Assessing Academic Property and Organized Labor

Assessing Academic Property and Organized Labor

Part One

Thorough Analysis of the Legal Finding Represented In the Case

The case entails a dispute by the Kansas National Education Association to the Kansas Board of Regents proposed policy providing possession of intellectual property of members of faculty to the educational institutions at they work. Kansas appellate court in 2004 ruled against the Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), describing that the Regents were not necessitate to take on negotiating with the union on issues of ownership copyright because such action would quarrel with the stipulation of federal laws that a writer may bargain his or her rights related to academic property but cannot be essential to do so. The judge concludes the result by supposing that the intellectual property was “work for hire” of faculty members and therefore the belongings of the University.

The KNEA appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Kansas in 2005, the American Association of University Professor (AAUP) filed in the court on the contracted subject of ownership of the copyright of faculty members. The AAUP wrangle that the doctrine of work for hire does not contain academic property of faculty, communicating the federal appellate court judgment, conventional academic performance and concepts of academic autonomy to faculty holding the rights of their work as innovative authors.

On November 2005, the Supreme Court of Kansas lined that academic property rights are not minimally imagined to be work for hire belonging to the educational institution and can be a area under discussion of combined negotiating. The court documented that the question related to ownership of work of faculty is a multifaceted one depending on cautious investigation of employment association and the cause for the process of formation of the work itself. The court mentioned the statement of AUUP on exclusive rights and accepted that the ownership of faculty academic property cannot be treated merely as the effort of employee relating to employer and will not essentially engross a case by case assessment but specifically a evaluation based on task by task.

The Public Employee Relation Board (PERB) summarized that the subject of intellectual property closely and directly affects the welfare and work of the public employees of the state of Pittsburgh. The PERB also lined that there was no intrinsic managerial right that would suffer momentous intrusion by negotiating in relation to intellectual property rights. The PERB summarized that the university and the Regents voluntarily, intentionally took on the policy and refused to meet and bestow about the policy with the union and thus occupied in prohibited practices under the Kansas law. The initial order became the final decision after consideration by the PERB in 2007 (AAUP, n.d.).

How the decision would affect ownership and distribution of materials developed for online learning

With the advent of internet many universities and colleges are contributing in education through online medium. As these online education lessons enter the middle-of-the-road, issues related to public policies begins to emerge. These issues occupy the nervousness between the academic ...