Texas school requires students to give up copyrights to their works

[Ranchu]

"TEXAS — A month and a half into the new school year, junior Anthony Mazur is immersed in yet another battle with school and district administrators over the copyright and ownership of his photographs.

Mazur, who made national headlines last school year after the school district attempted to stop him from selling pictures of school sporting events to interested parents, is now fighting against another rule by the district. All students in the school’s yearbook class now have to sign an agreement that any work they produce as part of the class using district technology “belongs solely to the district.”

The Lewisville Independent School District contract says images will be “considered ‘works made for hire’ as the work is specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, including but not limited to a school newspaper or yearbook.” By signing this form, the contract says, students “release any claim of ownership to images taken of other students with equipment owned by the district.” The form is necessary to use district equipment, like school cameras or computers.


[...]"


http://www.splc.org/article/2015/10...ents-to-sign-over-the-copyright-to-their-work

 

[btgc]

And then they take guns to school.

 

[Rob-F]

Unfair and Outrageous!

 

[Rayt]

It is a matter of principle the copyright belongs to the creator. But why would the school district want ownership? I don't understand their position.

 

[johannielscom]

It is a matter of principle the copyright belongs to the creator. But why would the school district want ownership? I don't understand their position.

Money.

10chars

 

[presspass]

Not to defend Texas fascists, but that agreement would be common in the workplace. An employee assigned to photograph an event with company equipment and on company time would not own the copyright. If, however, the event was photographed on the person's own time and with his or her equipment and then offered for sale, the sale agreement could specify which rights are attached to that use. All of that begs the issue of whether a student is an 'employee'.

 

[David_Manning]

Aren't students legal minors? How can they legally sign away their rights? Sounds pretty easy to contest.

For transparency, I live in Texas and have two high school students.

 

[BillBingham2]

Do kids get paid to work on the yearbook/newspaper down in Texas?

It was many years ago in upstate NY we did it for free, one of my sons was on the high school newspaper here in Ames Iowa and he never got paid.

How can it be work for hire without getting paid?

Are High Schools now people too?

B2 (;->

 

[David Murphy]

I am originally from Texas and I don't like the swipes against Texas (a wonderful place to live, work, or study).

A sort of bureaucratic obsession with perceived "intellectual property" is common now in many institutions and is hardly confined to Texas. In my opinion it typically viewed as having more worth than it actually does. Also, as a tax payer, should I not have the same rights as that school or that student to use or sell such photos in any way I please? I helped pay for them - through federal taxes, and if I lived in that school district much more so through property taxes. It sounds like a slippery slope legally.

 

[Ranchu]

Kid's parents, and the kid (?) are paying for the gear too. It seems unique to this Texas school district, rather than as you say, common. It seems to me it probably also has something to do with school privatization, the leeches want another revenue stream and Texas is accomidating to them.

 

[Larry H-L]

I teach at a state school in Ohio, and any work produced in a class under the direction of the instructor is jointly owned by both the student and the university.

This works out fairly well, it allows the instructor to use the work in future teaching materials, but allows the student to retain rights to the work.

In 15 years, I've never seen an instance where the school grabbed the students work or copyright right for profit or promotion, without the school first seeking permission and compensating the student.

 

[gdmcclintock]

45 years ago in the middle of my junior year I walked out of the private high school where I had been sent to be molded into Ivy League material. Although I was "throwing my life away," the school contacted me the following year and requested my photographic archive, all the negatives of all the school activities I had photographed for their yearbooks. I was happy to give them the archive. When they expressed their surprise at my generosity, I told them that my hatred for their school did not change my appreciation for their desire to preserve their history.

The Texas bureaucrats are stupid.

 

[colyn]

If school property was used to take the images, the school owns them. If on the other hand the student uses his/her own property to take the images on his/her own time the school does not have a leg to stand on..

When using school property, you are considered doing the work for the school. Therefore the school does have a right to ownership.

Years ago when I was the school photographer, I could not use any image taken with the schools cameras for personal use but if I used my own camera I could.. When I was in the Navy they owned all images I took with their property and the same when I shot for the newspaper...

So if he is in fact using school property he does not have a right to sell any of the images he takes.. If he wants to sell he needs to get and use his own camera. That way the school cannot force him to stop selling nor can they force him to sign a waiver..

 

[Timmyjoe]

I've seen changes over the last twenty years when it comes to photographing sporting events. It started when I used to cover motor racing and entities like Clear Channel started buying the rights to certain motor sport events, so anyone who took video of the events had to pay Clear Channel to use the videos they shot themselves with their own equipment.

I am now seeing it more and more with high school sports, where the schools are limiting who is allowed to take pictures of their school sporting events and who is allowed to sell images from their sporting events. Kinda sad really, but I don't know the reasoning behind all of it. Seems like the schools are saying these events belong to us, and only we will profit from the sale or promotion of these events.

Sure is different from when I went to high school in the early 1970's.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Texas is not big into the first amendment.

 

[BillBingham2]

If school property was used to take the images, the school owns them. If on the other hand the student uses his/her own property to take the images on his/her own time the school does not have a leg to stand on.........

OK, so who owns it when I use my lens on a school body and my girl friends memory card?

FWIW.....

With the exception of a 6x6 TLR I never used the school stuff, even when they had "Better Stuff". For my first year I learn on my old Konica IIIm while other shot with SLRs from the school. Then I got my Nikkormat...

Never used the Miranda the Yearbook had or the Minoltas the school lab had (open to all students).

 

[BillBingham2]

Texas is not big into the first amendment.

But they do love the 2nd......

 

[kbb]

Kid's parents, and the kid (?) are paying for the gear too. It seems unique to this Texas school district, rather than as you say, common. It seems to me it probably also has something to do with school privatization, the leeches want another revenue stream and Texas is accomidating to them.

Interesting angle.
The "No Child Left Behind" and "Common Core" programs are seen by many in the ed biz as attempts at privatization, or at the least a move by private industry to initiate a wealth transfer from the school budgets to themselves.
All, or most, of the curriculum and testing materials for 'No Child Left Behind' came from businesses in Texas.
It works for the armaments industry, why not the ed biz?
Crooks....

 

[emraphoto]

Not to defend Texas fascists, but that agreement would be common in the workplace. An employee assigned to photograph an event with company equipment and on company time would not own the copyright. If, however, the event was photographed on the person's own time and with his or her equipment and then offered for sale, the sale agreement could specify which rights are attached to that use. All of that begs the issue of whether a student is an 'employee'.

I agree. This has been pretty common for some time. Shooting on someone else's gear and/or time? It's theirs... not saying this can't or shouldn't be challenged but it iosnt new. Pretty much the norm really.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Not to defend Texas fascists, but that agreement would be common in the workplace. An employee assigned to photograph an event with company equipment and on company time would not own the copyright. If, however, the event was photographed on the person's own time and with his or her equipment and then offered for sale, the sale agreement could specify which rights are attached to that use. All of that begs the issue of whether a student is an 'employee'.

I'm a teacher. My students are not employees of Fort Wayne Community Schools. They're not even there by choice. State law in Indiana requires them to attend school until they turn 18. They are not paid to be there.

That's not employment. Employees are paid wages, they choose to work for their employer and they can quit at any time. They can even choose to not work at all, if they wish (and if they don't need the money).

Our district does not take our students' copyrights, even if they use a camera belonging to the school (most of our yearbook photographers use their own cameras anyway). Its about basic respect for our students' rights.