School Board Considers Copyright Ownership of Student and Teacher Works 351
schwit1 writes "A proposal by the Prince George's County Board of Education to copyright work created by staff and students for school could mean that a picture drawn by a first-grader, a lesson plan developed by a teacher or an app created by a teen would belong to the school system, not the individual. It's not unusual for a company to hold the rights to an employee's work, copyright policy experts said. But the Prince George's policy goes a step further by saying that work created for the school by employees during their own time and using their own materials is the school system's property."
Kid's artwork? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most tech companies claim ownership of anything created by employees, whether created at work or on their own time.
But, the students are not employees, and signed no waiver when they enrolled. Claiming ownership of the student's creations is rediculous.
Child Labor (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Child Labor (Score:5, Funny)
A class action.
Re:Child Labor (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Kid's artwork? (Score:5, Funny)
If it is a public school there is no way they can possibly claim ownership. The government requires attendance.
Re: (Score:2)
The government doesn't require attendance of public schools. It requires schooling.
Re:Kid's artwork? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Kid's artwork? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Kid's artwork? (Score:5, Insightful)
While we were not required to do anything but announce our intention to homeschool and provide (without requiring approval) our curriculum for the year, we did give our homeschooled kids the Stanford Achievement Test each year. Not for any reporting requirements, but to see where we were failing as teachers.
The result? Daughter got a full ride scholarship, and son got about half his tuition paid by scholarship. Of course neither one of them has any friends or knows how to have a conversation or play games because it never occurred to us to socialize them under any circumstances. I kid! They've both done much better socially than I ever did, even given the handicap of inheriting my F&SF/gaming/comics/Monty Python genes.
Belial6, it's worth noting that standardized testing may not be required in YOUR state, but the laws vary wildly from state to state. Some places the rules are so strict you might as well not bother homeschooling for all the freedom you have to shape your child's academic plan; others (like Wyoming where we live) are extremely laissez-faire.
I think I'm gonna go back through the last 18 years of school projects and LEGO models, and copyright them all in my name.
Re: (Score:3)
it's worth noting that standardized testing may not be required in YOUR state, but the laws vary wildly from state to state.
Fair enough. The point was that most people seem to think that the standardized testing that the federal government pushes is a legal requirement. The federal government doesn't have the authority to require testing, so they take money from the local economies, and only give it back if the public schools 'voluntarily' do the standardized testing.
Legal requirements are a state issue, so the feds can only 'suggest' requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Knowledge takes many forms. (Score:4, Insightful)
Schools provide opportunities to develop and hone social skills, to forge friendships and to discover new interests.
Right. The only way to make friends is to be locked inside a building with others your own age. No adults have friends that they met outside of work/school. Not to mention that for some people, this isn't even necessary or wanted.
But you know what else most schools seem to provide? An awful education.
I don't quite understand the problem of standardized tests.
Then chances are you don't understand the problem with the public school system. That is, it doesn't teach understanding. All it does is have kids memorize material without understanding any of it just so they can perhaps do better on a standardized test. However, again, these tests don't measure understanding, only rote memorization. You can memorize all the math equations and procedures that you want, but that doesn't mean you understand any of them.
Re:Knowledge takes many forms. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the kids you are referring to don't understand something, why not just ask "why" or "how"? Do they WANT to be ignorant?
I went to public schools. I imagine my education would be about half as complete had I not bothered to question "why" or "how" to every new subject or piece of information. I had to PULL the information out of the teachers, because they were pretty unmotivated. Once I showed a teacher I was actively interested in something, they would begin to show me more and give seriously fun and interesting 'extra credit' work that the rest of the students didn't do(synchrotron experiments in Sophomore year anyone?)
All of this came from my parents. They ENCOURAGED me to ask why. They would tell me some neat fact, like how fast the earth was going. When I asked "Why doesn't it just fly into space?" my parents explained to me (or at least tried their best) how gravity works, and in kiddie terms, basically laid out several of Newton's principles. THAT is how you answer a kid's question.
