Who owns online courses? Copyright and pitfalls
I admit: before my first online course, I looked at copyright completely differently - from a formal point of view of a lawyer. Now that I am also a teacher, a lot of things in our legislation seem inconsistent or wrong to me; something, on the contrary, turned out to be a pleasant surprise - for example, the full rights of employees to the created content. About these discoveries and will be discussed.
And - yes, online courses almost do not differ from other content that teachers create: from manuals, textbooks, and so on. Therefore, with well-known assumptions, my article is generally applicable to any educational content.
The “official” MSU studio and our modest likeness in the neighborhood.
Employers - and my university is not an exception - usually consider that the rights to content created by full-time teachers belong to the organization by default. In fact, this is absolutely not the case. Neither work created on the employer's equipment, nor work created during working hours, does not automatically become the property of the employer.
')
I will give an example: if an ordinary turner on a factory machine in his shift instead of working has machined an ingenious mechanism, will the factory get patent rights? Of course not, because the worker acted outside the framework of his labor function. All that is created "outside the" labor contract, belongs only to the employee.
Similarly, the law works for online courses — unless, of course, creating such courses is not the employee’s direct responsibility. In other cases, the content (course, textbook, training manual - any) will become the property of the employer only when the following conditions are met:
If not all conditions are met, the employee has the opportunity to keep the course for themselves. In this case, he may, for example, not swear with his home university, but go and open the same course on his own behalf, but on a commercial platform.
Sometimes there are several authors of the course - and they may not be aware of the existence of each other. For example, if a course contains interactive elements (such as algorithms for checking tasks a la Stepic), then the author of the course will become a full co-author of the course. If there is a video in the course, the director will be the co-author; if there is music, then the composer will get the rights, and so on. You can find a million such situations, and most of the creators of the course do not even suspect. And contracts need to be concluded with all.
Something like this I imagine the faces of potential collaborators who are reading this now.
Fortunately, the author / coauthor of the course can always push the university, because he not only transmits the course, but usually also supervises. The author rules tests as necessary, manages the reviewers, answers complex questions on the forum. It is in the interests of the university not to quarrel, and the most conscious enter into complex agreements with the authors: for the development of the course, the transfer of materials (licensed or fully) and support for a certain period. However, so far I have seen such a contract (complete with NDA) only at HSE.
In the course of developing the course, I encountered other surprises. For example, the Civil Code allows material citation for educational purposes (even in commercial products), if:
Moreover, if everything is more or less clear with the “justified volume” of the text (the quote is a quote), then there is no unequivocal answer with images and video. For example, the film science course is completely based on other people's content - movie fragments. The question is: is such a compilation legal?
Even the "Dove of Peace" and the later works of Picasso are still protected by copyright; what can we say about contemporary artists?
Another couple of problems specific to the post-Soviet countries. Firstly, there is a mass of materials whose authorship cannot be established in principle. For example, they were published without a signature - an ordinary situation with old photos. In the USSR, until the 1960s, copyright for photographs lasted only 5 years, and no one was worn with authorship. Subsequently, the term of protection was increased by more than twenty times, and the photos of the 30s suddenly returned from the public domain — still without authors. In this situation, you can use archived images (say, up to date on the latest history) only at your own risk: at any time heirs may appear and claim rights to the image.
There are modern Russian nuances. For example, according to our legislation, official museums and owners of cultural heritage sites have a “veto right” to publish photos of buildings and everything inside. This means that the use of the painting, which, in theory, has long been in the public domain, may be restricted or prohibited by the claim of the museum. There is such a practice, especially the Hermitage in this respect.
The last ban related to the use of "Danae" Rembrandt in advertising mattresses. It would seem justified; but, you know, "first they came for mattresses - I was silent ..."
Whoever belongs to a course - a teacher or a university - is always worth setting a framework in which users and authors of other courses can use it. Legally, this is done by a separate license agreement with the audience. Here you can specify whether the course will be distributed under the terms of open licenses such as CC. It is worth explaining the narrow questions: whether it is possible to translate the course into other languages ​​or include, say, in curricula; Is it possible to show videos on other people's lectures or upload on youtube.
In the “course license” it is important to indicate one more thing - the right to use student materials. For example, if students write an essay on a course, by default they cannot be used in the course (even as examples), since the copyright is reserved for students. Therefore, I personally wrote in the original course materials that all the answers to the tasks, questionnaires and even posts on the course forum can be used by the authors of the course for any purpose without further notice. Of course, besides personal data - however, this “is another story altogether”.
And - yes, online courses almost do not differ from other content that teachers create: from manuals, textbooks, and so on. Therefore, with well-known assumptions, my article is generally applicable to any educational content.
