Who has intellectual rights over school work ?

[Berberis]

As I understand it, the school would seek to claim ownership.

 

This is also true of university students. Any work produced is said to be copyright of the institution. Morally it's a sketchy issue... but it should be made clear in the terms and conditions. However, a student on my old course had some issues in this area. He won a competition run by MTV, but the university staked a copyright claim. But, when MTV took umbridge with the claim, the university backed down.

 

Although I believe employment law differs slightly, in that the work produced during working hours, and at your place of work, the copyright is retained by the employer.

 

University students are adults.

[Rushup]

University students are adults.

 

I wholeheartedly congratulate you and your ability to identify that university students are adults.

[f0rd]

When was this changed? The act of 'handing in' is in effect giving your rights up in return for a qualification or mark towards your grade for the year...[/QUote]

No it isn't, unless there is a contractual agreement to transfer copyright when the student signed up, the creator remains the copyright owner. If there is no agreement, how are you giving up your rights? All you are doing is submitting it for marking.

 

I know at Leeds that when I composed a piece of music for an assignment at University,they would retain the copyright, because I agreed to it when I joined, and it was made pretty clear with regards to IP at Leeds, as they viewed students as employees.

 

However Sussex University go for the default position, and don't get students to transfer IP to the University.

 

I'm just commenting on what I know about University, and what I know with regards to IP about Music, but it's the same thing really.

 

Also, I can't see how primary & secondary schools could possibly do what Leeds University does and classify student as an employee, seeing how full time education is compulsory.

 

This even went as far in the early years of this decade to drama students having to pay 10% of theatrical earnings to the college...

 

I'm not aware of the case sorry.

[L00b]

f0rd is right.

 

hard2miss, unless your child's rights have been signed away as a condition of receiving tuition (what happens often in Universities at enrolment time) at his school, then your child owns the copyright in his artwork.

 

At best, the school benefits from a license (exclusive or not) under the copyright, which is different from outright ownership, and does not in any way allow the school to deprive the child from his original work (by destroying it).

 

See my PM

A student at a University owns copyright, say for example a University holds onto a piece of work, unless the copyright is transferred, the copyright would remain with the student, i.e. the creator.

On that point, however, Universities regularly slip an obligation to assign IP (as and when created, and sometimes worded in such a way for the assignment to be performed automatically) within the enrolment contract. The 'automatic assignment' side of things would probably fall at the first hurdle in Court (you can't assign future IP, and any such contract clause is unenforceable under current UK & EU legislation), but the obligation to assign would remain, and be binding.

[upinwath]

It would make the funding for schools seem to be below the necessary figure, but that's a Government or a Council problem. Nothing to do with the OP's children being allowed to keep their own artwork.

 

Fair chance they are underfunded and, as you say, it's a problem for those in power but it's the kids that have less chances to do things because of it.

That's what makes the OP selfish.

[Grandad.Malky]

The bottom-line is its a fund raising for the school (and private companies:(), when the kids were little they did a doodle which was printed onto a dishcloth along with all their mates doodles and when they were older they wrote a poem which went into a book with all their mates poems.

 

I can’t remember how much the dishcloth or book were but they were a money making racket like your picture frame.

[L00b]

Can an under 16 own it, or is it the parent?

Yes, there is no age restriction on ownership of any IP.

[f0rd]

Can an under 16 own it, or is it the parent?

 

If they can't, wouldn't in loco parentis come into play - so the school would own it?

 

From what I read it's the creator that owns and I have not seen anything that would stop anyone under 16 owning the copyright.

 

If I had time (I don't sorry as it's mine and the gf 1 year anniversary... and I need to come up with something to do!) I would try and find the work of a recent author or composer under 16, and I am pretty sure they would own the copyright (if they haven't sold it on). But I don't have time to verify it.

 

I guess the parents would only get involved in matters which need consent.

As the act of creating a piece of work doesn't need consent at all, but licensing it and stuff does.

[L00b]

Interesting - so (i edited this in and i guess you were still replying) how can they give permission for anyone to use it since they can't agree to a contract

Permission does not require a contract (e.g. think about published works or extracts of works cited in other later published works: referencing the earlier works or extracts does not require permission, but reproducing them in whole or part, does). Commercial exploitation should require a contract (too often, unfortunately it still does not). But if contract there is or must be, involving a minor's work, then that's when the legal guardian steps in. Think of it as an implied Power of Attorney-type situation, with proceeds (if any consideration is required) held in constructive trust and whatnot.

 

f0rd, I'll save you the time (for your GF's sake ...and therefore yours ): don't bother looking for it, take my word for it (it's my bread and butter ).

 

By way of related anecdote, the youngest UK Patentee is 5, and obtained grant of his patent application last year (if I remember right) for an improved broom.

That's what makes the OP selfish.

I don't think the OP is selfish for wanting restitution of her kid's original artwork (as far as I can tell, it's not as if she asked for a cut of the proceeds, or a free framed copy, or somesuch). There's a line between facilitating school funding by not enforcing against infringement, and being unduly disposessed of one's work (in her kid's case).

[gotty]

I know that this is a very old thread but, as a copyright specialist, I can add some real facts for those who encounter the thread whilst searching.

 

A child creating any work at school (or indeed anywhere else) is the first owner of copyright - there is no if, and or but. The copyright ownership is definitive and, except in the limited exceptions within the provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (see below), anyone making a copy of that work without the child's permission will be breaching copyright. If the copied work is subsequently sold, then a criminal offence may have been commited.

 

However, if a child creates a painting using the school's materials (paper, paints etc) then the actual physical painting belongs to the school. They can do whatever they like with it - except they cannot make a single copy (except within the limited provisions of the Act).

 

Someone earlier said that copyright is with whoever commissions a work - this is NOT TRUE. If you commission a photographer to take wedding photos, the photographer owns the copyright and will sell you copies, but you cannot legally make copies of those photos (unless you specifically agree otherwise).

 

The issue of a child giving permission for a work to be copied is more complex, but as a general rule only someone over 16 may do so. Under 16 it would be a legal parent or guardian and, without that permission IN WRITING (which would include emails), the school cannot legally copy anything a child produces in school (again, noting exceptions below).

 

It's important to note that nothing changes as the child goes to university, but when in employment the situation changes as copyright is held by the employer (but only as an employee, and not as a contractor, who would own the copyright).

 

The Act does allow copying without permission in certain limited (and often complex) circumstances, such as for criticism, review, reporting current events, incidental inclusion amongst others.

 

To give you a simple example - Johnny paints a wonderful picture of the school building, and the school decides that it wants to keep the painting and display it. This is perfectly legal - Johnny has no right to the painting itself. However, his parents could come in and make a copy of it quite legally, or the school could charge Johnny for the paper, materials and the share of the cost of the teacher's time (on a per hour, per child basis).

 

The school then decides it wants to put a copy of the picture in the Head's office, and they make a reprographic copy. They have broken the law, and breached the child's copyright. But legal remedy is very limited, and the child's parents would have to sue the school.

 

The school then decides to sell copies of the painting. They may have commited a criminal offence.