Good point! I hadn’t thought of it in this way.
-
-
I think that's totally fair and helpful, basically an embargo on new use. Plus even an offer to help others create their own similar stimuli. I know from experience though that not everyone agrees with this approach.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Creators of new stimuli, scales, vignettes, and other "creative" outputs have always had this ability through copyright licensing. Some use it already; it is not a barrier to sharing. (Screenshot from Glick & Fiske, 1996, who shared their entire scale in their appendix)pic.twitter.com/BFmbrHGEYA
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @richarddmorey @JhendersonIMB and
The one harder case is data, because it cannot be copyrighted/licensed so is free. Solvable now, though, with creative outputs. In fact, unless CR is signed over to the journal, authors still entirely control the stimuli/scale/vignette etc, and no one can use them anyway.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @richarddmorey @JhendersonIMB and
Many people don't know this, but copyright protection is automatic. Sharing via open publication actually *helps* protection, because it is a timestamped, author-verifiable publication of the items, potentially with license terms attached.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @richarddmorey @JhendersonIMB and
(caveat is that copyright for employee's work belongs to the employer by default, but many universities grant that copyright back to the creator in academic settings to avoid difficulties with publishers, etc. One would have to check their uni's policy)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But how much protection does copyright law actually give? My understanding was ‘not much’ when it comes to reusing material for non commercial academic research.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
My understanding is that there are two barriers: fair use, which is ambiguous, and reluctance to enforce. The copyright holder has to defend it, and some don’t want to look like the bad guy.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @richarddmorey @JenniRodd and
I'm still confused on 2 things here: 1) Are students' stimuli theirs by default while non-students' stimuli (staff's/employees') the uni's (which grants the rights back in many cases)?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @richarddmorey and
2) I was under the impression that text (manuscripts) and stimuli both have the same rules, i.e., they are both automatically copyrighted and belong to somebody (uni or author(s)/creator(s)), right?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Based on 2)'s answer being "yes", surely the same arguments for making the manuscript open access would apply to make the stimuli open too, right?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.