Spice Ethics Paper

Institutional
IP Policy -‐ 1
Intellectual Property Policies in Higher Education:
a case study at Washington & Lee University
C. Graham Spice
MSMT Graduate Student
IUPUI Music and Arts Technology
Fall 2010

Institutional IP Policy -‐ 2
Statement of objective
Ownership of intellectual property within the context of higher education has been a
contentious issue for the past quarter century. Institutions of higher learning have
addressed these concerns by establishing institutional policies that define
ownership of intellectual property authored by university professors and through
faculty contracts.
Washington and Lee University’s Policy on Intellectual Property will be used as a
vehicle for exploring Intellectual Property ownership in higher education. The
Policy on Intellectual Property used by Washington and Lee University takes the
generally accepted stance of a study of liberal arts versus that of research
institutions and historical business practice:
In contrast to historical business practice, the tradition of academic institutions
is to give faculty members the right to retain ownership of their Intellectual
Property. (University, 2004)
Historical basis for copyright
The origins of copyright law began as a direct reaction to the invention of the
printing press. Copyright statues were initially established as a legal method for
churches and governments to limit dissent and criticism. The first legislation
enacted to directly address copyright law was England’s Statute of Anne in 1710.
The first copyright statute provided legal protection to the author of a work for 14
years and was intended to encourage ‘learned Men to compose and write useful
Books’. (Deazley, 2006)
The Statute of Anne established a legal right of the author to control the economic
concerns of a copyrighted work. Other countries began to establish their own
copyright legislation to establish similar rights. France was instrumental in
expanding the concerns of this legislation to the rights of the author, or droit
d'auteur. French copyright law split the rights of the author into two distinct sets:
proprietary rights and moral rights. This broader scope of the rights of the author
has been a primary influence on the development of international copyright law
such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
(Wikipedia, 2010b)
The Berne Convention is an international copyright agreement, first accepted in
1886. Each country in the Berne Union confirms that they will provide automatic
protection for works of authors from other signatory countries. The Berne
Convention also established the principle of national treatment: legal copyright
protection should be equal in every way to the copyright protections exercised by
its own citizens. (Service, 2009)
Congress enacted the first United States copyright law in 1790, rejecting the French
approach of informal grants of copyright adapted from the Statute of Anne. Because
the United States did not join the many nations at Berne to consider a multilateral
treaty on copyright protection, Congress was under pressure to amend the
copyright laws, resulting in the International Copyright Act of 1891. This act
extended American copyright protection to foreigners. (Mak, 1989)
Following the Rome revision to the Berne Convention in 1928, “moral rights” were
added to the requirements as follows:
Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of
the ... rights, the author shall have the right ... to object to any distortion,
mutilation, or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to,
the ... work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.
(Convention, 1979)
Although U.S. copyright law was significantly different from that established by the
Berne Convention, resulting in the United States' refusal to accept the Convention
for several years, the United States changed its copyright laws quite significantly in
the 1970s and subsequently signed the Convention. (Mak, 1989)
The Berne Convention requires that term of copyright be a minimum of the author’s
lifetime plus 50 years. An additional requirement of Berne is that there not be any
formal registration for the establishment of copyright. Although an official member
of the Berne Convention, the United States still requires copyright registration to
receive certain legal coverage.
A major criticism of the Berne Convention was its lack of enforcement mechanisms.
The World Trade Organization created the Agreement on Trade-‐Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in 1995 to address these concerns by creating
strong enforcement mechanisms. Other objectives of TRIPS were to provide more
“order and predictability, and for disputes to be settled more systematically”.
(Organization, 2010)
Exclusive rights guaranteed by copyright
Copyright is literally, the right to copy, though in legal terms "the right to
control copying" is more accurate. Copyright are exclusive statutory rights to
exercise control over copying and other exploitation of the works for a
specific period of time. The copyright owner is given two sets of rights: an
exclusive, positive right to copy and exploit the copyrighted work, or license
others to do so, and a negative right to prevent anyone else from doing so
without consent, with the possibility of legal remedies if they do. (Wikipedia,
2010a)
The French copyright notion of “moral rights” is still of interest today. These moral
rights differ from economic rights in the work that can be transferred by the author
to other people in the same way as any other property. Moral rights are non-‐
transferrable and generally include attrition along with the ability to keep the work
free of mutilation or distortion.
Copyright originally was intended to cover the written word but with the
proliferation of analog and more recently digital mediums the scope of copyright is
much larger. Copyright now covers a wide range of media including videos, audio
recordings, computer software, maps, photographs, etc. It is also important to note
that copyright is not able to protect ideas, only their fixation or expression.
Fair Use
Fair use is a term that originated in the United States describing an exception to the
exclusive rights provided by copyright law. Many countries have an exemption for
educational use although the scope of these exemptions varies. The Wiki of English
Teaching maintains a list of what copyright exemptions exist for teachers in various
parts of the world. (Teflpedia, 2010)
Chapter one of the Copyright laws of The United States in section 107 states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. §
106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction
in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section,
for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in
any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if
such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
(Government, 2010)
There is no simple test to determine what is fair use. Section 107 of the Copyright
