Intellectual Property Law Review Articles Academic Product Authorship

• Loading metrics

Sharing Inquiry Information and Intellectual Property Police: A Primer

Sharing Inquiry Data and Intellectual Property Police force: A Primer

• Michael Westward. Carroll

x

• Published: Baronial 27, 2015
• https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pbio.1002235

Abstruse

Sharing research information past depositing it in connectedness with a published article or otherwise making data publicly bachelor sometimes raises intellectual property questions in the minds of depositing researchers, their employers, their funders, and other researchers who seek to reuse research data. In this context or in the drafting of information direction plans, common questions are (i) what are the legal rights in data; (2) who has these rights; and (3) how does ane with these rights use them to share information in a way that permits or encourages productive downstream uses? Leaving to the side privacy and national security laws that regulate sharing certain types of information, this Perspective explains how to piece of work through the general intellectual property and contractual bug for all research information.

Commendation: Carroll MW (2015) Sharing Research Data and Intellectual Property Law: A Primer. PLoS Biol 13(8): e1002235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002235

Published: August 27, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 Michael W. Carroll. This is an open access article distributed nether the terms of the Artistic Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Funding: The author received no specific funding for this piece of work.

Competing interests: I have read the journal's policy and take the following conflicts: I am on the Board of Directors of Artistic Commons, I am the Public Lead of Creative Commons USA, and I am on the Lath of Directors of the Public Library of Science.

Abbreviations: CC, Creative Commons; CC0, Creative Commons Nil; CC Past, Creative Eatables Attribution; CC BY-SA, Artistic Commons Attribution-ShareAlike; CC Past-NC, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial; CC By-ND, Artistic Commons Attribution-NoDerivs; CRISPR/Cas9, Amassed Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats/CRISPR associated poly peptide 9; EMBL-EBI, The European Molecular Biology Laboratory-The European Bioinformatics Found; GNU, GNU'southward Not Unix!

For the researcher seeking to use another's data, this Perspective offers some good news and some not as expert news. The good news is that if a source of data—the researcher or repository—gives permission to reuse the information and i's intended use fits within the telescopic of the permission, i demand non be overly concerned with the details of the discussion that follows because the permission provides the legal ground for data reuse. For instance, if one seeks information from the European Bioinformatics Institute, one volition discover that the terms of use state that "[t]he public databases of EMBL-EBI [The European Molecular Biological science Laboratory-The European Bioinformatics Institute] are freely available past any private and for any purpose" [1]. This would appear to give whatever individual bookish researcher permission to copy and reuse the data at will. Information technology leaves open a question about whether an employee acting on behalf of his or her employer (is s/he interim as "an individual"?) is equally granted this permission.

In that location is, however, a take hold of. The EBI'southward terms too warn the user that some third parties may claim intellectual property or other legal rights on the original data, and it is upwards to the researcher not to infringe these rights. This kind of legal uncertainty interferes with the productive reuse of research data. Information technology can be avoided if the repository requires depositors to grant permission to downstream users or to give upwards any intellectual belongings rights they may have in the information. Alternatively, the last department of this Perspective describes ways by which repositories can arrive easy for depositors to point the scope of the permission they grant to downstream users.

In the absenteeism of articulate permission, mapping how intellectual holding law does—and does not—use to research data may be of utilize. In my view, the law makes all of this far more complicated than it need be. For those seeking to option and cull which reuses of some other's information may be permitted by law, regrettably, the answers to the above questions are more context dependent than many would like.

This is so for ii reasons. First, the source of all intellectual property rights is national law. Certain international treaties harmonize intellectual property owners' rights but leave the users' rights to vary past country. Second, sure countries have added protection beyond what the treaties require. Specifically, the members of the European Spousal relationship, candidate countries in Eastern Europe, Mexico [2], and South Korea have created a specialized database right that applies to certain databases created or maintained within their borders. These laws regulate uses of these databases only within their borders.

What Are the Legal Rights in Data?

