On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:55 PM, John Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote: > There are an increasing number of organisations which have indicated > that their output is Creative Commons by default, however there are > not as many that have a public IP policy which clearly allows staff to > publish "their" work. > > i.e. We have moved from the IP policy being the stick used to prevent > openness, and the "work for hire" and "publish process" are the next > frontier. > > A few staff at University of Canberra (UC) have written an IP policy > proposal which clearly gives staff ownership of their work, and > requires CC licensing if their staff use organisational infrastructure > to create their work. > > http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/University_of_Canberra/Proposed_policy_on_intellectual_property > > Otago Polytechnic adopted an IP policy like that in 2007. > > http://wikieducator.org/Otago_Polytechnic/Intellectual_property > > Are there other examples, within or outside academia, where the > organisation empowers its staff by providing a policy which clarifies > when "work for hire" principle is enforced in this murky world of > online collaboration? > > Does the WMF have an intellectual property policy for works created by > WMF employees? > Employees edit and upload using free licenses under their own name, > but does the copyright belong to the employee or to the WMF?
Roan provide some info re this at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2012-January/057377.html It would be nice if these elements of the WMF contract was placed on meta. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
