Introduction

Intellectual property (IP) is a very complex topic and derives from an intellectual act (i.e., invention, discovery, or revelation) by an originator. Society must accept a broader concept of property ownership if it is to recognize and protect an IP right. The protection of ideas is the protection of IP. To whom credit is given for the origination of an idea, or to whom the right is given to exclude others from using that idea is ownership. Intellectual property ownership may be divided into three categories: (1) an inventor, author, or artist who owns the source of an idea and is empowered with the rights of ownership; (2) group ownership which stems from ideas arising from the interaction of people within a group; and (3) public domain where the ideas are widely held and everyone owns them [ 1 ]. Intellectual property may be protected in one of six ways or regimes: natural IP, trade secret law, patents, copyrights, trademarks, or secrecy. Natural IP exists if most people believe that the producer is the unique source of a desired product, therefore, other regimes are unnecessary. Trade secret law is defined as "any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information which is used in one' s business and which gives him or her an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors that do not know or use it" [2]. Patents secure an inventor' s rights to make, use, or sell an invention. Copyright covers the expression of ideas [3]. Trademarks are protections of symbols that identify the maker or seller of a product. Finally, secrecy occurs when the originator of an idea decides to keep the idea to him or herself.

Since 1790, the purpose of the Copyright law has been to safeguard the interests of copyright holders and users. Amendments have been made to the law to include print technology (1802), motion pictures (1909), reprographics technology, and digital technology [4]. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act [5] (DMCA) was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in October of 1998 to allow for changes to copyright laws due to the emergence of technology. The United States Copyright Office was charged by Congress to study the issue of distance education and technology [6] and to make recommendations after the DMCA was passed.

Based upon these recommendations and technological changes, it is the purpose of this paper to explore distance education, technology, and intellectual property and the relationship between the three in the academy.

Review of the Literature

Institutions of higher learning are not excluded from the complexities of IP. Issues surrounding IP in higher education include: (1) colleges and universities as major suppliers and consumers of IP, (2) IP created within colleges and universities which is often the product of multiple creators who share other responsibilities (i.e., graduate student and advisor), (3) creation and use of IP within the academy which are carried out by a diverse array of individuals, (4) creative activity within colleges and universities which is supported by a variety of sources (i.e., private funding, government funding, endowments, etc.), and (5) creation and use of IP within colleges and universities which are related to core activities of those institutions (teaching, research, service, and scholarship) [7]. Other issues may include: (1) ownership of IP; (2) commercialization of IP; (3) distribution of funds resulting from IP; (4) works created for colleges and universities; (5) fair use; (6) traditional and electronic publishing and multimedia; (7) Internet and WWW; (8) digital reserves, Interlibrary Loan (ILL) and document scanning; (9) contracts, license and alternatives to copyright law; (10) administration of IP; (11) liability; and (12) political and policy-making processes [8].

The Copyright Office was instructed to consider whether changes to copyright laws were necessary to promote distance education through digital technologies. Issues considered by the Copyright Office included: (1) whether distance education through digital networks needed exemptions from exclusive rights; (2) categories of works that should be included in exemptions; (3) how much should be exempt for works used under distance learning exemption; (4) which parties should be entitled to the benefits of any distance education exemption; (5) which parties should be designated as eligible recipients of distance education for the purposes of exemption; (6) whether technological measures would be required to prevent unauthorized access to, use of, or retention of copyrighted works; and (7) the extent to which licenses for using copyrighted works in distance education through digital networks should be considered in assessing eligibility for any distance learning exemption [9].

"Distance education puts academic freedom and intellectual property under the microscope as never before . . ." [10] Many users in various disciplines are creating new knowledge without long delays of publishing, broadcasting, or conferencing schedules. There is an increase in the number of authors publishing together and the number of articles being co-published. Authors are no longer dependent upon publishers or commercial broadcasters for information dissemination. Cyberspace publishing does not require large amounts of money to produce works. There is also an increase in content diversity, promoting customization in the production of programming and allowing interaction with users. IP ownership in cyberspace resides with the author or creator instead of sharing ownership with publishers or other commercial entities which motivates economic concerns (royalties) [11].

Copyright protections are threatened in cyberspace because of the ease of copying over the Internet. The foundation of the Internet is based upon the principle of providing a free exchange of information to all which is in direct conflict with copyright laws. The law states that copyright holders have exclusive rights to materials, to reproduce, to prepare derivative works based on copyrighted material, to distribute, and/or to display copyrighted work. Violation of the law is copyright infringement. The Information Infrastructure Task Force made recommendations (IITF White Paper) to try to balance the rights of copyright holders and the rights of Internet users. Recommendations also covered IP issues that will impact copyright and patent laws as well as licensing agreements and liability of Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Transmission of digital files via the Internet would be considered a distribution under the Copyright Act, and the White Paper calls for legislation that expands copyright owners' distribution right to include digital transmission of works. Publications will expand to include works published online. Digital works can easily be copied without detection making it difficult to enforce traditional copyright. ISPs have a business relationship with subscribers making it easier to identify subscribers and their activities as well as easier to prevent infringement [12].

Approximately one-third of U.S. institutions of higher education offered distance education courses in 1995. An estimated 85% of institutions offer or will offer distance courses as estimated by the American Council on Education by 1998 [13]. Faculty and administrators are fighting over the control and ownership of courses and course materials. They are starting to realize that courses may be packaged and sold. Online courses and course materials do not fall into existing university policies regarding intellectual property. Depending on the institution, online courses may be treated like inventions or like textbooks. If they are treated like inventions, the university may own the patent rights and share the profits from the licenses with the faculty. If they are treated like textbooks, the university may not own the rights and may leave the professors and publishers to deal with each other. The National Education Association advocates professors' ownership of course material. Additionally, the American Association of University Professors published a report in favor of professors owning the courses they teach regardless of whether it is via the computer or not [14]. The law is utterly unclear as to the answer of who owns traditional and scholarly materials at the university [15].

Policies developed at the college and university level have often been unable to adequately deal with distance learning and copyright issues [16]. If policies exist, they should be distributed to students, faculty and staff members, who should also be required in writing to accept the terms of the policies [17]. Institutions need to obtain approval from the state in which they plan to offer distance learning programs. Institutions also need to obtain all of the rights, if possible, to use the IP involved and protect it from misuse. Universities and colleges must comply with state regulations as well as comply with IP laws relevant to distance learning programs. They must obtain rights to materials and lectures they plan to transmit electronically. Administrators need to understand copyright which includes (1) reproduction of the work; (2) distribution/transmission of the work; (3) performance of the work in public, displaying the work in public and creation of another work derived or adapted from the first work. Administrators should have the creators of the materials assign all the rights to the institutions if they are created specifically for the distance education program. Users should agree to utilize the material in connection with the particular program being offered [18].

Some institutions deal with online courses and ownership on a case by case basis and negotiations are made with the professor as to how profits and control should be split. These negotiations are associated with patent policies. Some professors believe the patent model is a poor fit for online courses. Some administrators believe the issue of course ownership is not that simple. They ask if it is fair for professors to own all rights to material even though university equipment was used to create the material. Some feel that if a professor creates an online course, it is a work for hire which assumes an employer can claim ownership of an employee' s work. "To the extent that faculty use university-owned and operated systems . . . they may have to share their intellectual property rights with their respective institutions. Currently faculty contracts and policy files, by and large, are silent on this point. Policies on each campus must clarify faculty rights when institutional resources in developing new instructional materials are used" [19].

Faculty at some institutions (i.e., Drexel University) feel so strongly about their institutions owning the rights to the online courses they create that they refuse to participate in the distance education program. Professors think that the online courses should be treated like textbooks where universities rarely claim rights and leave the professors to deal with publishers themselves. On the other hand, some administrators feel that online courses should be treated like patented inventions where institutions won own patent rights, and they share the profits with the faculty [20]. Negotiations to retain all copyrights including instructional materials by faculty may be possible. Rights may include (1) retaining copyright ownership for teaching, learning, ownership, research, and speaking engagements; (2) retaining rights to include material in personal and course web sites; and (3) retaining the right for the faculty at their institution to use the work in similar ways [21]. In all cases, administrators, faculty, staff, and students must agree upon an intellectual property policy which best fits their institution.

