The University of Oklahoma (Norman campus)

Regular session - May 4, 1998 - 3:30 p.m. - Jacobson Faculty Hall 102

office: Jacobson Faculty Hall 206 phone: 325-6789 FAX: 325-6782

e-mail: web site:

The Faculty Senate was called to order by Professor Connie Dillon, Chair.

PRESENT: Albert (4), Badhwar (2), Benson (1), Blank (2), Butler (3), Dillon (0), Durica (0), Eliason (2), Elisens (3), Emery (1), Friedrich (1), Fung (0), Gabert (1), Gilje (2), Greene (3), Hillyer (2), Hobbs (1), Holmes (0), Joyce (1), Konopak (2), Laird (2), Murphy (2), Norwood (2), Okediji (0), Pailes (0), Palmer (0), Patten (1), Patterson(1), Ratliff (2), Reynolds (1), Scherman (2), Schwarzkopf (3), Shaughnessy (2), Sipes (1), St.John (1), Wahl (0), Warner (1)

Provost's office representative: Mergler

PSA representatives: Pyle

ABSENT: Beasley (3), Edwards (1), Egle (1), Engel (2), Gronlund (5), Gupta (4), Harper (1), Lancaster (2), Livesey (0), Robertson (5), Stoltenberg (2), Thulasiraman (3), VanGundy (2), Vieux (3), Watts (2)

[NOTE: During the period June 1997 to May 1998, the Senate held 9 regular sessions and no special sessions. The figures in parentheses above indicate the number of absences.]




Schedule of Senate meetings for 1998-99 2

Summary of Speakers Service program 2

Continuing Education Council 2

Goddard Advisory Board 2

Faculty retirees 2

Senate Chair's Report: Intellectual Property 2

Class start date 4

Report of Copyright Task Force 5

Election, councils/committees/boards 7

Principles for faculty compensation 7

Election, Senate Secretary and Chair-Elect 8

Election, Senate standing committees 8

Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation 9

Resolution of Appreciation of Prof. Connie Dillon 9



The Senate Journal for the regular session of April 13, 1998, was approved.


The regular meetings of the Faculty Senate for 1998-99 will be held at 3:30p.m. in Jacobson Faculty Hall 102 on the following Mondays: September 14, October 12, November 9, December7 (changed from the 14th), January 11, February 8, March 8, April 12, and May 3.

Summary of the activities of the Speakers Service for the past year:Now in its second year of coordinating the program, the Faculty Senate office arranged more than twice the past record number of programs. From May 1997 to April 1998, 80 faculty and staff were scheduled for 206 programs to 71 organizations throughout the state. These speakers from OU gave programs to groups such as high school honors classes, business and civic clubs, and church discussion groups in 27 communities ranging from Altus to Pryor. The Faculty Senate and the University sincerely appreciate the members of the Speakers Service who share their expertise and knowledge with the people of Oklahoma.

President Boren approved the revisions in the name, charge and membership of the Continuing Education Council (see 10/97 Senate Journal, page 2).

The President approved the revised charge of the Goddard Advisory Board, including the Faculty Senate's recommendation to elect the chair from those with a three-year term and have the student president serve as co-chair (see 1/97 Senate Journal, page 4).

The Faculty Senate thanks the following faculty who retired during the past academic year for their dedication and contribution to our community: Carol A. Beesley (Art), George Bogart, Jr. (Art), Fred V. Brock (Meteorology), Gene Emery (Architecture), Ronald D. Evans (Petroleum and Geological Engineering), Rosario Galura (University Libraries), Charles F. Gettys (Psychology), Kenneth Hoving (Psychology), Dortha Killian (Interior Design), Kay Kincade (Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum), Dragan Milivojevic (Modern Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics), Donald Murry (Economics), Maurice Rasmussen (Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering), and Joyce Shealy (Music).