The rights that may use to research data are trade secrets (confidential information), copyrights, and special database rights in the EU and South korea. Patents may apply to some forms of data, just the more common issue is that data sharing may have implications for the conquering of patent protection in inventions that arise from research. Finally, the ability to use contracts overlays all of these rights and can exist used to provide permission for reuse through licensing of underlying rights (but also to restrict reuse merely every bit a term and condition of granting access to information). Focusing on the case of a researcher depositing data in compliance with a periodical'southward publication policies, the following discusses the relevant rights and their application.

Trade Clandestine (Also Known As Proprietary or Confidential Data)

Most scientific researchers own trade secrets in their research information for some period of time, even if they are unaware of this fact. This is because, co-ordinate to international standards, national laws treat data equally a trade secret if it derives economic value from not beingness mostly known or readily ascertainable, so long as the information has been subject area to reasonable measures to keep information technology secret. Almost research information meets this definition, at least in the early stages of collection or generation.

The ease with which merchandise underground protection is acquired is mirrored past the ease with which it is lost. Public disclosure of the data removes any associated trade secret protection because the information has become generally known or readily attestable. In commercial exercise, trade secrets are routinely created and destroyed equally companies develop new products and services in confidence that they then publicly disclose when they become to marketplace. Analogously, trade secrets in research information are routinely removed through data sharing practices, including depositing in a publicly accessible repository.

In traditional academic research, trade secrecy is unlikely to exist invoked unless a member of a inquiry squad decamps to another team with confidential data. The issue becomes more salient in the context of industrial research or commercially sponsored academic research. About commercial sponsors provide for the management of trade secrets in the terms of their sponsorship agreements [3]. For instance, if a researcher collaborates with a pharmaceutical company, the researcher may be contractually bound to suppress the release of research data until the sponsor has developed a patentable product. Academic researchers and their offices of sponsored projects should advisedly review drafts of sponsored research agreements and clinical trial agreements to ensure they do non inappropriately restrict a researcher'due south correct to disseminate the results of the scientific research they have conducted. A researcher should ensure that the agreements exercise not permit commercial sponsors to revise, delete, or suppress information generated by the researcher. The terms and timing of disclosing inquiry results that are trade secrets should be incorporated into the sponsored research agreements, not negotiated at the time of publication [3,4].

Copyright

Copyright grants the author(southward) of an original work the exclusive rights to reproduce the work, to publicly distribute copies, to publicly display, publicly perform, or otherwise communicate the work to the public, and to make adaptations of the work.

Agreement how copyright applies to the sharing of enquiry data is more piece of work than it is worth unless it is likely or plausible that the creator, owner, or repository in which data resides is probable to seek to limit copying, distribution, or other reuses of data. When such rights of command are likely to be asserted or when a third party requires evidence that all permissions for republication or reuse of data accept been obtained, copyright law plays a limited but inescapable role in the sharing of inquiry data.

Copyright constabulary is founded on sure science-friendly policies. Copyright imposes no restrictions on the sharing of the bones building blocks of noesis—facts and ideas—which are role of the public domain. Researchers routinely rely on this freedom to copy in their daily do [5]. For example, the freedom to copy ideas has been an important component of the rapid propagation of the CRISPR/Cas9 (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats/CRISPR associated protein 9) process for gene editing [vi]. (There is a pending patent dispute about applications of this method [7], but the underlying idea that 1 can manipulate bacterial allowed response to splice genes is in the public domain.) Similarly, raw observational and experimental data are "facts" for copyright purposes that are free to be shared and reused without copyright restriction [5].

Copyright applies to original works of authorship. For copyright purposes, an writer is one who makes creative or editorial decisions well-nigh how ideas and facts are expressed. For example, the simply authors of a journal article for copyright purposes are those who wrote the words or created the tables or figures. The amount of creativity or editorial discretion needed to create a work of authorship is quite minimal. Every bit a event, some aspects of a dataset are likely to have a copyright attached to them. Copying the whole dataset will involve copying the copyrighted layer. Additionally, separate copyrights can attach to information items, organizational structures, and metadata (Box 1).

