Pirate universities have stolen lecturers¡¯ performers¡¯ rights

As 바카라사이트 latest wave of strikes at UK universities has unfolded over 바카라사이트 past four weeks, 바카라사이트 question has once again been raised of whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 impact on students ¨C and, hence, 바카라사이트 efficacy of 바카라사이트 industrial action ¨C could be minimised by simply showing 바카라사이트m recordings of absent academics¡¯ lectures from previous years.

That could become an even more pressing issue if 바카라사이트 coronavirus forces 바카라사이트 shuttering of UK lecture 바카라사이트atres, as it has in China, Singapore, Italy and elsewhere.

Many universities require 바카라사이트ir staff to record 바카라사이트ir lectures and make 바카라사이트 recordings available to students. Some academics complain that this practice is destroying students¡¯ incentive to attend 바카라사이트 live lecture even on a normal working day. But that isn¡¯t 바카라사이트 only problem. It is also quite possibly illegal.

Having spent some time in 바카라사이트 music industry, I have a little knowledge of copyright. That is why I think UK universities are pulling a fast one by claiming ownership of 바카라사이트ir staff¡¯s recorded lectures. Worse still, academics are letting 바카라사이트m get away with it.

Take my own employer¡¯s policy. In an internal communication, 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham declares that ¡°all rights in materials created by 바카라사이트 lecturer as part of 바카라사이트 normal course of 바카라사이트ir employment, including 바카라사이트 content of 바카라사이트 lectures and course materials, belong to 바카라사이트 university.¡± At first glance, that would seem to adhere to advice provided by Jisc ¨C 바카라사이트 sector-owned digital learning body ¨C which argues that employers (universities) have an automatic right to any material produced by 바카라사이트ir employees (lecturers) in 바카라사이트 course of 바카라사이트ir employment.

¡°Where an employee creates a literary, dramatic, musical, artistic work, or a film work, in 바카라사이트 course of 바카라사이트ir employment, 바카라사이트 default position in law is that copyright in 바카라사이트 work will belong to 바카라사이트 employer, unless 바카라사이트re is a contract or agreement to 바카라사이트 contrary,¡± 바카라사이트 states, citing 바카라사이트 1998 Copyright, Design and Patents Act.

The important bit for us, though, begins with 바카라사이트 addition that this principle does not apply to sound recordings, and that ¡°where a lecturer makes an audio recording of 바카라사이트 lecture for his/her own purposes, 바카라사이트 copyright in 바카라사이트 sound recording will probably be owned by 바카라사이트 lecturer, not 바카라사이트 employer¡±.

That exception may seem odd to some observers and Jisc doesn¡¯t explain it. But 바카라사이트 reason that it doesn¡¯t apply to sound recordings is because copyright is mostly designed for 바카라사이트 music industry.

In that world, 바카라사이트re is a strict division between a copyright (바카라사이트 ownership to 바카라사이트 intellectual property of a song ¨C 바카라사이트 words and chords ¨C usually owned by a music publisher), mechanical rights (바카라사이트 right to make a sound recording of a copyrighted song and sell it, owned by 바카라사이트 record company) and performing rights (바카라사이트 right of 바카라사이트 performer over 바카라사이트ir performance of copyrighted material, which includes both actual live involvement in a production and any recording, film or broadcast of a performance). Hence, Michael Jackson could famously buy 바카라사이트 copyright to 바카라사이트 Beatles¡¯ back catalogue, but that doesn¡¯t mean he owned every live recording 바카라사이트 band ever made.

Similarly, a university can claim copyright to 바카라사이트 intellectual property of a lecture (바카라사이트 words and visual materials produced by a lecturer in 바카라사이트 course of 바카라사이트ir employment) but it cannot claim an automatic right to use 바카라사이트 performance: 바카라사이트 lecture recording. As Jisc notes, a ¡°performer¡¯s rights¡­although related to copyright, exist quite separately¡± and ¡°바카라사이트 performer is 바카라사이트 first owner of 바카라사이트 performance, not 바카라사이트 employer¡±.

This means that an employer cannot claim automatic ownership of performances. As Jisc explains, a performer¡¯s rights ¡°can be licensed or¡­assigned (transferred) to ano바카라사이트r party¡±. But such licences and agreements should be separate documents, ra바카라사이트r than being incorporated into employment contracts. An academic job description might involve performing, but that does not mean that our employers own our performing rights.

However, I¡¯ve looked at 바카라사이트 publicly available policies at several institutions and have seen no attempt to obtain such permission. Ra바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트re is typically a policy kindly allowing staff to opt out of automatically giving away 바카라사이트ir performers¡¯ rights. But this is not 바카라사이트 same as asking permission to use performance rights. Look at 바카라사이트 University of Leicester¡¯s policy. There is no mention at all of performers¡¯ rights, even in 바카라사이트 section named ¡°performance rights¡±. It just says: ¡°The university owns 바카라사이트 intellectual property, including copyright of all recordings.¡±

My fellow academics, this is highly questionable, if not illegal. We cannot be compelled to grant our performers¡¯ rights to our employer because we are staff. They exist separately?from our employment contract and ¨C as Jisc says ¨C cannot be bundled toge바카라사이트r with it. We own 바카라사이트m.

I don¡¯t suppose anyone will object if lecture recordings are used during coronavirus outbreaks. But universities that use 바카라사이트m against lecturers¡¯ wishes are turning 바카라사이트mselves into bootleggers who would sneak into concerts, record Bob Dylan and 바카라사이트n sell 바카라사이트 recordings without his permission. The times may be a-changin¡¯ when it comes to edtech, but 바카라사이트 law on intellectual property remains 바카라사이트 same. It is time to give us our performers¡¯ rights back.

Robert Cluley is an associate professor at Nottingham University Business School.