For some reason I can't comprehend, parents are annoyed when their children ask "why" repeatedly. The kid is trying to naturally figure out how something works and why it ended up that way. Parents shut them up, or distract them with games or TV, and actively discourage them from truly understanding a topic. Louis C.K. even has a whole bit about this. THAT is the real problem with education today: parents are too lazy to help teach their kids, they don't give a shit, and just want the schools to 'do it for them'.
'Murica
Re:Knowledge takes many forms. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can understand something without memorizing it. There are hundreds of equations involved in various ways of doing heat transfers. You don't have to remember them all to understand how to use them correctly. If you know your situation is laminar fluid flow through a pipe you can look up the appropriate equations. The important part is learning and understanding hows and whys of heat transfer.
You can also measure the progress of students by giving them real problems to solve. Something that requires applying the knowledge they have gained. Most of my engineers classes have two hour exams with 4 problems and everything is open book, notes, calculator etc. You are given real problems to solve that are unlike problems you have done before. You have to figure out how to apply your knowledge to solve the problem. Memorization does not help you for squat on those exams. Understanding is the only thing that will help you on those exams.
Re:Knowledge takes many forms. (Score:4, Interesting)
- How does one teach understanding?
Try teaching what the kid is interested in? Many children have demonstrated an interest in something, only to be hushed, because the class was busy with something else, something more important. Horticulture, animal husbandry, chemistry, even history. "Tommy, we don't have time to discuss the Battle of Waterloo, get your colored pencils out, and draw me another meaningless chart that no one really gives a damn about!)
- How does one measure the progress of students?
When the kid begins to stretch YOUR mind, when he asks CHALLENGING questions, when you discover that YOU ARE LEARNING, just to stay ahead of him, then there is no need to measure the kid's progress. And, I speak from experience, believe it or not. I'm not a teacher in any formal education setting. Uncle Sam did make me an "Educational Petty Officer" in the Navy. Teach, teach, tutor, teach. I've continued in civilian life, always teaching my subordinates. And, those students challenge me often enough. They force me to learn more, in an attempt to stay ahead of them.
If your students never challenge your own knowledge and education, then you've done it all wrong.
- How does one understand something without remebering it?
You teach CONCEPTS, not facts and figures. One who learns concepts can solve any problem to which the concept might relate. One who memorizes facts, figures, dates, and names may or may not ever actually solve a problem. He might run into a problem that he sees as similar to a problem solved by Professor Numty in England, way back in 1860, but he probably can't remember how Professor Numty solved the problem. He never understood the formula or how to apply it. Instead, he wasted time memorizing the professor's name, his biography, and all the awards the professor earned. All meaningless BULLSHIT.
The real irony in such a situation would be, that Professor Numty's theory and formula aren't even applicable, because or poor memorizing fool really doesn't understand ANYTHING about his current problem, OR Professor Numty's work!
When some cute little kid looks up at you, and asks, "Why is the sky blue?" what answer do you offer? The kid has a burning desire to learn, to understand - do you waste the opportunity, or do you help the munchkin to understand his/her world better?
Bottom line, for me, is "Fuck the beancounters. Education is to important to allow Washington to have a say in it!"
Re: (Score:3)
even 'private tutoring' requires them to come into schools for their standardized testing
I then explain why some people think that it is a legal requirement. Standardized testing is not a legal requirement, it is (as you tried to point out) a practical requirement for all of those kids who are not fortunate enough to escape the public education system.
Re: (Score:2)
and employees aren't slaves.. their out-of-the-office creations should not be owned by employers either. This should be a default, intrinsic right, and not something employees have to battle for. What's far more amazing to me than attempts by schools to do the same to students, is how willing we are to accept this insult in adult affairs while still getting upset when it's applied to children. So it's only ok for children to own the produce of their labor now?
Re: (Score:2)
I think those are usually salaried employees and the reason for it is that it makes it a lot less complicated when there's a dispute over ownership. So, that people don't have to constantly log when they had various ideas and what led to the idea.
But, those folks are usually paid much better than teachers are and generally have funds to do their jobs in a way that teachers don't usually get funding.