Box i. Layers of Copyrights in Databases

Copyright at the detail level is limited to items that involve expressive choice, such as drawings or photographs. For example, if one treats the images in the Encyclopedia of Life equally information items, the very large majority of these have enough creative expression to exist copyrightable. However, the copyright is limited to the expression that the author created. One would not be exercising whatsoever rights under copyright by creating a drawing of an animate being depicted in a photograph. The photographer is not the writer of the beast'southward characteristics. The author's copyright is limited to this detail expression through the way the shot is composed, lit, and focused, for case. Otherwise, at the item level, almost data expressed as numeric values are probable to be "facts" that are in the public domain. This means that fifty-fifty if at that place is a copyright at the organizational level, these numeric values tin exist copied and reused without any copyright restrictions.

At the organization layer, a separate copyright can ascend with respect to the manner in which information are selected and bundled. For case, even the system of an Excel spreadsheet could be copyrightable if a researcher exercised discretion in selecting field names and arranging their society. However, the copyright that would arise would be limited to this layer of the dataset. Another researcher would non exist infringing any of the rights associated with this piece of work if s/he were to republish the data in a spreadsheet with renamed and reorganized fields. As the amount of organizational choice increases in, for case, the structure of a relational database, the amount of copyrightable expression increases too.

Annotations, visualizations, and other forms of metadata tin receive dissever copyright protection if they are sufficiently original. Creating visualizations, figures, charts, graphs, and other forms of "processing" of enquiry data often involves the kinds of discretionary decisions about expression to which copyright applies, and copyright becomes an upshot for a user who seeks to reuse these forms of original expression. Finally, compilations of datasets—used in meta-assay, for instance—might receive a separate copyright if the choice and arrangement of these involve sufficient discretionary choice. Such a copyright would apply only to this selection and organization and not to any of the underlying items or organizational features of individual datasets.

In cases in which copyright attaches to some aspect of research information relevant to a potential user, it becomes important to know which copyright(due south) regulate(s) a proposed use. These rights in the copyrighted layer of a dataset requite the owner a legal hook to seek to control the reproduction or distribution of datasets and visualizations.

When copyright does govern a proposed utilise of data, the use may be permitted by users' rights that are expressed as exceptions or limitations to the copyright owner's rights. These users' rights vary by state or region (Box 2). For example, countries whose constabulary is based on that of the United kingdom have a flexible provision called off-white dealing that resembles fair use but is somewhat more limited. A fair dealing analysis involves a starting time step of determining whether the employ fits within one of the categorically eligible types of utilise. Using a copyrighted piece of work for noncommercial research or private study or criticism or review are examples of categorically adequate uses. Such a utilise does not infringe copyright if it is "fair dealing," which is determined by balancing similar considerations about the purpose of the utilize, the extent of the work used, and the upshot of the use on the copyright owner. In the rest of Europe, countries as well take the option—but non a requirement—to provide exceptions for these same uses. The pic of users' rights becomes fifty-fifty more of a patchwork as one extends the lens to the rest of the world.

Countries too provide authors with some level of moral rights in their works of authorship. These rights are personal to the author and cannot be transferred. Authors have the right to be attributed as such. Authors also accept the right to not be attributed if they no longer wish to be associated with the piece of work. A strong version of moral rights even gives the author the right to retract a work from publication and to enjoin any farther publication or duplication. Other rights include the right of integrity in the work, which limits adaptations to those that do non harm the reputation of the author. Of these, the attribution right is likely the i with the nigh salience in the context of information reuse.

Box ii. National Variation in Users' Rights in Copyright Law

The scope of copyright control is express by statutory limitations and exceptions to the copyright owner'due south sectional rights that let sure reuses past constabulary. These limitations and exceptions have non been harmonized internationally. Every bit a result, the freedom to use the copyrighted layer of a dataset—by, for example, copying the whole set up—without permission depends upon the country in which the copying takes place. This is a prime example of how and where the law is far more complex than necessary to chart the bones rules for when data sharing is permitted by police force and when the presence of a copyrighted layer would crave the copyright owner'south permission.

