Hi Colleen, I’m going to challenge your point for the sake of argument. MIT’s policy is similar to that of a lot of work places where copyright is held by the employer and not the employee. I’m not saying I’m for or against this practice, but rather that this is a consistent practice. That is if you consider that the student is being treated like an employee provided with grant funds (salary) and resources (found in the “work environment”). The policy does go on to say “MIT does not assert rights to a student’s thesis if it was authored without sponsored research funds and without significant use of MIT-administered facilities/funds.” This means that students who are self-funded and using their own materials can retain the copyright on whatever materials they produce. Considering these points, I’m curious as to what you think.
I’m also curious about how you would respond to the second stimulus question from the “Ownership” section:
Would it be fair and reasonable to consider joint ownership (i.e. institution, educator and learner) of the intellectual property in the event that the idea is commercialised?
I would add to that question by asking what proportion of the profits should go to the institution, the educator, and the student, and why?