Distance Learning Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the
Academic Services Committee

Minutes

April 16, 2002

 

 

Members Present: Ron Bohlander, Chair (GTRI), Joe Boland (Distance Learning), Jilda Garton (GTRC & OTL), Claudia Huff (GTRI), Richard Meyer (Library)

 

Members Absent: Fred Allvine (Mgt), Yolonda Cameron (Legal), Steven Danyluk (ME), Monty Hayes (ECE), TyAnna Herrington (LCC), Bill Holm (GTRI), Hans Klein (Pub.Pol.), Tom Pilsch (Computing), Andy Smith (Psych.), Craig Zimring (Arch.)

 

Visitors: Nancey Green Leigh (City Planning and Chair of the parent Academic Services Committee)

 

 

1.      Ron Bohlander, Chair, called this 5th meeting of the subcommittee to order at 1:05 p.m. in ERB114 and stated that the purpose of the meeting was to make as much progress as possible in reviewing and improving a draft proposed policy that he had synthesized from committee studies, discussions, and inputs up to this point.  He introduced the current draft of the policies and of the Stakeholder Analysis developed at the previous meeting (both available on the committee website).  He stated that he had taken the approach of revising the current policy in a way that keeps it as simple and well integrated as possible.  He did not, as some universities have done, develop an extensive separate policy for course material development.

2.      He noted that he had met on 4/12/02 with Yolonda Cameron and TyAnna Herrington from the committee because they could not meet on the 16th.  This meeting focused particularly on legal aspects of the draft IP policy and produced many helpful suggestions that were now incorporated in the working draft.

3.      The committee worked together to further edit the text of the policy (with the result available on the committee website).

4.      Some issues were discussed but were left for further development by the chair; notably:

·        How to define an adequate level of participation to qualify as a Creator.

·        How to distinguish between course materials (that a faculty member may “own”) and a course that is the prerogative of the university.

·        How to clarify the section on agreements between parties within the university engaged together in the development of intellectual property.  Show this is only for internal agreements and that GTRC will execute such agreements.

·        How to define commercialization in this context as licensing only, not giving and charging for a course.

These have subsequently been dealt with, along with additional editorial suggestions from Joe Boland, and a new draft added to the committee website.

5.      The committee also noted that when the Faculty Handbook policy changes are eventually approved and go into effect, the GIT catalog needs to be updated accordingly as a reference for students.  It would help if the GIT catalog index included a reference to student IP policies.  The committee also wants to urge the President to be sure the Intellectual Property Committee is appointed and meets, in accordance with the policy.

6.      A next meeting of the committee will be worked out when a draft dealing with issues in 4) can be circulated and reviewed.

7.      The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.

 

-----------------------------------

Respectfully submitted

Ron Bohlander, Chair
April 20, 2002