SENATE CHAIR'S REPORT, by Prof. Connie Dillon

The following faculty will serve on a committee to advise the Office of Technology Management until the final patent policy is approved: Kelvin Droegemeier (Meteorology), Rod Evans (Marketing), Roger Frech (Chemistry & Biochemistry), Jeff Harwell (CEMS), Ruth Okediji (Law), Bill Patten (AME), Bruce Roe (Chemistry & Biochemistry), Simin Pulat (IE), Laurette Taylor (Health & Sport Sciences), and three administrators. Last month we discussed patent policy. Unlike patent, the copyright policy will affect all of us. Today we will begin discussing copyright policy. This is another issue that will be debated next fall, but the copyright task force would like to acquaint you with the issues and hear your comments as they continue to develop a proposal for your consideration next fall. You have before you three documents: the copyright policy that is currently in place, a copy of the policy proposed by the administration, and a draft policy from the copyright task force.

I will speak first to the issues specifically addressed in these versions, and then I will address some trends with respect to university copyright policies.

University copyright policies generally differ from those in the private sector for three reasons: 1) because we have a unique mission to promote scholarly activity and the transfer of knowledge; 2) because responsibility for the integrity of the material rests with the faculty, and 3) because ownership issues are important in our ability to attract and retain faculty.

The issue we must consider now is who owns the work we do as a result of our research, creative activity, teaching, and service. Ownership is not just rights to revenues but also includes the ability to use and modify a work. Both the administration's proposal and current task force draft provide that "scholarly" works continue to be owned by the creator. However, there are key differences between the two. First, the administration's version presumes ownership by the university, scholarly work excepted. The task force draft presumes scholarly works are owned by the creator, with university ownership excepted. Second, the administration's proposal addresses only traditional scholarship. The task force draft addresses both traditional and nontraditional scholarship, thus protecting the development of new forms of scholarship, such as multimedia applications. Third, the administration's proposal does not protect teaching in fixed formats. The task force draft does. Fourth, the task force draft provides for faculty oversight, the administration's proposal does not. Finally, the task force draft protects the university when it has a special interest in a work by specifying the terms of ownership in a prior written agreement.

These are the issues on which we will be seeking a compromise, and we seek your input.

Now for some emerging issues. Historically, the issues surrounding copyright differ from patent due primarily to differences with regard to the financial stake--whether in terms of institutional resources committed or revenues to the creator. For these reasons, higher education policies generally address patent and copyright separately. However, two trends are working together to blur the lines between a "copyrighted" and a "patented" work.

First is the digitization of information, reducing the reliance upon "print-only" forms of intellectual communication. The growing reliance upon "multiple-media" is generally associated with an increase in the institutional "financial stake" in the intellectual property. We might expect then a shift in institutional copyright policies from the "textbook" toward the "work for hire" model. Two studies conducted at colleges and universities around the country in the past year confirm this trend.

Another force that will impact this shift relates to the "financial stake" all colleges and universities have in "buying back" the intellectual property faculty turn over to academic presses. As this financial stake becomes more significant with respect to escalating costs of academic journals, we may begin to see policies that limit faculty "ownership" of copyrighted material. This is not an issue at OU at this time, but it is elsewhere. The issue is being addressed at Duke, Johns Hopkins, SUNY, and Cal State. So forewarned is forearmed.

A key point you have made in last month's debate over patent policy is that the university, because of its mission to advance knowledge, has a responsibility to protect our intellectual property. So on one hand, we argue that the university has a responsibility to protect our intellectual property when it comes to a "patented" property. However, when it comes to copyrightable policy, we want the right to sign away our "copyrighted" property, forcing the institution to buy it back at exorbitant prices.

On one hand, we are concerned that the proposed patent policy entangles the university in an entrepreneurial model of a "for profit" enterprise to the detriment of its "advancement of knowledge" mission. Yet on the other hand, we allow our copyrightable material to become entangled in the entrepreneurial enterprise of increased profit margins of "for profit publishers," thus diverting scarce academic resources away from our professions. In a ten-year period, when the cost of health care rose 84 percent, the cost of scholarly journals rose 147 percent.

