Developments Digital Age Issues and Themes in Library and Information Science IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Developments in the Digital Age Issues and Themes in Library & Information Science Edited by Oshiotse A. Okwilagwe Luke Obasuyi AdetounA. Oyelude Jimoh Rafu IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Stirling-Horden Publishers Ltd. G aaf Building, 110-112 Oyo Road, Orogun, O ff University o f Ibadan, Second Gate, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. Phone: 08023519154 stirlinghorden@ymail.com www.shrlinghorden.com University Post Office Saint Andrews Venue Box 20984 Venus Quarters Ibadan M echanic W orkshops, Sabo Oyo State, Nigeria. Jattu-Uzairue Edo State, Nigeria. © Oshiotse Andrew Okwilagwe Published 2016 ISBN 978-978-032-593-0 All Rights Reserved Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose o f research or private study, criticism or review, as perm itted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents A ct o f Nigeria, this pubhcationm ay not be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means, except with the prior permission in w riting o f the publishers, or in the case o f reprographic reproduction, in accordance w ith the terms o f licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those term s should be sent to the publishers. Stirling-Horden Publishers Ltd. Lagos, Ibadan, Benin City, Jattu-Uzairue. IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Contents Dedication v Notes on Editors vi Notes on Contributors vii Foreword xx Preface xi Section A: Empirical Perspective on Intellectual Property Right in the University of Ibadan 1 1. Towards Exploration and Application of Theoretical Perspectives on Marketing Library and Information Services in Nigeria 3 Oshiotse Andrew Okwilagwe 2. Emerging Trends in Knowledge and Information Organisation 26 Rafiu Jimoh 3. Emerging Trends in Determining the Profile of Modern Information Users 72 Ransome Oboh 4. An Emerging Paradigm of Digital Reference Services 78 Christopher Ukpebor 5. Library and Information Science Practices: Contemporary Issues and Trends 90 Stella C. Nduka 6. The Role of Metadata in Information Processing, Access, Retrieval and Usage 95 Luke Obasuyi \ / i 7. The Potential of Web 2.0 for Library Services and the Academic Community 109 Oluwaseun Obasola 8. Towards users Effective Access and Utilisation of Open Access Resources 116 Luke Obasuyi 9. Implementing Knowledge Management in Academic Libraries 128 Abiola A.A. Omotoso IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY XV 10. Mobile Technology in Library: Delivering Library Services through Mobile Technologies 135 Olubukola Olatise 11. Global Knowledge Economy and EmergingTrends in Library and Information Service Delivery 142 Oseghale Osagie 12. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Use and Electronic Information Services (EIS) Provision in University Libraries 158 Helen Omolara Aribatise 13. Modern Professional Techniques in Information Retrieval 165 Luke Obasuyi Section B: Perspectives on Open Access Initiatives in Academic Libraries 177 14. Ethical and Legal Issues in Intellectual Property Rights Protection in the University of Ibadan 179 Adetoun A. Oyelude 15. Copyright Information Resource Management in the University of Ibadan: A Technical Plan 208 Okoroma, Francisca Nwakaego 16. Digitisation of Intellectual Property in the University of Ibadan: A Technical Plan 246 Alice A. Bamigbola 17. Perceptual Issues and Challenges in Publishing and Intellectual Property Protection in the University of Ibadan 269 Egberedu Mega 18. The Role of Librarians in Intellectual Property Rights Development in The Information Technology Age: A Case Study of Selected Nigerian Universities 300 Akinyosoye, Harry I. T. 19. Perception of the Development of Institutional Repository, Challenges and Benefits of Intellectual Property Protection by Lecturers in the University of Ibadan 338 Samuel O. Ogunniyi 20. Intellectual Property Rights Protection: A Case Study of the Role of the Information Professional in Ibadan Metropolis 369 Adewumi, Cecilia O.B. IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY XVI 21. Librarians’ Perspective of Intellectual Property in University Libraries in Nigereia 387 Charles Ejesei Eruanga 22. A Proposal for Management of Intellectual Property Rights in the University of Ibadan 396 Adedeji Elizabeth Aderonke Section C: Perspectives on Information and Knowledge Organisation 433 23. Common Open Source Software Used for Integrated Library Management among Nigerian Private University Libraries 435 Adetomiwa Basiru 24. Use of Open Access for Enhancing Scholarly Publishing in Developing Countries 441 Farai Adenike Doris 25. Open Access Initiative: Development, Awareness, Benefits and Challenges 451 Ogunmodede Thomas A. 26. Issues in Open Access Initiative: Intellectual Property Rights Governance in Nigeria 475 Oye Peter Olorunleke 27. Digital Rights Management in Nigeria 483 Olubunmi Oludolapo Adesanya 28. Correlational effects of e-publishing and Open Access on copyright and the protection of Intellectual property rights in research 498 Agbo-Are Oyinlola A. 29. ICT Use and Electronic Information Services Provisison in University Libraries 505 Aribatise, Helen Omolara 30. Impact of Open Access on Scholarly Communications in Nigeria 521 Olubunmi Oludolapo Adesanya 31. Concept of Open Access: Its Implication to the Attainment of Nigeria’s Transformation Agenda 543 Akande Femi Titus 32. Ethical and Legal Issues in Information, Intellectual Property and Copyright in Open Access Initiatives in Libraries 556 Lauretta N. Ojei 33. A Survey of the Availability and Use of Print Resources in the Educational System in Nigeria 569 Oshiotse Andrew Okwilagwe & Christopher Ukpebor IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Ethical and Legal Issues in Intellectual Property Rights Protection in the University of Ibadan Adetoun A. Oyelude Introduction Intellectual property is the output o f the hum an brain or ideas. It is the w ork done by one as a scholar, expressed in a perceived tangible format. It is got from the cognitive output o f a scholar, could be written (even if it is o f no value), expressed in a given consensual acceptable format. Intellectual property refers to inventions, creative works, discoveries, know-how, show-how or artistic works that have value, produced through human activities by individuals or entities (Loggie et al., 2006). In the field o f education, intellectual property can be patentable, trademarkable, copyrightable or licensable, encom passing any faculty work such as books, scholarly publications, syllabi, presentation files, lecture notes and the like (K elley & Bonner, 2005; Loggie et al., 2006). According to Petersen (2003), any course or instructional materials such as readings, assignments, tools, simulations, students’ contributions, discussions or examinations can be considered intellectual property. Intellectual property consists chiefly o f patents, plant breeder’s rights, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets. Research, according to O layinka and Owumi (2005), leads to the creation o f intellectual property, and if there is a funder o f the research who asks for the right to disseminate the result o f the research for w ide circulation o f the research, where technology is developed during a project, the funder m ay want to ensure its dissemination and utilisation. The writings and documentation o f the researcher are owned by the creator o f the materials who also holds copyright, hence we find the author. The funder’s role is to help secure protection for intellectual property rights internationally with the recipient having full licensing rights in all countries. The strength o f an organisation is derived from the intellectual property o f its w orkforce (Udom , 2002). As such, in the academ ia, for exam ple, the strength o f a university or tertiary institution is often determined by how much is produced in terms o fw ritings, publications, inventions and innovative designs in the case o f artists. M ansfield (1994: 17) asserts that “ It is alm ost im possible to separate a country’s system o f intellectual property protection from its attitudes (and procedures) towards protecting all fonns o f private property - and the property o f foreigners in particular.” The implication is that intellectual output is a property (like land) over which one has absolute control by community consensus. Any invasion o f it by affront, assault, and violent, logical or other means is illegal and a violation o f one’s intellectual property rights. IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 180 A n idea is not a copyrighted material until it is written down - in tangible form. It is one’s property because it one’s personality and psyche that are in it. The law recognises this and because it wants people to be creative, it protects them by law so that their creativity is not lost. How ever, the creator o f the work has (1) econom ic rights and (2) m oral rights: econom ic rights to sell, m ake m oney out of, or have exclusive rights to gains that can come out o f the intellectual property and moral rights to the property since ownership is the creator’s. Economic and moral rights accrue to the originator o f a work. Changes made by the editors have to be with the consent o f the writer, for exam ple, W illiam Shakespeare’s fam ily was paid royalty a few years ago, m any years after his dem ise. N o one can have access to his work nevertheless. The copyright (econom ic) reverts to the public. It can be used but no alterations can be made. The moral rights reside with the author for life; and even after death, society can defend the moral rights o f the writer after his death. Different Types of Intellectual Property There is so m uch that is considered as constituting intellectual property. Patent, Copyright and Tradem ark laws are the three central types o f intellectual property rights according to Cornish (1999). Intellectual property is divided into two - ‘industrial’ property and ‘copyright’ (Shyllon, 2003) . Shyllon considers industrial property rights as consisting o f patents, registered designs and trademarks as they are associated with industry and commerce and also inclusive are unregistered trademarks. Copyright (from the Latin copia), on the other hand, “is a bundle o f legal prerogatives granted by national legislatives that includes the right to m ake copies, to prepare derivative works, to distribute protected works, and the rights to m ake display or to perform them ” . He affirms that the addition o f copyright and neighbouring rights to industrial property is what constitutes the m odem scope o f intellectual property. Copyright: Olatoye (2009) in a lecture delivered at Babcock University defines copyright as the right which the creator o f an original creative/academic work has against the whole world, usually for the duration o f his/her lifetime and for some time afterwards, in preventing unauthorised acts o f reproduction o f such a work. He explains that copyright is not a registerable right in the sense that it com es into existence by m ere reason o f creating the original w ork and not by registration, asserting that it is, therefore, a negative right, which