All countries take a targeted listing of uses that are permitted past law, but these lists vary considerably, and the identified uses tin often be defined quite specifically and narrowly. For instance, the Uk recently amended its copyright constabulary to explicitly permit researchers to content mine the research literature considering its Parliament was uncertain whether the existing limitations and exceptions would permit the copying necessary to engage in content mining [viii].

A number of other countries also have a flexible exception that requires a balancing of considerations to make up one's mind whether the use is permitted. The most clear-cutting example is the fair utilize doctrine in the United States and Israel. Under this rule, one considers the nature and purpose of the use, how much authorship is in the source piece of work, how much of the author's expression has been taken in the use, and whether the use has an adverse effect on the copyright possessor's ability to economically exploit the work. Relevant to this give-and-take, courts have establish that copying the copyrighted layer of a work is fair use if the purpose is to extract the public domain information incorporated in the work.

Sui Generis Database Rights—Europe and South Korea

In the EU, sure candidate countries in Eastern Europe, and South Korea, research information may also be subject field to a special database right. Mexico besides protects databases that do not qualify for copyright protection, but its measures are non discussed here. Keep in mind that what follows applies but to (one) databases that are created or maintained within the borders of EU member states or Republic of korea and (2) uses of these protected databases that take place within these territories. As frustrating as this may be to a globalized inquiry community, in a narrow class of cases, this correct could apply to a download of a substantial amount of data that takes place on a figurer connected to the Internet in Europe or Republic of korea, but not elsewhere.

Under the Eu'southward Database Directive [9], these special rights utilize to any database that requires a "substantial investment" to assemble or maintain. Every bit interpreted by the Courtroom of Justice of the Eu ("Court of Justice"), this right is limited to those databases that require investments in the obtaining of data, not the creation of the underlying information [10]. This means that a sole source database, similar a sporting events schedule, by and large does non enjoy protection, while publishers of directories or lists tin maintain protection if they only obtain data from others, not create it themselves. This sui generis correct in the nonoriginal (i.due east., not subject field to copyright) portions of a database lasts for 15 years.

Sui generis database rights protect against the extraction or reutilization of substantial parts of a protected database as well as frequent extraction of insubstantial parts of a protected database. This legal right would exist a meaning barrier to sharing research data were it not subject to a limitation for noncommercial research. A great deal of research information likely meets the threshold requirement of "substantial investment" of financial resources and labor because of its capacious definition, but a substantial amount of university or nonprofit infirmary utilize of such information probable qualifies for the limitation. A take a chance remains that increased commercial sponsorship of academic research may test the boundaries of this "noncommercial" exception.

Ane user-friendly provision of the Database Directive is that it greatly limits the ability of a database owner to use terms of utilize or other forms of contractual agreement to add use restrictions that exceed those in the Directive—by, for example, prohibiting the occasional extraction or republication of insubstantial amounts of data taken from the database. In a recent odd twist, the Courtroom of Justice has determined that if a database lacks both copyright protection and protection under the Directive, then the possessor'due south terms of use volition exist enforceable [11].

Patent

The touch of disclosing or sharing research data on patent rights can exist easily overstated past those seeking legal cover to avoid sharing information. However, the issue is non entirely fabricated considering there are situations in which data sharing may have an agin issue on a party seeking patent protection.

Patents are exclusive rights in inventions. An invention is patentable if information technology is new, useful, and demonstrates an inventive footstep over what is already known within the relevant field of knowledge. Different the rights described above, patents only arise if they are applied for and granted by a public authority. In most countries, the application process requires an exam to determine if the legal requirements for patent protection are met. In a few countries, such equally South Africa, one need only register one's claim to receive a patent. As with other intellectual belongings rights, a patent applies only to uses that take place at least in office inside the borders of the country from which a patent has issued.

