9.05.4 Examples.
The following examples illustrate how the policy would apply to specific situations and are accompanied by references to the governing policy sections.
1. Case C1: Faculty member A writes an article using a computer and supplies provided by the University. Copyright in the article belongs to A. Faculty member A may choose to assign ownership of this copyright to a journal as part of a publication agreement without institutional involvement. [9.05.2.2.a]
2. Case C2: Faculty member B creates a painting using supplies and facilities of the University customarily provided to other faculty members in the unit. Copyright in the painting belongs to B. [9.05.2.2.a] Two years later, B sells the painting for $400. Faculty member B has no obligation to share the proceeds of the painting sale with the University.
3. Case C3: Music faculty member C writes several songs which she proceeds to record on Compact Disc and subsequently markets. In the preparation of the CD, C sought the help of the University and received a $4,000 grant for the specific purpose of funding studio time and associate equipment rental for making the CD. Faculty C retains the music authorship. [9.05.2.2.a.] The University may determine that it has rights by assignment of ownership in the CD. [9.05.2.2.a.(v.)]
a. The CD is marketed and generates $60,000 in royalties in the first year. If the grant was an internal competitive research grant, Faculty C would retain all rights to the CD and collect all royalties.
b. The CD is marketed and generates $60,000 in royalties in the first year. If the grant was from internal discretionary funds or the University provides significant use of University resources, the University may determine that it has rights by assignment of ownership in the CD [9.05.2.2.a.(v.)] and the first call on royalty income would be $4,000 to defray the investment costs. The next $50,000 would go to the author, and remaining royalties would be divided according to policy.
4. Case C4: Graduate student D writes a dissertation while serving as a University research assistant. The student owns the copyright in the dissertation since it is an academic requirement, but the supervising University faculty member has a license to use research product and student must show joint authorship if published in a scholarly journal. [9.05.2.2.a]
5. Case C5: Staff member E, a nurse, writes a novel at home. Copyright in the novel is owned by E since the work was not created within the scope of University employment. [9.05.2.2.a]
6. Case C6: Staff member F, a senior research associate, writes a journal article based on original research conceived by and conducted by F. F owns the copyright in the journal article since it is a scholarly work and is not a specified outcome of F's employment by the University. [9.05.2.2.a and 9.05.2.2.b]
7. Case C7: The Department Head of an academic department asks faculty colleague G to write a summary of the department's history for inclusion in a University's publication. G agrees to do so. Copyright of the summary history belongs to the University since it is a specific work created as a consequence of an agreement between faculty member G and a colleague acting on behalf of the institution. [9.05.2.2.b.(i)]
8. Case C8: The University employs a recently retired administrator H to have her write a history of the University which isto be published. The University owns the copyright and receives any royalties of sales of this history subject to any portion of the agreement with H that would dictate a split of royalties. [9.05.2.2.b.(i)]
9. Case C9: Faculty member I drafts a departmental self-study for the University as part of an academic review of his/her department at the University. Copyright of the self-study belongs to the University since I created it while carrying out an administrative assignment from the University. [9.05.2.2.b.(ii)]
10. Case C10: For a number of years, faculty member J worked collaboratively with faculty and staff colleagues to develop successive versions of software designed to control a research apparatus in J's laboratory. Over the years, the various collaborators did not document their individual contributions to the software and memory of any specific individual contributions to the earlier work has faded. Copyright of the current version of the software belongs to the University since any assessment of individual copyright ownership of the current software would be impractical and could result in an unfair determination. The failure to document individual contributions would not, itself, generate institutional ownership, but in this instance documenting the contributions might have made recovery of forgotten facts easier. [9.05.2.2.b.(iii)]
11. Case C11: Faculty researcher K is principal investigator on an institutional contract with an agency of the state. The contract is for the creation of teaching materials for the on-the-job training of social workers employed by the state government. The terms of the contract provide that the state will have an option to license the county government, or to other states and agencies. While K may be the owner of the copyright in the software under copyright law, K has the obligation to assign this ownership to the institution so that the University may meet the contractual requirement to offer the grantee their right to distribute the work. Even though K is the principal investigator (PI) on the original contract proposal, grants and contracts are awarded to the University and not to the PI. [9.05.2.2.b.(iv)]