affirms an existing/inherent right o f a person by preventing the doing o f an act by other persons. The essence is that other persons m ay do any o f the prohibited acts only by the authorisation o f the right owner. Copyright law is the protection o f an original work fixed in a tangible form; the work has to be em bodied in a m aterial object o f som e kind, such as the pages o f a book, a canvas, or a com puter storage device (M asons, 2005; M cGreal, 2004). Copyrightable w orks include such creations as poem s, com puter softw are and m ultim edia m aterials. In an academ ic setting, copyrightable works include books, presentation files, Web-based course materials, and scholarly publications (Loggie et al., 2006; Nemire, 2007). The follow ing classes o f work are protected under the Copyright A ct in Nigeria: Literary works - books, computer programmes, letters, reports, tables/compilations, etc; Artistic Works - paintings, maps, diagrams, sculpture, photography, Architectural drawing, etc; M usical Works - com positions and accom panim ents; C inem atographic film s - film s and soundtracks; Sound recordings; and Broadcasts - radio, TV, satellite, cable wireless, etc (Section 1, Cap C28, LFN, 2004) IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 181 Although some people m isunderstand copyright as being the protection o f ideas, it only protects the expression ofthose ideas as contained in the physical work (Loggie etal., 2006). It is important to note that the U .S . copyright law allows writers to quote and paraphrase original works without the authors’ permission under the fair use provision (Soto, Anand & McGee, 2004). However, to avoid copyright breach, users m ust properly acknowledge original authorship (Soto et al., 2004). Trademarks: a tradem ark is a legally protected nam e, word, symbol or design (and their combination), used by a m anufacturer or seller to identify a product or service, to distinguish it from other goods. A trademark identifies the m aker o f the good (Shyllon, 2003). Trade Names: a trade nam e identifies an entire enterprise. Trade names are protected to prevent the concurrent unauthorised use by an enterprise o f a trade nam e identical or sim ilar to that o f another enterprise claiming the protection (Shyllon, 2003). Trade Secrets: this is critical information and know-how o f abusiness, kept out o f public domain. The ow ner o f trade secrets m ust, however, take precaution to m ention security o f the secret Trade secrets hold value indefinitely (Shyllon, 2003). Patents: patents are documents issued by the government stating what an invention is and that the person is the paten t’s owner. For an invention to be patentable, the law requires that it has to be new; it m ust involve an inventive step (or it m ust be non-obvious) and it m ust be industrially applicable (Shyllon, 2003). A patent confers on its owner the exclusive right to make, sell and use for a lim ited tim e, usually tw enty years from the date o f applying for the patent. Patents are the most important means o f protecting inventions. Utility Models: utility model is the name given to certain inventions in the mechanical field. It is different from inventions for patents in that the technology process required is less than that for a patented invention and the terms o f protection provided in the law for a utility model is shorter than that for an invention w here a patent is available. For exam ple, it is ten years for Germ an and Chinese utility models. A patent can be got for a utility model. Industrial Designs: this is the ornamental or aesthetic aspect o f a useful article. Itm ustbe industrially reproduceable to be called an industrial design, and is usually protected against unauthorised copying or imitation. The protection is usually for five to ten or fifteen years. The document certifying the protection o f an industrial design m aybe called a registration certificate or a patent. If a patent, it is specifically called a patent for an industrial design (Shyllon, 2003). What Makes Intellectual Property? Creative works, books, literary works, products, patents and plant varieties (any created works) in any tangible form expressed m ake intellectual property. Indeed, objects o f intellectual property are creations o f the human mind, the human intellect. W hatever comes out o f one’s intellect, once written down, is o n e’s p roperty provided one takes steps to publish it and, as such, claim the ownership. In considering the question o f ownership o f online educational materials, faculty and their hiring institutions sometimes have different perspectives on who should own intellectual property rights over faculty created m aterials (Nemire, 2007 as quoted by DeG agne & M cGill, 2010). In the case o f students, the issue o f who owns the material or who can license it can be controversial, IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 182 although some institutional policies apply a work-for-hire principled) their students (Petersen, 2003). In this instance, the w ork done by students can be claim ed to be the property o f the institution or the faculty who have asked the students to do the work, provided it is paid for and an agreement reached to that effect. For the sake o f continuous creativity and national development, intellectual property must be protected - for the owners and society members. It is engrained in the constitution o f the nation and got from som ebodies, for example, the United Nations which has m ade a Charter that gives universal protection. The Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology (MIT) have some rules governing intellectual property for their researchers. The guidelines are as follows: Intellectual Property Issues “Sharing data that you produced/collected yourself: • Data is not copyrightable (yet a particular expression o f data can be, such as a chart or table in a book). • D ata can be licensed; some data providers apply licenses that lim it how the data can be used, such as to protect the privacy o f participants in a study or guide downstream uses o f the data (e.g., requiring attribution or forbidding for-profit use). • If you want to prom ote sharing and unlim ited use o f your data, you can m ake your data available under a CCO Declaration to make this explicit. Sharing data that you have collected from other sources: • You may or may not have the rights to do so, depending upon whether or not that data was accessed under a license with term s o f use. • M ost databases to which the MIT Libraries subscribe are licensed and prohibit the redistribution o f data outside o f MIT. For more information on terms o f use for databases licensed by the Libraries, contact Ellen Duranceau, Scholarly Publishing and Licensing Consultant, at efinnie@mit.edu.’’ They recognise the fact that laws about data vary outside the U.S. and advise their researchers to seek further clarification from their Office o f General Counsel who are designated to give the information. Having looked at the m ajor types o f intellectual property and the intellectual property rights issues in some academic settings, it is necessary to take a look at the relationships between them that bring about the consideration o f ethical and legal issues concerning them. The intellectual property can be bequeathed (formally) to som eone else. They are property like any other. They have value, com m and cost, and bring financial and psychological benefits. Society is interested in intellectual property because it allows an individual opportunity for international trade. The country can develop itself through m aking use o f the intellectual property o f its citizens. For example, the creator o f Facebook is a m ulti dollar billionaire today due to his creativity. Patents or tradem arks have to register the product to m ake it effective. The ow ner o f the product has to benefit first, then the user. It is a triangular relationship which can be illustrated as drawn below: IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 183 Intellectual Property (IP) Figure 1: Intellectual Property (IP), the IP User and the IP Creator There is a relationship between the creator o f the intellectual property (the product), the user o f the product and the product. This relationship is a legal relationship. The legal relationship determines : ne’s behaviour to the product. Intellectual Property Rights Protection Alien a product o f one’s thoughts, work, artistic talent or whatever is created is in tangible form, there is a tendency for the w ork to be used or copied by others. In w ritten form , it is a ussble product but then, academic integrity has to be maintained. As such, it is wrong for someone to take up another’s w ork and claim it as his own. Plagiarism m ust be discouraged and, therefore, the alue o f o ther peop le’s w ork has to be acknowledged. However, we have to be aware that any intellectual creativity can fall into public domain. Copyright law on written work in Nigeria is m aintained for 70 years after the dem ise o f the writer, after which it can fall in the public domain. Copyright protection is limited to the lifetime o f the author + 70 years after his death in the case o f Literary, A rtistic and M usical w orks or + 50 years after first publication or broadcast in the case o f cinematographic films, photography, sound recording and broadcast (1 st Schedule o f Cap C28, LFN, 2004). There are exceptions to the rules however. Exceptions - “Copyright shall not include right to control, inter alia: fair dealing for purposes o f research, private use, criticism, or review Educational broadcast and so on” (2nd & 3rd Schedules o f Cap C28, LFN, 2004). In Britain, it is 50 years before intellectual property falls in the public domain. There are som e rights that are afforded. For Literary works, copyright gives exclusive right to control the following: • reproduction in any material form; • publishing; • public performance; ' IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 184 • production o f translation; • filmmaking; • distribution to public by rental, lease hire, and others; • broadcast; and • adaptation. Doing any o f the foregoing with its translation or adaptation- (Section 6 (1) (a), Cap C28, LFN, 2004) For Artistic works, copyright gives exclusive right to control the following: • reproduction in any material form; • publishing; • inclusion in film; and • adaptation. Doing any o f the foregoing with its translation or adaptation In the case o f architecture, erection o f any building based on the drawing - (Sections 6 (1) (b) & 3, Cap C28, LFN, 2004) For Cinematographic films, copyright gives exclusive right to control the following: • m aking a copy; • showing and airing in public; • m aking record o f the soundtrack; • adaptation; and • distribution to public by rental, lease hire, and others. - (Section 6 (1 ) (c), Cap C28, LFN, 2004) For Sound Recording, copyright gives exclusive right to control the following: • reproduction, broadcasting and communication to the public; and • distribution for commercial purposes to public by rental, lease, hire, and others. - (Section 7, Cap C28, LFN, 2004) For Broadcast, copyright gives exclusive right to control the following: • recording and re-broadcast; • communication to public