Click here to agree managing intellectual property when crowdsourcing solutions
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like2,024 views
The document discusses managing intellectual property (IP) in crowdsourcing initiatives, emphasizing the need for clear contractual terms to protect both organizations and participants. It provides examples, such as Moleskine's logo design contest and PhantomAlert's data crowdsourcing, illustrating potential IP-related risks and the importance of transparency and clarity in agreements. Additionally, it outlines various legal approaches organizations can adopt to manage IP and liability effectively, suggesting collaboration with specialized crowdsourcing providers for better outcomes.
Click here to agree managing intellectual property when crowdsourcing solutions
- 1. Click Here to Agree: Managing Intellectual Property when Crowdsourcing Solutions In the journal: Business Horizons Download the article here
- 2. “The legal cornerstone of any crowdsourcing initiative is a carefully considered set of contractual terms and conditions” (de Beer et al 2017: 209)
- 3. The Authors Jeremy de Beer Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Ian P. McCarthy Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University Adam Soliman Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Emily Treen Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University This research was funded by the:
- 4. Jeremy de Beer, Ian P. McCarthy, Adam Soliman and Emily Treen Click here to agree: Managing intellectual property when crowdsourcing solutions, in Business Horizons Download the article here The Research Paper
- 5. ● It crowdsourced the design of a logo for a its blog. ● Offered a €7,000 prize for the best design, but retained property rights for all the submissions. ● So, only one winner would benefit, yet all participants transfer ownership of their IP (the designs) to Moleskine ● Also, the terms and conditions of the crowdsourcing agreement were difficult to follow and understand. How Moleskine Messed Up
- 6. ● The design community lashed out at Moleskine for what was perceived as profiteering and free riding on the IP of consumers. ● Moleskine argued: ○ that people didn’t have to participate in the contest; and ○ that many organizations use this approach to crowdsource IP ● This response prompted further backlash from the community and, eventually, an apology from Moleskine. How Moleskine Messed Up
- 7. ● PhantomAlert crowdsources data about traffic conditions, road hazards, and traffic enforcement locations for a mobile app. ● PhantomAlert asserted claims against Waze who have a similar application. ● PhantomAlert successfully registered copyright ownership of its crowdsourced data, and alleged that Waze copied its proprietary points of interest data. ● On March 4, 2016, a California court ruled that PhantomAlert’s claim of copyright infringement could proceed, The Case of PhantomAlert vs Waze
- 8. Together these two examples demonstrate that organizations need to consider intellectual property related risks when sourcing solutions from a crowd.
- 9. 1. Without terms and conditions, organizations have, by default, no rights or liabilities in respect to crowdsourced content. 2. The greater an organization’s IP demands of a crowd, the less likely the crowd is inclined to participate in the crowdsourcing exercise. 3. A more relaxed legal approach to IP will attract more crowd participants, but likely comes with more legal risk. Three IP-related risks when crowdsourcing solutions?
- 10. Acquiring: the degree to which an organization seeks to acquire the IP rights of crowd solutions. ● Low: when an organization takes no measures to acquire any IP rights from a crowd. ● High: when an organization takes measures to fully and exclusively acquire all IP rights from a crowd. Terms and conditions: Acquiring rights
- 11. ● Crowd participants may include content in their submissions that they themselves did not create or have used without appropriate authorization. ● This is known as: intellectual property contamination. Why limit your liabilities when crowdsourcing?
- 12. Limiting liabilities: the degree to which organizations seek to safeguard themselves from potential liabilities associated with crowdsourced solutions. ● Low: the organization takes no legal measures to limit its liabilities regarding contamination. ● High: the organization takes extensive measures to protect itself from any contamination risks that could accompany crowdsourcing solutions. Limiting liabilities
- 13. Limits liabilitiesLow High High Low Acquire rights Possesive Seeks to acquire extensive IP rights but does little to protect against IP contamination (e.g., Ben and Jerry’s). Persuasive Seeks to acquire all IP rights and is concerned about IP contamination (e.g., Doritos). Passive Seeks to acquire limited IP rights and does little to protect against IP contamination (e.g., Threadless). Prudent Seeks to acquire limited IP rights but is concerned about protect against IP contamination (e.g., Nintendo). Legal approaches to crowdsourcing intellectual property (de Beer et al 2017)
- 14. Approach to managing crowdsourced IP Example organization and campaign Presentation of terms and conditions Summary of the IP management approach Passive Threadless - Click-wrap - Dense terms - Well-structured - Includes payment schedule - Word count = 7,563 - Rights acquired by non-exclusive license - Management of liabilities relies on norms- based community enforcement of IP rights Possessive Ben & Jerry’s flavor submissions portal - Browse-wrap - Easy to read and user-friendly - Word count = 722 - Rights acquired by transfer with no management of liabilities Persuasive Doritos—Crash the Super Bowl - Click-wrap - Long, paragraph- sized clauses - Uppercase font that impairs readability - Word count = 9,071 - Rights acquired by transfers for all semifinalists and by non-exclusive license for all other participants - No liability for third-party content or errors on the platform - Indemnity clause includes Frito-Lay and its affiliates Prudent Nintendo’s #ZeldaFan contest - Using hashtag #ZeldaFan signifies agreement - Easy to read - Word count = 2,846 - Rights acquired by non-exclusive license - Winner required to execute and deliver a release of liability - No professional content allowed - Must be original, non-commercial work (de Beer et al 2017)
- 15. The takeaways Aligning motivations and rewards • It is important for organizations to offer adequate incentives for people to participate in a crowdsourcing campaign. • Expectation of a reward will be amplified if participants are unlikely to retain any rights and have to accept all liabilities. • It is much more likely that non-winning contributors who are not compensated will raise intellectual property disputes.
- 16. The takeaways Let’s be clear • Be as transparent as possible and use language that can be understood by the crowd, without sacrificing the legal protection afforded to legally- sound terms and conditions. • The ramifications of not being clear and transparent and hiding behind a wall of legal jargon can prove detrimental to a brand.
- 17. The takeaways Consider an intermediary or existing platform • Crowdsourcing service providers can assume responsibility for the strategic, logistical, and legal issues connected with a crowdsourcing initiative. • Specialized crowdsourcing providers include: InnoCentive, NineSigma, eYeka, and Topcoder.
- 18. Our framework illustrates the legal approaches that organizations can use to manage the value, risks, and effectiveness of crowdsourcing. In the end, a reciprocating relationship emerges. The legal approach to managing crowdsourced intellectual property shapes the crowdsourcing campaign while, at the same time, the campaign shapes the legal approach.
- 19. Dr. Ian McCarthy @toffeemen68 Professor, Technology and Operations Management Beedie School of Business Simon Fraser University Ian McCarthy It Depends Blog Slides produced by: