Edtech Platforms Raise Concerns Over Academic Freedom and Intellectual Property Rights in Higher Education

Digital platforms have become integral to teaching and learning in higher education (HE), yet their widespread adoption introduces complex challenges related to academic freedom and intellectual property (IP) rights. Education International’s new report, “Behind the platforms: Safeguarding intellectual property rights and academic freedom in Higher Education,” provides an in-depth review of the edtech landscape, focusing on terms of use and privacy policies to understand these emerging issues.

When academics engage with digital edtech platforms, the ownership and rights over the content they create or share are governed by agreements negotiated between platform vendors and educational institutions. These contracts often assign IP rights concerning academic content and establish terms for data collection, processing, and ownership.

While edtech companies typically do not claim ownership of academic content uploaded to their platforms, institutions frequently retain IP rights. However, contractual licenses granted to platform vendors commonly allow them to use this content for various, sometimes vaguely defined, purposes. This licensing structure can result in individual educators losing control over their materials, which may be repurposed beyond their original educational intent.

The report emphasizes the urgency of clarifying IP rights, especially as edtech platforms increasingly integrate Artificial Intelligence (AI). Recent examples from the United States suggest that academic and student content could be utilized to train or fine-tune AI systems, raising concerns about consent and ownership.

Beyond content, edtech platforms routinely collect extensive user data, including posted materials and engagement metrics. From an IP perspective, this data represents a valuable asset for platform operators, who leverage it to enhance products and marketing strategies. Consequently, control over user data is a critical business priority for these companies.

The monetization of user data influences teaching and academic labor by driving changes in platform functionality. Since data is often collected for its potential future value rather than immediate educational needs, educators may find their work shaped by commercial interests rather than pedagogical considerations.

These shifts in IP ownership and data control have significant implications for academic freedom. Edtech platforms can restrict educators’ pedagogic autonomy by dictating course structure, material selection, and assignment formats. The rapid deployment of AI-based services exacerbates these concerns, as automated decision-making can limit educators’ discretion and override their professional judgment.

Generative AI technologies, such as large language models capable of producing text in response to prompts, are increasingly embedded in major learning management systems worldwide. While proponents argue these tools can reduce educators’ workload by automating content creation and assessment, they also pose risks to academic freedom by potentially supplanting educators’ control over course content.

In response, some higher education unions are actively addressing the impact of AI on intellectual property rights, job security, workload, and autonomy. Despite enthusiasm for AI’s efficiency gains, no comprehensive policies currently exist to protect educators’ rights in this evolving landscape.

The report recommends enhancing transparency in contractual negotiations between universities and edtech vendors. Academic staff should be informed about the rights they retain over their content, the licenses granted to platform operators, and the scope of user data extracted through institutional agreements. Although often overlooked as mere legal formalities, these contracts significantly influence academic freedom and labor conditions.

More broadly, the report warns that contracts between higher education institutions and edtech companies may prioritize commercial profit over the public and educational missions of universities. Institutions have become major consumers of commercial platform services, incurring substantial licensing fees while enabling platform operators to monetize collected data.

Many agreements bind institutions to lengthy, costly contracts that hinder switching providers. Yet academics are frequently unaware of these arrangements and are seldom consulted on decisions that affect their working environment and academic freedom. Such decisions are made without adherence to international standards or regulatory protections.

The upcoming 2024 review of the 1997 UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-education Teaching Personnel by the Joint ILO/UNESCO Committee of Experts presents an opportunity to address these challenges. Earlier this year, the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on the Teaching Profession advocated for updated international instruments, including a convention, to protect teaching personnel.

The report urges that considerations related to digital platforms, AI, academic freedom, and intellectual property be prioritized in developing international standards. Teaching unions are encouraged to campaign on the impacts of technology on academic labor as platforms and AI increasingly shape university teaching practices.

At a time when universities face mounting pressure to adopt digital platforms and AI, academic workers require robust protections through internationally agreed norms to preserve their rights and autonomy.

The views expressed in this article reflect those of the author and do not necessarily represent official positions of Education International.