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.
-
-
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.
-
I think that's true for many but not all stimuli. It's very likely that if you share freely the stimuli will wind up in the public domain, which can be a serious problem for some stimuli.
- 2 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.