12. Case C12: Faculty researcher L is principal investigator on a federal grant that provides significant funding to meet the proposed objective of development of a particular piece of medical imaging software. The terms of the federal award neither compel nor empower the University to take ownership of the copyright in the resultant software. Even so, the University has a policy-based opportunity to require L to assign copyright ownership in the software to the institution since use of the grant funds constitutes "significant use of University resources." In assessing its rights to request assignment of a copyright because of the use of grant funds, the University will consider requesting assignment only of copyrights to works specified as objectives of the grant-funded work. In this example, the University would not seek ownership of the copyright in other related works such as journal articles, monographs, or textbooks that may arise from the grant funding since these works are not commonly construed as identified objectives of the grant. To avoid any dispute, faculty member L should work with the Dean prior to distribution of any grant funds to lay the groundwork for the future resolution of any potential conflicting copyright claims. [9.05.2.2.b.(v)]
13. Case C13: Faculty member M is principal investigator of a grant that provides faculty member F with travel funds to visit a library in a foreign country so that F can do research. Later F produces an article based upon this research. Even though faculty member F's efforts were supported by a grant, the copyright belongs to F. Even if preparation of a publication is a specified objective of a grant, the University will not seek assignment of the copyright in that work. [9.05.2.2.a]
14. Case C14: Faculty member N begins to create a copyrightable web-based work that will help high schoolstudentsselect a college. After three months, N realizes that the work cannot be completed without substantial use of University staff computer experts. N requests and receives permission to have access to this expertise. Faculty member N would have been entitled to the copyright in work under this policy if there had been no infusion of substantial resources. However, because of the infusion of University resources, the University may have a claim. Faculty member N should consult with the Dean at the time assistance is requested to lay the groundwork for the future resolution of any potential conflicting copyright claims. [9.05.2.2.b.(v)]
15. Case C15: A professional staff writer, O, at the University prepares original text for a brochure describing research in a college. Even though O prepared original text, the University owns the copyright in the brochure material since it is a reasonably expected product of O's employment. [9.05.2.2.b.(v)]
16. Case C16: Undergraduate student P is an hourly-wage, graphics designer in a University unit. In the course of this work, P prepares a poster for an institutional lecture series. Even though P is a student, the University owns the copyright in the poster design since it was prepared as a consequence of P's employment by the institution and not as part of P's educational pursuits. [9.05.2.2.b.(v)]
17. Case C17: Faculty Q receives a faculty research grant of $6,000 that allows her to travel to several major libraries for researching a segment of Civil War history. Eventually, Q uses the material gained from this research in the preparation and subsequent publication of a monograph published by Academic Press at no expense to the University. Even though some assistance came from a faculty research grant, Q owns the copyright and may convey right of license to the press in return for royalties. The University has no claim on royalties of this publication. [9.05.2.2.a and 9.05.2.2.b.(v)]
18. Case C18: Faculty R creates a learning module while teaching an online course at the University that she later sells to an online textbook publisher. R owns the copyright on the module and rights to profits, but the University retains an ownership interest and right to use the module, but only if the module was created under a specific agreement or using significant University resources. [9.05.1.3.b.(ii) and 9.05.2.2.a.]
19. Case C19: Faculty Member S develops an online class for the University. Per course Faculty Member T teaches one section of the online class for the University. S holds the copyright, the University holds a license, and T has a license to use the content to teach the course at the University. T takes the content of the course developed by S to another institution. T has violated both the University Creation of Intellectual Property Policy and the University Use of Copyright Policy. [9.00 and 9.05.2.2.a]
20. Case C20: Faculty U writes a textbook using a University office, computer, software, internet connection, e-mail, phone, and basic office support. U retains all rights to the book and can assign the copyright to a publisher and retain all royalties. [9.05.2.2.a]
21. Case 21: Faculty V develops handouts for a multi-section course, using a University office, computer, software, internet connection, e-mail, phone, and basic office support. The course normally has several sections taught by different instructors, but other than a common syllabus and common exams, each instructor works independently. V retains all rights to the handouts. [9.00, 9.05.2.1 and 9.05.2.2.B.vi]
22. Case 22: Faculty W develops laboratory write-ups for a multi-section laboratory course, using a University office, University laboratory space, computer, software, internet connection, e-mail, phone, and basic office support. The laboratory is normally taught by several different instructors using the same instructional materials for the laboratory. W retains ownership of the materials, but the University maintains a license to use the materials for internal use. [9.05.2.2.B.vi]
1. Case C1: Faculty member A writes an article using a computer and supplies provided by the University. Copyright in the article belongs to A. Faculty member A may choose to assign ownership of this copyright to a journal as part of a publication agreement without institutional involvement. [9.05.2.2.a]
2. Case C2: Faculty member B creates a painting using supplies and facilities of the University customarily provided to other faculty members in the unit. Copyright in the painting belongs to B. [9.05.2.2.a] Two years later, B sells the painting for $400. Faculty member B has no obligation to share the proceeds of the painting sale with the University.