Re: (Score:2)
I think those are usually salaried employees and the reason for it is that it makes it a lot less complicated when there's a dispute over ownership. So, that people don't have to constantly log when they had various ideas and what led to the idea.
But, those folks are usually paid much better than teachers are and generally have funds to do their jobs in a way that teachers don't usually get funding.
Of course, it's the best thing for everyone. Why worry about those pesky nuances of when someone got an idea or created something, just assume the corporations own everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Kid's artwork? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's actually quite uncommon. Of the probably ten large (multimillion-dollar, international) corporations I have worked for, only one had this provision.
I do software development - one of the most contentious patent fields right now, and probably the easiest field to slyly slip away with some company property(code) and do what you will with it. The one that did have that provision was a short contract, so I never really had a chance to work on anything out-of-office that they would want.
It shows active malice and contempt toward your employees to say something they make in their free time, at home, with their own materials, is your property. If I ever go back on the job hunt, I sure as hell won't be pursuing any jobs with that clause.
Telling me anything I code in my free time at home is theirs would mean I don't code in my free time at home. Me not coding at home would eventually make me loathe the company, and I'd probably just end up quitting in frustration so I can have my free time to myself again. Not a super productive environment for employees.
Re: (Score:3)
"their out-of-the-office creations should not be owned by employers either. This should be a default, intrinsic right, and not something employees have to battle for."
And so it is in more civilized countries.
Re:Kid's artwork? (Score:5, Informative)
Most tech companies claim ownership of anything created by employees, whether created at work or on their own time.
But, the students are not employees, and signed no waiver when they enrolled. Claiming ownership of the student's creations is rediculous.
That's not the case in California. Or rather, companies may still claim ownership of all inventions in their employment contract, but it's not enforceable. If the invention is done on the employee's own time and equipment and is not related to or derived from the employee's work at the company, the company has no right of ownership:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2870-2872 [ca.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Kid's artwork? (Score:4, Interesting)
I did this once. Spoke to them about it. Said i didn't like it and would only accept a modified version which said they only owned my creations if i used their time or equipment. They agreed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Kid's artwork? (Score:5, Informative)
In the US, it's not just as simple as crossing it out and signing the contract. For striking something from an official contract to actually modify the contract, you need the other party to agree to each change as well.
This is usually done by striking out a clause and having both parties initial it, or by reprinting the contract with the changes included. I have signed several modified contracts, and all I had to do was get the employer to initial the parts I crossed out(which, as we had discussed it beforehand, they happily did).
Don't be afraid to talk to whoever is providing the contract. They may understand where you're coming from and help with the modified contract, and if they don't you may not want to work with them after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only are they not employees, they are not free to resign until they turn 16 at least. The only reason it can't be considered slavery is that 'supposedly', the school is working for the parents to educate the child. The school claiming ownership of the child's work would, in fact, make it slavery.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea particularly if you get to higher levels where the students are paying to be there.
Following current copyright logic...the students should get the rights to work created by teachers...given that the students are paying their salaries.
Re: (Score:3)
PS how can it be up to a school board to determine law?
Re: (Score:3)
To compound your point, is this a public school? If so then it is taxpayer funded. What is the point of copyrighting by the B.O.E, something owned by the public.
Perhaps the B.O.E. got a substandard public education and doesn't know any better. Maybe, someone should test their literacy or their urine.
Re:Kid's artwork? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Kid's artwork? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but it's a great way to stifle teacher creativity. Why should the teachers bother to create anything that might be beneficial to the school if it will just be taken from them?
Re: (Score:2)
tech companies TRY to get you to agree to employment contracts saying that anything you do is theirs.
in calif, this is not enforceable, though (ianal). ie, if you use your own equip on your own time and its not a core comp of the company, they have no claims on what you do at home.
just try (at least) to get your contract clear on this. cross out the lines, say 'declined' and initial. its at least something.
finally, have a lawyer on your side review employment agreements. its not cheap but they WILL catc
Re: (Score:3)
Now, if you're working at (insert huge company here that's too large, cumbersome, and inefficien
Re: (Score:3)
Even more-so, copyrighting the kids work sounds like child labor slavery.
