Davis Faculty Association

Archive for November, 1999

Lecture Ownership-Student Notes

Most UCD faculty members go to a great effort to create their lecture materials and feel a strong sense of ownership in them. Student take notes at lectures and the internet has created a new market for the distribution of those notes. The instructor’s legal rights are long-established in terms of California law, but not clear in federal law. What can you do to protect those rights? Here is a summary based on an analysis by Jan Carmikle in the Business Contracts Office.

According to California common law, upheld by an older court case in which a UCLA instructor sued a commercial notetaking service, instructors hold copyrights to their lectures, and notes taken by students in their classes are therefore subject to restrictions as to copying and distribution, requiring prior consent of the instructor, such as the consent requested by Classical Notes on campus. So, as long as your lectures are given in California, this applies.

However, federal copyright protection of faculty lectures is not so clear. Federal law protects works “fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” But, since few instructors lecture verbatim from their written notes, these lectures may or may not meet the legal definition of “fixed,” and therefore may not be fully protected under federal law. National note-distribution firms have taken the position that federal law allows them to conduct their business without the need to respect California law (and that of a few other states) on this issue. This position is facing legal challenges, but final court judgements have not been made.

What Can You Do?

Since it is not clear that federal law protects your work, it is important to mention the protection of state law on notices. Here is one that is suggested you put on class syllabi, handouts and web pages:

Copyright (author’s name) (year).
All federal and state copyrights reserved for all original material presented in this course through any medium, including lecture or print. Individuals are prohibited from being paid for taking, selling, or otherwise transferring for value, personal class notes made during this course to any entity without the express written permission of (author) In addition to legal sanctions, students found in violation of these prohibitions may be subject to University disciplinary action

While faculty do not necessarily want to keep students from sharing notes with other students in the class, this notice makes clear that any other type of distribution of personal class notes is not allowed.

If you find that notes are being distributed without your permission, you should collect any documentary evidence, such as printout of a web page offering the notes for sale which includes the URL and date (standard on most web browser printouts). The Business Contracts Office will take this information and send a “cease and desist” letter to the offending company, retaining documentation in the event you or the Regents eventually take legal action.

There are many other issues related to copyright ownership of interest to faculty members, in particular their ownership of recorded lectures. This is a matter of current discussion, although it is clear that the faculty own the products of their scholarly activities including lectures except when those rights are signed over. So, in the absence of any agreement, the faculty member owns the lecture no matter in what form it exists. DFA may present more details here in the future, and the following resources provide some current thinking from UC sources on the matter.

Additional Resources:

Business Contracts & Analysis website: http://vcadmin.ucdavis.edu/contracts
The UC Report on Copyright Ownership, http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/copyright/reports.html

Faculty Salaries and Personnel Actions at UCD and other UCs Over Past 20 Years

This bulletin contains three tables of data: I. Systemwide Salary Differential Over 20 Years; II. Davis Personnel Actions in Systemwide Perspective; III. Historical Davis Campus Personnel Practices. Notice particularly the low salary ranking in table one and the high CAP denial rate in table three.

Some definitions: The term CCO is long standing UC shorthand for “Chief Campus Officer.”  In principle that is the Chancellor; in practice it is almost invariably the Vice Provost by delegation from the “CCO.” Professional schools are excluded from the Academe survey and main campus faculty who are on 11 months’ appointments have their gross salaries scaled back to their nine-months’ equivalents–roughly a 15% reduction.

Table I: Systemwide Salary Differential over 20 years

The Davis faculty have been at or near the bottom of the systemwide salary ladder for many years. The table recently distributed with data from 1998-99 continues rankings that have held more or less constant for over 20 years. The following information was published in “Academe”, a periodical of the AAUP, which publishes extensive information about faculty economic matters annually. Both salary and “compensation” data are presented. The latter includes employer-paid benefits that have cash equivalents. The last column in the tables is the difference between the Compensation and the Salary at the Full rank.

Year: 1978-79

Compensation

Salary

Campus Prof Assoc Asst Prof Assoc Asst Prof Differential
B 38.2 26.4 22.2 30.8 20.8 17.3 7.4
D 34.5 25.9 21.4 27.7 20.4 16.6 6.8
I 36.2 25.8 21.4 29.1 20.4 16.6 7.1
LA 37.3 26.1 22.0 30.0 20.6 17.2 7.3
R 35.0 25.8 21.1 28.1 20.1 16.4 6.9
SD 36.9 26.0 21.4 29.7 20.5 16.7 7.1
SB 36.0 26.3 21.2 28.9 20.8 16.8 7.1
SC 35.2 25.6 21.2 28.2 20.2 16.8 6.8

1979-80

B 44.8 29.8 25.3 35.8 23.5 20.0 9.0
D 41.1 29.4 24.5 32.7 23.3 19.2 8.4
I 42.3 29.4 24.1 33.7 23.2 19.2 8.6
LA 43.2 29.8 24.6 34.7 23.1 19.3 8.8
R 40.8 29.1 23.4 32.6 23.0 18.3 8.2
SD 43.2 29.3 24.1 34.5 23.2 18.9 8.7
SB 41.8 29.7 24.1 33.4 23.5 18.9 8.4
SC 40.2 28.9 24.2 32.1 22.9 19.0 8.1