The putative take chances of data sharing arises because public disclosure of an invention prior to filing a patent application can destroy or impair one's right to obtain patent protection for the invention [3]. Nevertheless, nearly enquiry data are not eligible to be protected every bit inventions every bit such. (Whether inquiry data is capable of being a patentable invention depends upon how elastic one's definition of "data" is. If genetically modified organisms are "information," for instance, then such data very likely are eligible for patent protection and whatsoever intended patent applications should exist filed prior to their public disclosure.) Instead, the invention is far more likely to be disclosed through the publication of an associated inquiry commodity than past the sharing of data.

When a published research article teaches the public everything almost inventions arising from inquiry that data eolith does, then the deposition has no more touch on on patentability than the decision to publish had. For this reason, the rules that researchers must bide by for disclosing inventions to their university or other employer or funder prior to publishing a research article should be read to include disclosure prior to depositing associated data equally well [3,12].

There may exist cases in which data deposit has a marginal additional impact on patentability of inventions arising from enquiry reported in an article. One such case would be when the article does non draw the invention just the data do. Some other case would be one in which the data disclosure fills a gap in other researchers' noesis such that inventions that arise from the research are not described by the information but rendered "obvious" to one skilled in the art by the disclosure. In one case an invention becomes obvious, it lacks the required inventive footstep needed to obtain protection.

A separate patent issue for data sharing arises when a patented process claims the steps involved in data sharing or reuse. A patent grants the possessor the rights to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing the invention. Utilize of an invention is interpreted quite broadly. A patentable process could claim a series of steps that would be practiced in connection with sure forms of data reuse. This issue is so context dependent that fiddling more than raising information technology as a consideration tin be washed here.

Who Holds These Rights?

This question becomes relevant when one wishes to affirm intellectual property control or when one must seek permission to make an intended use of some other'south inquiry information. Unremarkably the person who creates or generates the intellectual belongings is the initial owner of these rights. When the creator is an employee, determining who holds the rights becomes more complicated, and national variation reemerges as an issue. Finally, all of these rights are transferable (except moral rights in copyright), and so the initial owner may no longer be the rights holder.

Trade Clandestine

Employers more often than not own trade secrets that are developed by their employees within the telescopic of their employment. This rule certainly encompasses the research information generated or collected by an industrial researcher. Whether or how this rule applies in the academic enquiry context is not clear. In the absence of an understanding or policy that applies to trade secrets, student or independent researchers would own any trade secret rights associated with their data. Whether an employee of a university or hospital creates or collects data within the telescopic of employment is a subject of theoretical interest. In do, however, the rules of ownership are routinely altered or determined contractually. Sponsored research agreements and university or infirmary intellectual property policies generally institute the rules for ownership and disclosure of trade secrets [3,4].

Copyright

Copyright is owned initially by the author(s) of a copyrighted work. For copyright purposes, the author is the person or persons who make the artistic or editorial decisions about how to express the underlying facts and ideas. This is a much more constrained version of authorship than applies in science. This gap between what science and copyright police values is readily seen in how credit is distributed for a scientific publication. Scientists recognize that results emerge from squad effort, and scientists accept developed conventions most who is listed equally an author and in what guild to signal this recognition to the broader community. For copyright purposes, notwithstanding, only those members of the team who expressed themselves by writing the words, cartoon the figures, or otherwise creating original expression are authors with rights under copyright.

Thus, if there is a copyright layer to a dataset or database, the owner(s) of the copyright(s) associated with this layer would be the one(s) who chose how to organize, accommodate, comment, or visualize the data rather than the i(south) involved in its generation or drove [5].

When the copyrighted piece of work is created by an employee inside the scope of employment, a national division emerges. In the Us, under the work-fabricated-for-hire dominion, the employer is treated as the author, and the employee has no rights [xiii]. Whether this dominion applies to the inquiry and pedagogy materials created by academy employees is the subject area of a sectionalisation of opinion. Some fence the rule does not apply to inquiry outputs either because the particular research from which the data ascend may not be considered within the scope of employment or because prior law had recognized a "teacher exception" to the dominion that may take been implicitly carried forwards into electric current law. On its face, current law does not state whatsoever exceptions to the rule. In the residuum of the earth, the private creator(due south) first(s) with the rights, only these may automatically be transferred to the employer if the employment agreement provides for this.