o f television broadcast or m aking o f still photograph therefrom and • distribution for commercial purposes to public by rental, lease, hire, and others. - (Section 8, Cap C28, LFN, 2004) Generally, for all categories o f work, the author is entitled to a perpetual, inalienable anc imprescriptable moral right which is two-fold: paternity right (right to claim authorship and to be identified as author o f the work) and integrity' right (right to object to distortion, m utilation, m odification of, or derogatory action on, the work where such action would prejudice author’s honour and reputation) - (Section 12 Cap C28, LFN, 2004). IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 185 All these are within the ambit o f the Laws o f the Federal Republic ofNigeria. The Laws give some measure o f protection to the copyright owner and any copyrighted work can be used fairly within the provision o f law. Olatoye (2009) describes rem edies and reliefs w ithin the law for copyright infringement. The remedies could be Administrative, Criminal or Civil. Part II o f Cap C28, LFN, 2004 establishes the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC). N CC’s functions include responsibility for matters affecting copyrights as well as monitoring and supervision o fN igeria’s position within the international regime. Some o f its remedial measures are the Prescription o f Anti-Piracy Measures, and to be in charge o f the design, label, mark, impression or any other anti-piracy device. N C C ’s A dm inistrative rem edial powers include the appointm ent o f Copyright Inspectors w ith powers to: • enter, inspect and examine at reasonable tim e buildings and premises suspected to harbour infringement; • arrest persons reasonably suspected; • inquire into compliance with the Act; • require production o f and inspect statutory register; and • m ake requisition from persons found on premises. Registration o f Collecting Societies with powers to represent owners: • negotiating, granting o f licenses; and • collection and distribution o f royalties. Sections 38 & 38, Cap C28, LFN, 2004) ~he Criminal Rem edies that the NCC prescribes are stated as follows: Any o f the following acts is an offence in Nigeria, punishable by fine or a term o f imprisonment: • manufacturing or importing or possessing equipment for manufacture o f an infringing copy o f copyrighted work (Punishm ent is fine o f N 1000 per infringing copy or term o f imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years); • trading in and possessing, other than for private/domestic use, infringing copy (punishment is fine o f N 100 per infringing copy or term o f imprisonment not exceeding two (2) years); and • unauthorised distribution o f literary, cinematographic, sound recording and broadcast works (Punishment is fine o fN 100 per infringing copy or term o f imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months). (Section 20, Cap C28, LFN, 2004) In addition, any o f the following acts is an offence in Nigeria, punishable by fine or a term o f imprisonment: • trading in works in violation o f Anti-Piracy m easure (Punishm ent is fine o fN 100,000 or term o f imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or both); • im portation and possession o f works in violation o f Anti-Piracy (Punishm ent is fine o f N500,000 or term o f im prisonm ent not exceeding five (5) years or both); • unauthorised possession, reproduction and counterfeiting o f Anti-Piracy device (Punishment is fine ofN 50,000 or term o f im prisonm ent not exceeding five (5) years or both); and IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 186 • failure to keep, or m aking o f false entry in statutory register or know ingly tendering producing same (Punishment is fine o fN 10,000). (Sections 20 & 21, Cap C28, LFN, 2004). The Civil Remedies that the N CC can apply under Com m on Law and Equity are as follows: Injunctions. Injunctions are granted on the following bases: • There m ust be a serious issue. • Damages will not suffice. • Balance o f convenience is in favour o f applicant. • Court’s discretion. - See A m erican Cynam id v. E thicon(1975). Other Civil remedies that can apply are: Anton Piller Order: a special specie o f Injunction is the Anton Piller order, an ex parte order whic: allows applicant to enter prem ises and seize infringing m aterials or evidence. For this order t; apply: • there m ust be a strong prim a facie case; • damage, actual or potential m ust be serious; and • strong evidence o f infringing m aterials or other evidence and real possibility it m ay be destroyed. - See A nton Piller KG v. M anufacturing Processes (1975). Yet, another Civil Rem edy applicable is that o f Damages. This is to restore the ow ner to the position as though the injury was never committed. The questions considered are: • W ould ow ner have charged a licence fee for the work? • Would he have received royalties? - See General Tire v. Firestone (1975). Account of Profit is also a remedy that can be afforded. A lternative to dam ages, ownei; m ay claim account o f profit m ade by the defendant under the equitable doctrine o f unjust enrichment. See Potton v. Yorkshire (1975). All these mentioned above are the legal actions that the Nigeria-. Copyright Commission could take or apply in the event o f copyright infringement. Fair Use To avoid infringement or outright flouting o f the law, there are provisions for fair use o f copyrights, materials; but what constitutes fair use? A material, writing or publication can be used in part, o: wholly, depending on how it is used. The law allows fair use. At what point can it be said not to be fairly used? Alfino (1996) asserts that fair use guidelines are interesting because they try to preserve a distinction which is clearly vanishing in the face o f current and emerging technology. W ith the emerging technologies, information gets put in formats which make it difficult to operate the copyright law. Sagi, Carayannis, D asgupta and Thom as (2006) assert that the right o f a w ebsite to sell information and the right o f the user to freely copy data from the Web are prom inent issues in e- commerce and the topic o f national legislation. This data got from the websites can be freely used. Alfino argues that fair use offers extensive protections to individual scholars but does not address the reasonable needs o f communities o f scholarship (including classroom instructions, seminars IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 187 and professional scholarly societies), which can only function by systematically distributing texts. By orienting fair use to individual scholarly activity, he contends that we perpetuate the myth that scholars are not working more and more in community through conferences and telecommunications and that as libraries and educational institutions increasingly rely on systematic practices (for example, electronic m edia, library netw orking, faxing, and photocopying) which take us aw ay from the traditional domain o f fair use, the practical value o f free or affordable access to information will be eroded. On the other hand, the Trade-Related A spects o f Intellectual Property (TRIPS) agreement (ratified in 1994), for example, provides international Intellectual Property standards and specifically provides copyright protection for computer programs as intellectual creations. Computer programs in this w ise are deem ed not to be fairly used w hen one m akes any type o f use o f it w ithout acknowledgement or proper recourse to the copyright holder. This is probably why one is required to sign agreements or licences when downloading or using certain computer programs. Further in considering intellectual property rights protection, there is the realisation that some sponsored researches have IPR issues at stake. If one were sponsored for the research, one m ay not be perm itted to d isclose all one’s findings by the sponsors. Inform ation in the databanks o f these institutions is sometimes protected. This has implications as the true picture o f the research is not painted and therefore issues arise. Is it ethical to conduct research and w ithhold the result o f the research? Is the onus not on the researcher to state what has been found out? W hat implication does this have for knowledge sharing? What implications for upbuilding or improving on the situation that is being researched? Intellectual Property Rights in the Academia In academic institutions especially in tertiary institutions or universities, much academic work is done. The intellectual outputs o f the academ ic staff and their students are w hat the educational system revolves around. Intellectual property is therein a very serious issue. The protection o f intellectual property is supposed to be a foregone conclusion as the environm ent is adjudged a learned one. Intellectual property issues are not seemingly given the proper attention they deserve however. In the academ ia, can all kinds o f digital inform ation and know ledge be considered intellectual property? Is there a clear borderline between public dom ain and proprietary software? H ow can one distinguish between the public’s right to access and the ownership rights o f authors and producers with respec t to intellectual property? These are questions to w hich answ ers need to be found before intellectual property rights can be duly categorised to m eet the specifications expected in the academic environment. The University o f Ibadan which has been in existence for well over sixty years has a Research M anagem ent O ffice w hich was set up to look into how research should be carried out in the Institution. T he R esearch M anagem ent O ffice is structured into five units under the O ffice o f the D irec to r nam ely: 1. R esearch and P o licy D evelopm en t; 2. R esearch In tegrity ; 3. R esearch L inks, 4. F inance; and 5. Legal. IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 188 A n o rg an isa tio n a l chart o f the O ffice rep roduced be low show s tha t there is a R esearch E thics and in teg rity U nit and also a Jo in t Legal Unit. Som e o f the duties and functions o f the units relevan t to this study are also reproduced. F unctions o f the d ifferen t com m ittees are d e fin ed and th e s tru c tu re o u tlin ed . T he o ffic e is su b su m ed u n d e r the o ffic e o f the D evelopm ent C om m ittee o f the University. Thus, R esearch M anagem ent in the U niversitv o f Ibadan is a d ev e lo p m en t issue. Figure 2: University o f Ibadan Research Management Office Organogram Source: http://rmo.ui.edu.ng/Research%20Ethics.html Functions of the Research Development & Policy Unit T he p rinc ipal functions o f the R esearch D evelopm ent U n it shall be to: 1. “p ro m o te and co o rd in a te co llab o ra tio n am ong researchers ; 2. d ev e lo p cap ac ity o f resea rch e rs in p roposa l w riting , resea rch m eth o d o lo g y and report w riting; 3. rev iew and app rove p roposa ls fo r subm ission to sp o n so rs /fu n d in g agencies; 4. dissem inate inform ation on funding initiatives and opportunities to the U niversity’s research com m unity; 5. id e n tify a c a d e m ic s ta f f re se a rc h in te re s ts and e s ta b lis h lin k s w ith p o te n tia l sponso rs ; 6. a ssis t resea rchers in p reparing , w riting and pack ag in g p roposa ls ; IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 189 7. m ain ta in a searchab le da tabase o f research fund ing in fo rm ation ; 8. o p e ra te a se a rc h a b le d a tab ase o f re se a rc h e rs and th e ir rese a rc h in te re s ts ; 9. m ain ta in a searchab le database o f all ongo ing and com ple ted research ac tiv ities; 10. publish h igh ligh ts o f ongoing research activ ities; 11. d ra ft, rev iew and p re se n t re sea rch re la te d M O U s; 12. m a in ta in p ro p o sa ls and aw ards d a tab ases ; and 13 . prepare and submit annual reports to the Director.” (http://mio.ui.edu.ng/ Research%20Ethics.html). These are what the University has on ground. In addition, there are policies guiding research and the output o f research. Researches by staff are treated as follows: “Subject to compliance with the University’s values and ethical principles, all academic members o f staff have: (i) both the right and the obligation to conduct research and disseminate their findings; and (ii) the right to seek research funds in support o f their research. 