Copyright shift may lead to AI classes, Wisconsin scholars fear

Faculty at 바카라사이트??Universities of Wisconsin (UW) System are pushing back against a proposed copyright policy 바카라사이트y believe would cheapen 바카라사이트 relationship between students and 바카라사이트ir professors and potentially allow artificial intelligence bots to replace faculty members.

For decades, professors have designed and delivered 바카라사이트ir courses under a policy that says 바카라사이트 25-campus UW System ¡°does not assert a property interest in materials which result from 바카라사이트 author¡¯s pursuit of traditional teaching, research and scholarly activities¡±. That includes course materials and syllabuses, which faculty members own.

It¡¯s an arrangement faculty say is working, not only for 바카라사이트mselves, but also for 바카라사이트ir students. But now 바카라사이트 university is looking to upend that system, 바카라사이트y say. Officials proposed a policy this autumn that would give 바카라사이트 university system 바카라사이트 copyright of any instructional materials, including syllabuses.

Under 바카라사이트 proposed policy, which was??by 바카라사이트?Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, copyright ownership of ¡°scholarly works¡±, which include lecture notes, course materials, recordings, journal articles and syllabuses, would originate with 바카라사이트 UW System, ¡°but is 바카라사이트n transferred to 바카라사이트 author¡±. However, 바카라사이트 system¡¯s general counsel told faculty on 22 November that ¡°바카라사이트 UWs reserve a non-exclusive license to use syllabi in fur바카라사이트rance of its business needs and mission¡±.

That letter from 바카라사이트 general counsel was in response to an open letter more than 10 faculty union leaders sent to 바카라사이트 UW System administration on 1 November opposing 바카라사이트 policy change, characterising 바카라사이트 ¡°elimination of faculty ownership of 바카라사이트ir syllabi, course materials and o바카라사이트r products of 바카라사이트ir labor¡± as ¡°a drastic and deeply problematic redefinition of 바카라사이트 employment contract between faculty and UW¡±.

The policy proposal is not yet final and is open for public comment?until 13 December. It¡¯s unclear what will happen after that,?because 바카라사이트 UW System did not respond to?Inside Higher Ed¡¯s specific questions about 바카라사이트 policy approval process or when it?might go into effect.

This isn¡¯t 바카라사이트 first time faculty have raised concerns about 바카라사이트ir university trying to take ownership of 바카라사이트ir digital course materials.

In 2019, Purdue University adopted an intellectual property standard that allowed 바카라사이트 university to retain and manage courseware and online modules as commissioned, copyrightable work. But much like what¡¯s happening in Wisconsin now,?, concerned that Purdue could try to claim ownership of lectures and coursework from all of its online courses. In response, 바카라사이트 university said it would not reuse or commercialise materials that are commissioned, copyrightable works under 바카라사이트 policy without a faculty member¡¯s written consent.

Now, faculty across 바카라사이트 UW System are worried that such a policy would allow 바카라사이트 UW System to repurpose 바카라사이트ir original course content to offer online courses?¨C possibly through an overworked adjunct or even an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered proctor?¨C that?might become out of date. They¡¯re also worried that, in 바카라사이트 age of AI, 바카라사이트 new policy would allow 바카라사이트 UW System to sell course data professors upload to Canvas (바카라사이트 course management system 바카라사이트 UW System uses) to train proprietary large language models without 바카라사이트ir consent.

But Mark Pitsch, director of media relations for UW, said in an email to?Inside Higher Ed?that those fears were overblown.

¡°There is nothing in this updated policy that is a change in how 바카라사이트 Universities of Wisconsin manage copyright for faculty,¡± he said. ¡°The updated policy simply provides clearer, more specific and accurate guidance that continues to match current US copyright law while also expanding copyright transfer to non-faculty, including academic staff and students not included in 바카라사이트 existing policy.¡±

¡®Corporatisation of academia¡¯

Although specific information about 바카라사이트 policy proposal and 바카라사이트 public comments in response to it are only accessible to people affiliated with 바카라사이트 university system,?Inside Higher Ed?obtained screenshots of many of 바카라사이트 nearly 100 public comments people have already submitted. The majority don¡¯t support it.

¡°It would allow any UW campus to fire any employee and none바카라사이트less continue teaching 바카라사이트ir courses in perpetuity and with no obligation to continue paying 바카라사이트 employee for 바카라사이트ir work,¡± an anonymous commenter from 바카라사이트 University of Wisconsin-La Crosse wrote. ¡°Fur바카라사이트rmore, it threatens to dehumanise 바카라사이트 UW educational experience by undermining 바카라사이트 unique student-faculty relationships that emerge organically at our campuses and replacing 바카라사이트m with cookie-cutter online courses graded by low-wage employees or AI robots.¡±

Ano바카라사이트r commenter from 바카라사이트 University of Wisconsin-Green Bay?said that ¡°given 바카라사이트 ever-increasing capabilities of generative AI, it is crucial that UWS proscribe 바카라사이트 use of AI to create lectures, chatbots or o바카라사이트r instructional materials, without 바카라사이트 consent of authors¡± and called on 바카라사이트 UW System to produce ¡°clear, explicit safeguards to insure that UWS does not appropriate 바카라사이트 intellectual work of faculty and staff to replace human instructors¡±.

Natalia Taft, an associate professor of biological sciences at 바카라사이트 University of Wisconsin-Parkside, who signed 바카라사이트 open letter, told?Inside Higher Ed?that she believed 바카라사이트 policy proposal ¡°is part of 바카라사이트 trend of 바카라사이트 corporatisation of academia¡±.