Methods

Participants Two hundred and ten four-year higher education institutions in the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) states were asked to participate in this study. All of the SREB states were represented in the study and included Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia (see Table 1). Surveys were completed by one administrator at each institution. Although the Academic Vice Presidents were initially asked to respond to the survey, surveys were, in some cases, completed by another institutional administrator more familiar with the institution' s intellectual property policy.

Instrument The survey instrument used in this study was a modified version of a survey used in 1978 by the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) to investigate patent and copyright policies at selected universities [22]. The instrument consisted of thirty multiple-choice and open-ended questions regarding intellectual property policy at institutions of higher learning. A general definition of intellectual property was provided at the top of the first page of the survey, and detailed definitions of the intellectual property components were provided on the last page of the survey. A World Wide Web (WWW) version of the survey was also created to offer respondents an electronic option for submitting responses. The Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of the Web survey was provided at the top of the printed survey, and surveys submitted electronically were e-mailed to the researcher when respondents clicked a "Submit" button provided at the bottom of the Web survey.

Procedures Surveys were mailed out to the Academic Vice Presidents at each of the four-year institutions within the SREB states and were accompanied by a cover letter and self-addressed stamped envelope. The cover letter explained the purpose of the study and requested that the vice president either respond voluntarily to the survey or direct the survey to an administrator within the institution who could more accurately address the issues of intellectual property. The letter also discussed the electronic version of the survey as an alternative means for submitting responses and referenced the Web version' s URL for anyone preferring that method of reply. Surveys were mailed out during the first week in the month of April in hopes that administrators would receive them prior to the end of the Spring semester/quarter.

Results

The study had a 39.5% response rate with eighty-three of the two hundred and ten institutions responding. Interestingly, only 14.5% of the surveys were returned electronically indicating a preference for the paper-version of the survey despite the generally widespread use of technology in higher education. At least one institution from each of the fifteen states surveyed responded. Of those institutions, 8 reported being unable to answer the survey questions because either their institution did not have an intellectual property policy in place, or they were in the process of revising the current intellectual property policy and expected drastic changes to result.

Participants When asked who was covered by each institution' s intellectual property policy, the majority of the institutions reported that faculty, professional staff, nonprofessional staff, graduate students employed by the university, and undergraduate students employed by the university were covered by the intellectual property policy. Approximately 40% of the institutions included graduate and undergraduate students not employed by the university (see Table 2). When asked if any of the individuals covered by the intellectual property policy were required to sign the policy, 26.4% responded "yes" and 73.6% responded "no" Of the institutions that required those covered by the intellectual property policy to sign it, 85.7% required that the policy be signed at the time of employment and 14.3% at the time of external funding.

Disclosure Respondents were then asked to describe what steps, if any, were taken to assure that all intellectual property was properly disclosed. At 41.1% of the institutions, no steps were taken to ensure proper disclosure of intellectual property. Several institutions reported that although disclosure was encouraged, it was done on a voluntary, good-faith basis with no penalties for failure to disclose. Faculty notification through departmental meetings and policy announcements was the means for encouraging proper disclosure of intellectual property at 25.0% of the institutions; at 21.4% of the institutions, educational seminars, workshops and presentations were conducted; and at 12.5% of institutions, annual reports and reviews of disclosures provided a method for determining proper disclosure of intellectual property.

Distance Learning Respondents were also asked several questions regarding distance learning at their institutions. When asked if their institution currently offered distance learning or on-line courses, 90.5% said "yes" and 9.5% said "no." When asked if the materials created for use in distance learning/on-line courses were covered by the institution' s intellectual property policy, 82.1% responded "yes" 16.4% responded "no" and 1.5% did not know. Finally, 54.7% of the institutions reported that the institution or university system retained control of intellectual property created for distance learning/on-line courses; 17.0% reported that ownership was negotiated between the university and the creator of the intellectual property; 13.2% responded that ownership of intellectual property was joint between the university and the creator; 9.4% reported that the creator of the intellectual property retained ownership; and 5.7% were not sure who retained ownership and were currently researching that question.