1) Kids are required to go to school, and can be severely punished if they fail to attend.
2) Kids are not paid to go to school.
3) Kids and their parents are not able to negotiate assignment of copyright or licensing with the board, the right would just be taken.
Sure sounds like slavery to me...
Plus, if the school wants to get the rights to use a kid's work, images, etc., there is already a parental waiver process in most school distric
It's not a typo (Score:5, Funny)
It's the results of his creative efforts.
Re:Kid's artwork? (Score:5, Funny)
I know with a spell checker your gauranteed to spell words correctly!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Kid's artwork? (Score:4, Informative)
But, the students are not employees, and signed no waiver when they enrolled.
I agree. A school should not be able to claim copyright on a student's work because they're not employed by the school. Teachers, on the other hand, are employed by the school, and thereby their work should be the property of the employer.
No it shouldn't. Who made up THAT idea? The employer only owns the employee's work if the employer has a contractual arrangement with the employee assigning ownership of such work. (Accepting an assignment to work on a project is such an agreement.)
Otherwise, anything you do on your own initiative is your own work and you own all rights to it. This is why tech companies typically make their employees sign agreements that explicitly assign their creative works to the employers. (Such agreements vary in how much of the employees work the employer has rights to, but they are usually pretty onerous.) They wouldn't bother getting you to sign something stating that what you do is theirs if they already knew that it was by default.
Re: (Score:3)
If pushed, a waiver like that would likely never be enforceable under the doctrine of undue influence and duress. A challenge by a competent lawyer and it would be as if the wavier was never signed.
Yeah, fuck off. (Score:5, Insightful)
Profane, but seriously, fuck off.
On what grounds do they thing they possibly own student work?
I can vaguely see an exceptionally unethical argument for teachers work, but student work? It's not like they have a choice as to whether they attend and it sure as hell is not work for hire.
What is wrong with these people?
Re:Yeah, fuck off. (Score:4, Informative)
This has been the case for a while where student work is turned over to a plagiarism screening service which then owns a copy of the work in perpetuity, whether or not the student consents to it.
Re:Yeah, fuck off. (Score:5, Informative)
Owning a copy of it is quite different than owning the copyright on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Owning a copy of it is quite different than owning the copyright on it.
It is an inbetween state. The plagarism guys claim to own more than a single copy, but they don't claim unlimited unlimited rights to redistribute.
Re:Yeah, fuck off. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called "work for hire," and it's entirely common, and understandable.
Yeah, like I said.
The teachers are paid to teach, not produce "content" or whatever. The school owning the lesson plan means that the teacher can't take it with them when they leave. That would certainly restrict the mobility of teachers if all their accumulated materials in that regard are tied to the school. IOt does not benefit the school, teachers or pupils.
Remember: teachers are hired as teachers: not creative workers in the sense of producing work for hire.
As it happens, where I come from and the organisation that I used to teach for did exactly the opposite. The lecturers own their own lecture notes. They could take them away after leaving, or turn them into a book. Quite often, the good long running lecture courses (i.e. the ones that did prove popular and effective over the years) were turned into books. Invariably the lecturers published the book through the university even though there was no need to do so, because they made it easy and worthwhile. Funny thing that if the university did assert copyright, then they would have got squat.
And it's not that bizarre system popular in the US where the hapless students are forced to fork out hundreds for a bad book which changes frequently, just to pass the course.
They can't just declare this. (Score:4, Informative)
Well, they can, but it won't be legally binding until they get the employees and students to agree to assign their copyrights.
Is there a union contract? (Score:2)
If there's no union contract and no law to protect teachers' jobs, then the employer can simply say "by showing up for work after __REASONABLY_FAR_IN_THE_FUTURE_DATE__ you agree to __NEW_CONDITIONS_OF_EMPLOYMENT__.
For most jobs, "reasonably far in the future date" for a change that hurts employees would be anywhere from 2 weeks to a few months for items that can wait, or immediately for health and safety issues, emergencies, and issues where the deadline is imposed from outside (e.g. a change in law), etc.