3. Case C3: Music faculty member C writes several songs which she proceeds to record on Compact Disc and subsequently markets. In the preparation of the CD, C sought the help of the University and received a $4,000 grant for the specific purpose of funding studio time and associate equipment rental for making the CD. Faculty C retains the music authorship. [9.05.2.2.a.] The University may determine that it has rights by assignment of ownership in the CD. [9.05.2.2.a.(v.)]
a. The CD is marketed and generates $60,000 in royalties in the first year. If the grant was an internal competitive research grant, Faculty C would retain all rights to the CD and collect all royalties.
b. The CD is marketed and generates $60,000 in royalties in the first year. If the grant was from internal discretionary funds or the University provides significant use of University resources, the University may determine that it has rights by assignment of ownership in the CD [9.05.2.2.a.(v.)] and the first call on royalty income would be $4,000 to defray the investment costs. The next $50,000 would go to the author, and remaining royalties would be divided according to policy.
4. Case C4: Graduate student D writes a dissertation while serving as a University research assistant. The student owns the copyright in the dissertation since it is an academic requirement, but the supervising University faculty member has a license to use research product and student must show joint authorship if published in a scholarly journal. [9.05.2.2.a]
5. Case C5: Staff member E, a nurse, writes a novel at home. Copyright in the novel is owned by E since the work was not created within the scope of University employment. [9.05.2.2.a]
6. Case C6: Staff member F, a senior research associate, writes a journal article based on original research conceived by and conducted by F. F owns the copyright in the journal article since it is a scholarly work and is not a specified outcome of F's employment by the University. [9.05.2.2.a and 9.05.2.2.b]
7. Case C7: The Department Head of an academic department asks faculty colleague G to write a summary of the department's history for inclusion in a University's publication. G agrees to do so. Copyright of the summary history belongs to the University since it is a specific work created as a consequence of an agreement between faculty member G and a colleague acting on behalf of the institution. [9.05.2.2.b.(i)]
8. Case C8: The University employs a recently retired administrator H to have her write a history of the University which isto be published. The University owns the copyright and receives any royalties of sales of this history subject to any portion of the agreement with H that would dictate a split of royalties. [9.05.2.2.b.(i)]
9. Case C9: Faculty member I drafts a departmental self-study for the University as part of an academic review of his/her department at the University. Copyright of the self-study belongs to the University since I created it while carrying out an administrative assignment from the University. [9.05.2.2.b.(ii)]
10. Case C10: For a number of years, faculty member J worked collaboratively with faculty and staff colleagues to develop successive versions of software designed to control a research apparatus in J's laboratory. Over the years, the various collaborators did not document their individual contributions to the software and memory of any specific individual contributions to the earlier work has faded. Copyright of the current version of the software belongs to the University since any assessment of individual copyright ownership of the current software would be impractical and could result in an unfair determination. The failure to document individual contributions would not, itself, generate institutional ownership, but in this instance documenting the contributions might have made recovery of forgotten facts easier. [9.05.2.2.b.(iii)]
11. Case C11: Faculty researcher K is principal investigator on an institutional contract with an agency of the state. The contract is for the creation of teaching materials for the on-the-job training of social workers employed by the state government. The terms of the contract provide that the state will have an option to license the county government, or to other states and agencies. While K may be the owner of the copyright in the software under copyright law, K has the obligation to assign this ownership to the institution so that the University may meet the contractual requirement to offer the grantee their right to distribute the work. Even though K is the principal investigator (PI) on the original contract proposal, grants and contracts are awarded to the University and not to the PI. [9.05.2.2.b.(iv)]