As we debate the copyright policy, we should also begin to examine our current system of scholarly communications. We should question promotion and tenure policies that provide incentives to sign away our intellectual property. We must work through our professional societies to regain control over our scholarly communications. We must look to non print outlets for disseminating our scholarly writing. Quality is not a function of the form of dissemination (print or electronic); quality is a function of the review process. We can't afford to continue to shun on-line publishing as substandard. If we don't begin to address these issues today, we may be confronted with continued erosion of our claim over intellectual property.

Prof. Schwarzkopf asked that the chair's report be distributed in the condensed journal.


Prof. Dillon explained that there was some concern that the fall class start date is August 17, and 9-month faculty contracts are effective August 16. Mr. Borish said the process for drawing up the calendar is to use past calendars as a guide, ask for input from the Academic Regulations Committee and provost's office, and send it to the regents. The issues involved in the calendar include the number of sessions, the time we need between terms to get everything done, holidays, and a mandate that institutions participating in Tulsa have a common calendar. In October 1996, an agreement was reached about cooperating on a calendar. He said he did not want a problem with contract dates to happen again. He commented that Prof. Dillon had suggested that the Academic Regulations Committee look at this issue.

Prof. Benson responded that when the faculty contract starts and stops is particularly relevant. Mr. Borish said he remembered some discussion to the effect that coming back early would be offset by leaving early at the end of the semester. He said he thought we should look at the contract language and the flexibility available. Prof. Scherman pointed out that the dates of the next academic year are already advertised. His recommendation would be to ask the Academic Regulations Committee to reconsider the calendars for future years and submit a proposal in the fall for the Senate to consider. Prof. Greene asked whether there was something implicit in the calendar that there should not be an advising week. Mr. Borish said that issue had not been considered. Prof. Murphy pointed out that the graduate teaching assistants are required to attend a University-wide teaching course in July. Prof. Holmes added that many undergraduates have summer internships that could be impacted by an early start date.

Prof. Patterson noted that once we get into the cycle, it will be evened out. As someone who teaches at Tulsa, she has seen the problems with schedules. When the Tulsa campus is on vacation, the only we she can teach is on compressed video, because everything else is closed. Mr. Borish said it has been confusing as to how official the contract period is, but it is apparent that those kind of issues need to be taken back into consideration. In the meeting with the Tulsa institutions to plan the calendar for 2004, he will try to arrange it the way we want it at OU.

Prof. Hillyer said she had participated in discussions of this with various administrators, because her department does a lot of teaching in Tulsa. About ten institutions are involved in this joint calendar, so it was a complex decision-making effort. We will have some time in December that we would not otherwise have had. It may be a matter of adjusting everybody's expectations about which weeks are used for which purposes. Prof. Schwarzkopf remarked that there are some positives about the schedule: we have more time for winter break, and most of the state institutions are on the same schedule. A problem that the Faculty Senate may want to address is that Graduate Teaching Assistants have to be back in July for training, when they could do it the week before classes start.

Prof. Scherman moved to ask the Academic Regulations Committee to reconsider the dates to see what can be done and bring a recommendation to the Faculty Senate in the fall. His motion was approved on a voice vote.


Prof. Pat Weaver-Meyers, Chair of the Copyright Task Force, explained that the senators had been given the draft by Legal Counsel (Appendix I), the task force draft (Appendix II), and the current policy in the Faculty Handbook. Other members of the task force are Randy Coyne (Law), Mark Gillett (Law), Peter Kutner (Law), Andrew Phalen (Art), Michael Rogers (Music), Deborah Trytten (Computer Science). Legal Counsel assumes that works created by faculty are works for hire unless they fall under the exception of traditional works for which we have always had copyright. The copyright task force draft makes the assumption that works are owned by the faculty unless they fall within a set of exceptions. For example, a specific assignment by the University would be a work for hire. She urged the Senate to take its time in looking at this issue and come up with a compromise that everyone can live with. A lot of policies follow the copyright law assumption that the work faculty produce are works for hire, but traditionally in academics, there have been exceptions. She suggested that the Senate pay attention to multimedia concerns. Legal Counsel believes that non-traditional works, like web format, or new formats that might not even exist today would be owned by the University. Teaching could involve those kinds of formats. She encouraged the senators to give her feedback to carry back to the task force.