F
Re: (Score:2)
If there's no union contract and no law to protect teachers' jobs, then the employer can simply say "by showing up for work after __REASONABLY_FAR_IN_THE_FUTURE_DATE__ you agree to __NEW_CONDITIONS_OF_EMPLOYMENT__.
For things actually in the work contract, I've never seen that happen without a signature agreeing to the new terms. What happens when it goes to court and you say "Please provide proof I agreed to or was even aware of these new terms." and they can't? Things that are only company policies though can change at any time, the work contract just contains the very basics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I am no law expert. But for items like tests, which the school board pays the teachers to create, I am pretty sure they already own them.
For lesson plans, it would depend on the wording of the employee contract, I imagine and your interpretation of the law. It is reasonable to assume that an employee might own a method he developed to do a job, but the contract very well might state that making a lesson plan is a part of the job since every one knows you NEED a lesson plan to teach a class. And even i
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they can, but it won't be legally binding until they get the employees and students to agree to assign their copyrights.
A contract signed by a minor isn't binding!
Hopefully, this is how it works in Canada as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Cuz being rich ain't necessarily the goal, idjit.
On the other hand... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This seems to be only about "work produced for the school", meaning papers for class, lesson plans and the like. It doesn't seem as though they plan to lay claim to your Great American Novel (TM) if you plan on writing one while enrolled or employed there.
For the pupils at least, that claim also likely has no standing, notwithstanding any delusional beliefs to the contrary of the board.
As per analysis of the contract in the Hobbit [wired.com]
All contracts require some consideration from all parties to the contract. Consideration, in the contract sense, means a bargained-for performance or promise. Restatement (Second) of Contracts 71(1). Basically, this is something of value given or promised as part of the agreement. This can be anything that the parties agree is valuable; the classic example is a single peppercorn. Whitney v. Stearns, 16 Me. 394, 397 (1839).
That means, the school has to explicitly give the pupils something in exchange for their copyright. 'Teaching' can't be it, since they are obliged to do that anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be only about "work produced for the school", meaning papers for class, lesson plans and the like. It doesn't seem as though they plan to lay claim to your Great American Novel (TM) if you plan on writing one while enrolled or employed there.
For the pupils at least, that claim also likely has no standing, notwithstanding any delusional beliefs to the contrary of the board.
As per analysis of the contract in the Hobbit [wired.com]
All contracts require some consideration from all parties to the contract. Consideration, in the contract sense, means a bargained-for performance or promise. Restatement (Second) of Contracts 71(1). Basically, this is something of value given or promised as part of the agreement. This can be anything that the parties agree is valuable; the classic example is a single peppercorn. Whitney v. Stearns, 16 Me. 394, 397 (1839).
That means, the school has to explicitly give the pupils something in exchange for their copyright. 'Teaching' can't be it, since they are obliged to do that anyway.
How about they get an A?
Um, I don't think so (Score:4, Insightful)
> could mean that a picture drawn by a first-grader, a lesson plan developed by a teacher or an app created by a teen would belong to the school system, not the individual
So, my daughter went to an art magnet school. During that time she created many works of art, some of which she entered into contests and won awards. She has commercial plans for a series of cartoon characters she invented while in school. If the school claimed ownership, she would not hesitate to sue, and she'd have a lot of company. Content creators can get really sticky about their own content, even as teenagers.
Therefore, I don't think the part about the school copyrighting content created by the students is going to fly. All they'd need is a couple of high profile losses, and we'd skip immediately to step 4, punishment of the innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
Classic MBA Crap (Score:5, Interesting)
But in classic MBA style they forget about incentive where if they take that money then the work won't be done. I suspect that again in classic MBA style that they need to "centralize" and "quality control" information leaving the system.
This probably all stems from a requirement from some way overpriced anti-plagiarism software; even worse the pitch from said salesman might have documented (with great pie charts) that by doing this money grab the anti-plagiarism software would effectively be free.
