Film Students and Copyright

Copy and pasted from the above link. A very cranky stu going on a rant:

... however, your university work is NOT the property of the university. Unless you've explictly signed a contract which assigns your IP to the university, its going to be very hard for them to prove that they actually own it. Remember, you're PAYING them to go to university.

(Though Bond is private, so there may be differences. BUt check the contracts)

To which the response by a Tony Coca-Cola was:

Stupid law students.
Yeah, I don't think so Stuart.
If a film is made for assessment, using University facilities and the like, it's therefore technically a University production.
It's kind of a weird thing, but they don't enforce it too stringently, so it's usually all cool.
The only time it gets dodgy is when there's things like copyright issues to consider (e.g. you use a non-original piece of music in a student film and don't get the rights)
It's okay when it's only for assessment, but once it's out of the university and on your showreel or in a festival or something, then the University becomes liable and that's when it all goes to shit.
But anyway, something to talk about.

Which, of course, got me right riled up. A case of bad law + calling me a stupid law student. So I responded heavily:

is work on copyright published by the Attorney-General's department.

"If a film is made for assessment, using University facilities and the like, it's therefore technically a University production."

Why? What is your LEGAL BASIS for this assertion? If I lend you my video camera to make a short film, do I then own the copyright in it? If you PAY ME to use my video camera, do I then own the copyright in it?

And what part of the copyright do they own? The literary component? The cinematograph film? The soundtrack?

Read this legal paper on the issue:

Who Should Own Student IP

s98 of the CPA deals specifically with the ownership of copyright in the cinematograph film (as separate from the soundtrack and literary components).

The assumption is that the maker of the film owns the copyright (subsection 2) unless another party provides 'valuable consideration' for the maker to produce the film, in which case that other party owns the copyright (subsection 3). FWIW, 'maker' is defined in s189 to be 'the director, the producer, and the screenwriter'.

The question then, which is addressed in the above article, is what is considered 'valuable consideration' in the context of university. Is them giving you equipment to make a film and asssing you 'valuable consideration'? Thats a not that hard a question.

I don't think it qualifies as valuable consideration. Afterall, you're PAYING to be doing that course - either through HECS or upfront fees. In other words, theirso called 'valuable consideration' is hardly in exchange for you making the film for them. Rather, their provision of equipment and services is IN EXCHANGE for you directly or indirectly forking over the cash to use them. It would be akin to me hiring a camera from, say, Lemac and then providing that camera and THEN saying they own copyright in my work. Not fucking likely.

Unless you've EXPLICITY signed an agreement assigning ownership of the work to the University, its goign to be very hard for them to prove that it is.

Which is exactly why University's are now making their research students sign contracts governing control over IP... and most Universities use 'co-ownership' deals with students... if they get the IP assigned at all.

When I handed in my thesis, I signed an agreement to let the university put the thesis in the library.

Don't believe, talks to your solictors. I did the research and talked to a number of differen firms, and they all agreed with me. Copyright resides in the students unless they sign an explicit agreement to the contrary.

http://www.bond.edu.au/research/hdr/h_9guidelines.htm

"The University makes no claim on intellectual property (IP) developed by students in the normal course of their studies or research unless its ownership is governed in some way by a ‘specified agreement' (e.g. a research contract; ARC, NHMRC or other grant; industry funded scholarship; CRC deed)."

It degenerated from there because 'Tony' didn't believe me and said that somehow media departments are exempt from this. I got cranky cause its the same shit I got from my University in my honours year. Despite being presented with LEGAL arguments about why students own the IP, the department simply refused to believe us... as if steadfastly holding to such a belief somehow made it the law. Sorry, but ownership is a question of law, not what the head of department wants it to be.

I've archived this as much for my own purposes and ego as anythign else. If you feel I've misrepresented the debate, feel free to chime in. I've yet to hear a convincing *legal* argument as to why Universities SHOULD own works Student's have completed for assessment, particularly in Australia which doesn't have work-for-hire in copyright. Copyright in this country is dictated by the CPA and contract law... that's about it.