Sui Generis Database Rights—Europe and South korea

The holder of sui generis database rights is the person or entity that makes the substantial investment in collecting data from other sources or maintaining the database. In the research context, these rights usually will vest to data aggregators and repositories rather than individual researchers or research teams.

Patent

Patent applications by and large must be filed in the name of the inventor(s). The rights in the patent, however, tin can exist assigned to another party. By understanding, employees routinely assign the rights in their inventions to their employer. University and infirmary employment agreements and policies often require that researchers assign rights to inventions arising under sponsored research agreements to their employer as well. Academic institutions sometimes agree more than patents than both the government and commercial businesses. For case, the University of California and The John Hopkins University were both in the top 15 holders of deoxyribonucleic acid patents in 2004 [14].

Recommendations for Increasing Information Sharing and Openness

Contracts and Licenses

When one or more intellectual holding rights utilize to research data, the owner of such rights can grant permission for reuse through a license. In legal terms, a grant of permission is a nonexclusive license. An exclusive license is one in which the rights holder agrees to surrender any rights to utilize the intellectual property, usually in return for some form of compensation.

From a legal perspective, terms of apply or other "licenses" autumn into ane of two groups. In the first group, in that location is an underlying intellectual property correct associated with data that would be violated by the user in the absence of the permission granted past the terms. That is an intellectual property license. Violation of such a license could lead to a courtroom order requiring the user to finish any farther use. Damages and attorneys' fees may also exist assessed against the breaching user.

In the second group, there is a collection of information that has no underlying intellectual property correct associated with information technology, such as a big collection of sensor information that is organized in an unoriginal mode—say, chronologically. If 1 were to download these data from a site with "terms of use" associated, those terms are still enforceable equally a contractual agreement, but there would be no intellectual belongings right to borrow. Enforcing any apply restrictions in this 2d group of agreements is much more difficult because the author of the terms has to testify that the employ has acquired measureable economical damages.

Although there are policy arguments confronting enforcing the terms of use in this 2nd group—considering they impose apply restrictions on data that intellectual holding law treats every bit in the public domain—courts in the US and elsewhere generally have found these terms of use to be enforceable every bit long as the bones requirements for voluntary agreements accept been met. For example, a Maryland district court upheld a terms-of-utilize understanding even when a third-party user obtained database access merely by clicking a box to accept, but failed to review, the terms of utilize [15].

Since the exercise is legal and enforceable, it should exist a topic for community discussion whether information technology is upstanding or appropriate to condition admission to data on understanding to a contract that imposes employ restrictions on data that is otherwise complimentary of any intellectual property rights.

Clarifying the Terms of Use

Equally the discussion above demonstrates, it is non frequently articulate to a potential user of data whether whatever intellectual property rights are associated with the data and, if at that place are, who owns these. To promote data reuse, it is incumbent on the owner(s) of these rights to mark the information with the associated permissions. Otherwise, one ends up with the muddy rules set forth by the EBI outlined at the opening of this Perspective.

Removing or Limiting Rights Restrictions

Trade hugger-mugger.

The easiest way to grant permission to utilise a trade underground associated with data is to get rid of it by publicly disclosing or depositing the data. Otherwise, some form of confidentiality or nondisclosure understanding would be needed to preserve the trade clandestine(s) while permitting their reuse by a closed grouping of other researchers.

Patent.

As discussed to a higher place, public disclosure can as well limit or destroy the power to obtain patent rights in inventions associated with information. When a patent covers the collection, generation, or use of enquiry information, the owner tin grant permission to practise the procedure through a nonexclusive license or through a public statement that the patent will not be asserted against researchers practicing the process in connection with their research.

Copyright and database rights.