Discussion

Several institutions responded regretfully that they did not have an institutional policy on intellectual property and could not respond to the survey questions. One respondent reported that the survey was forwarded to him by his Vice President for Academic Affairs, and after considerable research, he found that his university had not developed an institutional policy. It was surprising and unfortunate to find that some institutions were not aware that an intellectual property policy did not exist until they received the survey and began to check with departments on campus to "research" its existence. Other institutions reported that they were in the process of forming committees to study and recommend a policy on intellectual property. Still others admitted that they had been discussing the need to determine such a policy, but had not yet done so.

It was apparent that these institutions had not dealt with any intellectual property claims, and that if intellectual property was being created at their institutions, the authors were retaining ownership, and the institutions were not formally aware, or concerned about, it' s existence. In fact, one institution commented that their responses to the survey were merely hypothetical because their college had no documented discoveries or inventions. This institution' s reference to "discoveries or inventions" suggests that their scope of intellectual property was limited to patents only which could be explained in part by the fact that they currently did not offer distance learning or on-line courses. However, as intellectual property becomes a larger issue of concern, institutions that are currently limiting their scope to patents may discover a need not only to consider distance learning and on-line course materials in their intellectual property policies, but academic publication as well.

The majority of the institutions had intellectual property policies that covered only faculty, staff and students employed by the institution. Perhaps intellectual property is of value only when developed by persons employed by the institution. Perhaps the contract for employment at these institutions provides the only means for binding individuals to the intellectual property policies. In either case, one would expect those individuals covered by the policy to be required to read and sign the policy. The fact that only 26.4% of the institutions responding to the survey require individuals covered by the intellectual property policy to sign it would suggest that at 73.6% of the institutions, faculty, staff, and students are either unaware of an intellectual property policy or are unsure of its guidelines.

At 41.1% of the institutions, no measures were taken to ensure that intellectual property was properly disclosed. One institution commented that the only steps being taken were "word of mouth and jawboning by the Vice Provost." Several institutions said that it was difficult to monitor the creation of intellectual property and that the current policy placed responsibility on the creator. At 46.4% of the institutions, some form of educational seminars or policy announcements were made. These "hands off" approaches to intellectual property disclosure indicate that a majority of the institutions are either not prepared to enforce the intellectual property policy, or they would rather turn their backs on the issue and place the accountability with faculty, staff and students. Several institutions reported that proper disclosure was "managed" by deans and department heads which further indicated that some campus administrators prefer to pass responsibilities regarding intellectual property down the chain to avoid dealing with these issues themselves.

Although the majority of the institutions reported that they currently offered distance learning/on-line courses and that their intellectual property policy covered these works, it was very possible that many of these institutions had not, in fact, exercised this aspect of the policy due to the fact that the implementation of distance learning in higher education was, and still is, a relatively recent development. In fact, one institution admitted not knowing who retained control of the materials created for such courses because they had not dealt with that issue. Faculty would most likely oppose a policy that did not at least give them some type of joint or negotiated agreement for ownership; therefore, the fact that the majority of the institutions gave control of distance learning/on-line course materials to the university further suggested a lack of experience in dealing with this particular area of intellectual property. It also indicated that faculty were unaware of institutional policies on intellectual property and that these institutions were considering the curriculum materials they created to be "works for hire." Interestingly, the majority of the institutional policies assigned ownership of distance learning and on-line course materials to the institution, yet they did not require anyone to sign the policy, and they did not take a proactive approach to ensuring proper disclosure.

Implications

Based on comments and responses to the study, institutions are realizing a need to update or re-evaluate current intellectual property policies, but some appear to be slow to respond to the changing dimensions of intellectual property in higher education. The test of time has allowed institutions to rest comfortably with established policies that deal very well with traditional copyright and patent issues, but the rise of technology has changed the face of intellectual property policies, and many institutions are placing themselves at risk by not addressing this issue. Unfortunately, those not prepared to confront these new intellectual property challenges will either lose potential profits for the institution or must be prepared to defend the guidelines of their policy.