1. Nothing in this policy shall be construed as exempting any member o f the academic staff from teaching and/or other responsibilities solely on the basis o f the research record o f the person. 2. Staff, students and visiting scholars shall adhere to the University’s ethical standards for research. 3. The principal investigators in research projects have the primary responsibility to ensure the quality, reliability and integrity o f research outputs dissem inated by them ” (http:// rmo.ui.edu.ng/Research%20Ethics.html). The docum ent stated that the U niversity concerning research ethics and integrity was to do the following: “The University shall set up an outfit, called the Ethical Research Review Board, which shall coordinate all matters pertaining to research integrity and ethics relating to the use o f various subjects for research purposes.” The functions o f the R esearch In teg rity U n it as s ta ted in the d ocum en t are to: 1. “coordinate and m onitor procedures on research using hum an subjects and anim als; 2. m o n ito r p o lic ies re la tin g to research conduct and in teg rity ; 3. superv ise com pliance w ith eth ical regu la tions gu id ing research; 4. a ssis t resea rch e rs in resea rch and in stru c tio n re la ted co m p lian ce concerns; 5. e n su re th a t an im a l ca re fa c ili t ie s are m a in ta in e d in c o m p lia n c e w ith p o lic y regulations; 6. m on ito r and consu lt w ith the U n iversity organ in charge o f env ironm enta l health regu la tions re la ting to po ten tia l b io log ica l, chem ical, rad ia tion and recom binan t D N A hazards; 7. p ro v id e ad m in is tra tiv e suppo rt fo r the re lev an t e th ical rev iew boards; 8. e n su re th a t m o n ito rin g and e v a lu a tio n is co n d u c te d fo r each re se a rc h p ro je c t; and 9. prepare and subm it annual reports to the D irec to r” (http://rmo.ui.edu.ng/ Research%20Ethics.html). \ ' IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 190 In any case, without doubt, the University o f Ibadan is considering what to do about the ethics and integrity o f staff and students. The only body that seem s to be em pow ered to take any punitive m easures against offenders is the S taff D isciplinary Com m ittee or the Students D isciplinary Com m ittee as the case m ay be. On Authorship, the same document has only one sentence: “The University shall develop and operate a policy on Authorship.” Nothing further is said in the policy on authorship. On Intellectual Property Rights, it is stated that: “The University shall develop and operate a policy on Intellectual Property. Staff, students and visiting scholars shall abide by the Intellectual Property policy. Staff, students and visiting scholars shall acknowledge the contribution by the University to the success o f their research activities in all publications and research outputs.” This much is what the Research Management Office has put out on the University website. It is a portion o f a larger document that dwells more on the structure o f the M anagement Office and the funding o f research than on legal and ethical issues in the University. Incidentally, the library’s role in the document is also mentioned somewhat perfunctorily thus: “The U niversity Library shall m aintain a da tabaseo f the U niversity’s past and current research activities. The database shall be accessible to all authorised staff and students.” This reference to the role o f the library in m aintaining a database and m aking it accessible to the academ ia leads one to considerations o f creating Institutional Intellectual Repositories (HR) where universal availability o f publications is expected. Issues o f webometrics and copyright will inevitably occur as writers in the academia publish widely and in different formats and countries. The copyright issues for the various publications produced differ. How are all these to be put in a com m on database accessible to all where different rules o f copyright are applicable for the different publications? How can the library get the copyright for putting all these research outputs in a database that is on open access? W hat happens to those o f the intellectual outputs o f the researchers that are not allowed on open access by their publishers or funders o f their researches? Besides, the structure for Institutional Intellectual Repositories is not yet well-grounded in the U niversity o f Ibadan. People need to be trained to do this Institutional Repository work. Funding o f the project is also a problem. Is the University ready to train staff and get the funding for the project? That is a consideration that needs to be taken. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Considerations How are academic members o f staff o f Institutions reacting to intellectual property and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) issues? W hat are the problem s they are faced with? Som e o f the issues border on ignorance or lack o f awareness. For instance, m any do not know what IPR is to start with, neither do they know how it affects them or relates to them. Some considerations are discussed herewith: \ / I X • Lack of awareness of the existence of IPR: one o f the problem s encountered is lack o f awareness that intellectual property rights exist. The questions to ask are: W hat is IPR to us? Are we aware o f our rights and other people’s rights to intellectual property? It is a problem in the University o f Ibadan and other institutions. For example, a professor given the task o f assessing the promotion papers o f a Senior Lecturer discovers that the result o f one o f the researches carried out by the lecturer was actually a very novel discovery o f a new product that could be com m ercialised. The results o f the research were such that it would have been appropriate for the writer o f the research paper to be given patent for the product. The attention o f the lecturer is called to this fact, but it makes little impact since he is IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 191 not aware ofhis rights to the intellectual property and is more concerned with getting promotion within the academia. Another example outside the academia can be cited o f a C hief who gave the formulae for a paint that prevents corrosion o f metals in water. He got this knowledge from indigenous knowledge handed to him innately. Shell Com pany has bought the patent from this C hief and is making use o f the knowledge for their work. • Awareness of the law: m any are ignorant o f the law that backs up intellectual property rights and protects their intellectual property. Little do they know that there are rem edies for copyright infringement, piracy o f other people’s work and other breaches o f intellectual property rights. Olatoye (2009) explains some o f the remedies, quoting som e o f the laws and stating the punishment for some o f the offences in this wise. • Awareness of your position: lack o f aw areness o f o n e’s position when it com es to intellectual property is a problem. Is one liable for infringem ent o f copyright? Does one have aright which can be claimed when one’s intellectual property is stolen or misused, or used unfairly? W hen can one request for o n e’s know ledge to be patented? These are problem areas. • Awareness of your respect for and obedience to the law: every nation is expected to put IP rights laws in place. Everyone is expected to obey the law. Here, the ow ner o f the intellectual property has to be familiar with what the law stipulates, and when compliance to the law should be demanded. • Awareness of what to do when your copyright is violated: there should be an awareness o fw h a tto do in cases where copyright is violated. The appropriate steps to take against the offender should be well known. W hen all these are known, it becomes relatively easy to do the right thing at all times. In essence, intellectual property rights protection laws put normalcy into people’s behaviour where the awareness o f its existence is present. Information Ethics and Intellectual Property Law Ethics is concerned w ith the behaviour or conduct o f individuals or groups in the society. In a profession, ethics often refers to principles and rules that guide the conduct o f m em bers to ensure that the acceptable standards are maintained. It is concerned with the type o f conduct or character that is approved of, in term s o f right and w rong or good and bad (Ekpenyong, 2010). Inform ation ethics (IE), according to Adam (2005), is the field that investigates ethical issues arising from the developm ent and application o f inform ation technology. Capurro (2009) sees information ethics as evolving out o f Com puter Science, but also having roots in the Library and Information Science field. For M abaw onku (2009), inform ation ethics refers to the responsible creation and use o f information in a variety o f formats. It is about the content o f data or information and how it is to be used. However, the essence o f ethical code is to resolve the conflict o f interest that is bound to arise in the course o f information provision and harm onise the interests o f information providers with those o f the users and the society at large. From the foregoing, information ethics makes it mandatory for intellectual property to be well protected and since there is responsible creation ofinfonnation in various formats, there should be responsible use o f the inform ation. Laws put in place to guide or m onitor the use o f intellectual property ought to be well know n and adhered to. IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 192 How can information ethics be taught or acquired? As advocated by scholars like Ocholla (2009) and M abawonku (2010), information ethics should be included in the University curriculum early enough in all the academic fields or endeavour such that it is ingrained in the scholars and incidents o f violating intellectual property rights will be reduced to the barest m inim um as a result. Intellectual property laws vary in nature and scope from one country to another. Intellectual property protected in one country m ay not be recognised in another