Prof. Livesey asked what the University administration's reason was for asserting ownership, aside from money. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said copyright has become the focus recently because of the new electronic formats and because of the theft of copyrighted materials. A lot of films are being reproduced in Malaysia, leading to a loss in revenue. Congress is looking at rewriting the copyright law to clarify the new formats as well as what is a work for hire and how libraries can use materials when the copyright is owned by publishers. Electronic format is a new opportunity to make money.

Prof. Dillon pointed out that the issue has to do not only with revenues but institutional costs of producing the works. A faculty member at the University of Hawaii used the university's resources to develop a course and then offered it at another institution. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said there is also the question of who owns the copyright when it is put together by more than one person.

Prof. Wahl asked whether trade books and textbooks written in the summer by 9-month faculty would be considered a work for hire. Prof. Weaver-Meyers responded that traditional scholarship would not be considered a work for hire. The proposed policy talks about depletable versus non-depletable resources of the University. Prof. Dillon said she thought the University might claim ownership if the work involved multimedia and CD-ROM. Prof. Okediji said if a work is first published traditionally and then put in electronic format, that would not affect copyright ownership. However, if the work is first published on a web site, the University would want that. Prof. Weaver-Meyers explained that under the current policy, ownership belongs to the faculty. Prof. Schwarzkopf asked whether Legal Counsel was more concerned with access to the works or profit. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said she thought they were concerned with access. There has never been a large revenue stream with copyrights. The concern is to make sure the policy is in line with other universities and to have some kind of access or license for future use.

Prof. Murphy observed that a lot of academic software had already been disseminated on the web. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said the task force had numerous discussions about software and concluded it was covered in the statements about all media types. The task force avoided listing software, given the fast pace of change. Prof. Okediji remarked that when faculty or students download material for a course from the web, that could expose the University to liability for infringement. Prof. Dillon said there is some pending federal legislation that would hold higher education harmless and give them the opportunity to remove the material. Prof. Patterson said the individuals working on the Copyright Act of 1998 have asked for a study of non-profit institution liability.

Prof. Hillyer, referring to the example of the teacher creating a course and moving to another university, said such a policy would have a chilling effect on people's creativity. This is a big break with tradition. Now when faculty develop a creative course, they feel comfortable going elsewhere to teach that course. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said the task force was concerned that faculty would eschew any development on the web if they thought they would lose copyright. Prof. Dillon said the University and faculty have an interest in this, because a group like Continuing Education, which pays for the development of an on-line course, will want to use that course until the group makes its money back. The teacher will not want to give up his/her intellectual property and will not want someone else to teach that course. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said one of the concerns was how long the university would retain a license if the creator owns the copyright and goes to another university.

Prof. Patten commented that the old policies on patent and copyright never mentioned fiduciary responsibility for the University. Now both policies proposed by Legal Counsel have statements disclaiming any fiduciary responsibility. He contended that the University does have fiduciary responsibility. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said the task force was trying to achieve a situation in which the University acts in good faith. The task force is trying to achieve what is adequate for the needs of the faculty and yet not leave the University exposed to unreasonable liability. Prof. Dillon asked the outgoing senators to brief their replacements on this issue.


The Senate approved the Senate Committee on Committees' nominations for end-of-the-year vacancies on university and campus councils/committees/boards (Appendix III). The names of remaining volunteers will be forwarded to the president for the appointments he makes.


Prof. Andy Magid, Chair of the Faculty Compensation Committee, said the committee discussed the fact that the University takes action regarding compensation, yet the principles behind that action are not formally articulated. He said the Faculty Compensation Committee articulated three principles that it believes describes the purposes behind compensation.

1. The University strives to high standards of excellence in new faculty appointments. Compensation for new faculty should be competitive with the best institutions.

2. To stimulate and reward high faculty achievement, substantial merit-based permanent and temporary salary adjustments should be regularly awarded.