Colleges and universities should consider carefully who will be covered by their intellectual property policy. By excluding graduate and undergraduate students not employed by the institution, they may be eliminating a group who, through class assignments, has the potential to create intellectual property that would be profitable and worthwhile for the institution. Furthermore, institutions are faced with an ethical dilemma when those covered by the intellectual property policy are not required to read and sign it. Creators will undoubtedly challenge the policy when the institution claims ownership of their work, and they were not previously required to sign the terms of the intellectual property agreement. For this reason, institutions should have a procedure in place that assures administrators that faculty, staff, and students have been given the opportunity to examine the intellectual property policy and agree formally to it' s guidelines. In turn, individuals associated with the institution and creating anything that could be considered intellectual property by the institution should make themselves aware of the institution' s intellectual property policy.

Institutions that have not implemented methods to ensure proper disclosure of intellectual property could lose short-term and long-term profits from the intellectual property unknown to them. Leaving the burden of accountability to disclose intellectual property on faculty, staff, and students through educational seminars and policy announcements is not in the best interest of the institution and will not guarantee disclosure. Although such informative methods are beneficial in making individuals aware of the intellectual property policy, they will not alone guarantee that the institution is being adequately compensated for the investments it has made in intellectual property whether it be through faculty incentives or institutional resources.

Intellectual property policies that designate ownership of distance learning and on-line courses to the institution may find it difficult to encourage faculty to invest their time creating these materials. Faculty are accustomed to taking the teaching materials they have prepared for classes with them when they leave one institution for another. It is unlikely that they will not expect to do the same with on-line curriculum materials which are extremely time consuming to create and represent an extensive investment of time and energy by the faculty member. Furthermore, faculty might feel threatened that the institution will no longer require their teaching services due to the nature of distance technologies and the ability to continue using the same course once the it has been initially created or taped.

Table 1

Table 2

Bibliography

"A Framework for global Electronic Commerce: Executive Summary," [ http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/Commerce/summary.html ] (3 May 1999).

American Association of University Professors. "Special Committee on Distance Education and Intellectual Property Issues," [ http://www.aaup.org/spcintro.htm ] (22 August 1999).

American Association of University Professors. "Statement on Copyright," [ http://www.aaup.org/spcdistn.htm ] (22 August 1999).

American Association of University Professors. "Statement on Distance Education," <?> (22 August 1999).

Blumenstyk, Goldie. "New Electronic Tags Carry Copyright Information about On-line Publications," Chronicle of Higher Education (October 3, 1997) (3 May 1999).

Boettcher, Judith V. "Copyright and Intellectual Property," Syllabus (March 1999) [ http://www.syllabus.com ] (14 September 1999).

Boyle, James. "Intellectual Property Policy Online: A Young Person's Guide," Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 10, no. 47 (1996) <?> (25 February 1999).

Branscomb, Anne W. Who Owns Information? Basic Books: New York, 1994.

Brinson, J. Dianne and Radcliffe, Mark F. " An Intellectual Property Primer for Multimedia and Web Developers," 1996, [ http://www.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/ip-primer ] (6 August 1999).

Colbert, Adeena. "Copyright Promotion of Distance Education through Digital Technologies," ISTE Update 11 no. 5 (March 1999): 1, 6.

"Copyright issues in Colleges and Universities," Academe 84 (1998): 39-45.

"Current Issues for higher Education Information Sources," Cause/Effect 20(1997): 4-7, 62-63.

Davis, E. Lee and McClellan, Jeffrey C. "Copyright Corner: Intellectual Property Policy Implemented," The Legal Eagle: A Newsletter of Legal Issues at Georgia Southern University 3 no. 1 (September 1999): 1-2.

Encyclopedia Britannica Online. "Library: The Changing Role of Libraries," 25 February 1999, [ http://www.eb.com ] (25 February 1999).

Encyclopedia Britannica Online. "World Intellectual Property Organization," 25 February 1999, [ http://www.eb.com ] (25 February 1999).

Georgia Southern University/ "Intellectual Property," 2 July 1999, http://gsaix2.cc.gasou.edu:80/research/Resources/IPC/policy.html (6 August 1999).

