Guidance

This advice may not be adequate.

Some guidance for instructors from the University Committee on Educational Policy (UCEP):

...Posting of instructor-owned course materials to third-party websites without the instructor’s permission is especially problematic because it may at once violate intellectual property rights, provide opportunities for students to cheat, and financially enrich these third-party online services. In an effort to mitigate these risks, we recommend several measures:

(1) remind students of the specific actions that constitute violations of academic integrity and intellectual property policies and of the serious consequences of committing such violations. This can be done through statements in course syllabi and announcements in class meetings at the beginning of each quarter or semester.

(2) include a copyright notice on your course materials. For some guidance on copyright notices, please see the following link: https://copyright.universityofcalifornia.edu/faqs/#h.

(3) include the following sentence in your course materials in the header or footer of course materials: “This content is protected and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed.” One online service, Course Hero, has indicated that its filtering tool will generally prohibit the upload of documents that contain this statement.

(4) define whether the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools is acceptable. And, if so, articulate what type of use is acceptable (e.g., are they allowed to share your course materials?). The syllabus should notify students if they are required to acknowledge use of GenAI in their coursework...

Full guidance at https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/ac-senate-divisions-recommendations-academic-integrity-10-1-24.pdf.

Yours truly's experience with issues of "academic integrity" at UCLA seemed to vary with who was making interpretations at the dean of students office. In some cases, for example, plagiarism was interpreted broadly to mean unoriginal work that would include writing reports by cutting and pasting from sources, even if some kind of sourcenote was present. But sometimes a much more narrow interpretation was taken, i.e., if there was a sourcenote somewhere, a report largely composed of cut-and-paste excerpts was OK. Given the variability, it is best to define unoriginal work in the syllabus clearly. That step would include use of AI. The question is, did you write this report or is it largely the product of others' work including AI as an "other"?