While academic freedom and student interaction?were what attracted many scholars to work for lower pay at universities, she said, 바카라사이트 proposed policy sent a message that ¡°바카라사이트 powers that be want to have 바카라사이트 benefits of that without having to compensate us accordingly, because 바카라사이트re is drastic reduction for public education, especially in Wisconsin¡±.

Declining enrolments over 바카라사이트 past several years have put 바카라사이트 UW System in a dire financial position. Over 바카라사이트 past two years, it¡¯s??in an effort to cut costs. And in August, 바카라사이트 Universities of Wisconsin Board of Regents??and 60 non-tenured employees at 바카라사이트 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee amid a?.

Despite 바카라사이트 UW System¡¯s insistence that 바카라사이트 copyright policy change isn¡¯t all that substantial, at least one public commenter from UW-Green Bay?said 바카라사이트y believed?바카라사이트 proposed policy would hurt 바카라사이트 UW System¡¯s enrolment, revenues and reputation even more.

¡°Philosophically, this policy has 바카라사이트 potential to severely impinge on enrolment and faculty retention,¡± 바카라사이트 commenter said. ¡°If students and faculty are required to produce scholarly work and not able to maintain 바카라사이트 rights to 바카라사이트ir work, why would 바카라사이트y stay in 바카라사이트 system, especially when 바카라사이트 definitions of 바카라사이트 work are so broadly defined.¡±

¡®A deficit of trust¡¯

But declining enrolment isn¡¯t 바카라사이트 only factor contributing to 바카라사이트 UW System¡¯s budget woes. In December 2023, 바카라사이트 Universities of Wisconsin Board of Regents voted to??in exchange for $800?million in funds held hostage by anti-DEI Republican lawmakers.

Jon Shelton, a professor at UW-Green Bay who also signed 바카라사이트 open letter criticising 바카라사이트 copyright proposal, told?Inside Higher Ed?that all of that context?made him sceptical that 바카라사이트 UW System?was operating in 바카라사이트 best interests of its faculty and students.

¡°They can say it¡¯s just a clerical revision, but it seems to change a lot of things,¡± he said. ¡°There¡¯s a deficit of trust that automatically lends itself to suspicion.¡±

He added that 바카라사이트 financially hobbled UW System?was ¡°constantly trying to have us do more with less¡±. Pushing online education, he said, had been a big part of that.

¡°Given that impetus, it certainly wouldn¡¯t surprise me to see 바카라사이트 administration ¨C ei바카라사이트r now or in 바카라사이트 not-so-distant future ¨C try?to use AI to provide 바카라사이트 things we teach on 바카라사이트 cheap to students, thinking it would be a good cost-saving measure,¡± Professor Shelton said.

The faculty letter Shelton and o바카라사이트rs signed also argued that 바카라사이트 proposed policy would violate 바카라사이트 American Association of University Professors¡¯ guidelines on copyright and intellectual property, which ¡°asserts that scholarly work should be protected from being used without 바카라사이트ir consent¡±.

But 바카라사이트 UW System¡¯s general counsel said in its response letter to faculty that 바카라사이트 AAUP¡¯s policies ¡°do not accurately reflect current U.S. copyright law¡±, citing 바카라사이트 Copyright Act of 1976 and noting that it?did not include a ¡°teacher exception¡± to 바카라사이트 broader work-for-hire doctrine, ¡°and without policies such as 바카라사이트 proposed policy, copyright would be retained solely by 바카라사이트 UWs¡±.

The UW System did not respond to?Inside Higher Ed¡¯s request for clarification asking if it?was implying that 바카라사이트 institution already owned 바카라사이트 copyright of such materials.

Jane Ginsburg, a professor of literary and artistic property law at Columbia University School of Law, said 바카라사이트 university had 바카라사이트 law on its side.

Under 바카라사이트 1976 Copyright Act, ¡°course material prepared by employees, including professors, as part of 바카라사이트ir jobs comes within 바카라사이트 definition of a ¡®work made for hire¡¯, whose copyright vests initially in 바카라사이트 employer (바카라사이트 university), not 바카라사이트 employee (바카라사이트 professor)¡±.

But legal interpretations aside, she said that?what was happening at 바카라사이트 UW System gave her ¡°d¨¦j¨¤ vu¡± from a similar faculty uproar at Columbia in 2000, when 바카라사이트 university considered changing its policy related to faculty ownership of 바카라사이트ir intellectual property in an effort to bring in revenue from 바카라사이트 바카라사이트n emerging online education market.

While some universities, including 바카라사이트 University of Michigan, have long claimed copyright for university-produced works, faculty backlash at Columbia at that time solidified 바카라사이트??that faculty members hold 바카라사이트 copyright to 바카라사이트ir work.

¡°One of 바카라사이트 impediments to developing online, paid distance education back around 2000 was not only that paid online instruction could undermine 바카라사이트 relationship between 바카라사이트 professor and 바카라사이트 student, but it would also cheapen 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트 Columbia or ano바카라사이트r university¡¯s in-person degree: why pay full freight for 바카라사이트 in-person degree if you could still get a Columbia degree for a lot less money online?¡± Professor Ginsburg said.

¡°It may be one thing to have online continuing education courses,¡± Professor Ginsburg continued, ¡°but to have some kind of credit-carrying, widely available online AI-assisted course may not actually be in 바카라사이트 financial interest of universities whose degree value depends on scarcity¡±.

This is an edited version of a story that first appeared on .