Professors leery of new property policy

By Deborah Wiig
The Metropolitan

If a professor gets an idea for an article that gets published in The New York Times and gets $200 for it, does the professor get to keep the money?

A new ãintellectual propertyä policy provides answers to that question and others like it, but faculty members are concerned about the policyâs intent and its vagueness.

Intellectual property includes publications, artwork, inventions or ideas that could be protected by copyrights or patents. College officials and faculty members are trying to resolve whether works created while professors are employed at Metro belong to professors or the college.

ãReading the policy as it was initially written, it appeared to cover everything the college could possibly get its hands on,ä said Metro theater Professor David Kottenstette.

ãWhatâs problematic for me is that to retain tenure, we are required to do professional development work, which increases the potential for the school to lay claim to your work,ä he said.

Metroâs interim provost, Cheryl Norton, is forming a committee to make recommendations on the policy, said Lee Combs, collegeâs attorney. He expects to submit the final policy to Metro President Sheila Kaplan in the spring.

Kaplan will then submit the policy to the Board of Trustees for final approval.
Combs drafted the policy, which was modeled after one at the University of Northern Colorado. Such policies are becoming common at educational institutions throughout the country, he said.

ãOur faculty and staff are quite creative and have produced intellectual property that may have commercial value,ä Combs said. ãSome have asked the institution to support and promote (their projects) financially in some significant amounts.

ãThe question then arises, ÎWhose property is it?â Without a policy, there are unanswered questions and potential conflicts. These procedures will assure that ownership questions are resolved before anyone commits time, money and effort.ä

Combs said the policy gives the institution the option to invest in developing and promoting ideas based on the potential for substantial return. The policy will not bar professors from sharing the profits of their works.
ãI want to emphasize that the policy is not intended to change the customary prerogatives of the faculty in regard to books, articles, works of art or CD-ROMs that they create during their normal work on campus,ä Combs said.

ãIt should have little impact on the practice of faculty members to market their work. When an employee creates intellectual property using nothing more than what is normally provided, itâs theirs.ä

The proposed policy says that the college owns ãworks for hire,ä college-sponsored work and intellectual property that is produced as part of a sponsored research agreement, unless an advance written agreement specifies otherwise.

Works-for-hire are conceived, written or produced during the creatorâs employment. When the college makes a significant contribution of resources above what is normally provided, it is considered college-sponsored work.
Combs said the property is presumed to be owned by the college, although ownership could be assigned to the faculty member. Employees retain ownership if works are produced during professional development activities for which the college doesnât provide significant resources. But the policy doesnât clearly define ãsignificant resourcesä or ãworks for hire.ä

This vagueness is one of the concerns raised by faculty members.