Lastly by claiming copyright they get better control over information that makes them look bad. So if some student makes a video of a drunk teacher and puts it on youtube then the school system will demand that youtube take it down on the grounds that they have copyright. I would love to see them trying to apply this to teachers with blogs, twitter accounts, and writing op-ed pieces for the local newspaper. These fools forget that there are a zillion places to put a drunk teacher video that will oddly enough defend the students' first amendment rights.
To me this is just another great lesson for the kids that they learn that the educational system exists not one spec for them but entirely for the administration. In Ontario, Canada the school board got completely screwed by the government (before they screwed the government) so now like petulant children they are trying to keep the teachers from extra-curricular activities. They are now arguing that holding back these services won't harm the children. Whoa, wait a sec. Losers.
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't have ownership of the video of the drunk teachers. Unless that happened during class, it would be a leap too far to take that anything the students do during the time they are still in school belongs to the school. At best they could claim ownership for materials created in or for school, and that's likely a stretch.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember smoking a joint in the car on the way to high school, pulled up to a red light and there was our math teacher smoking a joint. We honked. Nobody snitched.
Re: (Score:3)
Replace MBA with EdD however, and you might be on to something...
This "idea" was generated by the school board. While it is unlikely, there might be an MBA or a lawyer on the board; there is almost no chance that any school board member has an education degree. Most probably, one of the board members had this at their place of employment and decided that it made sense for the district. There are arguments in favor of the idea, but then even the Dred Scott decision had legal arguments in its favor.
Explicitly Includes Work Done On Your Time (Score:2)
Just wow. Normally I would say if you live in PG county, now is the time to move. But the sad reality is that PG county is much poorer than neighboring Montgomery county... it's always been time to move
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem so bad. Just don't create anything specifically for the use of the school. That lesson plan? Nah, it's for my use, not the school's. Make up a poster for the school dance? Sorry, you'll need a signed waiver from the board before I'll start.
Re: (Score:2)
"Works created by employees and/or students specifically for use by the Prince George’s County Public Schools or a specific school or department within PGCPS, are properties of the Board of Education even if created on the employee’s or student’s time and with the use of their materials." [emphasis added]
So this covers only assignments for school, not personal stuff you create at home for other purposes, such as that novel you've been writing. (Unless you turn in chapters of that novel for creative writing assignments!)
Legalized robbery (Score:2)
At my university, this is already the policy, more or less. If you develop software and release it GPL, they'll let you be. But otherwise, they own everything you produce. This is also true for most companies. Interestingly, if a history prof writes a book, he gets to keep all the profit. But if you as an engineer or programmer develop something and try to sell it without the university, even if done on your own time, the university will claim a conflict of interest and claim ownership. Many corporati
Make it hard for them (Score:4, Interesting)
2. Acting as your child's agent, put them under contract with the LLC for their creative works until their 18th birthday, with an option for the child to retrieve all their rights from the LLC at that time.
3. ???
4. Screw the school district!
On the bright side... (Score:2)
They are at least thinking about the issue before there are lawsuits.
Hopefully they will think a little more and come up with something less outrageous. My university's policy was that the student owned the copyright but the university acquired a royalty-free licence for its own use.
Private school maybe, public no way (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3.1.3 Does 17 USC Â10560 apply to works of State and Local Governments?
No, it applies only to federal government works. State and local governments may and often do claim copyright in their publications. It is their prerogative to set policies that may allow, require, restrict or prohibit claim of copyright on some or all works produced by their government units.
Re: (Score:2)
PG County's proposal is still BS. At least for the student's work.
Teachers, as employees, may well need to sign off on such things as terms of employment. I don't know. But it's an employer/employee relationship.
That does not exist with the student, who is compelled to attend...see other posts for other reasons
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. You can't just impose such a thing without some sort of quid pro quo.
From the articles it's looking like they are starting to realize this as well.
To quote Spock (Score:2)
"I believe my response would be go to Hell. "
You can't just be angry at the messages coming out of this crazy factory. You have to be angry at institutional structures encouraging the lunacy coming out of these boards on a seemingly daily basis.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yet another example (Score:2)
of the need to repeal copyright
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to flesh out how, exactly, you got from A to B there. If anything, abolishing copyright would make it easier for the school board to steal their students work.
