The answer in short would appear to be a resounding yes. 

When it comes to patents, universities are not shy about claiming ownership - 99% in fact are happy to do so. 

However, when it comes to copyright over scholarly work universities seem to have a blind spot: only 6% claim ownership. 

But as you will see from this article the monetary value of copyrights is almost twice that of patents. 

Why the difference in treatment?

Could it be that universities are coy about confronting their superstar scholars? Is this a historical hangover of sorts?

No matter, universities would do well to understand the law, understand the potentially enormous market they are forgoing (willingly it seems) and look again at their employee terms of engagement.