Act sets forth the four fair use factors which should be assessed in each instance,
based on the particular facts of a given case to determine whether a use is fair use:
(Committee, 2007)
1. What is the character of the use?
2. What is the nature of the work to be used?
3. How much of the work will you use?
4. What effect would this use have on the market for the original or for
permissions if the use were widespread?
Intellectual Property positions in higher education
The term ‘intellectual property’ has recently enjoyed a meteoric rise in usage
although it has been traced as far back as 1845. The Berne Convention created an
international organization in 1893 called the United International Bureaux for the
Protection of Intellectual Property (BIRPI). The term began to command more
attention in 1967 when the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was
established as an agency of the United Nations. (Lemley, 2005)
Three options exist for the ownership of Intellectual Property in higher education:
author ownership, institutional ownership and shared ownership. Liberal arts
institutions generally lean towards author ownership while research-‐oriented
schools rely on institutional and shared ownership to maintain funding contracts.
Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, is a private liberal arts
institution. Leann Shank, the General Counsel at Washington and Lee, offered her
thoughts on the University’s Policy on Intellectual Property:
The underlying philosophy of Washington and Lee’s IP Policy is to encourage
faculty to do research and create IP that they will own. They are expected to give
the University perpetual rights to use it. Big research institutions (like the
University of Texas) are a different animal. They rely on third party and
government grants to fund the creation of copyrightable materials. Ours is
meant to be flexible and to encourage artistic expression. The reward is allowing
the authors to own the IP. (Spice, 2010)
Shank outlines a classic argument in favor of copyright: ownership encourages the
creator to be more productive as a result of the work’s ability to be monetarily
successful. When the institution claims ownership this argument would suggest that
the author of the research would not have the incentive to produce quality or
quantity work. This argument is influenced by the lengthy legal history of viewing
an individual’s creative output within the context of common law property rules.
The concept of viewing intellectual creations as property can be dated back as far as
the 16th century. There are passages in the Talmud, the ancient Jewish text from 200
CE, that disallow mental crimes such as stealing ideas from other’s minds. Perhaps
the idea of framing intellectual output as property came from the “tragedy of the
commons” as explained by Lemley: “The central idea here is that joint or public
ownership of a piece of property is inefficient, because non-‐owners who use the
property have no incentive to take care of it and will therefore overuse it.” (Lemley,
2005)
The introduction to Washington and Lee University’s Policy on Intellectual Property
relies on the University’s mission as the justification for the author ownership
position. McPherson makes a similar argument for author ownership, claiming the
mission of higher education “is to create and distribute knowledge in order to enrich
and improve the lives of individuals and to strengthen society.” With this mission in
mind, McPherson argues that the incentive to invent, create and improve intellectual
property is greatly diminished when the author does not own the produced work.
(McPherson, 2009)
In addition to the possible monetary success, there are other benefits to an author
ownership IP policy. Publishable works enhance career opportunities by
establishing the author as an expert in their field. Secondly, the author is able to
share research in conjunction with the institution’s academic mission (e.g., in the
classroom, at lectures, etc.) Third, publication of original works is of general benefit
to society. Finally, these benefits of author ownership can promote the continued
development of the research as the owner continues to establish him or herself
within the context of the copyrighted work.
Institutional ownership of profitable intellectual property allows for obvious
financial benefits to the university but most institutional IP policies are quick to
point out that the primary goal of universities is not financial gain. Federal law
requires that the university own all intellectual property that results from
sponsored programs grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts. Institutions
that rely on third party funding for research need to offer guarantees that these
private parties can have access to the works created. Institutional ownership of
intellectual property generated by employees ensures that the university can create
such guarantees. (Myers, 2003)
Historically, control over copyrights has not been as firmly settled as the
practices governing trademarks and patents, probably because the monetary
rewards for academic work that is copyrightable have been perceived as so
small. Many colleges and universities have long had policies asserting
institutional ownership over the copyrights to faculty-‐created works, but they
seldom tried to enforce them until recently. With the advent of digital technology
and the growth of distance education, however, the potential rewards seem
more promising, and the costs and effort required to capture those rewards
more reasonable. As a result, faculty and administrations initiated a sometimes
contentious exchange in the 1990s over control of academic work. (Smith, 2002)
Works created by employees of an institution that are specified in a job description
or considered general duties are referred to as “directed works” in many IP policies
in higher education. These directed works are owned by the employing institution.
Additionally, non-‐traditional works that may fall under institutional ownership
would include projects funded by the University above normal contractual
obligations. Intellectual property policies in higher education generally lean towards
flexible application. As such, most policies provide for exceptions to these rules.
(Committee, 2003) Some IP policies even allow for income sharing with authors of
directed works. (University, 1998)
Shared ownership of intellectual property can come into play when an individual
effort is more than incidentally assisted by University resources. Shared ownership
can also contribute to the fair distribution and management of income created by
intellectual property.
The IP Policy at Washington and Lee University encourages authors to consider
sharing profit of IP with the university to aid in copyright enforcement and
promotion. The policy also allows for this shared ownership to “take equity
positions in companies licensed to market or use Intellectual Property.” (University,
2004)

