🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec16.132319.520@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dsmith@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>My chairman insists that he can access this software without my permission and
>without even telling me that he is doing it.  He has refused to speak with me
>about this, but instead has gone over my head to our Dean, who has (in
>writing) made a unilateral policy decision that any resources I obtain as a
>University employee belong to the University, are controlled by the 
>University, and are openly available to any University employee, faculty or
>student, without that person having to contact me, the PI.  Our university
>does not have a written policy on this matter.

i am not a funder, fundee, and probably not capable of being either, but
this struck me as wrong.

if i, as a large corporation, provided a grant to your department, to do
research on a specific thing, i would get real pissed to find out that what
i have given you is now being used all over the campus, without my knowing it.

i think that before the Dean gives authority for anyone, other than those
deemed in the funding papers, access, the dean should inform/get authority
for that funding to be used by any other department/project.

you could work this backwards, and find out what reaction the funder has
when they learn the total lack of respect the dean has for their funding.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 519 893-6085 ]
[             I don't want to work for a company that has a CIO.              ]
[              Disclaimer! I don't need no stinking Disclaimer!               ]

In article <1992Dec16.132319.520@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dsmith@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>My chairman insists that he can access this software without my permission and
>without even telling me that he is doing it.  He has refused to speak with me
>about this, but instead has gone over my head to our Dean, who has (in
>writing) made a unilateral policy decision that any resources I obtain as a
>University employee belong to the University, are controlled by the 
>University, and are openly available to any University employee, faculty or
>student, without that person having to contact me, the PI.  Our university
>does not have a written policy on this matter.

Well, IMHO your chairman and deam are thoroughly and obviously wrong.
In fact, the very assertion that someone can use resources you
obtained with grant money /without your permission/ seems completely
ludicrous.  In the case of computer systems, for example, if you do
not give them explicit access (say in the form of a user account) an
attempt on their part to use the system would constitute a break-in
attempt (electronic tresspass, a federal crime in the US... call the
Secret Service).  In the case of software, there might even be
restrictions on whom you /can/ give permission to use the software,
since you might have a license agreement that restricts who can use
the software.

Furthermore, if your institution does not have a written policy in
this regard (that you signed!), then any software written by you is
your property and your property alone.  (The author of any work
automatically has copyright ownership in most countries including the
US, unless he/she explicitly renounced such rights.)  If your work
involves porting someone elses software, then it is a derivative work,
and as such that portion that makes the work derivative is yours, i.e.
you don't own the original software, but have full and sole ownership
of the modifications that were necessary to port the software.  It is
important to note here that many academic institutions require their
faculty, staff, and students to sign a document that gives the
institution copyright ownership of any work that is produced using the
institution's resources, but if you did not sign any such document
your work is yours.

If they claim otherwise, sue them.  ;-)

--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629

In article <1992Dec16.132319.520@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dsmith@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>
>This may be a problem that is inappropriate or offensive to some of you, but
>
>I am also under the impression that if the PI moves from one academic or 
>research institution to another, that the grants typically move as well, even
>though they were made to the University.  I also believe that, if negotiated,
>the resources purchased on that grant move (I cannot believe that NIH or
>NSF want to pay twice for the same glassware, chemicals, software etc. just
>because someone moved).  Again, my chairman and dean are denying that this
>is the case.
>
>Doug Smith
>Assistant Professor of Chemistry
>The University of Toledo
>Toledo, OH  43606-3390
>
>voice    419-537-2116
>fax      419-537-4033
>email    dsmith@uoft02.utoledo.edu
>
>P.S.  Any one looking for a computational and synthetic organic chemist with
>a decent track record?

	I am also under the same impression that grants actually
belong to the PI.  I believe there is always a problem about who actually
owns what when the PI wants to move.  I've read about some
physics professors who contribute to a loss of prestige to the university
they were attached to because the profs took their grant money and
equipment with them when they left.
	I think the best way of of the dilemma is to try to get the
(oops!) your name on the grant instead of the University's.
I also think it's a matter of courtesy that the dept head asked you
first.  Though, being the dept head, it would be prudent let him use
the stuff freely if the use doesn't conflicts with your own interests.
The individual prof usually ahs to give in.

wing

jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.132319.520@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dsmith@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>Furthermore, if your institution does not have a written policy in
>this regard (that you signed!), then any software written by you is
>your property and your property alone.  (The author of any work
>automatically has copyright ownership in most countries including the
>US, unless he/she explicitly renounced such rights.)  If your work
>involves porting someone elses software, then it is a derivative work,
>and as such that portion that makes the work derivative is yours, i.e.
>you don't own the original software, but have full and sole ownership
>of the modifications that were necessary to port the software.  It is
>important to note here that many academic institutions require their
>faculty, staff, and students to sign a document that gives the
>institution copyright ownership of any work that is produced using the
>institution's resources, but if you did not sign any such document
>your work is yours.

I am not sure I agree. Most faculty would be considered employees of 
the school. You do not own software (or any other work) created in
the course of your employeement, if you are an employee - your 
employer does. Where the agreement is necessary is when you are an
independant contractor. In that case the work belongs to the creator
unless a contract says otherwise. 

Some of the inidica of employment that faculty would fail would be:
- they get regular paychecks, with all the proper deductions.
- the school usually provides a place of work.
- the school usually has some control over what they do.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

This is interesting but becoming somewhat off topic for comp.admin.policy.
There is a newsgroup which is chartered to cover topics specifically like
this, sci.research.careers and I might suggest some post a summery of the
thread and set followups to this group.