Not without compensation (Score:2)
They can't take copyright without compensation. It would mean renegotiating the contracts for teachers.
If they want the copyright on my kids work, that will $1000 a page. The kid is a creative genius.
I will supply the crayons the paper. If they are willing to pay.
Um... (Score:2)
No. Sorry. You cannot copyright that which you a.) don't create, and b.) don't pay for. Sorry. but students are not your employees, nor are they work-for-hire unless you decide to start paying them for coming to school.
How much you wanna bet a Republicant was behind this brain-dead idea?
Re: (Score:2)
Not very much. Maryland is a very blue state.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually after a bit more reading it turns out they came up with this brilliant idea after attending an Apple seminar about how to monetize the things teachers create using school-owned iCrap devices.
So no, not Republicants. Worse. Apple.
Unintended Consquence (Score:2)
If work done by a teacher at home because property of the school, then that work would become work for the school Then, any injury at home tangentially related to the work would become a work related injury.
Expensive Legal Fees (Score:2)
The school board is going to be faced with very expensive legal fees and lose. This will get challenged and their claim to ownership of student works will be thrown out. Hopefully the school board will be forced to pay the legal fees of the kids and a class action lawsuit will be brought against the school board heaping on more costs so that nobody else tries this. Copyright law is pretty clear that the creator of the work is the copyright owner unless explicitly otherwise agreed. Students are minors and ca
Linux? (Score:2)
So, what would've happened if this was a policy at the University of Helsinki, in 1991?
Re: (Score:2)
If it was still released under the GPL, then it wouldn't matter who owned the copyright on it.
Re: (Score:3)
So, what would've happened if this was a policy at the University of Helsinki, in 1991?
If it was still released under the GPL, then it wouldn't matter who owned the copyright on it.
But if U. of H. owned the copyright, Linus releasing software under the GPL would be illegal (without the University's prior approval) because he would be releasing a work that he did not own, like a film editor releasing a version of a movie before the studios which produced it could.
Yeah, it's not unusual.... (Score:2)
This is true... but the company is actually *PAYING* the employee.
Last time I checked, you have to pay to go to school.
Mostly makes sense - outside the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Teaching is a collegial activity, so a good lesson plan would normally be shared within a staff room. Student's work is produced by minors where the school is 'in loco parentis' so their work would become school property to protect them from exploitation by adults, plagiarists and commercial interests.
That's how it works in Australia. Public school teachers are state employees so all their work is the property of the Crown. Good teaching material can be (and is) distibuted to other publis schools to give system-wide improvement. A teacher who gains a reputation for producing good stuff can negotiate this into promotion or a consultancy. State employees are not supposed to produce any paid work outside their job but in practice teachers who work as tutors, coaches or musicians etc are not imposed upon by the government as there is a tacit acknowledgement that teachers often need another income. Private school teachers' work is the property of their employee (diocesan office, school board) for much the same reason.
School administrators (puiblic or private) have a legal 'duty of care' to children. They won't stop parents from taking their kids to modeling agencies or auditions but if they produce something in school, say their major artwork for the matriculation exam, the school can arrange a professional exhibition and prevent students from beign ripped off.
American libertarians will doubt that government agencies can be benign (and if you want gold medal bastardry only a government can provide it) but not all countries have vast armies, huge spy agencies, heavily armed police or kill people with robot aircraft. The Department of Education will be staffed at policy and implementation level by people who believe in the value of education and teachers actually like children!
As a resident of PG County ... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm just thankful that we've made the news without any murders [somd.com], theft [nbcwashington.com], or corruption [wikipedia.org].
I thought that we had gotten rid of the idiotic school board when they disbanded it in 2002 and got Marilyn Bland and the others out of there. (although, we haven't gotten rid of her yet [wordpress.com])
Another reason my kid won't attend a PG school (Score:3)
Among many others, including the fact that the teachers (not all, but many) are horrible, standardized testing, and well, the fact that PG county is a shitty area.