Trends in Institutional Intellectual Property Policies
The type of university considering the policy can influence the decision of which
model to follow for an institutional Intellectual Property Policy. Most of the private,
liberal arts universities IP Policies reviewed follow the author ownership model.
Most of the large, research-‐focused institutions have IP policies that put the
ownership of employee-‐generated IP with the institution.
Another trend in institutional IP Policies is a flexibility to allow for joint ownership.
Because the policy attempts to regulate the unseen, flexibility in the enforcement of
and generation of IP agreements is necessary. All reviewed institutional IP Policies
include, at minimum, royalty sharing agreements that address the Berne
Convention’s attribution requirements. “Anyone who contributes the kind of
expression protected by the law is a joint author if the contribution is intended to be
part of an integrated whole.” (Counsel, 2006)
These trends in overall IP policy in higher education may not apply to distance
learning resources. A study conducted in 2001 of deans of colleges of education in
regards to their ownership of distance education courses found that “45% of the
institution owned the rights, 11% indicated the faculty had the rights, and 24%
indicated those rights were shared (20% indicated "other," which was not
explained).” (Meyer, 2002)
Another common feature of institutional IP Policies is a clause that allows the
university to utilize the IP generated by their employee for free in teaching,
extension, research, etc. in perpetuity. This option also allows the institution to
continue using the generated IP when others teach the course. These clauses
generate goodwill between the authors and the institutions, encouraging both the
author and institution to use employee-‐generated IP in pedagogy.
An institution's interests may also be changing in the present environment.
Colleges and universities may have an interest in gaining copyright
ownership in order to control the dissemination of educational materials to
rival institutions, to ensure continued access to materials used in key courses,
and to gain licensing fees from materials that prove popular or valuable.
However, an institution may have equally strong countervailing disincentives
against gaining ownership. The full benefits of copyright cannot be achieved
without registration of the work, and tracking such registrations may be
costly and time-‐consuming. Vigorous licensing of such works may be equally
costly. Some institutions, especially smaller colleges without an established
technology transfer office or previous expertise in copyright development,
may not have the resources to devote to the type of intellectual property
management program that would attend acquisition of a large copyright
portfolio.
Clear allocation of copyright ownership and control is necessary to avoid
disputes over electronic course materials. Although the law concerning
authorship of educational works is not clear, much of the confusion created
by the academic exception to the works-‐made-‐for-‐hire doctrine can be solved
by careful license drafting. (Burk, 1998)

