Who owns the copyright on a course syllabus?

An article by George Leef in Forbes (link here) calls out a recent ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals, upholding a lower state court decision that the University of Missouri need not provide copies of course syllabi under a "sunshine law" request, because such copying would violate the professors' copyright in their syllabi.

The decision (here) analyzes the question of whether syllabi are subject to copyright and, finding that they are, decides that fair use is not applicable because fair use is a defense to a charge of copyright infringement, and not a pre-emptive doctrine to authorize copying before the fact.  Which once again shows that it's better to ask for forgiveness than for permission.

But the part that the Court leaves out is whether the copyright to the syllabi properly lies with the faculty, or with the university.  The university's position is that the syllabi are the property of the faculty, and that it's not authorized to make copies without permission.

Anyone who has dealt with intellectual property issues and major research universities will not be surprised to learn that the University of Missouri has a copyright policy (link here).  Section 100.030.A.1 states, 

1. In conjunction with the University Conflict of Interest Regulations 330.015 and the University Patent Regulations 100.020 as they may be amended from time to time, this policy governs the rights and responsibilities of University employees, students, and of any other persons using University facilities or resources in the creation of original works of authorship subject to protection by copyright law. The faculty will continue to hold copyright for traditionally accepted intellectual property that is developed in their roles as teachers and scholars subject to the provisions of section 2 herein. These include, but are not limited to such materials as books, workbooks, study guides, monographs, articles, and other works including music and performances, whether embodied in print, electronic format, or in other media.

It's that "Section 2" proviso that's the kicker.  Section 2.b provides that "The University will own the copyright in materials that are...created by employees if the production of the materials is a specific responsibility of the position for which the employee is hired."

As a former college professor, I can state with a high degree of confidence that the production of a course syllabus is a "specific responsibility" placed on faculty by the university.  Accordingly, the copyright on the course syllabi is held by the University, not by the faculty.

Why this apparently didn't come up during the case is a complete mystery to me.