Georgia Statewide Academic and Medical System. "Findings: A Study of Georgia Technical Institutions," http://www2.state.ga.us/Departments/DOAS/GSAMS/APO/evaluation/findings.html (24 March 1999).

Guernsey, Lisa and Young, Jeffrey R. "Who Owns On-line courses? Professors and Universities Anticipate disputes Over the Earnings from Distance Learning," Chronicle of Higher Education (June 5, 1998) < Lexis/Nexis> (3 May 1999).

Kirk, Elizabeth E. and Bartelstein, Andrea M. "Libraries close in on Distance Education," Library Journal (April 9, 1999) < EBSCO Index> (16 September 1999).

"Libraries Consortium Issues ' Call to Arms' to Protect Scholarly Research," Chronicle of Higher Education (May 29, 1998) < Lexis/Nexis> (3 May 1999).

Lutzker, Arnold P. "Commerce Department' s White Paper on National and Global Information Infrastructure: Executive summary for the Library and Educational Community," 20 September 1995, [ http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/ARL/analysis.html ] (6 August 1999).

Maitland, Christine. "Intellectual Property Policies," (November 12, 1998) [ http://www.nea.org/he/intelpwp.pdf ] (22 August 1999).

McKay, Glen. "Copyright in the Pipeline: An Examination of Distance Learning Issues and Possible Solutions," ED 398 913, 1995.

McKenzie, Jamie. "Keeping it Legal: Questions Arising out of Web Site Management," FNO 5, no. 7(1996) [ http://www.fromnowon.org/jun96/legal.html ] (25 February 1999).

Miranda, David P. "New Copyright Issues Keep popping Up with Regard to information on the Internet," Capital District Business Review 23, no. 35 (1996) < EBSCO Index> (3 May 1999).

Mittlestaedt, John D. and Mittlestaedt, Robert A. " The Protection of Intellectual Property: Issues of Origination and Ownership," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 16, no. 1 (1997) < EBSCO Index> (3 May 1999).

National Association of College and University Business Officers, "Patent and Copyright Policies at Selected Universities," ED187195, 1978.

"On-line Dissertations Raise Issues of Access, Intellectual Property, and Peer Review," Chronicle of Higher Education (March 27, 1998) < Lexis/Nexis> (3 Mary 1999).

Oppedahl and Larson. "Web Law FAQ," 18 June 1998, [ http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht ] (25 February 1999).

"Ownership of On-Line Material," Chronicle of Higher Education (July 24, 1998) < Lexis/Nexis> (3 May 1999).

Rogers, Ruth Ann. < Faculty Senate minutes, distribution list > (10 September 1999).

"Royalty Sharing Formulas of Some U.S. Universities," [ http://www.sun.ac.za/kie/formulas.htm ] (22 August 1999).

Saba, Farhad. "Faculty & Distance Education," Distance Education Report 2(1998):2, 5.

Salomon, Kenneth D. "A Primer on Distance Learning and Intellectual Property Issues." West's Education Law Quarterly, April 1994.

Salomon, Kenneth D. and Pierce, Michael J. "Copyright Law and the Information Superhighway." West's Education Law Quarterly , April 1994.

Steinbeck, Sheldon Elliott and Lupo, Anthony V. "The Hidden Legal Traps in Distance Learning Programs," Chronicle of Higher Education (February 6, 1998) < Lexis/Nexis> (3 May 1999).

"The Truth about IP," Electronic Engineering Times no. 891 (1996) < EBSCO Index> (3 May 1999).

United States Copyright Office. "Report on Copyright and Digital Distance Education," (May 1999) [ http://www.loc.gov/copyright/docs/de_rprt.pdf ] (25 September 1999).

United States Copyright Office. "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998: U.S. Copyright Office Summary," December 1998.

United States Patents and Trade Office. "Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights - Executive Summary," 1995.

United States Statues. 105th Cong., 2nd session, 1998. Vol. 105 p. 796.

University System of Georgia Board of Regents. "Regents Guide to Understanding Copyright and Educational Fair Use," 17 December 1998 [ http://www.peachnet.edu/admin/legal/copyright/copy.html ] (3 May 1999).

