Does Teacher Own Copyright to Lectures?

Dear Rich: I have been researching to find out whether a copyright attaches to course lectures and any recordings thereof made by the school (whether audio only or audiovisual). I have a client who would like to register several volumes of lectures, but I'm not sure copyright even attaches. I assume that most college professors get their teaching material from outside sources, but they might present the information in a unique and original way. How does this affect and their right to copyright their lectures and recordings of lectures (or really, the schools right to do so, pursuant to "work for hire" doctrine)? Although the underlying lecture facts are free for all to use, it's our experience that most lectures are sufficiently original to be copyrightable.
As for who owns the lectures ... Most professors likely retain rights to their lectures and notes. This is not due to statutory requirements -- the law seems clear that copyright vests in the university because the lectures are work made for hire (that is the professor is an employee of the institution and the lectures are prepared within the course of employment). However, in practice most schools permit professors to maintain ownership of lectures, notes, and related materials either by written arrangement (in some cases this grant is set forth in the employee handbook or under posted work made for hire guidelines) or it's simply implied by the lack of enforcement. (Note: A failure to cede back copyright to professors may inhibit the school's ability to attract talented teachers.)
Fixation. One issue that pops up when making a copyright analysis is fixation -- whether it is sufficient and with authorization (the professor wrote it all down somewhere) or whether it is without authorization (a student taking notes). If a lecture is primarily extemporaneous and not fixed with the speaker's authorization, it may not be protected under federal copyright but may be protected under what's known as a common law copyright principle. In any case, the issue surfaced anew over a website that encourages students to post lecture notes.

Does Ruling Mean University Doesn't Own Rights?

Dear Rich: I read that the Supreme Court ruled that universities can't claim ownership of inventions? Is this ruling retroactive or does it only affect inventions that occur after the ruling? We think you may have misinterpreted things. If you're one of the thousands of scientists, professors, or instructors who have assigned rights to a university, we're sorry to have to break it to you but the Supreme Court's recent ruling doesn't change the landscape quite as much as the headlines seem to promise (BTW, the latter link is one of the better explanations of the case).
What Happened? In a case involving Stanford University and the Roche pharmaceutical company, the Court was faced with two agreements signed by a university scientist: one in which he promised to assign rights to the university; and another in which he actually assigned rights to a company that was later purchased by Roche. The Supreme Court ruled that the agreement in which rights were actually assigned took precedence over the agreement in which rights were promised.
The Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford's position was that the inventor's rights automatically vested in the university under the Bayh-Dole Act. The Bayh-Dole Act, enacted in 1980, permits universities to claim patent rights in inventions created with federal funding at a university. The university may then license these discoveries to private industry—a practice some critics have likened to corporate welfare. Curiously, one of the prerequisites for the university to claim these rights is that the university must have written agreements with its faculty and technical staff requiring disclosure and assignment of inventions. The ruling won't invalidate past assignments. But problems may occur in cases like this one, where two assignments appear to conflict. In addition, you can expect that universities will stop using language in which inventors promise to assign and instead automatically assign inventions. That seems like a silly distinction to the rest of the world but there has to be some justification for patent lawyer fees.