country. Despite the existence o f various international agreements that attempt to harmonise intellectual property protection, there are still differences among national laws, especially those regarding patents. For example, while the U.S. A. and countries in the European Union allow patent protection over genetically engineered organisms which meet the normal requirements for patentability, many other countries are opposed to extending patents to such subject matter. There are also differences in the duration o f patent protection. The period for which an inventor is granted a patent varies from one country to another. In addition, different countries have different conditions for the disclosure o f information concerning the invention. While some (for example, the U.S.A. and the European Union countries) have strict conditions and mechanisms for enforcing patent application requirements, others (particularly those o f the developing world) have weak institutional arrangements for ensuring compliance with disclosure requirements. These differences in national application o f intellectual property law are at the centre o f much o f t he debate on the intellectual property rights o f indigenous and local peoples. Ethical Issues in Intellectual Property Rights Protection A nything a person has written is already published; it is tangible. A nything written by anyone, authored and in tangible form is published. Students’ theses are not published (taken through formal publishing) but still have Intellectual Property Rights as anyone needing to use it has to quote and give due acknowledgem ent o f the source. This is because the author o f the work won copyright, not the University issuing the certificate or degree. Nothing deprives the author o f the right except it was initially agreed or stated that the right would revert to the employer or sponsor. In essence, there is no surrogating in copyright - unless given out in written form. Two social processes, technology and discourse about the status o f knowledge, are always at work in the emergence o f ethical problems about copyright. Confidentiality is an issue that comes up in researches. W hen researchers go into the field to gather data, the confidentiality o f the sources from which the data comes has to be guaranteed. It is vital to m aintain the confidentiality o f research subjects for reasons o f ethics and to ensure the continuing participation in research. A t the sam e time, data on research subjects can be shared if proper steps are taken to maintain participant confidentiality. If the information is reported with the confidentiality in mind, there will be no issues raised (MIT, 2010). The main ethical issues in the use o f biobanks in clinical research, for example, border on good attitudes and relationships with patients and confidentiality, secondary use o f samples and data over time, return o f results and data sharing (Cambon-Thomsen, Rial-Sebbag & Knoppers, 2007). In reality, protecting against unauthorised access to confidential inform ation about research participants is a key focus o f ethics review boards, researchers and research participants (FROM PU Bm ed). These boards or regulatory bodies work to ensure that standards are set which researchers have to adhere to. IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 193 The ethical quandaries surrounding the issue o f fair use will not be resolved by appealing to well- known principles o f property rights. One reason for this is that copying a book involves an act of labour which, one m ight allege, creates property in the copy. Unlike the act o f labour involved ir. theft, copying does not, in any obvious way, involve the removal o f someone else’s property or the violation o f their privacy. Vaagan and K oehler (2005) identify four m ain ethical issues with respect to information systems which are often focused on: privacy, accuracy, property and access. A ccording to them, these four issues can in turn be traced back to three m ain sources: 1.) the pervasive role and capacity o f systems for collecting, storing and retrieving information, 2.) information technology complexity and 3.) the intangible nature o f information and digital goods, such as digitised music or software (Zwass, 2003:1056). \ / Pervasiveness \ / Complexity of \ / Intangibility of of information j i information I j information and 1 thicai Privacy Accuracy Property Access ISStICN individual Privacy and free consent 1 )ue prtK'c’s ' Private property Fair treatment nidus Figure 3: Ethical issues, sources and individual rights Source: Vaagan and K hoehler(2005) Based on a framework developed by Zwass (2003), Vaagan and Khoehler (2005) treat the issues o f intellectual property rights versus public access rights, analysing a case o f the DVD-Jon which in essence illustrates that intellectual property rights can conflict with public access rights, as the struggle betw een proprietary softw are and public dom ain software, as well as the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) and Open A rchives Initiative reflect. They conclude that, while copyright interests are being legally strengthened, there m aybe ethically- grounded access rights that outweigh property rights. The Norwegian youth who cracked a D VD- access code through hacking and published the encryption program on the Internet could have been doing the public a favour, dependingon how privacy, access and the ethics o f inform ation provision are viewed! It is apparent that no academic environment is absolutely plagiarism-proof and many educators and school administrators worry that the advent o f Internet technology has m ade it easy to access almost unlimited written materials, making students vulnerable to a violation o f academic honesty (Jocoy & DiBiase, 2006). Understanding ethical and legal implications o f online education is critical to improving the quality o f learning and to preparing participants for every challenge they m ay face. As a fundamental principle for all educational activities, academic integrity must be understood as a vehicle to prom ote learning and ensure quality education (Jocoy & DiBiase, 2006). IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 194 Alfino (1996) reports on arguments raised by Hettinger (1989) that natural rights arguments justifying intellectual property are weaker than one might suppose, for the following reasons: “ 1) Intellectual objects are ‘nonexclusive’; they are not consumed by their use. Since sharing them in no way hinders one’s personal use o f the object, the burden o f proof falls on those who would justify their exclusivity. As Hettinger puts it, “W hy should one person have the exclusive right to possess and use som ething w hich all people could possess and use concurrently?;” 2) There is a fundamental and longstanding ethical tradition recognising the social value o f free (or at least affordable) access to information; 3) Property rights guarantee people an interest in the value added to an object by their acts o f labour. But in intellectual objects, it is impossible to determine what portion o f the object the author deserves a property interest in. “A person who relies on hum an intellectual history and m akes a small m odification to produce som ething o f great value should no m ore receive w hat the m arket will bear than should the last person needed to lift a car receive full credit for lifting it” [http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/alfino/dossier/papers/ copyrigh.htm#N_l 9 _]. 4) In a market economy driven in part by information, one might argue that copyrights are a means by which individuals provide for their survival and security. But since most copyrights are owned by institutions, Hettinger (1989) finds this argument unpersuasive. In addition to these arguments, he argues that copyrighted works may violate Locke’s proviso against waste and spoilage ( if the copyright holder charges an excessive fee, for instance), but since that argument depends upon argument 1 above, he believes that it does not need to be addressed specifically. Lex Ferenda (2010) has identified the problems that can arise when the third party in question has very restrictive practices on access to the data it holds. We are able to draw on a num ber o f codes o f ethical practice from different countries. In some cases, codes framed specifically for healthcare information professionals are available (Medical Library Association, 2010; European Association for Health Information and Libraries, 2002), while in other countries, the healthcare information profession relies on more general statements issued by parent bodies ([UK] Chartered Association o f Library and Information Professionals) or other authorities. Legal Considerations in Intellectual Property Rights The legal framework for Intellectual Property Protection in Nigeria can be found in both statutes and case laws. The Statutes stating issues concerning Intellectual Property Protection are found in the Copyright Act, Cap C2$ Laws o f the Federation o fN igeria , 2004, in the Tradem arks Act, Cap T13, LFN, 2004 and also in the Patent & Design Act, Cap P2, LFN, 2004. In Case Law, the issue o f intellectual property protection is found in cases dealing with Contract - Confidential Information, Tort - Malicious/Injurious Falsehood, Passing O ff as what it is not, and Equity - Breach o f Confidence. Hill (2007) asserts that piracy o f intellectual products is ram pant in A sia because o f the lack o f enactm ent and enforcem ent o f strong laws protecting intellectual property rights. Lu, Psang and Peng (2008) m aintain that an innovator’s intellectual property rights for collecting income generated from an innovation must be protected by appropriate institutional systems such as patent laws. Non-protection through underdeveloped or im proper institutional infrastructures stifles or discourages innovation. According to him, when institutions IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 195 support intellectual property rights, they will fuel m ore innovation, entrepreneurship and economic growth. In using m aterials on the Internet freely, there are still som e legal considerations. M organ (2011) looks at ethical and legal factors in using Web 2.0 and posits that a basic list o f legal issues would include data protection and privacy defamation, copyright and intellectual property, negligence and breach o f duty o f care, accessibility, the respective liabilities o f the host organisation and any third-party organisations that m ight be engaged, and potential conflicts betw een national and international laws. He expresses the fact that the potential consequences o f failure to anticipate and manage risks adequately and the adverse outcomes will not be confined to possible punishment through the courts, but that there m ay be significant risks to the organisation such as reputational damage, operational disruption through loss o f data, costly rectification processes and lowering o f s taff m orale. Kelly (2010), however, has previously provided a useful overview o f how the organisation m ight plan to identify and assess the risks, especially w hen a third-party service is under consideration. Issues in the University of Ibadan A critical look at the ethical and legal issues