Research professionals in Universities of Applied Sciences – Samkot
The Finnish Copyright Act grants authors the exclusive right to control the use of their work on all occasions. This means that researchers and teachers also have the right to decide whether their work will be published and, if so, in what form. However, research collaboration and externally funded RDI projects increasingly require a partial transfer of these rights to the employer. This is necessary, for example, to share research data and results, and to hand them over to funders. In recent years, many universities of applied sciences have sought to establish broader and more standardized template agreements for the transfer of intellectual property rights, which can be unreasonable, particularly when presented as a condition for recruitment.
UASes aim to acquire the intellectual property rights of researchers and teachers
Imagine a Principal Lecturer working at a university of applied sciences who has collected an interview data set in a project funded by the European Union. She has analysed the data and published the results as a scientific journal article. During the analysis process, the Principal Lecturer also forms an idea for another research question and a methodology through which the data could be further examined. However, her supervisor demands that she quickly participates in the preparation of another RDI project. At the same time, the employer hands the interview data and related notes to a student, who writes a thesis based on similar premises and publishes the results as a blog post together with the Principal Lecturer’s supervisor. After this, the employer no longer wants the Principal Lecturer to use the data for another scientific article.
Similarly, we can consider how UASes can utilise copyright-protected materials in their increasingly diverse teaching and training activities. Imagine a teacher plans and prepares several video lectures, assignments, and written materials for a new course. In the following academic year, the teacher would be glad to teach the course again. Instead, it is assigned to her colleague without any working hours allocated for preparation work. At the same time, the employer decides that the course and the materials will also be offered as part of a paid continuing education program.
These examples are fictional but they are already entirely possible in many universities of applied sciences. In fact, they might even be desirable from the employer’s point of view. Many UASes have recently introduced template agreements for project activities or added clauses or appendices to employment contracts, through which employees’ copyrights and other intellectual property (IP) rights are transferred to the employer without additional compensation. In some UASes, these transfer agreements also cover research data, or the employer has claimed all rights to the collected data based on its legal right to direction and supervision.
Unlike in universities in the 2010s, these uncompensated, temporally unlimited, and all-encompassing template agreements have not yet sparked widespread opposition or debate within the UAS sector. However, a recent internal copyright dispute at Häme University of Applied Sciences (HAMK) made headlines when the UAS planned to engage in change negotiations to reduce the working hours of employees who refused to transfer their copyrights to the employer (Yle 11.2.2025). The plan was ultimately cancelled due to, among other things, the active efforts of trade unions (Yle 12.2.2025). However, even the intention alone speaks volumes about the state of IP rights of the researchers and teachers working in UASes.
There is a real need to agree on intellectual property rights
The employer’s eagerness to acquire researchers’ and teachers’ intellectual property (IP) rights is understandable: without a separate agreement, the rights in many respects belong to the employees themselves. First, the Act on the Right in Inventions made at Higher Education Institutions defines the conditions and practices under which the university may acquire rights to inventions arising from research. In other words, the UASes do not automatically gain these rights.
Second, teachers’ duties do not automatically include the preparation of teaching materials beyond those they use in their own teaching (Kopiosto, undated). If the university wishes to make broader use of the developed teaching materials, it needs to agree on the rights separately, which naturally brings up the question of reasonable compensation.
It is also necessary to agree on the transfer of rights or parallel rights created in externally funded RDI projects. Funders of RDI projects may require various IP rights to utilise and disseminate the project outputs. In such cases, as the executing organisation, the UAS is responsible for meeting contractual obligations, including transferring IP rights to the funder.
When projects are implemented in larger groups, potentially even in collaboration between multiple organisations, agreeing on IP rights also brings clarity and continuity to the work and provides a foundation for resolving possible disputes. However, research groups and research consortia often agree among themselves in good spirit on matters such as sharing and publishing data without a template agreement prepared by the employer, as these practices are part of good scientific conduct (Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, 2023).
