Copyrights in higher education: motivating a research agenda

Abstract

The Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 enabled American universities to engage in technology transfer. Thirty years of research has investigated the legislation’s effectiveness and derivative university practices, such as the establishment of technology transfer offices. Unfortunately, the technology transfer literature has focused primarily on patenting as the primary transfer vehicle for protecting intellectual property in universities, overlooking other forms of IP ownership, such as copyrights. Legal scholarship shows, however, that universities are increasingly using copyrights to protect their intellectual property and that the number of university-held copyrights exceeds patents. This paper examines the use of copyrights to protect and transfer university IP. It does so by reviewing underlying legal and policy concepts associated with copyrights and offers contemporary examples of copyright issues within universities. The paper therefore provides a foundation for future research on the role of copyrights in technology transfer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Copyrights are often included in science policy scholarship among other types of IP protection, especially patents, as an important consideration for institutional policy or firm strategy. A keyword search of the term “copyright” in Journal of Technology Transfer and Research Policy, for example, yields various responses. A closer examination of returned articles reveals that while scholars use copyright as, for example, an important output among knowledge-based firms (e.g., Bergmann 2017; Siegel and Wessner 2012), little effort is devoted to understanding how and why they do so.

  2. 2.

    Much of the Copyright Act is technical in nature, and the subject of intense lobbying by interested groups (e.g., the recording industry, the movie industry, book publishers, and rights management groups). The Copyright Act of 1976 represented the biggest shift in copyright law in the United States, and was the result of years of lobbying and hearings in Congress (Crews 1993). While additional tweaks to the law have been made since—for example, the revisions in 1998 extended the term of copyright protection—the fundamental underpinnings remain firmly established. Federal circuit courts do play important roles, though, in refining how the law applies in emerging technological and contested areas. Unsurprisingly, the federal circuit courts whose jurisdictions cover California and New York—two states that house the majority of ‘content’ companies in the United States—have been particularly influential in interpreting copyright law.

  3. 3.

    By way of comparison, utility patents are much more expensive to obtain. The cheapest governmental fee that a small organization will pay to obtain a patent is $1210, and that cost goes up to several thousand dollars depending on the size of the applicant’s organization and the complexity of the patent (see https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule#Patent%20Fees). These costs do not take into account attorney fees in prosecuting a patent. Whereas copyright registrations may be obtained without the assistance of an attorney (and commonly are), only a member of the ‘patent bar’ may prosecute a patent application. A 2017 survey of patent practitioners found that the average cost to prosecute a utility patent application, on an invention of minimal complexity, was $8523 (AIPLA 2017). The actual cost was over $11,000 in some jurisdictions. Patent applicants will pay additional fees (in the thousands of dollars) to attorneys to amend the application or respond to arguments made during examination. If the patent issues, they will also have to pay ‘maintenance fees’ ranging from $3150 to $12,600 (depending on the size of the patent owner’s organization) to maintain the patent for the duration of its term.

  4. 4.

    See, for example, Hayter and Rooksby (2015) discussion of the Supreme Court case Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. The case not only led many universities to rewrite faculty employment contracts, it also supported arguments that universities have the legal flexibility to choose multiple paradigms of IP ownership, including faculty, government, and third-party ownership, that might lead to better technology dissemination and commercialization outcomes (Hayter and Rooksby 2015).

  5. 5.

    Unfortunately, the government’s copyright database is neither user friendly nor easily manipulated for analysis. First, conducting custom searches is time intensive, given the interface of the online database. For example, when hundreds or thousands of records meet a given search criterion, not all records are displayed on one page. Second, each record must be examined individually to capture and transcribe the data of interest—the data cannot be downloaded in the aggregate. Third, a high degree of variation exists in how registration data has been entered in the online database, because of different practices deployed by the U.S. Copyright Office through the years, as well as idiosyncratic preferences or habits of the different librarians entering the records. Fortunately, alternatives to searching in the copyright database have recently become available, such as LexisNexis’s database of over 32 million copyright registrations available for searching (see https://www.lexisnexis.com/infopro/keeping-current/b/weblog/archive/2017/08/03/copyrights-amp-trademarks-registrations-added-to-lexis-advance-ip-library.aspx). We leave it to future work to describe the best approaches to shepherding the data we call for here.

  6. 6.

    In addition to any inhouse lawyer at a university who focuses on copyright law, librarians tend to be among the most knowledgeable people on campus concerning copyright. This connection between librarians and copyright should not be surprising, given that the U.S. Copyright Office is housed within the Library of Congress.

  7. 7.

    In their teaching and research capacities, professors often utilize copyrighted materials for purposes of teaching, commentary, and scholarship. However, recent case law involving universities demonstrates that the doctrine of fair use does have limits in the educational context (Cambridge Univ. Press v. Patton, 769 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2014)). The advent of the Internet and associated proliferation of digital media have made these fair use issues even more complicated.

  8. 8.

    For example, recent litigation involving Google and HathiTrust addressed whether the large-scale scanning of books under copyright, for purposes of making the knowledge in those books text searchable, was covered by fair use, both by Google and a consortium of universities (which contributed books in its libraries to the project, and wished to offer limited views of the books to its users in response to search queries). The courts held that it did (Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014); Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015)).

  9. 9.

    See, for example, discussions concerning universities and proposed amendments to patent law aimed at curbing so-called “patent trolls” (Valdivia 2015).

References

  1. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).

  2. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).

  3. 17 U.S.C. § 107.

  4. 17 U.S.C. § 412.

  5. 17 U.S.C. § 504.