Creating and maintaining high ethical standards is critical for the reputation of an
institution. Establishing a strong Intellectual Property Policy is one of the steps that
a university can take to help their employees know their legal rights and also create
a public record of the institutional intent. Johns Hopkins University’s Conflict of
Interest Policy reinforces this conclusion: “public confidence in the University’s
integrity undoubtedly ranks among its greatest assets.” (University, )
Case Study: Washington and Lee University’s Intellectual Property Policy
Washington and Lee University’s Intellectual Property Policy was formalized in
March 2004 in response to questions from professors about their intellectual
property rights. The policy was created by a committee of faculty and
administration and is based, in part, on related policies from Tufts University and
Lehigh University. It has not been revised since the original issue but Shank noted in
a recent interview that it is “time for us to take another look at our copyright policy.”
(Spice, 2010)
The general format of Washington and Lee’s IP Policy follows the Sample
Intellectual Property Policy available at the American Association of University
Professors website, beginning with the Introduction that contains the Policy
Statement and Applicability sections. The creation of intellectual property
simultaneously creates rights that could be shared by a variety of players. The goal
of the policy is to encourage the creation of IP and help employees of the university
be more aware of their role in the ownership of copyrights and patents. The Policy
Statement concludes by relating the goals of the policy with the academic mission of
the university through the encouragement of intellectual property generation by
their faculty, staff and students. Following a brief declaration about definitions of
applicable terms being found within the document, the actual Policy is defined.
The Policy begins by defining what types of materials are covered by the policy. The
types of IP covered by the policy include text, videos and motion pictures, music,
images and computer software. Additionally, patentable works such as patents,
devices and software excluded from copyrighted materials are considered IP. Finally,
trademarked materials and trade secrets are also covered under this policy.
After defining the traditional and non-‐traditional types of IP covered by the Policy,
the rules of Ownership and Use are detailed. The General Rule is a short summary of
the author ownership model and the benefits for the university and its employees.
The Ownership and Use section continues with Patentable Intellectual Property
definitions. While Washington and Lee’s patent policy maintains their author
ownership stance, circumstances are defined where the University can assert a
shared ownership model with the creator. Washington and Lee has reviewed a few
situations where patents could have been created but they were never filed for.
(Spice, 2010)
The University’s policy on Other Intellectual Property continues the author
ownership stance. Faculty is encouraged to discuss copyrighted works that have
commercial value with the University. On initial reading, this might suggest that if
there is money to be made the University wants to get a piece of it. In reality, the
motivation for this text is to help copyright creators know their rights. Shank
responds: “Faculty may unknowingly sign contracts to create works for a contracted
third party. This is heads-‐up for faculty to save rights for themselves and beware of
very one-‐sided contracts.” (Spice, 2010)
The last two sections of the University’s policy on Intellectual Property describes
situations where a private party sponsors research. Under these conditions, the
sponsor of the research program generally requires that the University own all the
created intellectual property. The final section describes Special Agreements,
providing the flexibility to create agreements between the University and the
creator to determine copyright ownership.
The remainder of Washington and Lee University’s Intellectual Property Policy
focuses on the Administration of the policy, how Royalties will be received and
administered, how disputes will be resolved and definitions of the use of University
trademarked names and logos. These sections continue to follow the standard
practice of reviewed IP Policies at other institutions and also follow the sample IP
Policy suggested by the American Association of University Professors. (Professors,
2010)

