This article examines new developments in federal law and institutional policies related to copyright and intellectual property as they apply to faculty and students in teacher education programs in special education. Copyright law is explained, along with its implications for teaching in face-to-face, on air, an online instruction, and the changes associated with the recent passage of the TEACH Act are discussed. Intellectual property is then explained, along with a discussion of current efforts by colleges and universities to restrict the intellectual property rights of faculty members and students. The article concludes with some suggestions instructors can use to insure that they comply with copyright law in teaching, research, and service activities in addition to ideas for to protecting intellectual property rights for themselves and their students.
Alger, J. R. (2000). Classroom capitalism. Academe, 86(1), 79.
2.
Altschuler, A. S., & Blimling, G. S. (1995). Curbing epidemic cheating through systemic change. College Teaching, 43(4), 123–126.
3.
American Association of Universities. (1999). Intellectual property and new media technologies: A framework for policy development at AAU institutions.Washington, DE: Author.
4.
Anderson, J. (1998). Plagiarism, copyright violation, and other thefts of intellectual property.Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
5.
Armatas, S. A. (2002). Distance learning and copyright: Legal issues.Eau Claire, WI: Lorman Educational Services.
6.
Basic Books v. Kinko's Graphics Corp., 758 F. Supp. 1522 (S. D. N. Y. 1991).
7.
Bates, A. W. (1999). Managing technological change.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Baty, P. (2001, March 2). Students square up for ideas property battle. Times Higher Education Supplement, 6.
9.
Block, D. G. (1998). Rallying the disc patrol: Protection schemes. Emedia Professional, 11(12), 38–43.
10.
Boettcher, J. V. (1999). Copyright and intellectual property. Syllabus, 12(7), 34–36.
11.
Botherbusch, H. R. (1996). Copyright in the age of new technology (Fastback 405).Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
12.
Brinson, J. D., & Radcliffe, M. F. (1996). Multimedia law and business handbook.Port Huron, MI: Ladera Press.
13.
Burr v. Kulas, 532 N. W. 2d 388 (1997).
14.
Carnevale, D. (2001, June 22). Senate bill would help online instructors. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A32.
15.
Copyright Revision Act, 17 U. S. C. at 101 et seq. (1976).
16.
Crews, K. D. (2002, November 19). New copyright law for distance education: The meaning and importance of the TEACH Act. Retrieved December 1, 2002 from the American Library Association Web site: http:// www.ala.org/washoff/teach.html
17.
Dalziel, C. (1995). Fair use guidelines for distance education. Tech Trends, 40(5), 68.
18.
DeLoughry, T. J. (1994, June 29). Copyright issues said to stall multimedia projects. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 10.
19.
Digital Millenium Copyright Act, P. L. 105-304. 112 Stat. 2860 (1998).
20.
Diotalevi, R. N. (1999). Copyrighting cyberspace: Unweaving a tangled Web. Syllabus, 12(5), 44–46.
21.
Enghagen, L. K. (1997). New frontiers in copyright law. In L.K. Enghagen (Eds.). The foundations of American distance education (pp. 155–162). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
22.
Euben, D. K. (2000). Distance learning and intellectual property: Ownership and related faculty rights and responsibilities. Retrieved December 1, 2002 from the American Association of University Professors site: http://www.aaup.org/Legal/info%20outlines/legdl.htm.
23.
Family Education and Right to Privacy Act, 20 U. S. C. at 1232g (1974).
24.
Finkelstein, M. J., & Sholz, B. W. (2000). Overview: What do we know about information technology and the cost of collegiate teaching and learning? In M. J. Finkelstein, C. Frances, F. I. Jewett, & B. W. Sholz (Eds.), Dollars, distance, and online education: The new economics of college teaching and learning (pp. 3–34). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
25.
Foster, A. I. (2002, May 17). Plagiarism-detection tool creates legal quandary. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A37–A38.
26.
Gasaway, L. N. (2001). Balancing copyright concerns: The TEACH Act of 2001. Educause Review, 36(6), 82–83.
27.
Gorman, R. A. (1998). Intellectual property: The rights of faculty as creators and users. Academe, 84(3), 14.
28.
Groak, M., Oblinger, D., & Choa, M. (2001). Term paper mills, anti-plagiarism, and academic integrity. Ed-ucause Review, 36(5), 40–48.
29.