in Intellectual Property Rights in the U niversity o f Ibadan brings to the fore several issues that have come up over the years. In the academ ia, there are m any rules that should rightly govern the use o f intellectual output from research. The right o f the funder o f a research to demand some conditions has been earlier mentioned. However, some ethical issues crop up now and again. Som e scenarios o f w hat takes place in the U niversity o f Ibadan will be given here. The item s for discussion will be stated as Cases and the ethical and legal issues o f each com m ented on. The Cases happened in reality but a few facts are fictionalised to protect the identity o f the subjects. C ase One: A lecturer in the Faculty o f Arts o f the University m any years ago offered to assist an undergraduate student in her research work on the recom m endation o f her supervisor. She gave direction on how data could-be gathered and the student took her advice and kept show ing her what had been done. W hen finally the student completed the work, wrote out the thesis draft and submitted to her supervisor, the lecturer who volunteered to guide her and assist went to demand that the student’s supervisor should not accept the work because the student had plagiarised her (the lec tu rer’s) work. W hat happened was that unknow n to the student, the said lecturer had published the student’s w ork before the com pletion o f the thesis. She was using the student to gather data from the field for her own publication under the guise o f helping to supervise her. The said student had to start a fresh research, all over again with a different supervisor and a new topic entirely. This cost her an extra semester. Comment: Moral and ethical issues are at play in the case stated here. Is it fair for the lecturer to use the raw data gathered by the undergraduate student for her own publication without consent? Is it right to use the student for data collection under the guise o f assisting in supervision? Is it morally and ethically right to prevent the student from graduating with her peers when it is no fault o f hers and she had done the work? Is it right to encourage a student to work, and at the end steal the work by publishing it simply because the student is ignorant? In this case, the student had to back down and start all over again on something quite different. Does this not kill scholarship? W here is the intellectual property right o f the undergraduate student? IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 196 Case Two: A student in the Faculty o f Education was duly supervised, presented a Thesis, defendec it and was awarded a Doctor o f Philosophy (PhD) Degree o f the University o f Ibadan. A little over a year after the award, one o f the external exam iners who did not respond at the tim e o f the exam ination being conducted came up with a report that almost the whole work was plagiarised from another thesis o f another University. Evidence was submitted to prove this and a demand was m ade for the PhD to be w ithdraw n from the graduate. The case is yet to be determ ined by the University authorities. Comment: Is it ethically right to copy som eone else’s work and present as one’s own? Is it not ethically wrong for an external exam iner not to speak up in good tim e over issues that impact on the University’s competence and integrity? In this case, the said examiner thought that the candidate’s examination would not be conducted until he sent in his input. Unfortunately, the Department got another exam iner who was not as m eticulous (as it turns out), and the student graduated. Is it ethically right to award a Degree when all the stakeholders in the examination process have not all submitted their comments? How long should it take an examiner to read and critique a candidate’s work and find out if it is original or not? W hat constitutes original work when intellectual property is considered? Case Three: A researcher has completed his thesis and is about to defend it. The supervisor has supervised effectively, but the work progresses slowly due to the fact that the area o f the student’s study is completely new to the supervisor. The supervisor insists that the student m ust publish at least two papers from the research w ork and equally insists on being the first author in both publications, otherwise the student will not graduate. Comment: The issue o f politics and power play occurs in this case. The student is at the mercy o f the supervisor. Is it ethically proper for a supervisor to claim superior authority over a student’s work when he has contributed little or nothing intellectually? Is it right to threaten a student with failure or delay in graduation subtly or otherwise? W hat are the solutions to these and many m ore issues that occur in the University o f Ibadan and indeed other tertiary institutions? Can the matter be tackled at individual or institutional level? Can intellectual property rights be fully protected in the U niversity o f Ibadan? A survey was, therefore, carried out with the general objective o f examining ethical and legal issues in intellectual property rights in the University o f Ibadan while the specific objectives were to: 1. find out academic staff’s level o f awareness of intellectual property rights; 2. ascertain the perception o f adequacy o f intellectual property rights; and 3. find out the level o f agreement o f the academic staff with ethical and legal issues concerns in the University o f Ibadan. Research Methodology The descriptive survey research design was used for the study. A structured questionnaire was used in data gathering. The questionnaire was developed by building on previous theoretical basis found in the literature reviewed in order to ensure content validity. Pre-testing was conducted using som e academ ic staff from the D epartm ent o f Library Archival and Inform ation Studies o f the University. This Department was excluded from the study later to assure face validity. IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 197 The questionnaire was in four sections - A, B, C and D. Section A elicited demographic information; Section B sought to find out level o f awareness o f intellectual property rights issues; Section C sought to m easure the respondent’s perception o f adequacy o f intellectual property rights; and Section D asked questions on perception o f ethical and legal concerns in intellectual property rights protection in the U niversity o f Ibadan. In addition, their opinions were sought on how to ^ raise the level o f awareness o f intellectual property rights issues among staff and students. In order to assess perception o f intellectual property rights, a scale was adopted from previously researched and validated indicators provided in the M id Term Review (M TR) Q u e s t io n n a ire on In te l le c tu a l P ro p e r ty R ig h ts fo u n d at w w w .s b f .o rg .s g / . . . / Intellectual%20Property%20Rights%20Questionnaire (privateVSIIA.docand Questionnaire for right holders / associations (2004) found at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/138533.htm. This study’s target population was academic staff o f the University o f Ibadan. Academic staff w ere chosen because it is assum ed that they are the m ajor stakeholders in the university and, therefore, w hatever attitude form ed or exhibited by this group is likely to be extended to other staff. The num ber o f staff in the U niversity being ascertained from the Pocket Statistics 2011 is 1284 and it was decided that at least 10% o f this population should be targeted as respondents. As a result, 150 questionnaires w ere produced and adm inistered using two research assistants who, after training, were sent to staff in the thirteen faculties in the University. The idea was to try and get at least three respondents per department if possible. O f the 150 questionnaires distributed, 106 were returned filled out in useable form giving a response rate o f 70.6%. Findings Seventy two (67.92% ) respondents were m ale and 34 (32.08% ) were female. They came from the 13 faculties and other academic units in the university in the following distribution: Table 1: Respondents’ distribution by faculty Faculty N o o f respondents % 4 Agriculture and Forestry 13 12.2 Arts 8 7.5 Basic Medical Sciences 7 6.6 Clinical Sciences 9 8.5 Dentistry 4 3.8 Education 10 9.4 Law 6 5.7 Pharmacy 6 5.7 Public Health 2 1.9 Science 16 15.1 The Social Sciences 11 10.4 Technology 3 2.8 Veterinary Medicine 4 3.8 Other Academic Departments 7 6.6 Total 106 100 IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 198 The first section (A) consisted o f 5 item s w hich covered the dem ographic inform ation o f the respondents such as gender, age, faculty and department, job designation and highest educational qualification. Section B consisted o f 10 questions in which the respondents were asked to rate their awareness level using the Likert scale o f 1 -4 signifying 1 (Very M uch Aware) 2 (Aware) 3 (Not m uch aware) and 4 (N ot aware). Section C had 9 questions -16 to 24 which measured the perception o f adequacy o f intellectual property rights based on a Likert scale o f 1-4 signifying 1 (Very A dequate) 2 (Adequate) 3 (Not Adequate) 4 (Som ewhat Adequate). Section D had 11 questions - 25 to 35 that measured degree o f agreement with perceptions on ethical and legal issues based on a Likert scale o f 1 -5 signifying 1 (StronglyAgree) 2 (Agree) 3 (U ndecided)4 (Disagree) and 5 (StronglyAgree). Questions 33 and 35 sought the respondents’ opinions on how to raise the level o f awareness o f intellectual property rights on cam pus and what to do to redress intellectual property rights violation respectively, while question 3 5 asked respondents to evaluate the m ost effective means o f dissem inating information about intellectual property rights in the University by ranking on a sca leo f 1-6 with 6 being f o r ‘least effective m eans’ and 1 being fo r ‘m ost effective m eans’. Results The results o f findings o f the research concerning level o f awareness o f intellectual property rights are presented in Table 2 below. O f the 106 respondents, almost ha lf (49%) consider their level o f awareness very m uch aware on the premise that all publications are intellectual property, 34% are aware, while 17% are not m uch aware. Reacting to the issue o f if they are aware that they have a right to copyright, m ajority are aware and very m uch aware and only very few are not aware. On patents being intellectual output o f the patent holder, less than ha lf o f the respondents (45.28%) are aware, 38% are very m uch aware, 9% are not m uch aware, w hile none o f the respondents claimed not being aware. IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 199 Table 2: Level o f awareness o f intellectual property rights V A A N M A N A Q U N o % N o % N o % N o % L 6 A ll p u b l ic a t io n s w r i t te n a re 5 2 4 9 .0 6 3 6 3 3 .9 6 18 1 6 .9 8 in te l le c tu a l p r o p e r ty L 7 Y o u h a v e r ig h t t o c o p y r ig h t 4 8 4 5 .2 8 54 5 0 .9 4 4 3 .7 7 o f y o u r w o rk L 8 P a te n ts a r e in te l le c tu a l o u tp u t 4 0 3 7 .7 4 4 8 4 5 .2 5 10 9 .4 3 o f th e o w n e r o f th e p a te n t? L 9 Y o u c a n s e e k le g a l r e d r e s s i f 6 6 6 2 .2 