3. Teaching, public service, and research and creative activity are all enhanced significantly by faculty continuity. The University should invest in human capital through a program of regular cost of living and other salary adjustments designed to build long-term relationships between the University and its faculty.

Prof. Norwood said the statements about salary adjustments and merit-based increases were vaguely worded. He asked whether the compression/inversion problem was implicit in the phrase about adjustments. Faculty fresh out of graduate school are being hired at the same or higher salaries as faculty with distinguished research records and 25 years at OU. The Senate could direct attention to dealing with that issue, particularly since it raises a very serious problem with age discrimination. The administration eliminated the senior faculty summer fellowships yet retained the junior faculty fellowships. Added to the compression and inversion problems, that is demoralizing to a lot of people and causes them to seek other employment. Prof. Magid responded that had the University followed these principles, that problem would have been eliminated. These principles are not supposed to say those problems are to be ignored.

Prof. Fung said these principles would require money from the legislature. He asked whether the Faculty Compensation Committee had any priorities if the increase is very small. Prof. Magid said the point of these principles was to provide a rationale when making compensation decisions. Prof. Dillon said a few years ago, the Senate approved some principles about retirement. This is along those lines.

Prof. Patten suggested that "temporary" and "permanent" be left out on item two so that it would not look like the Senate was endorsing temporary adjustments. Prof. Magid agreed to strike those words, but noted that the presidential professorships are temporary salary adjustments. Prof. Friedrich suggested the following language for item one: "The University strives to achieve high standards..." Prof. Magid agreed to that amendment.

The following principles, as amended, were approved on a voice vote.

1. The University strives to achieve high standards of excellence in new faculty appointments. Compensation for new faculty should be competitive with the best institutions.

2. To stimulate and reward high faculty achievement, substantial merit-based salary adjustments should be regularly awarded.

3. Teaching, public service, and research and creative activity are all enhanced significantly by faculty continuity. The University should invest in human capital through a program of regular cost of living and other salary adjustments designed to build long-term relationships between the University and its faculty.


Prof. Ruth Okediji (Law) was elected Secretary, and Prof. Hugh Benson (Philosophy) was elected Chair-Elect of the Senate for 1998-99.


The following faculty were elected to fill vacancies on Senate standing committees:

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, 1998-99 term, 3 vacancies

To replace Hugh Benson (Philosophy), Ruth Gana Okediji (Law), and William Patten (AME).

Donn Edwards (Assistant Professor of Ballet and Acting Chair of Dance)

Gus Friedrich (Professor of Communication)

Will Sutton (Associate Professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering)


To replace Michelle Hanna (Chemistry & Biochemistry) and Roy Knapp (Petroleum & Geological Engineering), 1998-01 term:

Barbara Hillyer (Professor and Chair of Human Relations)

Cal Stoltenberg (Professor of Educational Psychology)

To complete the 1998-00 term of Susan Laird (Educational Leadership & Policy Studies):

Roy Knapp (Mewbourne Professor and Interim Director of Petroleum and Geological Engineering)


To replace Susan Vehik (Anthropology), 1998-01 term:

Trent Gabert (Professor of Health and Sport Sciences)


To replace Donald Pisani (History) and Kenneth Wedel (Social Work), 1998-01 term:

Donald Pisani (Merrick Professor of History)

Kenneth Wedel (Professor of Social Work)


Certificates of appreciation were presented to the following outgoing senators who completed full three-year terms (1995-98): Hugh Benson, David Durica, Davis Egle, Wayne Elisens, Bing Fung, Paul Gilje, Anuj Gupta, Barbara Hillyer, Bonnie Konopak, Sheena Murphy, Allison Palmer, Susan Shaughnessy, James Sipes, Cal Stoltenberg, and K. Thulasiraman. Certificates were also presented to the other senators whose terms were expiring and to the outgoing members of the Senate Executive Committee. Prof. Dillon thanked the faculty for their service on the Senate and for the opportunity to work with them. She encouraged them to consider a leadership position in the Senate. She also thanked the administrative coordinator, Sonya Fallgatter, for the critical role she plays in the work of the faculty.