12. Case C12: Faculty researcher L is principal investigator on a federal grant that provides significant funding to meet the proposed objective of development of a particular piece of medical imaging software. The terms of the federal award neither compel nor empower the University to take ownership of the copyright in the resultant software. Even so, the University has a policy-based opportunity to require L to assign copyright ownership in the software to the institution since use of the grant funds constitutes "significant use of University resources." In assessing its rights to request assignment of a copyright because of the use of grant funds, the University will consider requesting assignment only of copyrights to works specified as objectives of the grant-funded work. In this example, the University would not seek ownership of the copyright in other related works such as journal articles, monographs, or textbooks that may arise from the grant funding since these works are not commonly construed as identified objectives of the grant. To avoid any dispute, faculty member L should work with the Dean prior to distribution of any grant funds to lay the groundwork for the future resolution of any potential conflicting copyright claims. [9.05.2.2.b.(v)]
13. Case C13: Faculty member M is principal investigator of a grant that provides faculty member F with travel funds to visit a library in a foreign country so that F can do research. Later F produces an article based upon this research. Even though faculty member F's efforts were supported by a grant, the copyright belongs to F. Even if preparation of a publication is a specified objective of a grant, the University will not seek assignment of the copyright in that work. [9.05.2.2.a]
14. Case C14: Faculty member N begins to create a copyrightable web-based work that will help high schoolstudentsselect a college. After three months, N realizes that the work cannot be completed without substantial use of University staff computer experts. N requests and receives permission to have access to this expertise. Faculty member N would have been entitled to the copyright in work under this policy if there had been no infusion of substantial resources. However, because of the infusion of University resources, the University may have a claim. Faculty member N should consult with the Dean at the time assistance is requested to lay the groundwork for the future resolution of any potential conflicting copyright claims. [9.05.2.2.b.(v)]
15. Case C15: A professional staff writer, O, at the University prepares original text for a brochure describing research in a college. Even though O prepared original text, the University owns the copyright in the brochure material since it is a reasonably expected product of O's employment. [9.05.2.2.b.(v)]
16. Case C16: Undergraduate student P is an hourly-wage, graphics designer in a University unit. In the course of this work, P prepares a poster for an institutional lecture series. Even though P is a student, the University owns the copyright in the poster design since it was prepared as a consequence of P's employment by the institution and not as part of P's educational pursuits. [9.05.2.2.b.(v)]
17. Case C17: Faculty Q receives a faculty research grant of $6,000 that allows her to travel to several major libraries for researching a segment of Civil War history. Eventually, Q uses the material gained from this research in the preparation and subsequent publication of a monograph published by Academic Press at no expense to the University. Even though some assistance came from a faculty research grant, Q owns the copyright and may convey right of license to the press in return for royalties. The University has no claim on royalties of this publication. [9.05.2.2.a and 9.05.2.2.b.(v)]
18. Case C18: Faculty R creates a learning module while teaching an online course at the University that she later sells to an online textbook publisher. R owns the copyright on the module and rights to profits, but the University retains an ownership interest and right to use the module, but only if the module was created under a specific agreement or using significant University resources. [9.05.1.3.b.(ii) and 9.05.2.2.a.]
19. Case C19: Faculty Member S develops an online class for the University. Per course Faculty Member T teaches one section of the online class for the University. S holds the copyright, the University holds a license, and T has a license to use the content to teach the course at the University. T takes the content of the course developed by S to another institution. T has violated both the University Creation of Intellectual Property Policy and the University Use of Copyright Policy. [9.00 and 9.05.2.2.a]
20. Case C20: Faculty U writes a textbook using a University office, computer, software, internet connection, e-mail, phone, and basic office support. U retains all rights to the book and can assign the copyright to a publisher and retain all royalties. [9.05.2.2.a]
21. Case 21: Faculty V develops handouts for a multi-section course, using a University office, computer, software, internet connection, e-mail, phone, and basic office support. The course normally has several sections taught by different instructors, but other than a common syllabus and common exams, each instructor works independently. V retains all rights to the handouts. [9.00, 9.05.2.1 and 9.05.2.2.B.vi]
22. Case 22: Faculty W develops laboratory write-ups for a multi-section laboratory course, using a University office, University laboratory space, computer, software, internet connection, e-mail, phone, and basic office support. The laboratory is normally taught by several different instructors using the same instructional materials for the laboratory. W retains ownership of the materials, but the University maintains a license to use the materials for internal use. [9.05.2.2.B.vi]
Effective Date
Approved by Board of Curators: January 15, 2026