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.
-
-
That being said, I'm not sure this can be a hard and fast rule. There must be exceptional cases where the stimuli must be kept private, I just can't think of any.
-
If you use someone else’s stimuli, and they don’t give you permission to share
-
I have some stimuli that can't be shared publicly (because they form a memory test, small set, very difficult to produce/evaluate), so anyone who uses them has to agree not to share with anyone else. Not uncommon issues, I suspect.
-
BTW our university lawyer told me - I think - that IP created by students remains their property by default.
-
That's good!
-
Right, very sensible. Just curious... so a custom (?) license that requires it to be kept within the community of scientists who have already agreed to the licence. Something like that?
-
Yes. I think to do this properly you would want to have a custom license. It is a very tricky and time consuming job to do properly. To do it well, you'd have to anticipate all possible uses and misuses (commercial and non-commercial) over the lifetime of the IP, from day 1.
-
Yes, I personally don't think it is worth it and sharing freely is better on average, and that's what policy should be based on ("Hard cases make bad law"). But some seem to think the choice is that, or not sharing at all, in order to avoid low probability adverse outcomes.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
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.