The Faculty Senate unanimously approved the following resolution of appreciation to Prof. Connie Dillon, outgoing Senate Chair:

WHEREAS, Professor Dillon has led rather than followed, encouraged rather than disparaged, taught as well as learned, advised and sought advice;

WHEREAS, she braved the jaws of the regents' meetings to advocate for the faculty and even capture two specimens to be brought before us for examination;

WHEREAS, she worked tirelessly to make lemonade from the lemons brought to us by the administration in the form of Post-Tenure Review;

WHEREAS, she oversaw the first ever attempts at budget balancing by the Athletic Department that miraculously were not fallaciously described publicly as required by gender equity;

WHEREAS, Professor Dillon has always remained of good cheer, found humor a healing balm and listening a virtue;

WHEREAS, Connie has always been a friend of the faculty, defended academic freedom, and promoted open discourse;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate of the University of Oklahoma expresses its sincere appreciation and admiration for the tireless efforts made by Professor Dillon on behalf of academic excellence and her steady and thoughtful leadership in the highest tradition of collegial governance.

Prof. Holmes presented a certificate of appreciation, engraved clock, and a gavel to Prof. Dillon. Prof. Holmes then assumed the office of 1998-99 Senate Chair.


The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. The next regular session of the Senate will be held at 3:30p.m. on Monday, September 14, 1998, in Jacobson Faculty Hall 102.


Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator


Trent Gabert, Secretary


Appendix II

University of Oklahoma Copyright Policy



The University recognizes and encourages its faculty, staff and student body to participate in creative and scholarly activities as an inherent part of the educational process. It is the broad policy of the University to promote creativity and scholarly activities and expand the frontiers of human attainment in those areas to which the pursuits of the University are dedicated.


Copyrights are created by the Constitution and the laws of the United States to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to authors the exclusive rights to their works and writings. The basic objectives of the University's policy concerning copyright include the following:

a) To maintain the University's academic policy of encouraging research and scholarship as such without regard to potential gain from royalties or other income.

b) To make copyrightable materials created pursuant to University objectives available in the public interest under conditions that will promote their effective utilization.

c) To provide adequate incentive and recognition to faculty and staff through proceeds derived from their works.

d) To stimulate creativity across all media.


3.1 Ownership of works produced by University faculty, staff and students

In keeping with the above policy and basic objectives and traditional academic practice, ownership of copyrights to works created by University faculty, staff and students shall reside in the creators of the works, without regard to medium of expression, except as specifically provided by the other provisions of this policy.

3.2 University-owned works

The University of Oklahoma shall own copyrights in works created within the scope of employment with the University that are

(a) created by an employee under an assignment to produce, under the direction of others, a work of specific content for the use of the University; and

(b) not a substantial part of a work of scholarship, or of teaching, research, creative achievement or service as defined in Faculty Handbook § 3.6 (irrespective of the creator's status as faculty, staff or student), unless the service is service to the University that is not in substantial part scholarship, teaching, research or creative achievement.


3.3 Sponsored works

Ownership of copyrights to works produced in the performance of a written agreement between the University and a third-party/sponsor shall be controlled by the terms of the agreement. If the agreement does not provide for copyright ownership, ownership shall be governed by the other provisions of this policy.

3.4 Commissioned works

Ownership of copyrights to works produced for University purposes by persons not employed by the University or by University employees outside their regular University employment (commissioned works) normally shall reside with the University. In all cases, copyright ownership shall be specified in a written agreement signed by the parties.

3.5 Student works

Ownership of copyright to works created by enrolled students without the use of University funds (other than Student Financial Aid) shall reside in the creator(s) unless the work is created within the scope of employment with the University or is a sponsored (contracted) or commissioned work for which ownership is specified in a written agreement. As a condition of enrollment and the award of degrees, the University shall have an irrevocable, non-exclusive, free-of-cost and world-wide right to reproduce in any media and distribute to the public, on a non-commercial basis, copies of students' theses and dissertations.