Conclusions
After reviewing guidelines for the establishment of Intellectual Property Policies in
higher education, the IP Policy at Washington and Lee University follows these
guidelines. Although the motivations for creativity will always be a topic of debate,
the arguments for the author ownership model are not at odds with these
motivations as the other models of IP ownership could be.
United States copyright law and digital media have both gone through major
changes in the last 30 years. As a result, higher education has reacted by creating
strong Intellectual Property Policies to help the employees understand how these
changes apply to the ownership of their works and encourage them to continue
creating.
Most importantly, institutions and authors of intellectual property should be sure to
frame the discussion of copyright ownership within the core mission of education.
As literary scholar F. O. Matthiessen wrote in the beginning of his 1941 book,
American Renaissance, “The true function of scholarship, as of society, is not to stake
out claims on which others must not trespass but to provide a community of
knowledge in which others may share.” (Smith, 2002)

References
Professors, A. A. o. U. (2010). Sample Intellectual Property Policy & Contract
Language. Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/DE/sampleIP.htm
Convention, B. (1979). Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic
Works. Retrieved from
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html
Burk, D. L. (1998). Ownership of electronic course materials in higher education.
Campus-‐Wide Information Systems, 15(4), 142-‐147. Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=863331&show=abstr
act
Committee, C. (2003). Copyright Use and Ownership Policy of the University of
North Carolina. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsu.edu/policies/governance_admin/gov_gen/REG01.25.3.php
Committee, C. (2007). Washington and Lee University Policy for the Use of
Copyrighted Works. Retrieved from
http://library.wlu.edu/copyrightpolicy.html
Deazley, R. (2006). Rethinking copyright: history, theory, language. Edward Elgar
Publishing. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dMYXq9V1JBQC&oi=fnd&pg=P
R5&dq=Rethinking+copyright&ots=4q5aMxPVyz&sig=P9I4I6jTXjFLNhHi31-‐
VtbhitsQ
University, G. S. (1998). Georgia Southern University Intellectual Property Policy.
Retrieved from
http://welcome.georgiasouthern.edu/president/Intellectual_Property_Policy_f
inal.pdf
University, J. H. University Policy on Conflict of Interest and Conflict of Commitment.
Retrieved from http://jhuresearch.jhu.edu/Policy_onConflict_of_Interest.pdf
Lemley, M. A. (2005). Property, intellectual property, and free riding. Texas Law
Review, 83, 1031. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=582602
McPherson, P. (2009). On Ensuring That Intellectual Property Public Policy
Promotes Progress. EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 44, no. 1, 4–5. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineV
olume44/OnEnsuringThatIntellectualProp/163581
Meyer, K. A. (2002). Does policy make a difference? An exploration into policies for
distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(4).
Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter54/meyer54.htm
Myers, P. E. (2003). Developing an intellectual property policy at a predominantly
undergraduate institution. Journal of Research Administration, 34(1), 8-‐13.

Retrieved from
http://direct.bl.uk/research/4E/3F/RN129798105.html?source=googleschola
r
University, O. o. G. C. a. W. a. L. (2004). Policy on Intellectual Property. Retrieved
from http://www.wlu.edu/x32958.xml
Mak, S. &. (1989). Coping with the Berne Convention. Retrieved from
http://www.usip.com/pdf/Article_Patents/BerneConvention.pdf
Smith, M. F. (2002). Intellectual Property and the AAUP. Academe, 88(5), 39-‐42.
Retrieved from
http://aaup.org/AAUP/CMS_Templates/AcademeTemplates/AcademeArticle.
aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID={921D53EF-‐CDF5-‐435E-‐9AD4-‐
2F08E1B66755}&NRORIGINALURL=/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2002/SO/Feat
/Smit.htm&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest
Spice, C. G. (2010). Personal interview with Leann M. Shank.
Teflpedia. (2010). Copyright in English language teaching. Retrieved from
http://teflpedia.com/index.php?title=Copyright_in_English_language_teaching
Counsel, U. T. S. O. o. G. (2006). U.T. System Intellectual Property Policy In Plain
English. Retrieved from
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/ippol.htm
Service, U. K. C. (2009). Fact sheet P-‐08: The Berne Convention. Retrieved from
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p08_berne_convention
Government, U. S. (2010). US CODE: Title 17,107. Limitations on exclusive rights:
Fair use. Retrieved from
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Wikipedia. (2010a). Copyright: Exclusive rights granted by copyright. Retrieved
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Exclusive_rights_granted_by_copyrig
ht
Wikipedia. (2010b). French copyright law. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_copyright_law
Organization, W. T. (2010). Intellectual property: protection and enforcement.
Retrieved from
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm

Spice Ethics Paper

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Spice Ethics Paper

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Institutional

IP Policy -­‐ 1

Intellectual Property Policies in Higher Education:

a case study at Washington & Lee University

MSMT Graduate Student

IUPUI Music and Arts Technology

Statement of objective

addressed these concerns by establishing institutional policies that define

institutions and historical business practice:

Property. (University, 2004)

Historical basis for copyright

Books’. (Deazley, 2006)

its own citizens. (Service, 2009)

extended American copyright protection to foreigners. (Mak, 1989)

added to the requirements as follows:

the 1970s and subsequently signed the Convention. (Mak, 1989)

receive certain legal coverage.

Exclusive rights guaranteed by copyright

free of mutilation or distortion.

parts of the world. (Teflpedia, 2010)

commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

copyrighted work as a whole; and

1. What is the character of the use?

3. How much of the work will you use?

permissions if the use were widespread?

Intellectual Property positions in higher education

author ownership, institutional ownership and shared ownership. Liberal arts

institutions generally lean towards author ownership while research-­‐oriented

thoughts on the University’s Policy on Intellectual Property:

the authors to own the IP. (Spice, 2010)

ownership IP policy. Publishable works enhance career opportunities by

within the context of the copyrighted work.

Institutional ownership of profitable intellectual property allows for obvious

sponsored programs grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts. Institutions

such guarantees. (Myers, 2003)

practices governing trademarks and patents, probably because the monetary

more reasonable. As a result, faculty and administrations initiated a sometimes

Additionally, non-­‐traditional works that may fall under institutional ownership

directed works. (University, 1998)

Trends in Institutional Intellectual Property Policies

ownership of employee-­‐generated IP with the institution.

Convention’s attribution requirements. “Anyone who contributes the kind of

part of an integrated whole.” (Counsel, 2006)

explained).” (Meyer, 2002)

author and institution to use employee-­‐generated IP in pedagogy.

However, an institution may have equally strong countervailing disincentives

costly. Some institutions, especially smaller colleges without an established

technology transfer office or previous expertise in copyright development,

management program that would attend acquisition of a large copyright

disputes over electronic course materials. Although the law concerning

by careful license drafting. (Burk, 1998)

integrity undoubtedly ranks among its greatest assets.” (University, )

Case Study: Washington and Lee University’s Intellectual Property Policy

Statement and Applicability sections. The creation of intellectual property

very one-­‐sided contracts.” (Spice, 2010)

created intellectual property. The final section describes Special Agreements,

creator to determine copyright ownership.

knowledge in which others may share.” (Smith, 2002)

Language. Retrieved from

Works. Retrieved from

Campus-­‐Wide Information Systems, 15(4), 142-­‐147. Retrieved from

North Carolina. Retrieved from

IP Policy -‐ 1

institutions generally lean towards author ownership while research-‐oriented

Additionally, non-‐traditional works that may fall under institutional ownership

ownership of employee-‐generated IP with the institution.

author and institution to use employee-‐generated IP in pedagogy.

very one-‐sided contracts.” (Spice, 2010)

Campus-‐Wide Information Systems, 15(4), 142-‐147. Retrieved from

undergraduate institution. Journal of Research Administration, 34(1), 8-‐13.