Templates and support instead of forced standardisation
There is a real need for clear agreements and support regarding intellectual property (IP) rights (see also Finnish National Agency for Education and Kopiosto, 2025), especially since drafting a valid agreement takes time and requires specific expertise. However, it is impossible to create a one-size-fits-all template agreement for the transfer of IP rights applicable to all situations and disciplines without it being broader than necessary compared to case-specific agreements tailored to particular cases. Instead of standardised template agreements, employers could support transfer processes by offering agreement templates suited to different situations, along with support, guidance, and training on their use. In particular, the needs of project managers of large and international RDI projects should be considered when designing individualised support. If the internal sharing of materials and data is seen to be valuable and necessary, UASes can encourage it by offering separate compensation.
The standardised practices related to IP rights transfer currently practised by some employers can not be considered acceptable under any circumstances. When IP rights are preemptively demanded “just in case,” employees are unable to perceive all future scenarios the agreement binds them to. While outright coercion is rarely used, transfer agreements attached to employment contracts can effectively be considered coercive: an individual employee has little real opportunity to refuse to sign such an agreement when the start of employment is conditional on this signature. A further problem with IP rights clauses attached to employment contracts is that employees hired at different times are in unequal positions.
The increasing eagerness of UASes to appropriate IP rights that belong to researchers and teachers may lead to numerous unforeseen problems. Template agreements do not eliminate project-specific needs to review funders’ IP requirements, nor the need for related guidance and support services. Therefore, IP rights should be negotiated on a case-by-case basis and transferred only to the extent that is genuinely necessary. The bureaucracy involved in drafting agreements can be reduced not only through standardised templates and accompanying instructions but also by creating clear practices for contract management and digitising the agreement processes. This naturally requires some effort and commitment from employers, employees, and employee representatives. However, fair and appropriate agreements on the transfer of IP rights can foster mutual trust and respect in the workplace, forming a foundation also for high-quality teaching and RDI activities.
The authors are board members of the Research Professionals in Universities of Applied Sciences (Samkot). They work in research, teaching, and expert roles in various UASes. Samkot is a member association of the Union of Research Professionals (Tieteentekijät) and represents the interests of research professionals working in the UAS sector.
ChatGPT has been used in drafting the English translation of this blog post.
References:
Hautamäki, Terhi (2021) Kallisarvoiset tekijänoikeudet. Acatiimi 2/2021. https://tieteentekijat.fi/kallisarvoiset-tekijanoikeudet/
IPR University Center (päiväämätön) Yleistietoa immateriaalioikeuksista. https://ipruc.fi/tietopalvelut/yleistietoa-immateriaalioikeuksista/
Keski-Korpela, Nina & Rantalainen, Elina (2025) Uusi käänne HAMK:n tekijänoikeuskiistassa: koulu peruutti muutosneuvottelut. Yle 12.2.2025. https://yle.fi/a/74-20143180
Kopiosto (päiväämätön) Opettajan tekijänoikeus. https://kopiraittila.fi/tekijanoikeustietoa/opettajan-tekijanoikeus/
Laki oikeudesta korkeakouluissa tehtäviin keksintöihin 396/2006. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/lainsaadanto/2006/369
Moksu, Mika (2025) HAMK otti kovat keinot käyttöön tekijänoikeuskiistassa ja käynnisti muutosneuvottelut. Yle 11.2.2025. https://yle.fi/a/74-20142919
Opetushallitus ja Kopiosto (2025) Tekijänoikeudet opetustoiminnassa. Selvitys käyttölupien ja tekijänoikeuden rajoitusten toimivuudesta opetuksessa. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/Tekijanoikeudet%20opetustoiminnassa%20-selvitys.pdf
Tekijänoikeuslaki 404/1961. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/lainsaadanto/1961/404
TENK (2023) Hyvä tieteellinen käytäntö ja sen loukkausepäilyjen käsitteleminen Suomessa. Tutkimuseettisen neuvottelukunnan HTK-ohje 2023. https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2023-03/HTK-ohje_2023.pdf