5 ms·

Can someone please explain why this is legal? I fully understand that students are using school resources and faculty expertise to complete assignments for clas

Can someone please explain why this is legal? I fully understand that students are using school resources and faculty expertise to complete assignments for class, but isn't that what they're paying tens of thousands of dollars per year to do? Ownership of IP makes sense in a work for hire arrangement but these kids are PAYING to be there. What are they getting in return for the money?

guptaneil 16y ago
The argument is usually that university resources were used (wifi, computers, space, etc), so the university should receive compensation since tuition is to pay for receiving an education, not starting a business. Having said that, schools that still enforce a policy like that are only hurting themselves by discouraging entrepreneurship, and it's only a matter of time until all schools have similar IP policies as this one. I'm lucky my university strongly believes in encouraging entrepreneurship and does not assert any ownership over student work, even if university equipment is used.
- dhimes 16y ago
  since tuition is to pay for receiving an education, not starting a business I think there is a gaping hole in this argument. When you go to a college/university, you are entering an environment of learning and exploration, both personal and intellectual. It's not just an "education" in the sense of "book knowledge." Some unis have policies dictating where you can live, whether or not you can drive a car, and have disciplinary policies for violating certain rules (read: drinking) that have to do with this environment, not with intellectual education. And I completely agree with you that schools that try to get it both ways and deny the student the fruit of their complete growth, including entrepreneurship, are doing them a disservice. Do athletes that turn pro based on the skills they develop in college have to tithe their salary back to the school? EDIT: I obviously need to make it clear that I am continuing your point, not disagreeing.
  - guptaneil 16y ago
    I absolutely agree, I was just explaining the argument from the POV of the university. Your athlete analogy sums up the issue perfectly.
bugsy 16y ago
Regarding the specific question of "[how] is this legal", the answer is that students have to have signed a contract at some point agreeing to university policy which includes such a clause. This might be something as simple as "I agree to abide by the rules of the university handbook, including future changes." I suspect that in many cases there was no such agreement, but universities get students to transfer ownership by signing letters of understanding after being threatened with scary lawsuits. Basically a mob shakedown. That was the situation in my case, there was nothing I agreed to in writing, but they asserted they had such rights and intended to sue if I didn't sign over ownership. Just that they question ownership publicly is probably enough to ensure that former student led ventures never acquire funding or are abandoned due to the uncertainty. Nowadays clicking buttons on web sites is considered by some courts to be the same as signing a written contract, so this might be another way to get students to agree to absurd things, the same way many internet based companies do. Without a legal agreement the rights are held by the creators of the work. Since it is not work for hire because undergrad students are not employees, the students own the work. Grad students on the other hand are usually employees and also have signed contracts explicitly turning over ownership of work, so how it works is more clear there.

guptaneil 16y ago

The argument is usually that university resources were used (wifi, computers, space, etc), so the university should receive compensation since tuition is to pay for receiving an education, not starting a business. Having said that, schools that still enforce a policy like that are only hurting themselves by discouraging entrepreneurship, and it's only a matter of time until all schools have similar IP policies as this one. I'm lucky my university strongly believes in encouraging entrepreneurship and does not assert any ownership over student work, even if university equipment is used.

dhimes 16y ago
since tuition is to pay for receiving an education, not starting a business I think there is a gaping hole in this argument. When you go to a college/university, you are entering an environment of learning and exploration, both personal and intellectual. It's not just an "education" in the sense of "book knowledge." Some unis have policies dictating where you can live, whether or not you can drive a car, and have disciplinary policies for violating certain rules (read: drinking) that have to do with this environment, not with intellectual education. And I completely agree with you that schools that try to get it both ways and deny the student the fruit of their complete growth, including entrepreneurship, are doing them a disservice. Do athletes that turn pro based on the skills they develop in college have to tithe their salary back to the school? EDIT: I obviously need to make it clear that I am continuing your point, not disagreeing.
- guptaneil 16y ago
  I absolutely agree, I was just explaining the argument from the POV of the university. Your athlete analogy sums up the issue perfectly.

bugsy 16y ago

Regarding the specific question of "[how] is this legal", the answer is that students have to have signed a contract at some point agreeing to university policy which includes such a clause. This might be something as simple as "I agree to abide by the rules of the university handbook, including future changes." I suspect that in many cases there was no such agreement, but universities get students to transfer ownership by signing letters of understanding after being threatened with scary lawsuits. Basically a mob shakedown. That was the situation in my case, there was nothing I agreed to in writing, but they asserted they had such rights and intended to sue if I didn't sign over ownership. Just that they question ownership publicly is probably enough to ensure that former student led ventures never acquire funding or are abandoned due to the uncertainty. Nowadays clicking buttons on web sites is considered by some courts to be the same as signing a written contract, so this might be another way to get students to agree to absurd things, the same way many internet based companies do. Without a legal agreement the rights are held by the creators of the work. Since it is not work for hire because undergrad students are not employees, the students own the work. Grad students on the other hand are usually employees and also have signed contracts explicitly turning over ownership of work, so how it works is more clear there.