-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030

In article <bhayden.724607233@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
>jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>>Furthermore, if your institution does not have a written policy in
>>this regard (that you signed!), then any software written by you is
>>your property and your property alone.  (The author of any work
>>automatically has copyright ownership in most countries including the
>>US, unless he/she explicitly renounced such rights.) 
>
>I am not sure I agree. Most faculty would be considered employees of 
>the school. You do not own software (or any other work) created in
>the course of your employeement, if you are an employee - your 
>employer does. Where the agreement is necessary is when you are an
>independant contractor. In that case the work belongs to the creator
>unless a contract says otherwise. 
>
>Some of the inidica of employment that faculty would fail would be:
>- they get regular paychecks, with all the proper deductions.
>- the school usually provides a place of work.
>- the school usually has some control over what they do.

Where do you get your "facts"..?  You're making them up according
to what seems reasonable to you!  (Ok, you used the word "would",
indicating that your writings are conjecture...)

It simply isn't true... just being employed DOES NOT cause you to
automatically lose all rights over your work.  Your employer has to
explicitly enter into an agreement with you in this regard, and you
have to sign it.  Otherwise what you create is yours, and without a
document with your signature on it no court of law (in the USA) would
find for your employer.

Of course most employers of people who create published work in the
course of their employment are fully aware of this and have all these
things as part of the standard paperwork everybody signs when they
first get hired.  If you yourself are a software engineer, why don't
you go over to your personell office and ask to see some of the things
you signed when you started with your organization?

--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629

[This doesn't settle the current discussion, but it may help
establish the issues better. - Carl]

          17 United States Code

          SECT101. Definitions

[...]
     A "work made for hire" is- (1) a work prepared by an employee
     within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work
     specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a
     collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other
     audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a
     compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer
     material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly
     agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall
     be considered a work made for hire.
[...]

- Carl
n============================================================================

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/copyright.act.pointer
=================
* Copyright -- U.S. Law -- Full text -- Pointer

If you have access to gopher, you can access the text of the U.S.
Copyright Act.

gopher fatty.law.cornell.edu
   -->    9.  Legal Information Institute/
        -->    1.  Copyright Act/

=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/copyright.act.pointer

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law copyright.act.pointer

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =

kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>           17 United States Code
>           SECT101. Definitions

> [...]
>      A "work made for hire" is- (1) a work prepared by an employee
>      within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work
>      specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a
>      collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other
>      audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a
>      compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer
>      material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly
>      agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall
>      be considered a work made for hire.
> [...]

Traditionally, however, academic employees own the rights to journal 
articles and textbooks that they right while employed by a University,
even though publishing these is consider a prerequisite for tenure and
promotion.  In fact, professors frequently write class notes, teach
from them, and later publish the notes as a textbook.  Even though 
they were originally created for a class (and teaching is clearly 
within the scope of a professor's duties), universities claim no rights.

This is probably a matter of tradition, not law, and might very well
not carry over into software, although I know professors who have
published software and don't give any portion of the royalties to their
employers.
-- 
Thomas Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  "All television is children's television." -- Richard P. Adler

jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

>It simply isn't true... just being employed DOES NOT cause you to
>automatically lose all rights over your work.  Your employer has to
>explicitly enter into an agreement with you in this regard, and you
>have to sign it.  Otherwise what you create is yours, and without a
>document with your signature on it no court of law (in the USA) would
>find for your employer.

Typical of generalizations, your assertions are wrong in at least 
the state of Georgia.  Georgia passed a law a few years ago that
stacks the deck strongly in favor of the employer regarding 
intellectual property.  How this applies to academics is unknown,
as there have been no test cases.

None of this applies, of course, to tangible assets.  Who owns the 
equipment, software, etc would be governed by the contract between
the university and the payor.  Being someone who has purchased 
university research, I can assure you my contracts have specified
the university controls their side of the deal.  Last thing I'd
want would be for some professor to get his ass in a snit and
run off to God knows where with my money and my equipment.
I normally donate my equipment involved  to the UNIVERSITY after
the project is finished.  

Reading this thread, two thoughts come to mind.  From the original 
prof's own words, I conclude he's being a prick over a turf war
he cannot win and that he'll probably kiss tenure goodbye.  Secondly,
if this is representative of academic "research" today, something
is badly wrong.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.

jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

>In article <bhayden.724607233@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
>>jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>>>Furthermore, if your institution does not have a written policy in
>>>this regard (that you signed!), then any software written by you is
>>>your property and your property alone.  (The author of any work
>>>automatically has copyright ownership in most countries including the
>>>US, unless he/she explicitly renounced such rights.) 
>>
>>I am not sure I agree. Most faculty would be considered employees of 
>>the school. You do not own software (or any other work) created in
>>the course of your employeement, if you are an employee - your 
>>employer does. Where the agreement is necessary is when you are an
>>independant contractor. In that case the work belongs to the creator
>>unless a contract says otherwise. 
>>
>>Some of the inidica of employment that faculty would fail would be:
>>- they get regular paychecks, with all the proper deductions.
>>- the school usually provides a place of work.
>>- the school usually has some control over what they do.

>Where do you get your "facts"..?  You're making them up according
>to what seems reasonable to you!  (Ok, you used the word "would",
>indicating that your writings are conjecture...)

>It simply isn't true... just being employed DOES NOT cause you to
>automatically lose all rights over your work.  Your employer has to
>explicitly enter into an agreement with you in this regard, and you
>have to sign it.  Otherwise what you create is yours, and without a
>document with your signature on it no court of law (in the USA) would
>find for your employer.

>Of course most employers of people who create published work in the
>course of their employment are fully aware of this and have all these
>things as part of the standard paperwork everybody signs when they
>first get hired.  If you yourself are a software engineer, why don't
>you go over to your personell office and ask to see some of the things
>you signed when you started with your organization?

If that is the law - please give the cites. I believe that the C/R
statute, and the seminal case (CCNV) make a strong distinction 
between employees and independant contractors.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org