1984-85

B 65.4 43.4 37.3 54.3 34.9 29.6 11.5
D 57.4 41.0 35.5 47.5 32.8 28.0 10.4
I 59.4 42.2 36.7 48.7 33.8 29.2 10.7
LA 62.9 42.1 36.3 51.7 33.7 29.2 11.2
R 57.3 41.2 34.5 46.9 33.0 27.2 10.4
SD 61.3 41.8 36.0 50.4 33.4 28.5 10.9
SB 60.0 42.2 36.1 49.3 33.8 28.5 10.7
SC 55.8 40.5 33.0 45.6 32.3 25.9 10.2

1989-90

B 87.0 58.4 49.9 72.4 47.4 39.9 14.6
D 76.1 52.8 46.3 63.5 43.0 37.4 12.6
I 80.4 55.7 48.3 67.1 45.5 39.0 13.3
LA 84.1 54.9 49.4 70.1 44.6 39.7 14.0
R 75.9 52.0 44.6 62.7 42.6 36.1 12.3
SD 82.1 55.6 47.8 68.5 45.2 38.4 13.6
SB 80.2 53.4 48.3 66.8 43.3 38.4 13.4
SC 75.5 53.9 45.8 63.0 43.3 37.0 12.5

1994-95

B 101.6 70.4 60.6 80.1 53.7 45.7 21.5
D 90.5 64.9 55.4 71.1 49.7 42.0 19.4
I 94.0 67.8 58.7 74.0 51.9 44.9 20.0
LA 98.9 69.1 58.6 78.0 52.9 44.3 20.9
R 90.7 62.1 55.0 71.5 47.6 41.9 19.2
SD 96.3 66.0 58.1 75.9 50.4 43.5 20.9
SB 94.9 64.6 55.5 74.9 49.4 42.0 20.0
SC 88.4 63.7 54.3 69.5 49.0 41.2 18.9

1998-99

B 130.8 87.7 73.2 103.6 68.3 57.0 27.2
D 111.1 80.5 67.2 87.4 62.5 52.1 23.7
I 117.5 84.2 68.2 92.7 65.5 53.1 24.8
LA 128.2 84.1 70.4 101.4 65.4 54.7 26.8
R 112.1 78.5 70.4 88.2 61.1 54.8 23.9
SD 122.3 82.3 69.0 96.6 64.1 53.7 25.7
SB 119.3 79.2 65.4 94.2 61.7 51.0 25.1
SC 110.8 78.7 63.1 87.2 61.3 49.2 23.6

Table II: Davis Personnel Actions in Systemwide Perspective

The following is a summary of information taken from CAP annual reports of other Divisions along with similar information for UCD in 1997-98 and 1998-9.

CAP Recommendation CCO Decision
Yes No Split Yes No Pending
UCLA 1997/98
Promotions
8 year limit

43

6

43

6

Associate

38

9

40

8

Full

46

9

46

9

Merits
To VI

29

9

30

8

To AS

13

13

18

8

UCSB 1998-99
Prom to Assoc

15

7

11

7

5

Prom to Full

19

2

16

2

5

To VI (17 cases)

4

6

4

0

13

To AS (23 cases)

10

10

8

8

7

UCR 1998-99
Prom to Assoc

12

2

1

13

2

Prom to Full

11

2

1

11

2

1

To VI and AS

8

1

1

9

1

UCD 1997-98
Prom. Assoc

31

22

39

14

Prom. Full

38

14

38

14

UCD 1998-99
Prom. Assoc

34

10

35

9

Prom. Full

37

17

38

16

To VI

25

7

To AS

13

3

UCSD 1997-98 Approve Modify No
Tenure appt/prom

27

5

1

Full rank appt/prom

20

8

1

Accel:merits

31

7

8

Accel:prom’s

14

3

4

There were 60 modifications in all categories, of which 12 advantaged the candidate and 48 disadvantaged the candidate.
UCI 1997-98
Results reported in aggregates. The UCI CAP seems to be quite willing to reconsider its tentative recommendations.
Promotions: tentatively 74% yes finally 85% yes
Merits: tentatively 84% yes finally 88% yes
In 54 cases CAP tentatively disagreed with departments
in 14 cases CAP wanted to go higher
in 20 cases CAP wanted to go lower
in 20 cases Cap wanted to say no
After reconsideration 25 of the “negatives” were reversed.

Table III: Historical Davis Campus Personnel Practices

The following information was taken from the Annual Reports of the UCD Committee on Academic Personnel at five year intervals for the last 20 years. The committee reports vary in the amount of detail they present about the various actions so what appears below is just the “bare bones” yes/no figures from each of them. “Other” represents mainly actions pending or split votes. Total numbers of actions from CAP and CCO do not necessarily agree exactly because of carry-overs from prior years, etc.

Promotions to Associate Professor

CAP

CCO

Year Yes No Other Yes No Other
1998-99 34 10 35 9 1
1997-98 31 22 39 14
1992-93 37 7 1 39 6
1987-88 35 18 38 9 7
1982-83 32 7 3 32 8 3
1977-78 46 7 6 46 5 6

Promotions to Full Professor

CAP

CCO

Year Yes No Other Yes No Other
1998-99 37 17 38 16
1997-98 38 14 38 14
1992-93 42 11 42 11
1987-88 35 18 38 9 7
1982-83 33 18 2 34 17 2
1977-78 26 11 1 26 10 2

Step VI

AS

Year Yes No Pending Yes No Pending
1998-99 25 7 13 3
1992-93 20 12 2 2
1987-88 17 11 4 0 2 1

You are currently browsing the Davis Faculty Association blog archives for November, 1999.