The headline seems written to guide the reader towards concluding that this is IP theft.
If ASU holds the rights to the underlying IP (such as if the work is a “work made for hire”), it’s not at all obvious that they need specific additional permission to compile
or remix the IP.
The legality of this doesn’t seem like the most important factor here. The larger issue is that somebody thought it was a good idea to sell material “grounded in trusted ASU courses” without involving or even informing the actual professors who teach those courses. And of course this material, which is trading on the professors’ reputation, is low-quality slop: “error-laden, jumbled, lacking context, and confused.”
If I was one of these professors, I would be livid. Legality aside, this was a miserable thing for the ASU president to do, and I hope he learns from his mistakes.
The headline seems written to guide the reader towards concluding that this is IP theft.
If ASU holds the rights to the underlying IP (such as if the work is a “work made for hire”), it’s not at all obvious that they need specific additional permission to compile or remix the IP.
The legality of this doesn’t seem like the most important factor here. The larger issue is that somebody thought it was a good idea to sell material “grounded in trusted ASU courses” without involving or even informing the actual professors who teach those courses. And of course this material, which is trading on the professors’ reputation, is low-quality slop: “error-laden, jumbled, lacking context, and confused.”
If I was one of these professors, I would be livid. Legality aside, this was a miserable thing for the ASU president to do, and I hope he learns from his mistakes.