Replies are closed for this discussion.
I actually covered my face with my hands when I read this and shook my head. When I market, I make sure that in my letter detailing the material that I am a broker for the material and that it is not my own. I have now also come to the point of developing only with an payment of 60% up front, pushed my own prices up a bit too "just in case"!!
I debated this a while ago in a blog here called "Client Payment Ethics". Its a mixed bag and a close knit community of developers who also have some they would never work with again, and others who are walking a long path together. What is good to make sure is:
I seem to recall that someone else mentioned the Do's and Don'ts of buying material - cannot seem to find who it was now. I think that going the route of the SETA's might be an idea, I really do not have any idea how this can be dealt with. And frankly prefer lying low... it feel safer.
Ok obviously the work is not her own. But there are SETA's who do provide the fundamental learning programmes and these can be used. However, if the material developer is going to be using the theoretical component of the programme, and has designed their own assessments - summatives, and other documents that are required, then there is no problem. The only problem here is that the person is claiming it is her own - which it is not. You need to identify which documents she herself as developed and which actually originate from the SETA.