Halbert, D. J. (1999). Intellectual property in the information age: The politics of expanding ownership rights.Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
30.
Harper, G. (2002, November 19). The TEACH Act finally becomes law. Retrieved on December 1, 2002 from the University of Utah Web site at http://www. utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/teachact.htm
31.
Harris, R. A. (2001). The plagiarism handbook: Strategies for preventing, detecting, and dealing with plagiarism. Los Angeles: Pyrczak Publishing.
32.
Hilton, J. L., & Neal, J. G. (2001). Responding to intellectual property and legal issues. In C. A. Barone & P. Hagner (Eds.), Technology-enhanced teaching and learning (pp. 65–78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2001). Copyright and intellectual property. In S. Ko & S. Rossen, Teaching online: A practical guide (pp. 180–192). Boston: Houghton Mif-flin.
34.
Kumon, S., & Aizu, I. (1994). Co-emulation: The case for a global hypernetwork society. In L. M. Harasim (Eds.). Global networks: Computers and international communications (pp. 311–326). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35.
Levy, S. (2002, October 14). Glitterati vs. geeks. Newsweek, 40–42.
36.
Long, P. D. (2002). Regression to the mean . . . or the elusive norm?Syllabus, 15(12), 8–10. 29.
37.
Lucas, C. J., & Murry, J. W., Jr. (2002). New faculty: A practical guide for academic beginners.New York: Pal-grave.
38.
Ludlow, B. L., & Duff, M. C. (2001). Guidelines for selecting telecommunications technologies for distance education. In B. Ludlow & F. Spooner (Eds.), Distance education applications in teacher education and special education (pp. 17–54). Reston, VA: Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children.
39.
Maitland, C., Hendrikson, R., & Dubek, L. (2000). Faculty costs and compensation in distance education. In M. J. Finkelstein, C. Frances, F. I. Jewett, & B. W. Sholz (Eds.), Dollars, distance, and online education: The new economics of college teaching and learning (pp. 269–295). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
40.
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1996). What we know about cheating in college: Longitudinal trends and recent developments. Change, 28(1), 28–33.
41.
McKenzie, J. (1998). From now on: The Educational Technology Journal, 7(8). Retrieved December 20 from http://www.fno.org/may98/cov98may.html.
42.
McLeod, R. G. (1997, December 16). Students look to the Internet for new ways to cheat. San Francisco Chronicle, A1.
43.
Miller, P. (1998). Media law for producers (3rd ed.). Boston: Focal Press.
44.
National Council on the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002). Professional standards for accreditation of schools colleges, and departments of education (rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
45.
Nichols, M. L. (1998). The basics of copyright law. Video Systems, 24(1), 62–24.
46.
Patel, S. H. (1996). Graduate students' ownership and attribution rights in intellectual property. Indiana Law Journal, 71, 481–512.
47.
Riffee, W. H. (2002). Globalization: The exportation of higher education. Syllabus, 15(12), 18–20.
48.
Sanderson v. University of Tennessee, WL 718427 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
49.
Salomon, K., & Pierce, M. (1997). Copyright law and the Information Superhighway. In L. K. Enghagen (Eds.). The foundations of American distance education (pp. 135–154). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
50.
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, P. L. 105-298. 112 Stat. 2837 (1998).
51.
Strong, W. S. (1994). The copyright book (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52.
Thompson, D. P. (1990). Intellectual property meets information technology: An olive branch in the debate over who owns IT products. Educom Review, 34(2), 14– 21.
53.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2002, August 2). Copyright as cudgel. The Chronicle of Higher Education, B7–B9.
54.
Van Horn, R. (2002). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other egregious laws. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(3), 248–249.
55.
Weigel, V. B. (2002). Building an infrastructure for a depth education. In V. B. Weigel, Deep learning for a digital age: Technology's untapped potential to enrich higher education (pp. 102–126). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
56.
Weinstein v. University of Illinois, 811 F. 2d. 1091, 1094 (7th Cir. 1987).
57.
Wilson, J. M. (2002). More than digital content: Long live your course. Syllabus, 15(10), 12–14.
58.
Wojitas, G. (1999, November 26). Lawyer warns Scots of intellectual property minefield. Times Higher Education Supplement, 13.
59.
Zobel, S. M. (1997). Legal implications of intellectual property and the World Wide Web. In B. H. Khan (Eds.). Web-based instruction (pp. 337–340). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