Re: (Score:2)
And j
Re: (Score:2)
Many teachers spend hours off the clock developing innovative ways to teach their subjects.
Salaried employees don't have a "clock" to be "off of." They wouldn't have created that system to improve their work if they weren't being paid to do that work in the first place. It is a logical argument to say that what they create as a result or effect of being paid belongs to the company that pays them.
Often times their work load is such that they can't possibly complete their tasks without the extra hours.
That's the problem with being a salaried employee and not a per-hour one. You don't have "off the clock".
I see silly things like this rule stifling creative thinking more than promoting it.
When it becomes and issue, I agree. But if it never becomes a issue, most people ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
Salaried employees do have a clock to be off of, they have expected hours to work, yes occasionally they can be asked to work longer for no extra pay, but it does not give the employer the right to call on them 24/7, unless I was on call (and paid more because of it). If my employer rang me up at midnight and said I had to come in for free, because I was still on the clock, I would not so politely tell them where to go.
In a salary there is give and take and works fine if both employer and employee are reaso
Re: (Score:2)
If my employer rang me up at midnight and said I had to come in for free, because I was still on the clock, I would not so politely tell them where to go.
If your employer calls you up and asks you to come in a midnight, and you do, you aren't getting paid any more than if you didn't. You don't get overtime. Your boss MAY let you take a day off, but there's no "time and a half". You telling him "where to go" will come up in your next performance review tied to any salary increase or contract renewals.
Otherwise I could stay home all week, do nothing and then say I worked an 168 hour week, I was never off the clock, right.
Some people do stay home for work. Telecommuting. You could certainly claim to have worked for 168 hours per week, but then as your boss I'd say you were the
Re:Teachers (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like it does, on the surface, but lesson plans are something teachers currently trade, sell, and use as a basic resource. The difference between a just-graduated teacher and a teacher with ten years of experience is that the teacher with experience has a stack of lesson plans, and can swap out which ones they use on any given day based on the progress, skill, and mood of their students. And, let's not forget, all of this is being created in the teacher's own time, outside of school hours.
Oh, and I doubt the school district will be making these available for free to their own teachers. (Unlike the teachers themselves, who might share with a co-worker.)
Any teacher who's spent any amount of time working on their own lesson plans would immediately start looking for a job outside the county. Any teacher who's any good wouldn't take a job in that county. You'll have beginner teachers who don't know any better, or teachers who've been there for ages and don't want to move, who'll just be hanging out until retirement. (And not updating any of their lesson plans.) Oh, and teachers who buy all of their lesson plans, because they can't be bothered to come up with them themselves. And the beginners will probably leave as quick as possible.
So you're trying for high-turnover, and chasing out any teacher who wants to invest their own time and effort into teaching the kids. Which means you'll get low-quality teaching, and low-quality schools.
Re:Teachers (Score:4, Informative)
Yes teachers spend lots of time after hours working, but they do have lots of scheduled time to design tests and lesson plans as well.
I don't know what it was like when you went to school, but in the high school I went to the teachers didn't have much scheduled time to work on such things. You got a half day every couple of months. You got one "free" period most days, but not every day, which was pretty much your lunch break. What scheduled time do you speak of? Both of my parents were teachers. You know what those half days consisted of? Mostly meetings. Again, not much scheduled time to work on lesson plans and the such. Teachers worked on all that stuff at home. Scheduled time my pink behind...
Re: (Score:3)
Same was true with my wife when she was teaching. In fact, any "free" period that wasn't filled with meetings was usually filled with giving extra help to kids who were encountering difficulties in the regular lessons.
Oh and those wonderful "summers off" that teachers have? They aren't lounging around doing nothing. They're coming up with lessons for the next year.
I agree with Daniel_Staal. This will lead to a) good, experienced teachers fleeing before they are forced to start from scratch and not take
Re:Wrong! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Preparing children for the corporate world.
Re: (Score:3)
That place is a shit hole, and I wouldn't worry about them producing anything fit for public consumption in the near future.
Speaking as a life long resident of the state and former spouse of a former employee of PGCPS, this comment is woefully underrated and 100% correct.