> Does this also mean that if a programmer will write a song at weekend, his employer will have the copyright?
The example I knew about was something that could plausibly have been done using the university's resources, but it wasn't.
While it does seem crazy, a common legal practice is to create incredibly rigid, selfish policies and then decide later if it's worth enforcing them. I was often told as an undergrad that anything I did was partly owned by my school, but that I shouldn't worry about it because they'd never pursue me.
> something that could plausibly have been done using the university's resources
Yeah, but parent here states that even if an employee wasn't using any employer's resources, the rights are still belong to the latter. Which is a whole other level of insanity.
On an unrelated note, university owning any work of a student, regardless on how it was done (unless it was explicitly contracted with the uni), is also pretty grim, but this is probably US thing.
The example I knew about was something that could plausibly have been done using the university's resources, but it wasn't.
While it does seem crazy, a common legal practice is to create incredibly rigid, selfish policies and then decide later if it's worth enforcing them. I was often told as an undergrad that anything I did was partly owned by my school, but that I shouldn't worry about it because they'd never pursue me.