Is it that he's dead . . . ?

[dfrecore]

In my mind, not informing the students is a lie of omission.  Then I assume that the lie is intended to hide something.  Maybe that makes me a suspicious person but it's something that comes from being burned.  As other's said, the fact that the course is now canned content is not an issue for me.  We consume that kind of content all the time from multiple sources.  To me it's the quality of the content that matters most.  In some ways it seems like a testament to the now-deceased Professor that they want to continue to use his lectures.  At the same time it seems disrespectful that they can't even mention his passing.  I wonder if his surviving beneficiaries receive  any compensation.  Like royalties paid for re-runs on TV?

Yes, they should change the wording to make it clear that the content is from a now-deceased prof.

OTOH, he wouldn't be getting royalties for his course (canned or not) in the normal course, because his employer is paying him for his time.  He's giving them what they paid for.  If he had decided to create a course on his own, and his employer agreed to it, he could go out and sell it on his own.  But a course he makes while employed by a school would belong to them.