Almanac Homepage
Compass
Homepage
Staff
Box |
Speaking Out
Multimedia Courseware at Penn
In response to the Senate Chair's recent message on intellectual property
(Almanac
October 7), I want to address the issue of multimedia courseware, because
there appears to be an extreme divergence of views between the 1994-95 task
force on copyright policy, as discussed in the article by Vivian Seltzer,
and one of our deans. The latter has stated that "...courseware used
in teaching....is the property of the University," and that "...
formal teaching activities are what faculty are paid for by Penn and therefore
their products are owned by Penn."
There are two components to the multimedia tutorials that I am developing
under an NSF grant: the content and the computerization of the content.
The content comprises words and illustrations that are essentially the same
as found in a textbook. In fact, most of the tutorial content is based on
a textbook that I co-authored. The copyright of a textbook has always resided
with the author(s), including authors who are faculty members at colleges
and universities. Some textbooks (unfortunately not ours) generate substantial
income that accrues to the author(s). I am not aware of any logical argument
to the effect that this procedure should be altered at Penn or elsewhere.
Anyone who has carried out normal faculty duties knows that this kind
of creative activity cannot be carried out in one's office during normal
working hours. There are simply too many other duties and interruptions.
That means it has to be done in the evenings, on weekends, on vacations,
on sabbaticals, etc. Certainly, this has been the case with me. Therefore,
an argument that the University should own this kind of "courseware"
because it is part of normal teaching activities, for which the faculty
are already being paid, simply has no merit. If a university wants to discourage
textbook writing by faculty, and to attract faculty lacking the capacity
or the desire to write textbooks, then this policy would have some logic
to it.
The computerization of the words and illustrations is a different matter.
In our project, the analog of "software" as envisioned in Penn's
present policy is the user interface and the template that we have developed,
into which we put the words and pictures. The present policy, as I understand
it, is that the University has the royalty-free right to use this interface
and template, and I have no problem with that. In other words, the present
policy appears to cover my situation adequately.
The real problem at Penn regarding multimedia courseware, as I see it,
has to do with the lack of involvement by the University in the development
of this potentially important mode of teaching. A university committed to
modern education would be prepared to provide the resources that faculty
need to carry out such development. It would have a fund analogous to the
Research Foundation to which faculty could make proposals to buy the necessary
computers, software, video-editing equipment, cameras, etc. It would also
have a central facility staffed by experts who would know the latest techniques
and equipment, and who would be available to assist faculty and students
in getting started in creating multimedia courseware. Unfortunately, Penn
has almost no such experts and no fund for courseware development, as far
as I can tell. As a result, I have had to raise the money for equipment
elsewhere, sometimes out of my pocket, but mainly from the NSF, and we have
had to go outside the University for the essential expertise. All this makes
the process of multimedia-courseware development at Penn tortuous at best.
The probability that there is big money to be made in the courseware
area is small. Every faculty member in the country has the opportunity to
get into this kind of development, and many are doing it now. There will
probably be a proliferation of locally developed courseware, much more so
than in the case of conventional textbooks. Rather than beginning the contemplation
of what to do about computerized courseware by focusing on ownership and
income, the University should begin by asking how important this is now
and is likely to be in the future, and how much of a commitment the University
is prepared to make to support it. Penn, unfortunately, appears to be lagging
behind other institutions, including many that are nowhere near the top
ten in U. S. News and World Report. The lag is by no means irreversible.
The question is, how much real interest is there in this new form of education
at Penn?
--Charles McMahon, Professor of
Materials Science and Engineering
Ode to the Corporate University
Free choices academic or otherwise
Will certainly face a demise
If corporations make decisions
With economic precision
Of whether profit margins are the right size.
Consider Barnes and Noble; Trammell Crow
Whose main ambitions are to grow.
Cappucino's awash, great books in short supply,
Frightened employees passing by
Who gets the benefit while Penn loses its soul?
--Judith Bernstein-Baker, Director,
Public Service Programs, Law School
Bookstore Committee-Not
For the record, I would like it to be known that I resigned from the
Bookstore Committee in April of this year.
I was a bookseller prior to coming to Penn and was thrilled when I was
selected to serve on the Committee. Much to my dismay, notification of Committee
meetings either occurred the day of the meeting or not at all, making it
impossible for me to attend. I was surprised to see my name included in
the Bookstore Committee Report (Almanac
October 14) since I never attended a meeting, received only one set
of minutes (from March) and resigned in April, well before the report was
written and submitted.
--Susan R. Passante, Assistant Director
Office of Research Administration
Ed. Note: Year-end reports of Council Committees are "reports
of the chair" (not of the committee as a whole), but in forwarding
them to Almanac the Office of the Secretary adds for the record a
list of the membership as it stood in the Committee on Committees lists
on appointment; normally a name is not removed if the resignation occurs
well into the academic year.
Some years ago, the practice was to list only the author's name with
a published year-end report. While this made it clearer that the report
is of the chair and not of the whole committee, some chairs felt it failed
to give proper credit for service. So we have tried to split the difference
by carrying both, but attempting by typography to indicate the distinction
between authorship and membership.--K.C.G.
Speaking Out welcomes reader contributions. Short timely
letters on University issues can be accepted
Thursday noon for the following Tuesday's issue, subject to right-of-reply
guidelines.
Advance notice of intention to submit is appreciated.-Ed.
Return to:Almanac, University of Pennsylvania, November
11, 1997, Volume 44, No. 12 |