stellar University has asked Professor Bedford to develop an Internet-based course in computation structures, which they intend to market to their alumni and corporate partners. The course, which will be based on Professor Bedford’s highly successful MIT course, will be created using the facilities and staff of the Stellar University Learning Lab. In advertising the course, Stellar will note that Professor Bedford is a member of the MIT faculty. Stellar University offers Professor Bedford a “fee for service” payment or a royalty stake in the revenues generated by the course. Would this arrangement pose a conflict of commitment for Professor Bedford?

Critical to the Committee’s efforts to establish a set of principles is an ongoing discussion with the faculty. This edition of the Faculty Newsletter is the first step in a series of events designed to open and stimulate a conversation that will take place this fall. This article initiates that process by presenting a set of issues identified by the Committee during its preliminary work. We encourage you to consider the following list and send your comments and suggestions for additional ones to the Committee (ip-feedback@mit.edu).

Ad Hoc Committee on Intellectual Property

Following is a summary of the charge to the faculty committee.

Overall guiding principle – How does MIT maintain an environment that cultivates individual creativity, entrepreneurship, and collaboration, while also enhancing the educational goals of the Institute?

Context – Existing policies and regulations define our current understanding of the ownership of intellectual property including scholarly works and educational materials. If we now assume an environment in which faculty are creating courses that make significant use of technology, what current policies must be reconsidered and what principles and practices will be needed to clarify rights in this new environment?

Current understandings that should be reconsidered in light of this new environment:

• The agreement that faculty members own the copyright in the scholarly works and educational materials they author while at MIT is based on a traditional understanding between the Institute and the members of its faculty. These policies give faculty discretion and control over how their work is disseminated, including the freedom to make contractual agreements with third parties. Given the heightened role of technology in the creation and dissemination of knowledge should this agreement change in any way?

• How does MIT’s policy on significant use of MIT resources apply to the questions of the creation of online courses? What should be considered significant use of MIT resources: computer-intensive applications such as streaming video and simulations, extensive utilization of the network (high bandwidth applications), hosting and maintaining large Websites, utilization of technical staff such as faculty liaisons and EMCC staff?

• The creation of online courses can involve a variety of stakeholders: the faculty who create the content; the TA’s and technical developers/designers who design and enable content; and the internal and external funders. What principles should guide how the interests of the various stakeholders are managed?

• The digital environment is being used to market educational offerings by the commercial sector. Commercial interests sometimes attempt to use the MIT affiliation of faculty consultants to promote their products. What should MIT do to “protect its brand” in the digital environment? What principles are needed to provide guidance about the marketing of courses by MIT faculty?

• Conflict of Commitment – The digital revolution facilitates faculty participation in education programs at other institutions, enabling faculty to be “present” in a variety of real and virtual ways. When does acceptance of these opportunities conflict with a faculty member’s commitment to MIT? How should we define faculty commitment? What constitutes a conflict of commitment?

Case 3
As part of Sara Weston’s assignments as a TA in Biology she has designed the Website, written problem sets and exams, and created simulations for the class. After graduation, Sara gets a job at another university where she is asked to teach a similar course. In addition, a company that markets end-user interfaces has asked her to sell them the rights to the Web design. Who owns the problem sets, exams, and Web design? What should Sara own, if anything? What should the supervising professor, the Department of Biology or MIT own? Should Sara be able to use these materials in her new course? Who should have the right to sell the web design to the private company?

Please send your comments on the list of issues and these cases to the Ad Hoc Committee on Intellectual Property (ip-feedback@mit.edu).

Throughout the fall the Committee will sponsor forums to engage the faculty in discussions of these issues. You will receive notices of these forums and we encourage you to participate. We will continue to make relevant information available through the Faculty Resources page on the MIT Web http://web.mit.edu/faculty.

FNL HomePage

Editorial Board

E-mail FNL

FNL Archives

Faculty Bulletin Board

MIT HomePage