Yes, in the Honors common lounge, there are currently three televisions and gaming systems that have been running simultaneously for several days straight. There are also countless computers scattered throughout the room. We're making the best of what little break we have left. What else would we do? We're snowed in.

(download)

Click here to download:

Effective_Time-Usage_in_the_Ho.zip (388 KB)

This afternoon, I attended NKU's Board of Regents meeting, at which the issue of the revision to the university's intellectual property policy was discussed and ultimately approved. I authored a post earlier this morning detailing my complaints and concerns with the policy revision in detail. I stand by my concerns, and I'm encouraged by the fact that many other students have similar misgivings about the new policy. I still believe the new policy to be over-zealous in its automatic licensing of student work.

I met with Dennis Chaney, vice-president of the Student Government Association, and president Keith Kaseke before the board meeting. I was encouraged to hear that they hold a stance similar to my own on the issue of student IP, and that they will be taking steps to amend the policy ASAP. I also had the opportunity to share my concerns with the board in conjunction with VP Chaney, and found that the university president, Dr. Votruba, and several board members agreed that the concerns we raised are indeed valid, and will be considered. The policy, although approved, was approved on the condition that it will be scrutinized in subsequent board meetings, discussed, and potentially revised.

Why was the policy passed today, if much of the board agreed that the draft needed more scrutiny to protect student IP rights? " href="http://www.sacs.org/">SACS accreditation. In my discussion with Provost Wells and President Votruba, I found that NKU is due for reaccreditation in December, and the lack of a ratified, up-to-date IP policy could put the university's reaccreditation at risk. The policy needed to be approved today to minimize this risk, and since there was not time to revise it immediately, it had to be approved as is. This is highly unfortunate, but I understand and sympathize with the university's situation.

I have been assured by all parties that the issue will be considered carefully, and I intend to ensure that it is. I will be as involved as possible in pushing the policy amendment, and I plan to do everything I can to make sure it gets passed. I also plan to make sure that a motion is filed in conjunction with the amendment to retroactively dismiss any rights NKU has acquired to student work in the time period during which the new policy was ratified. We can't very well have a few months of student work under NKU's thumb, can we? NKU's IP policy is broken right now. But we can fix it. Stay tuned.

Update: The policy has been passed, but all is not lost. Read the updated post.

Tomorrow at 1PM in room 104 of the Student Union at Northern Kentucky University, the board of regents will vote on the finalization of a new draft of the university intellectual property policy. This policy is highly important, as all university staff, faculty, and students are subject to its regulations. Policy changes, even those which affect all students, are not made easily accessible to the general public. They are discussed by various boards and committees at the university, but are not published until after they've passed. Perhaps a more transparent process is in order.

Yesterday evening, a portion of the new policy draft was posted on reddit.com. I was alerted to the post by a friend, and found it to be pretty disturbing. Needing more details and context, I managed to get a copy of the draft policy. I will discuss here some issues I have with the document.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and do not assert that my interpretation of the text is necessarily 100% accurate. This post does not constitute legal advice.

NKU's IP-policy takes a blacklist approach to IP-rights, in that anything not specifically exempted in the policy is "presumed to be owned by the University." (Section IV) This is not an uncommon approach to IP in university policies. It is, however, questionable. This stipulation serves to benefit the university in situations of ambiguity. Should not the university first protect those whom it exists to serve?

More disturbing is Section IV.C of the policy, Student Ownership Issues. The text of sub-section 4 reads:

Students working collaboratively (i.e. unpaid or unfunded work) with other Originators on projects that result in Intellectual Property may be granted the same rights and obligations as any other Originator working collaboratively on the project. Students and other Originators should establish these rights in writing at the outset of their collaboration. Unless otherwise informed by the parties, the University will presume that any Student working collaboratively on a project with other Originators has no rights and obligations with regard to the Intellectual Property.

(Emphasis mine.) This section as it stands is highly ambiguous. It states that any collaborative work students might do for a course, including group projects, are assumed to be the intellectual property of the university, unless a notification of IP-claim is filed with the university. Students must opt-in to own the rights to their own group work. If they do not do so, it is assumed that the students involved waive their rights to the work.

So the university claims student's collaborative work for itself. What has the policy got to say about individual work? Section IV.C.6 states that:

Where Intellectual Property arising out of the student's own original work and participation in programs of study at the University is retained by the student, including copyright in theses or dissertations, the student shall grant to the University or its designee a royalty-free perpetual non-exclusive license and consent to reproduce, use and publicly distribute the intellectual Property for the following limited purposes of the University: (1)institutional promotion and marketing, (2) education and instructional use, and (3) entries into appropriate competitions. In each instance, the university shall clearly recognize or acknowledge the student for his/her creative or scholarly work.

(Emphasis, once again, mine.) In other words, NKU is automatically granted a license for the reproduction and distribution of any intellectual property produced for coursework by a student enrolled at the university. Literally anything a student does as a part of his normal classwork becomes the non-exclusive property of NKU. They don't have to ask the student's permission to republish it. They don't need to ask to share it with other students. It's theirs. Automatically.

What if I write a highly personal narrative in which I share sensitive information about my past? Should a professor be allowed to share it as an example in their class without first consulting me about whether I'd like it to be shared? Should the university be allowed to publish it and share it with the public at large? Shouldn't I have some say in the matter? Should the university be allowed to benefit financially from my non-institutionally-sponsored work, while I receive nothing in return? Shouldn't the "Originator" of a work be allowed to specify what intellectual property rights they choose to reserve regarding their own work?

This draft, in its current state, allows Northern Kentucky University to claim a broad set of rights to students' intellectual property. I'll be at the meeting, tweeting and blogging as the decision is made.