actually in terms of U.S. universities, i'm pretty much right, you are just reading your university's policy as they have no right to a claim, but that's not what they are saying, they are saying 'they have a claim, but they release it' that is pretty much universal these days, some university policies are behind that curve, but standards of practice being what they are, give it time. Some people believe it is different that professors have the sole claim on any IP, but that has been struck down over and over, but in the end, the legal framework is that universities have a claim and own the claim and release it, not that they don't own it. They may have other reasons to keep their claim as you indicate such as special payment, but that again is fairly standard. The legal framework is pretty much that the university owns or has a claim to all ip produced at the university, and releases the majority of it back to the professors. Again, your university policy may indicate otherwise in some readings, but I'd suggest looking up recent IP litigation your university has been involved in, and surely there is some and see. That's where the real policy is will be and I suspect it will fit much more strongly with what i've said, than not.
the positions of student work is questionable of course, coursework is much less of interest than student innovation in labs, the latter is what i was referring to in my brief analysis. in that case, the university, having made the investment in the lab, will have rights to the ip.
as for workshops, I think they are still work for hire situations in the u.s. and work for hire can, as you indicate be changed by contract/waiver/etc.
Jeremy Hunsinger
Center for Digital Discourse and Culture
Virginia Tech
http://www.tmttlt.com
Whoever ceases to be a student has never been a student.
-George Iles
|