3.6 Agreements concerning ownership

This policy does not prevent the proposal and negotiation of an agreement that the University shall have the copyright in or a royalty-free license to use a work created by one or more University employees within the scope of employment, when necessary to secure the University's interest in its ability to use a work created for institutional purposes or when it is reasonable for the University to condition a special commitment of University resources on the University's freedom to use or to control commercial exploitation of a work created with those resources. The terms of any such agreement shall give reasonable protection to the interests of the creator(s), which include the quality and integrity of the work, recognition for creation of the work, ability to use knowledge, expertise, research and creative achievement in other employment, and participation in revenues and royalties derived from a work or other remuneration for its creation. Employees shall not unreasonably withhold assent to such an agreement. All such agreements must be in writing to be enforceable. (Note: resolution of conflicts about this will occur under the "Resolution of Conflict" section of the policy.)

3.7 Personal works

Ownership of copyrights to works prepared outside the scope of University employment resides in the creators of the works, with the exception of "specially ordered or commissioned" works designated as "works made for hire" by express written agreement in accordance with the Copyright Act. Use of depletable University resources (e.g. office supplies, paper, chemicals) to prepare such personal works is prohibited unless arrangements are made with the University for the use and replacement of the resources. Use of non-depletable resources (e.g. office space, office computers, library facilities for which special charges are not normally made), and resources generally made available to the public without charge, is permitted.

3.8 Jointly originated works

Ownership of copyright to jointly originated words shall be determined by separately assessing the category of work of each creator under this Section 3. Rights between joint owners of a copyright shall be determined pursuant to copyright law.


4.1 The University may assign or license its copyrights to others. The University shall share revenue which it receives through copyrights with the creators, as provided hereafter. Specific provisions of sponsored agreements (grants or contracts) or other third-party contracts may govern rights and revenue distribution. Accordingly, any royalty share or expenses contractually committed to such third parties shall normally be deducted before revenues accrue or before the creator's share is distributed. In all events, revenue sharing with the creator(s) may not violate the terms of any funding agreement or applicable laws and regulations.

4.2 The revenues received from a University owned copyright (excepting commissioned works) after deducting costs and expenses pursuant to paragraph 4.1 (net revenue) shall be shared with faculty creators as follows:

a) the first $5,000.00 of net revenue will be paid to the creator(s);

b) thereafter, faculty creators will receive sixty percent (60%) of such net revenue

c) the remaining forty percent (40%) of net revenue to the University will be dedicated to research purposes and to the promotion of original works.

4.3 Notwithstanding the above or anything else to the contrary herein, staff employees are not eligible to share revenues received from the university owned copyrights where such employees create copyrightable works as a part of their normal responsibilities of University employment. Provided, a staff employee may apply to the appropriate Vice President for resulting from a specific project upon a showing that his/her duties and responsibilities in that project are, in practical effect, substantially the same as those of a faculty member.


5.1 Release to the creator. An individual creator of a University owned work may seek transfer of the University owned copyright to him/herself by making a written request to the appropriate Provost. If the University decides not to exploit such work, then it shall transfer the copyright, by written agreement, to the individual creator to the extent consistent with any applicable third-party agreement or law. Provided, such transfer shall be subject to such conditions as may be agreed upon in writing between the individual creator(s) and the Provost. Provided further, the University shall retain such rights as it deems necessary to perform its obligations under law or any contract/grant arrangement with third parties.

5.2 Disclosure and protection. An individual creator of a University owned copyrightable work shall protect the work by placing the following statutory copyright notice on all copies thereof ("Copyright (insert year produced, e.g., 2000), the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma"). If the creator believes the work may have commercial value, he/she shall promptly provide written disclosure of the work to the appropriate Vice President for Research.

5.3 Cooperation. Creators of copyrightable works subject to this policy and the University shall cooperate as reasonably necessary to effect the terms of this policy. For example, if copyright to a work vests in the University by law but it is to be owned by the creator(s) under this policy, the University will, upon request and to the extent consistent with its legal obligations to third parties, promptly execute such documents as will transfer copyright to the creator(s).

