PG County Board of Education: Are you crazy???

Answer: Apparently.  See:
This and this.

The Prince Georges County (Maryland) Board of Education is trying to assert ownership of the copyright of employees' & students' works in a REALLY broadly construed way.  In addition to claiming copyright on what could reasonably considered "works for hire," such as the school system's website, the Board wants to claim ownership of copyright for basically anything that educators create for the classroom (like their lesson plans, handouts, and bulletin board displays), regardless of whether the work is produced during work hours and on school property or elsewhere.  Furthermore, any works created by employees OR STUDENTS "during school/work hours, with the use of school system materials, and within the scope of an employee's position or student's classroom work assignment(s) are the properties of the Board of Education."

There are just so many things wrong with this.

First of all, if the policy works you could have all sorts of stupid scenarios:

• "I'm sorry, Mommy.  We made valentines for you in art today, but we're not allowed to give them to you because they belong to the school."
• That essay you were going to send in with your college application as a writing sample?  Sorry!  It was a class assignment and you researched it during period 4 using the school system's resources.  It's not yours and you are not authorized to make a copy of it to send to the college of your dreams (or to any other college for that matter).
• Sure the school will let you publish that novel that started as a class writing assignment.  Perhaps the school will even allow you to have a small percentage of the royalties!  (The idea that students might publish works that started as school projects is not as far fetched as it seems.  The Washington Post article I linked to above refers to a book, written "in elementary school for a project" that the young authors published.)

Second, what happens to the teachers who move to another school district? Do they have to recreate all their teaching materials from scratch?

Third, such sweeping claims of copyright are counter-productive. Why should students think about heeding appropriate copyright restrictions when they are faced with such ridiculous ones?

Fourth, this is total chutzpah.  By what right can the Board of Education simply tell students that they do not have rights to their own work? (The situation with employees seems more complex to me because of work for hire rules.) Students have no reasonable alternative if they are unhappy with the Board's usurpation of their rights.  It's not like a contract where they can either agree to the terms or go elsewhere.  (Yes, I know private school is a possibility, but it's not a realistic option for the vast majority of students.)  On the bright side, I suspect that this law is likely not going to stand up to court challenges.  From the Washington Post article linked to above:

Peter Jaszi, a law professor with the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic at American University, called the proposal in Prince George’s “sufficiently extreme.”
Jaszi said the policy sends the wrong message to students about respecting copyright. He also questioned whether the policy, as it applies to students, would be legal.
He said there would have to be an agreement between the student and the board to allow the copyright of his or her work. A company or organization cannot impose copyright on “someone by saying it is so,” Jaszi said. “That seems to be the fundamental difficulty with this.”

Peter, in his lawyerly way, politely points out the problems with the policy.  I'll be less polite: This is a stupid, stupid policy.  And I'm hoping that Peter and his colleagues will litigate this if the Board of Education doesn't quickly revoke the new rules.

And finally, I'll immodestly add in a link to my book, Knowledge Power: Intellectual Property, Information, and Privacy, for those interested in an introduction to the history, politics, and global political economy of intellectual property rights.