CAUT
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONFERENCE REPORT
The CAUT Intellectual Property Conference was held October 27-29 in Ottawa. The national conference attracted about 150 participants representing various groups from universities, government, and media. The objective of the conference was to “provide a forum to discuss the role of intellectual property in the academic environment and to identify means by which the academic community could control its impact on campus.” Speakers included Andy Kaplan-Myrth from Creative Commons Canada, Kathleen Shearer from the Canadian Association of Research Libraries, Paul Jones and David Robinson from CAUT, Angela Regnier from the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) and an enthusiastic opening address from Michael Geist, University of Ottawa.
Over the course of the three day conference, panel speakers and workshops participants debated the issues of users’ rights versus creators’ rights; whether intellectual property (IP) produced in publicly funded universities should be freely accessible; copyright law reform and Canada’s position within international IP treaties.
Speakers who supported the tenets of shared learning made recommendations on
how the academic community can assist in restructuring the economic model of
scholarly publishing by using open access software. Using examples such as MIT open courseware,
University of British Columbia’s Public Knowledge Project and University of
Ottawa’s first year law podcasts, the first panel of speakers suggested that an
existence of a ‘global commons’ model of information distribution and knowledge
sharing will widen dissemination, enrich education and accelerate
research. Paul Whitey, the City
Librarian from Vancouver Public Library, Laura Murray from Queen’s University,
and Angela Regnier from CFS shared their perspectives on fair dealing for users
and encouraged academics, students and librarians to work together to encourage
users’ rights.
Free and open access however can be a tough sell to many creators and university administrations alike, particularly when it comes to patents. In defense of those academics who may want to commercialize through their university, Martin Phillipson (University of Saskatchewan) warned it would be unrealistic to expect universities to further decrease any claims they have on their employees’ intellectual property. He suggested that unions adopt broad intellectual property language into their collective agreements. He stressed that the language should leave room for interpretation, particularly because of contemporary IP issues. Phillipson was also very explicit in his suggestion to seek professional legal advice (when financially possible), to check for outdated language and to use different language for patents than would be used for copyright. Paul Jones from CAUT and Sam Troscow from University of Western Ontario also spoke to the importance of addressing IP ownership issues in collective agreements and both urged for faculties and staff to resist the increasing trend of commoditization of IP on campuses.
David Robinson from CAUT and Myra Tawfik from the University of Windsor addressed Canada’s IP obligations to international treaties. Citing the Agreement of Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Tawfik familiarized the group with some of the negative aspects of these treaties including the erosion of fair dealing. She argued that it is too convenient for the Canadian government to align its copyright reform with international treaties and suggested a “Canadian made” solution could be found.
Andy Kaplan-Myrth (Creative Commons Canada), Kathleen Shearer (CARL), and David Bruce from Queen’s University were the last panel of the weekend. Kaplan-Myrth explained the logistics and benefits of obtaining a Creative Commons license while Shearer highlighted the Open Access movement in the United Kingdom and the United States. Bruce discussed the importance of creators maintaining moral rights over their works and warned about the pitfalls of waiving such rights.
The conference was an excellent opportunity to discuss and debate intellectual property issues. Many competing interests are involved and there is no obvious winner in the debate. The overwhelming message of the conference was for people to work towards a balance that encourages both users’ and creators’ rights.
Jennifer Adams