5.4 Provosts. The Provosts, Norman Campus and the Health Sciences Center, shall be responsible for administering the copyright affairs of the University in a manner consistent with this policy. The Provosts, in consultation with the Copyright Committee on each campus, shall cooperate to establish written directives to be approved by the President of the University and distributed to the employees and students of the University, which shall govern the procedure to be followed in processing copyrighted works created within the University.

5.5 University not a fiduciary. The University does not act as a fiduciary for any person concerning consideration received under the terms of this policy


The terms of this copyright policy are a part of any contractual relationship of the University with any member of the faculty, staff or student body. This policy, as amended from time to time, shall be deemed to be a part of the conditions of employment of every University employee and a part of the conditions of enrollment and attendance of every student at the University.


Should disputes arise relative to the distribution of royalties and/or ownership of copyright between the creator and the University, the matter will be referred to the Copyright Committee, which will make recommendations to the President for proper resolution of the disputes. Either the University or creator may contact the Chairman of the Faculty Senate or Provost to arrange to have the Copyright Committee meet to consider such disputes.


a) The University shall have a Copyright Committee for each Campus that shall consider and investigate disputes among administrators, faculty, or staff and shall recommend appropriate solutions to the President. The Committee's responsibilities shall include, but not be limited to, disputes concerning:

1) Ownership of copyright

2) Terms of commissions

3) Distribution of royalties for the University-owned works

4) Distribution of royalties for works that may have required specific and unusual University expenses

b) The Copyright Committee of each campus shall have as its members:

* One member appointed by the President for a four-year term;

* Two staff members, one appointed by the President, one appointed by the Staff Senate. All appointments are for three years; and

* Three faculty members with two appointed by the Faculty Senate and one by the President. All appointments are for three-year terms. Tie votes will be settled by chair of Faculty Senate, who shall be an ex-officio member of the committee.

Each member of the Committee shall have one vote. The Committee shall keep its own records, determine its own procedures, and elect its own chair who shall report to the President. The Committee also may review this policy from time to time and may recommend changes to the President.


Appendix III


For current membership list, see


Jack Jordan (Art)

Walter Kelley (Mathematics)


Osborne Reynolds (Law)

ATHLETICS COUNCIL (three-year term):

Alex Kondonassis (Economics)


Greg Russell (Political Science)

BUDGET COUNCIL (three-year term):

Marlys Lipe (Accounting)

CAMPUS PLANNING COUNCIL (three-year term):

Theodore Drab (Interior Design)


Kay Womack (University Libraries)

CAMPUS TENURE COMMITTEE (three-year term):

David London (Geology & Geophysics)

Darryl McCullough (Mathematics)


Peter Krug (Law)


James Forgotson (Geology & Geophysics)


Lotsee Patterson (Library & Information Studies)

FACULTY APPEALS BOARD (four-year term):

M. Cengiz Altan (AME)

Gordon Atkinson (Chemistry & Biochemistry)

Charles Bert (AME)

David Carnevale (Human Relations)

Davis Egle (AME)

George Emanuel (AME)

Ken Merrill (Philosophy)

Simin Pulat (Industrial Engineering)

Sandra Ragan (Communication)

Leslie Rankin-Hill (Anthropology)

David Tan (Educ. Lead. & Pol. St.)

Alan Velie (English)

Larry Wieder (Communication)

Catherine Hobbs (English) to complete Yedida Stillman's 1996-00 term


Feng Lai (AME)

Nandu Nayar (Finance)

HONORS COUNCIL (three-year term):

Marilyn Ogilive (History of Science Collections)


June Lester (Library & Information Studies)

Alfred Striz (AME)

LEGAL PANEL (three-year term):

Maureen Weston (Law)


Bill Patten (AME)

RESEARCH COUNCIL (three-year term):

Heidi Karriker (Modern Languages) [humanities and arts]

Gus Friedrich (Communication) [social sciences and education]


Regina Sullivan (Zoology)

ROTC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (three-year term):

Lotsee Patterson (Library & Information Studies)


Samir Barman (Management)


George Emanuel (AME)

Chris Swoyer (Philosophy)