The “official” MSU studio and our modest likeness in the neighborhood.
Customer misconceptions
Employers - and my university is not an exception - usually consider that the rights to content created by full-time teachers belong to the organization by default. In fact, this is absolutely not the case. Neither work created on the employer's equipment, nor work created during working hours, does not automatically become the property of the employer.
')
I will give an example: if an ordinary turner on a factory machine in his shift instead of working has machined an ingenious mechanism, will the factory get patent rights? Of course not, because the worker acted outside the framework of his labor function. All that is created "outside the" labor contract, belongs only to the employee.
Similarly, the law works for online courses — unless, of course, creating such courses is not the employee’s direct responsibility. In other cases, the content (course, textbook, training manual - any) will become the property of the employer only when the following conditions are met:
- The employee was assigned a service to develop an online course. Moreover, if the task is not executed in writing - by an order, say, or by an office note - the employee can always say that he has not received the task;
- This task is performed as part of an employment contract. For example, if a physics teacher was instructed to create a course in biology, this is not an official task;
- The result of the assignment is transmitted and recorded, ideally by an act or an office note containing the result - screenshots, decryption, and so on. Otherwise, the employee can always say that he did not complete the task and did not pass the course.
- The employee received a reward, and in addition to his salary.
If not all conditions are met, the employee has the opportunity to keep the course for themselves. In this case, he may, for example, not swear with his home university, but go and open the same course on his own behalf, but on a commercial platform.
Course agreement
Sometimes there are several authors of the course - and they may not be aware of the existence of each other. For example, if a course contains interactive elements (such as algorithms for checking tasks a la Stepic), then the author of the course will become a full co-author of the course. If there is a video in the course, the director will be the co-author; if there is music, then the composer will get the rights, and so on. You can find a million such situations, and most of the creators of the course do not even suspect. And contracts need to be concluded with all.
Something like this I imagine the faces of potential collaborators who are reading this now.
Fortunately, the author / coauthor of the course can always push the university, because he not only transmits the course, but usually also supervises. The author rules tests as necessary, manages the reviewers, answers complex questions on the forum. It is in the interests of the university not to quarrel, and the most conscious enter into complex agreements with the authors: for the development of the course, the transfer of materials (licensed or fully) and support for a certain period. However, so far I have seen such a contract (complete with NDA) only at HSE.
Quote for scientific purposes
In the course of developing the course, I encountered other surprises. For example, the Civil Code allows material citation for educational purposes (even in commercial products), if:
- The citation volume is justified by its purpose;
- The author is indicated;
- The source is indicated (link is given).
Moreover, if everything is more or less clear with the “justified volume” of the text (the quote is a quote), then there is no unequivocal answer with images and video. For example, the film science course is completely based on other people's content - movie fragments. The question is: is such a compilation legal?
Even the "Dove of Peace" and the later works of Picasso are still protected by copyright; what can we say about contemporary artists?
Historical heritage
Another couple of problems specific to the post-Soviet countries. Firstly, there is a mass of materials whose authorship cannot be established in principle. For example, they were published without a signature - an ordinary situation with old photos. In the USSR, until the 1960s, copyright for photographs lasted only 5 years, and no one was worn with authorship. Subsequently, the term of protection was increased by more than twenty times, and the photos of the 30s suddenly returned from the public domain — still without authors. In this situation, you can use archived images (say, up to date on the latest history) only at your own risk: at any time heirs may appear and claim rights to the image.
There are modern Russian nuances. For example, according to our legislation, official museums and owners of cultural heritage sites have a “veto right” to publish photos of buildings and everything inside. This means that the use of the painting, which, in theory, has long been in the public domain, may be restricted or prohibited by the claim of the museum. There is such a practice, especially the Hermitage in this respect.
The last ban related to the use of "Danae" Rembrandt in advertising mattresses. It would seem justified; but, you know, "first they came for mattresses - I was silent ..."
Outgoing Copyright
Whoever belongs to a course - a teacher or a university - is always worth setting a framework in which users and authors of other courses can use it. Legally, this is done by a separate license agreement with the audience. Here you can specify whether the course will be distributed under the terms of open licenses such as CC. It is worth explaining the narrow questions: whether it is possible to translate the course into other languages ​​or include, say, in curricula; Is it possible to show videos on other people's lectures or upload on youtube.
In the “course license” it is important to indicate one more thing - the right to use student materials. For example, if students write an essay on a course, by default they cannot be used in the course (even as examples), since the copyright is reserved for students. Therefore, I personally wrote in the original course materials that all the answers to the tasks, questionnaires and even posts on the course forum can be used by the authors of the course for any purpose without further notice. Of course, besides personal data - however, this “is another story altogether”.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/311164/
All Articles