6 2 4 2 2 .6 4 16 1 5 .0 9 y o u r I n te l le c tu a l P ro p e r ty R ig h t is v io la te d ? L 1 0 T h e r e is an E th ic s a n d 2 4 3 9 10 3 2 1/ I n te g r i ty C o m m it te e o n th e 0 .9 4 U n iv e r s i ty o f I b a d a n c a m p u s ? L I 1 V io la t io n o f I n te l le c tu a l 51 4 8 .1 1 4 5 4 2 .4 5 8 7 .5 5 2 1 .8 9 p r o p e r ty r ig h ts is p u n is h a b le u n d e r th e la w L 1 2 I n te l le c tu a l P ro p e r ty R ig h ts 3 7 3 4 .9 1 31 2 9 .2 5 2 2 2 0 .7 5 5 4 .7 2 a re u n iv e r s a l ly r e c o g n is e d L 13 A r e s e a r c h f u n d e r ’s r o le is to 14 13 .21 4 0 3 7 .7 4 3 7 3 4 .9 1 15 14.1 h e lp s e c u r e p r o te c t io n fo r in te l le c tu a l p r o p e r ty r ig h ts in te r n a t io n a l ly L 1 4 T h e r e is a n E th ic a l R e s e a r c h 19 1 7 .9 2 4 4 4 1 .5 1 2 0 1 8 .8 7 19 1 7 .9 3 / R e v ie w B o a rd w h ic h 2 2 .8 3 c o o r d in a te s m a t te r s p e r ta in in g to r e s e a rc h in te g r i ty a n d e th ic s r e la t in g d to r e s e a r c h o n th i s c a m p u s L I 5 T h e r e is a R e s e a r c h 4 8 4 5 .2 8 3 2 3 0 .1 9 10 9 .4 3 16 1 5 .0 10 / M a n a g e m e n t O f f ic e w h ic h 9 9 .3 4 lo o k s in to h o w r e s e a rc h is c o n d u c te d in th e U n iv e r s i ty Legend: VA= Very Aware, A - Aware, NA= Not Aware, SA= Somewhat Aware, QU= Question Unanswered. There is generally aw areness o f the fact that patents are intellectual property o f the owner. Well over three quarters (85% and 90.56% respectively) o f the respondents are aware and very much aware that they can seek legal redress if their intellectual property rights are violated and know that violation o f IPR is punishable under law, while a few claimed to be not m uch aware. Alm ost one third o f the respondents, however, are not m uch aware o f the research funder’s role in helping to secure intellectual property rights internationally. Only a few claimed to be very much aware o f this role, w hile 15 (14.15% ) are not aware o f it. The level o f aw areness o f the respondentson the presence o f an Ethical Research Review Board and a Research M anagement Office is informative. M any m ore respondents are very much aware o fth e existence o f the Research M anagem ent Office (45.28% ) than they are o f the Ethical IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 200 Research Review Board (17.92%) which coordinates research integrity and ethics matters. About the sam e num ber are not aware o f the two bodies, though 3 and 10 respondents respectively did not respond to the two questions. Perception of Intellectual Property Rights Perception o f creation o f awareness o f intellectual property rights on campus was viewed as not adequate because over h a lf (55.66% ) gave this opinion, though about a third (40.57% ) believed that awareness creation was adequate. Intellectual property rights protection for staff and students was perceived to be inadequate, though a greater number o f respondents (85.85%) felt that students were not protected than those for staff (52.83%). Intellectual property rights protection for the U niversity was considered not adequate b> m ajority o f the respondents, a few (5.66% ) considered it very adequate, 1.87% considered it somewhat adequate and 7 (6.6%) declined comment (See Table 3). The competence o f the Ethics and Integrity Committee to protect intellectual property rights was felt to be not adequate by about one third (31.13%) o f the respondents; about half, however, felt it was adequate and one respondent (0.94% ) claim ed not to know if it was adequate or not. The protection o f researchers’ IPR by funders o f their researches was thought to be adequate by slightly less than h a lf (23.60% ) the respondents, not adequate by m ore than h a lf (54.72% ) o f the respondents; while few (7.55% ) thought it was somewhat adequate, some (8.49%) thought it very adequate and 5 (4.72%) declined comment. Table 3 : Perception o f intellectual property rights V A A N A S A Q U N o % N o % N o % N o % N o % C re a tio n o f a w a re n e s s o f in te lle c tu a l 2 1.89 43 4 0 .5 7 59 5 5 .6 6 2 1.89 - 1 P ro p e rty R ig h ts In te lle c tu a l P ro p e rty R ig h ts p ro te c tio n fo r 2 1.98 40 3 7 .7 4 56 52 .83 4 3 .77 4 /3 .7 7 2 s ta f f in te lle c tu a l P ro p e rty R ig h ts p ro te c tio n fo r 1 0 .9 4 11 10 .38 91 85 .85 3 2 .83 2 /1 .8 9 3 s tu d e n ts In te lle c tu a l P ro p e rty R ig h ts p ro te c tio n fo r 6 5 .6 6 22 2 0 .7 5 68 6 4 .1 5 2 1.87 7 /6 .6 4 th e U n iv e rs ity T h e c o m p e te n c e o f th e E th ic s a n d In te g rity 10 9 .4 3 52 4 9 .0 6 33 3 1 .1 3 4 3 .77 7 /6 .6 5 C o m m itte e o n th is c a m p u s to p ro te c t in te lle c tu a l p ro p e rty r ig h ts ? > P ro te c tio n o f in te lle c tu a l p ro p e rty r ig h ts o f 9 8 .4 9 25 2 3 .6 58 5 4 .7 2 8 7 .55 5 /4 .7 2 6 re s e a rc h e rs by fu n d e rs o f th e ir re se a rc h P ro te c tio n a g a in s t u n a u th o r ise d a c c e ss to 4 3 .7 8 19 17.93 70 6 6 .0 6 8 7 .55 5 /4 .7 2 7 c o n f id e n tia l in fo rm a tio n a b o u t re se a rc h p a r tic ip a n ts M e a su re s ta k e n a g a in s t v io la tio n o f 4 3 .7 8 36 3 3 .9 8 43 4 0 .5 8 17 16.04 8 6 /5 .6 6 in te lle c tu a l p ro p e rty r ig h ts IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 201 Only about a third (33.98%) o f the respondents felt that the measures being taken against violation o f intellectual property rights were adequate. Forty percent thought the measures were not adequate and 16.04% considered them som ew hat adequate. O nly 3.78% perceived the m easures as very adequate. Quite surprisingly, when respondents were asked to rate their perception o f intellectual property rights issues, approxim ately h a lf (49.08% ) o f them did not answ er the question (See Figure 2). None rated him /herself excellent, some (9.44%) rated themselves very good, 40.48 rated fair and 16.04% rated their perception poor. Figure 4: Self-rating o f perception o f intellectual property rights ■ Not answered i® Fair ■ Good ■ Poor ■ Very Good Ethical and Legal issues in Intellectual Property Rights Findings on respondents’ responses to ethical and legal issues are presented in Table 4 below. None o f the respondents agreed that intellectual property rights issues are being handled properly in the University o f Ibadan. M ore than half (57%) were undecided neither agreeing nor disagreeing while 35% agreed that it is handled properly and only 7.55% disagreed and 1 % strongly disagreed. The opinions o f respondents on the issue o f seeking legal redress i f their intellectual property is used without permission were m ainly that o f agreement and strong agreement, though 32% were undecided and only about 10% disagreed and strongly disagreed and one (1) respondent did not answer the question. On staff m aking use o f students’ intellectual property without consent, 36% disagreed with this view, 10% agreed and strongly agreed, with only 6% respectively disagreeing and being undecided. / l IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 202 Table 4: Level o f agreement with ethical and legal issues in IPR SA A U D SD No % No % No % No % No % I believe Intellectual Property 37 34.91 60 56.6 8 7.55 1 0.94 1 Rights issues are being handled properly in University of Ibadan Students can seek legal redress 16 15.1 47 44.34 33 31.1 9 8.49 2 1.89 2 if their intellectual work is used without their consent Staff (or Lecturers) can make 1 0.94 9 8.49 6 5.66 3 35.85 6 5.66 3 use of their student’s intellectual property without their consent 8 The University can make use of 1 0.94 12 11.32 14 13.2 7 68.81 5 4.72 4 the Intellectual Property of its staff without their consent 1 4 Staff (or Lecturers) can make 4 3.78 63 59.43 5 4.72 3 29.24 3 2.83 5 use of their student’s intellectual property with their consent 1 The University can make use of 6 5.66 67 63.20 9 8.49 1 16.98 6 5.66 6 the Intellectual Property of its staff with their consent 8 The Ethics and Integrity 2 1.89 20 18.89 58 54.7 2 23.58 1 0.94 7 Committee in Univ. of Ibadan is enough to protect intellectual 5 property rights It is ethically wrong to compel 68 64.2 24 22.64 8 7.55 2 1.89 4 3.78 8 or coerce a student to provide intellectual content and use such without his/her consent Responding to the issue o f whether the University can m ake use o f the intellectual property o f its staff without their consent, m ajority (68.81 %) disagreed, 13% were undecided and 11 % agreed. Only 5% strongly disagreed. Using the intellectual property o f students with their consent by staff was considered b y 60% o f respondents to be agreeable, 4% strongly agreed, 5% agreed, 3% som ew hat agreed and about 30% disagreed. The reaction to the U niversity using their s ta ff’s intellectual property with their consent was almost the same with a few more strongly agreeing and agreeing. Two respondents did not respond to questions 2 7 ,2 8 and 29 however. The findings here would seem to suggest that there is always controversy as to who owns the copyright and who can use the material where students’ works are concerned just as posited by Petersen (2003). A lm ost all the respondents felt it was ethically w rong to com pel or coerce a student to provide intellectual content and use such without consent o f the student as 64% and 23% strongly agreed and agreed on this issue. A few disagreed and strongly disagreed, with 7% neither agreeing nor disagreeing. This corroborates the assertion o f Jocoy and D iB iase (2006) that academ ic integrity needs to be maintained in the academia. The adequacy o f the Ethics and Integrity Committee to deal with intellectual property matters was called to question by respondents as m ore than half IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 203 (58% ) w ere undecided, 25% disagreed that they w ere enough, and 20% agreed and strongly disagreed. Asked to give suggestions on what could be done to raise the awareness level about intellectual property rights, m ore than half (61 respondents) did not m ake any suggestions. The suggestions given by the 45 who responded are tabled below (See Table 5). Respondents w ere asked to rank m ethods o f aw areness creation for intellectual property rights in the University o f Ibadan on a scale o f 1 to 6 with 1 being m ost effective means and 6 being least effective means. Fourteen (13.4%) did not respond to the question. O f the 82 responses, it w as found that D epartm ental bulletins were ranked the m ost effective m eans, the University o f Ibadan website the next most effective, followed by the Classroom teaching, then m edia broadcast and e-mail messages which ranked the same in being the next m ost effective. Text message was the least effective means, then word o f mouth being the next least effective, next to the library which was som ew hat a m iddle point. Seminars and w orkshops were listed as other m eans o f awareness creation m ostly ranked 4 by the respondents. Table 5: Suggestions for raising awareness level No Response No % IP policy of the university should be well published and 1 0.94 1 procedure for seeking redress in situations of infringement well published as well 2 Awareness campaign on campus and publicity leaflets 2 1.89 3 (Periodic) workshops and seminars for staff and students 6 5.66 4 Talks