|

Comments by Commenter

  • Alicia Peaker

  • Amy Collier

    • Hi Holly, this means publications for alumni, rather than by alumni. Examples of this include: http://www.miis.edu/alumni andhttp://sites.middlebury.edu/middmag/ Thanks for your feedback—we will consider being more specific with the language on that bullet point. 

    • The kinds of work that will be treated differently are specified in Part 2 of the policy. Part 2 states:

      [Subject to applicable law, any IP created or developed by members of the Middlebury Community shall be owned by the creators of such IP. However, Middlebury shall own such IP, and the creator(s) hereby assign, and shall assign, all IP rights to Middlebury, when:]

      and then the cases where IP would be treated differently are listed. Principle (c) in Part 1 is saying that all members of the community will be treated equally but that some people (often staff) have jobs where the work they are doing largely falls under those exceptions listed in Part 2. Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

    • Hi Michelle,
      We are currently working on this section to clarify this language. Once we have updated the language to provide more clarity, I will email you and reply to your comment again to provide further perspective. Thanks and we will be in touch soon!

  • Bill Koulopoulos

  • Bob Cole

    • Hi Julie, in this case, it is probably fair to conclude that in the absence of project-specific IP agreements, none of the four exceptions (functional/identity interest; institutionally defined project; externally funded project, substantial allocation of resources) to the IP “default to creator” would be triggered in such as a way as to establish an institutional claim to website content for the “Mindfulness at Middlebury” initiative. However, interviewees should be made aware of IP policy, and a multimedia release agreement should be obtained before posting to the web. The MIIS online multimedia release form: https://forms.miis.edu/facstaff/communications/release

  • Feb175

    • What kinds of work are going to be treated differently with regard to ownership guidelines and IP status? This reads somewhat like a loophole allowing selective enforcement of the rules. While selective enforcement with good judgement can lead to optimal outcomes, specific scenarios and cases in which different guidelines would apply should be given to provide precedent.

    • Domain names and URLs seem to be a possible overreach, if that language is inclusive of student-created go/links.  Since go/links are typically created anonymously, one could assume that Middlebury could claim ownership to all go/links that have been/will be created by students.  If, for example, a student run business had a go/link for itself, and said students chose to continue their start up outside of Middlebury, they should be guaranteed rights to the IP they came up with while at school, even if their name is not tied to it (such as in a go/link).  The same should apply to all student created content.

  • Holly Mikkelson

  • Joe Antonioli

  • Julie Johnson

    • Just wondering about website content and multimedia elements. For the Mindfulness@Middlebury website, I’ve started creating (own idea, own initiative) podcast interviews with professors about contemplative pedagogy; eventually I’ll put up a nicely edited audio version of the Evening of Music and Conversation with Laura Burian that I proposed, designed and hosted this spring…  For elements like this, it wouldn’t feel right if Middlebury claimed IP just because I’m sharing them on a Middlebury website for the sake of stimulating conversation across the Middlebury community…

  • Michelle McCauley

    • Could you clarify this or provide examples of the type of government -funded projects to which this refers?   – e.g., would publications from data  collected and funded by NSF or NIH grants fall into this category?

Source: http://ipwg.middcreate.net/comments-by-commenter/