120
in a non-exclusive agreement that allocates certain rights to the faculty member. For
example, the faculty member might choose to devote extensive time to a grant or contract
only if they have the right to use the course content in another context. In this case, the
faculty member should make known their concerns prior to agreeing to carry out their
role in the grant. The University and the faculty member would then use the Standard
Agreement Form, Intellectual Properties: Extraordinary University Support to mutually
agree on the sharing of rights. The development of this shared rights agreement could be
done at any time during the grant approval process or even after the grant is completed,
however the later in the process intellectual property rights are discussed, the greater the
risk of misunderstandings and perhaps a failed grant project. It also must be kept in mind
that grant and contract award regulations may preclude University (or Research
Foundation) ownership of the intellectual property, reserving it to the funder, or may
provide a nonexclusive license to the funder who may distribute the material as it
chooses.
Course materials created by an individual faculty person or a team of
faculty persons in conjunction with one or more University staff persons
The creation of traditional or electronic course content by staff under the direction of a
faculty member is becoming increasingly common. The intellectual property ownership
may be very clear or may become difficult to determine based on the level of creative
contribution made by the faculty member or the staff member. In the most common
instances, the staff member is assisting with web pages, images or other small multimedia
pieces, and the faculty member is clearly the creator and owner of the intellectual
property rights. However, as the staff member’s creative contribution increases,
ownership issues for all or part of the course content may arise. Normally the faculty
member would still be the lead creator if, for example, they described in detail a learning
module that simulates the ecological system of a riparian environment. In this case the
faculty member might choose to share rights with the staff member or with the institution
using the Standard Agreement Form for Intellectual Properties: Ordinary Support.
However, cases will arise where the initial concept for an electronic learning module will
start with a staff member and the artistic creation primarily lies with the staff member. In
these cases the intellectual property rights may reside with the staff member or the
University. In order for the faculty member to feel comfortable building the material into
their course, she/he would need assurance that they have appropriate rights for its use.
Again, this situation can be resolved with up-front conversations between all parties
resulting in an assignment of rights using the Standard Agreement Form for Intellectual
Properties: Ordinary Support.
All of the above examples share a common approach to intellectual property rights. They
encourage discussion as early as possible on ownership and assignment of rights. In
almost all situations, the University, faculty, and staff can develop a win/win proposition
by an understanding of the needs of the various parties. The use of the standard forms
illustrated above is by no means mandatory. Faculty, staff, and the University are free to
negotiate any other arrangement that is mutually agreeable.