CNN.com – A lesson in finance: Teachers sell their original work online – Jun 28, 2006
Is this a slap in the face to Open Source and Creative Commons or is there something good here?
Realisitically how many teachers are paying for online resources now? Is this the notion of “if it’s free it can’t be good”?
technorati tags:opensource, creativecommons
Blogged with Flock
Of course, consider that teachers employed by districts may face work for hire copyright infringement. According to Carol Mann Simpson, copyright guru….
So, the question is, what will districts choose to do, if they should find out? Will enterprising teachers be “outed” by their colleagues?
Miguel
Dean, I’m not sure if you read my blog much but a post earlier in the year was a review from one of our Technology magazines here in Australia on the issues of copyright and teachers’ development of resources.
Here’s a key quote from the article:
Teachers, tutors and lecturers should particularly aware that all of the works that they write in the course of their employment are copyright material automatically owned by their employer.
It is a question of degree as to whether a teacher owns the copyright and whether a teacher owns the copyright and where he simply developed ideas during the course of his employment and thereafter discretely and exclusively expressed those ideas in his private time using his own private capital. In this case he would be the true owner.
My own question was do teachers have the right the alter the conditions of that copyright (i.e attach a CC license) and essentially share their own employer’s property beyond their school system? I’m pretty sure that selling it might be a breach as Miguel indicates. After reading the article and seeking clarification from the solicitor who wrote the article, I now do all my blogging out of school hours and not from work to try and make that IP difference.
Thought you would like this in the TeacherPayTeacher’s site FAQ:
“How do I protect my original copyrightable teaching materials?
Read the Copyright FAQ and follow its suggestions. Or for a short cut, go tho this Creative Commons webpage: http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses, choose the particular license you would like to attach to your work, copy that license’s specific code (there are directions there to help you) and then, most importantly, after skipping a line, paste it below your description of your product (right in the description box) on your “Post Products” page. After you submit your product, the CC license and its explanatory link will magically appear on your product’s page.”
So sell it – and attach a creative commons license to it too.
Miguel,
I appreciate the excerpt, but it seems non-sensical. How many teachers have written books, completed contracts with outside publishers, or worked with non-profit agencies to create materials. If this were the case then school boards should be cracking down and getting in on the monetary action.
I would love to see the case law applied in a Canadian context on this issue.
Quentin
I wouldn’t worry. The press has been running stories about teachers or others selling their content online once every few months for the last ten years.
My view is that the press has a bit of a vested interest in running such stories. They certainly play them up.
But what we haven’t seen is a story about someone doing this successfully. Even this story, so long after the start of the web, is only about a new site, where the teachers plan to sell stuff.
The force of law, Quentin, would be on the side of school districts that chose to crack down. I have heard ONE instance where the District chose to exert its rights, resulting in the dismissal/willful resignation of the teacher. Hearsay, of course.
You may not be familiar with Carol Mann Simpson’s work in Canada, but in the U.S., it’s well-respected. Have you heard of “shop rights?” On doing a search of “shop rights” and Canada in Google, I stumbled across the following…
Perhaps that will lay fears to rest in Canada, but in the U.S., shop rights DO exist. I’m not an expert at all in this and encourage you to check things out.
In the U.S., per the Intellectual Property Overview Section C of the U.S. Patent, you’ll find relevant info.
With these points in mind, Carol’s point seems defensible.
Too bad she doesn’t have a blog! sigh.
In the meantime, a bit more conversation at:
http://www.mguhlin.net/blog/archives/2006/06/entry_1708.htm
Take care,
Miguel
P.S. Graham, not sure your working at home is covered unless it’s significantly different work. For example, if you teach 4th grade science and develop 4th grade science materials to sell, your materials are under work for hire. However, if you develop a college physics textbook, it’s not. (I stole this example, poorly paraphrased, from Carol’s book).
Someone shared this link…thought I’d share it here with you Canadians!
http://www.cippic.ca/