  6. Ács, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. AIPLA. (2017). Report of the economic survey. Arling, VA: American Intellectual Property Law Association.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015).

  9. Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014).

  10. Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bergmann, H. (2017). The formation of opportunity beliefs among university entrepreneurs: An empirical study of research- and non-research-driven venture ideas. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 116–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bradley, S., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9(6), 571–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Braunerhjelm, P., Ács, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2010). The missing link: Knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34(2), 105–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Braunerhjelm, P., Ding, D., & Thulin, P. (2016). Labour as a knowledge carrier: How increased mobility influences entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 1308–1326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cambridge Univ. Press v. Patton, 769 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2014).

  16. Cook-Degan, R. (2007). The science commons in health research: Structure, function, and value. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Crews, K. D. (1993). Copyright, fair use, and the challenge for universities: Promoting the progress of higher education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. de Laat, P. B. (2005). Copyright or copyleft? An analysis of property regimes for software development. Research Policy, 34, 1511–1532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Frischman, B. M., & Lemley, M. A. (2007). Spillovers. Columbia Law Review, 107, 257–301.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Goel, R. K., Saunoris, J. W., & Zhang, X. (2015). Innovation and underground entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 800–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hall, B., Helmers, C., Rogers, M., & Sena, V. (2014). The choice between formal and informal intellectual property: A review. Journal of Economic Literature, 52, 375–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hayter, C. S. (2016a). A social responsibility view of ‘formal’ university technology transfer: Motivating knowledge dissemination? Duquesne Law Review, February, 7–52.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hayter, C. S. (2016b). Constraining entrepreneurial development: A knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 45, 475–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hayter, C. S., Lubyinsky, R., & Maroulis, S. (2017). How is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hayter, C. S., & Rooksby, J. H. (2015). A legal perspective on university technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 270–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Howe, S. (2010). Where are we now? Statistics on capstone courses nationwide. Advances in Engineering Education, 2(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kolowich, S. (2013). Get used to sharing digital content, says U. of Texas at Austin president, Chronicle of Higher Education, April 15.

  28. Kolowich, S. (2016). After the gold rush: MOOCs, money, and the education of Richard McKenzie, Chronicle of Higher Education, June 5.

  29. Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2015). Public sector entrepreneurship: US technology and innovation policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Luppino, A. J. (2009). Fixing a hole: Eliminating ownership uncertainties to facilitate university-generated innovation. University of Missouri Kansas City Law Review, 78, 367–427.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lye, C., & Vernon, J. (2014). The erosion of faculty rights, Chronicle of Higher Education, May 19.

  32. MacWright, R. (2017). Three years after the America Invents Act: Practical effects on university tech transfer. les Nouvelles: Journal of the Licensing Executives Society, 52(3), 68–72.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Madison, M. J., Frischmann, B. M., & Strandberg, K. J. (2009). The university as constructed cultural commons. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 30, 365–403.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Manning v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 505, 109 F. Supp. 2d 976 (C.D. Ill. 2000).

  35. Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. (1980). Patents and R&D at the firm level. Economic Letters, 5, 377–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Phan, P., & Siegel, D. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pilz, B. C. (2012). Student intellectual property issues on the entrepreneurial campus. Michigan Journal of Private Equity and Venture Capital Law, 1, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Quizon, D. (2015). More IP rights for students sought. The Daily Progress. http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/more-ip-rights-for-students-sought/article_2b68d2c0-3e22-11e5-aa55-0b3612b48595.html. Accessed 15 Aug 2017.

  39. Rae, T. (2011). iPhone app raises questions about who owns student inventions, Chronicle of Higher Education, January 31.

  40. Rasmussen, E. A., & Sørheim, R. (2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation, 26(2), 185–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rooksby, J. H. (2016a). A fresh look at copyright on campus. Missouri Law Review, 81, 769–810.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rooksby, J. H. (2016b). The branding of the American mind: How universities capture, manage, and monetize intellectual property and why it matters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rooksby, J. H. (2016c). Copyright in higher education: A review of modern scholarship. Duquesne Law Review, 54, 197–221.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rosini, N. J. (2014). The rule of copyright says that you own what you create; here is the exception, Chronicle of Higher Education, December 3.

  45. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 691–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Siegel, D. S., & Wessner, C. W. (2012). Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: Evidence from the Small Business Innovation Research program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 404–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sprigman, C. J. (2004). Reform(aliz)ing Copyright. Stanford Law Review, 57, 485.

    Google Scholar 

  48. U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8.

  49. Valdivia, W. D. (2015). Patent infringement suits have a reputational cost for universities. Brookings TechTank blog. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2015/11/10/patent-infringement-suits-have-a-reputational-cost-for-universities-2/.

  50. Veugelers, R., & Schneider, C. (2017). Which IP strategies do young highly innovative firms choose? Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9898-y.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Williams v. Weisser, 78 Cal. Rptr. 542 (Ct. App. 1969).

  52. Wright, M., Siegel, D., & Mustar, P. (2017). An emerging ecosystem for study startups. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 909–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Zagier, A. S. (2011). Student inventors seek rule change: Greater financial stake in college-born inventions creates drive for students to keep rights in work, Charleston Daily Mail, Jan 25, 9B.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob H. Rooksby.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rooksby, J.H., Hayter, C.S. Copyrights in higher education: motivating a research agenda. J Technol Transf 44, 250–263 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9632-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Copyrights
  • Technology transfer
  • Bayh–Dole Act
  • Intellectual property
  • Knowledge exchange
  • Law
  • Patents
  • Legal research

JEL Classification

  • O32
  • O34
  • O38