on media such as TV, radio and newspapers 1 0.94 5 Various means should be used to create IPR awareness 3 2.83 6 Awareness creation through University website and bulletin 2 1.89 7 Severe measures to be taken against the offenders will raise the 1 0.94level of awareness 8 Setting up a committee to see to IPR and punishing anyone 2 1.89caught offending 9 Bulletins can help in raising awareness 3 2.83 10 Seminars, workshops, conferences will raise the level of 12 11.32awareness on campus (publicity) 11 Vetting of all research work, moving from reactive to proactive 1 0.94enforcement 12 Students and staff are to be well educated on IPR through 2 1.89seminars 13 Workshops at unit and university wide levels for all staff 1 0.94 14 Ensure that regularly all members of staff and students are 3 2.83educated on what and how IPR could be violated 15 Leaflets distribution 1 0.94 16 Through conduct of good high quality research work backed up 1 0.94by regular conduct of workshop on intellectual property rights 1 / Penalty for infringement will help raise level of awareness 2 1.89 Inclusion of the rights in orientation program for new students 1 0.94 18 and staff, sending circular about it to old students and old staff. Also jingles on Diamond FM. IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 204 Questioned on what could be done to violators o f intellectual property rights to redress the situation, the responses were quite varied, though a num ber o f proffered solutions tallied. Sixty three respondents did not comment on this question. The responses that were sim ilar given by 27 respondents are as follows: 1. Legal action should be taken (It is a litigation issue). This w as said by 9 (8.49%) respondents. 2. Prosecution! (to serve as deterrent to others) - 4 (3.78% ) respondents. 3. Such offender should be dism issed from University service -2 (1 .9 8 % ) respondents. 4. A ppropriate punishm ent should be m eted out to the o ffe n d e r- 2 (1.98% ) respondents. 5. D am ages should be awarded to the ow ner o f the IP (by law court) - 8 (7.55% ) respondents. 6. Punishment, for example, 6-8 m onth’s imprisonm ent or payment o f a big fine - 2 (1.98% ) respondents. Other opinions expressed about redress for violation are tabled below: Table 6: Suggestions for redress on violation o f IPR S.No Response 1. Thorough investigations followed by appropriate sanction 2. W ritten apology to the individual whose IP is violated, and adequate compensation to the person 3. Disciplinary Committee should take up the case 4. W ithdrawal o f such rights from the offenders and demote such offenders by ONE or TW O steps (that is, prom otion is denied such a person for one or two years 5. Complaint, arbitration, settlement and legal redress or compensation 6. Action taken will depend on the specific type o f violation 7. Report to the university first, then go to court i f not satisfied with the university reprisal. 8. W hoever that has violated intellectual property rights should be penalised by p ay in g ; huge amount o f money. This will check people from doing so. 9. The integrity o f the university is based on giving credit where it is due - violation o f IPR impinges on that violation and should attract the minimum sanctions. 10. Penalty or sanctions should be severe. 11. Like the case o f plagiarism, it should be handled like a criminal case. 12. The offender should face SSDC (Staff / Student Disciplinary Council). 13. Take the person to court. 14. Exercise legal action in terms o f corporal punishm ent to serve as deterrent to others 15. Since it is punishable under Nigerian law, anybody caught should be punished. 16. Violation should attract the maximum sanctions. 17. Retrieval o f such intellectual property IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 205 In all, intellectual property rights awareness on the campus o f the University o f Ibadan is average, though not as high a level as would be expected for an academic community. Efforts by the University to keep intellectual property rights o f its staff and students protected is quite inadequate. M any o f the staff do not know about the Committee and Board set up to take up intellectual property rights issues. Those who are aware do not feel confident that the Committee is enough to protect the rights. Seeking legal redress and heavy sanctions or penalties is the m ost favoured m eans o f getting ethical and legal issues in intellectual property rights settled. In addition, Departmental bulletins, University website and seminars and workshops were felt to be the most effective means o f raising awareness o f intellectual property rights in the University o f Ibadan. The Way Forward The issues discussed in this paper have im plications for national developm ent. W hy is this so particul arly for developing nations? There are consequences for not effectively protecting intel lectual property. The location in which the intellectual property is used matters as one has to find out if the intellectual property rights are applicable in that particular country or domain where the product is being taken to or used. Physical regulation for access and use o f intellectual property has to be determined. Issues like Investment, Transfer and Licensing have implications for developing nations. The institutions or regulatory bodies need to be up and doing and take their responsibilities seriously. Enough paperw ork has been done, action should be taken. M ore importantly, the individual is the m ost important factor here. Everyone knows or senses innately when he is doing something wrong. The value orientations o f people have to change for som e order to be restored in intellectual property issues. W hat does not belong to you does not belong to you and taking it is very wrong; it is criminal. Lecturers, students and the U niversity m anagem ent have to do a lot m ore in considering ethical and legal issues in intellectual property rights. A lot o f education and awareness creation is called for at all levels within the University community. Students need to know their legal rights where their intellectual rights qre concerned. They ought to be taught the ethics o f information and how it relates to their works. Lecturers should know their limitations as it concerns their students’ works. They should also know their rights and how they should be regarded in the University. The ethics o f their profession (as lecturers or researchers) should be well spelt out. W here intellectual property rights are violated in anyway, intellectual property right laws will have to be enforced where people are obtuse and lack a sense o f what is right, fair and appropriate. The time has come to move away from taking reactive action, to being proactive and doing something about issues before they get out o f hand. W here punitive measures have to be taken, it is better to do so, to serve as deterrent to others. In the University community, regardless o f where the intellectual property emanates (student, staff and the institution), the lines have to be drawn, the rules m ade and the law enforced where rules are broken. IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 206 References Alfino, M. (1996). Intellectual property and copyright ethics. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 10.2 (1991): 85-109. Reprinted in Robert A. Larm er (Ed.), Ethics in the workplace, M inneapolis, M N : West Publishing Company, 1996,278-293. (Accessed on 12/9/2011 at http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/facultv/alfino/dossier/papers/copvrigh.htmU Cam bon-Thom sen, A., R ial-Sebbag, E. & Knoppers, B.M . (2007). Trends in ethical and legal fram ew orks for the use o f hum an biobanks. European Respiratory Journal, 30: 373-382. Cornish, I.P. (1999). Patents, copyright, trademarks and allied rights (4th Ed.). Pg. 7. De Gagne, J. C. & McGill, B. A. (2010). Ethical and legal issues in online education. Journal o f eLearning and Online Teaching, July, Vol. 1, Issue 7 2. Ekpenyong, G D . (2010). Ethics in librarianship. KDLNews, 1 (2): 4-5. Hettinger, E. (1989). Justifying intellectual property, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18 (1989) a 31-52. http://w'ww.lexferenda.com/02062010/edwards-death-and-the-web/ Jocoy, C. & DiBiase, D. (2006). Plagiarism by adult learners online: A case study in detection andl rem ediation. International Review o fR esearch in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1): 1 15. Kelly, B. (2010). A deployment strategy for maximising the impact o f institutional use o f Web 2.0. In D. Parkes & G. W alton (Eds.), Web 2.0 and libraries: Impacts, technologies and trends. United Kingdom: Chandos. Laudon, K.C. & Laudon, J.P. (2006). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm (9th Ed.). U pper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. L exFerenda (2010). Edwards: Death and the Web. Loggie, K.A., Barron, A.E., Gulitz, E., Hohlfeld,T.N., Kromrey, J.D., Venable, M. etal. (2006). An analysis o f copyright policies for distance learning materials at major research universities. Journal o f Interactive Online Learning, 5(3): 224-242. Lu, Y., Tsang, E. W.K. & Peng, M. W. (-2008). Knowledge m anagem ent and innovation strategy in the Asia Pacific: Towards an institution-based view. Asia Pacific Journal o f Management, 25:361-374. michaelzimmer.org/ M assachusetts Institute o f Technology (MIT) website. (2010). Ethical and legal issues, http:// libraries.mit.edu/guides/subiects/data-management/ethical.html M organ, P. (2011). Som e ethical and legal considerations in the use ofW eb 2.0. In Younger & M organ (Eds.), Using Web 2.0 for health information. A ccessed on 12/9/2011 at h ttp:// www.facetpublishingiC0.uk/title.php?id=73l-9&category code=950. Nemire, R. E. (2007). Intellectual property development and use for distance education courses: A review o f law, organisations, and resources for faculty. College Teaching, 55(1): 26-30. Olayinka, A.I. & Owum i, B.E. (2005). Preparing a research proposal. In A.I. Olayinka, Taiwo, R. Raji-O yelade & Farai (Eds.), Methodology o f basic and applied research. Pubm ed. Shyllon, F. (2003). Intellectual Property Law in Nigeria. IIC Studies. Vol.21 Studies in industrial property and copyright law, pg. 2. Udom (2002). Adminisprudence: A behavioural approach to managing ourselves and others. Ibadan: Spectm m Books. IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 207 University o f Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria, Pocket Statistics (2011). Ibadan: Planning Unit, Office o f the Vice-Chancellor. 6p. University o f Ibadan Research Policy (n.d). http://rmo.ui.edu.ng/Research%20Ethics.html Vaagan, R. & Koehler, W. (2005). Intellectual property rights vs. public access rights: Ethical aspects o f the D eCSS decryptation program . Information Research, 10(3) paper 230 [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-3/paper230.htmll Zimm er, M. (n.d.). Information ethics, new media, privacy, values in design. Zw ass, V. (2003). Ethical issues in inform ation system s. In Encyclopedia o f Library and Information Science (2nd ed.). Vol. 2. (pp. 1054-1062). N ew York, NY: M arcel Dekker. [Also accessed at http://informationr.net/ir/10-3/paper230.html#Zwassl. IBADAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY