May 31, 2016 at 6:14 pm
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!
See in context
May 23, 2016 at 5:34 pm
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?
May 17, 2016 at 6:16 pm
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
May 17, 2016 at 12:22 am
I’m really impressed by the thoughtful work of the committee, the draft policy, how it’s being communicated, and how input is being solicited from the community.
Thank you for bringing clarity to these important questions. I do think that this clarity will greatly contribute to faculty, staff and students being encouraged in their creative endeavors.
May 16, 2016 at 11:56 pm
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…
May 12, 2016 at 1:25 pm
Domain names fit under the legally recognized definition of trademarks, this is not our definition. You can find more information at the US Patent and Trademark Office.
GO-links, specifically, are also covered under Middlebury’s Web Policies and this statement on the GO admin page: “NOTE: Unauthorized use of Middlebury College’s Web sites for commercial purposes is prohibited. We reserve the right to remove any shortcuts deemed inappropriate. We may also need to re-appropriate a shortcut for a critical need of the College, but we will contact you in this event.”
May 11, 2016 at 4:40 pm
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.
May 11, 2016 at 1:18 pm
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.
May 10, 2016 at 9:12 pm
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.
May 10, 2016 at 5:57 pm
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.
Website content © Middlebury Intellectual Property Working Group 2017. All rights reserved.