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?
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.
-
I'm thinking of things that can take a student a year or more to create before they even start to collect data: photorealistically rendered scenes, constructed scenes, VR environs, video, etc.
-
Yes, but the problem is not so much the issue of "competition", but rather that in some cases the stimuli have to be kept out of the public domain in order to remain valid for testing purposes, and new ones can't really be created on demand.
End of conversation
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.