University System of Georgia Board of Regents. "Report to Chancellor Stephen Portch Distance Learning Committee: Distance Learning Report Major Recommendations," Winter 1997, [ http://www.peachnet.edu/oiit/dlit/dlcommrep/dlreport_recom.html ] (27 March 1999).

Wagner, Donald R.; Martin, Allen; Schuster, Jack; and Conklin, Cheryll L. "Intellectual Property and Distance Education," Academe 85 no. 3 < Periodical Abstracts> (3 May 1999).

Wand, Patricia A. "Commentary: Technological change, Intellectual Property, and Academic Libraries," Science Communication 17, no. 2 (1995) < EBSCO Index> (3 May 1999).

Watson, Peter G. and Boone, Rebecca A. "Information Support for Academic Administrators: A New Role for the Library," College & Research Libraries 50 (1989): 65-75.

"What' s Ahead in Patents and Trademarks? An Interview with Bruce Lehman," American Society for Information Science Bulletin 12, no. 4 (1995) < ABI inform> (5 May 1999).

Young, Jeffrey R. "A Debate over Ownership of On-line Course Surfaces at Drexel U.," (April 9, 1999) < Periodical Abstracts> (16 September 1999).

Notes

[1] Mittlestaedt, John D. and Mittlestaedt, Robert A. " The Protection of Intellectual Property: Issues of Origination and Ownership," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 16, no. 1 (1997) < EBSCO Index> (3 May 1999).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] McKay, Glen. "Copyright in the Pipeline: An Examination of Distance Learning Issues and Possible Solutions," ED 398 913, 1995.

[5] Pub. L. No. 105-3304, 112 Stat. 2860 (Oct. 28, 1998).

[6] United States Copyright Office. "Copyright Office on Distance Education: Executive Summary," (April 1999) < (25 September 1999).

[7] "Copyright issues in Colleges and Universities," Academe 84 (1998): 39-45.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Colbert, Adeena. "Copyright Promotion of Distance Education through Digital Technologies," ISTE Update 11 no. 5 (March 1999): 1, 6.

[10] Guernsey, Lisa and Young, Jeffrey R. "Who Owns On-line courses? Professors and Universities Anticipate disputes Over the Earnings from Distance Learning," Chronicle of Higher Education (June 5, 1998) < Lexis/Nexis> (3 May 1999).

[11] Wand, Patricia A. "Commentary: Technological change, Intellectual Property, and Academic Libraries," Science Communication 17, no. 2 (1995) < EBSCO Index> (3 May 1999).

[12] Miranda, David P. "New Copyright Issues Keep pPopping Up with Regard to Iinformation on the Internet," Capital District Business Review 23, no. 35 (1996) < EBSCO Index> (3 May 1999).

[13] Kirk, Elizabeth E. and Bartelstein, Andrea M. "Libraries close in on Distance Education," Library Journal (April 9, 1999) < EBSCO Index> (16 September 1999).

[14] Guernsey, Lisa and Young, Jeffrey R. "Who Owns On-line courses? Professors and Universities Anticipate disputes Over the Earnings from Distance Learning," Chronicle of Higher Education (June 5, 1998) < Lexis/Nexis> (3 May 1999).

[15] Ibid.

[16] McKay, Glen. "Copyright in the Pipeline: An Examination of Distance Learning Issues and Possible Solutions," ED 398 913, 1995.

[17] Steinbeck, Sheldon Elliott and Lupo, Anthony V. "The Hidden Legal Traps in Distance Learning Programs," Chronicle of Higher Education (February 6, 1998) < Lexis/Nexis> (3 May 1999).

[18] Ibid.

[19] Saba, Farhad. "Faculty & Distance Education," Distance Education Report 2(1998):2, 5.

[20 ] Young, Jeffrey R. "A Debate over Ownership of On-line Course Surfaces at Drexel U.," (April 9, 1999) < Periodical Abstracts> (16 September 1999).

[21] Boettcher, Judith V. "Copyright and Intellectual Property," Syllabus (March 1999) <?> (14 September 1999).

[22] National Association of College and University Business Officers, "Patent and Copyright Policies at Selected Universities," ED187195, 1978.

What's inside...