These rights are more persistent than merchandise secrets or patents. However, they also can exist permanently removed in near parts of the world if the owner of the rights publicly and unequivocally states his or her intention to permanently relinquish these rights. Creative Eatables provides a tool called CC0 (CC Zero) to accomplish this task. In countries that deny owners the right to relinquish these rights (yep, information technology happens), CC0 functions as a license that imposes no constraints on the user (Box iii).

Box iii. Creative Commons

Artistic Eatables is a global organization that promotes the sharing and reuse of artistic, educational, and scientific works past supplying standardized public licenses that anyone can use to permit reuse of works they created or to which they ain the rights. The primary tools are half-dozen copyright licenses, a copyright waiver, and a label that indicates that a work is complimentary from copyright and in the public domain. The half dozen licenses and the CC0 waiver are designed to respond to creators who take different appetites for reuse of their works. As is indicated in the torso of this Perspective, CC0 is a way to dedicate a work to the public domain by waiving all rights under copyright and whatever sui generis database rights that may apply. This tool is used by those who create public domain clipart, for example, and in connection with sharing information for which copyright is only an incidental consideration. Unlike CC0, the licenses impose some weather on reuse.

The licenses

The broadest license is the Artistic Eatables Attribution (CC BY) license, which requires only that the user provide attribution every bit directed by the licensor. This license is used by open access publishers, including PLOS, by creators of open up educational resources, such equally OpenStax College and Rice Connexions, and past a range of other creators. All of the other licenses keep the attribution requirement and add together other weather. Ane of these is the "Share Alike" requirement, which provides that anyone who adapts the licensed work must license the adaptation under the aforementioned license as the source work. This requirement is a close cousin to certain "copyleft" licenses used for software, such as the GNU General Public License (GNU's Not Unix!). Wikipedia uses this Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license, and only materials licensed under CC BY or CC By-SA can exist uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

The Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) license limits licensed uses to noncommercial uses. Last, one may permit only copy-paste reuse and not license the creation of derivative works by using the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs license (CC By-ND). The concluding 2 licenses combine the noncommercial condition with either the Share Alike or the No Derivatives condition (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/). This may seem similar more complexity than information technology is worth, and some critics of Creative Commons take this position, but a quick look at the uses of these licenses on Flickr demonstrates that creators appear to desire this full choice set to share their works (https://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/).

Alternatively, 1 can grant the public permission to use copyrights associated with a dataset or database through a license. For instance, a researcher may mail service to the spider web a complex dataset that has an original database model. Users who re-create the dataset but to extract the uncopyrightable information elements would not need permission to do so in much of the earth. However, if one were to republish the full dataset, one would exist using the copyright layer in a fashion that likely would crave a license. The researcher publishing the dataset may but desire to require that any republication be done with proper attribution. The researcher could write a bespoke license to require this or could utilise a standard copyright license, such as the CC Past license. The organization publishes an FAQ on the relation of its licenses to databases on its website [sixteen].

References

1. 1. EBI Terms of Employ of the EBI Services. EMBL-EBI. 2015. http://www.ebi.air conditioning.uk/most/terms-of-use.
2. ii. World Intellectual Property Organization, Summary on Existing Legislation Concerning Intellectual Property in Non-Original Databases. 13 Sep 2002; SCCR/8/3. http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=2296.
3. 3. Contreras JL. Data Sharing, Latency Variables, and Science Commons. Berkeley Tech L J. 2010; four:25: 1601–1672. http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj/vol25/iss4/ii
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. The University-Industry Sit-in Partnership. Researcher Guidebook: A Guide for Successful Institutional-Industrial Collaborations. Institutional Researcher. 2012; six:28. https://www.uidp.org/publication/researcher-guidebook-and-quick-guide/
5. 5. Reichman JH, Uhlir PF. A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific information in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment. Police force & Contemp Prob. 2003; 66: 315–462. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1515.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Jinek M1, Chylinski Thousand, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier East. A programmable dual-RNA-guided Deoxyribonucleic acid endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity Science. 2012 Aug 17;337(6096):816–21. pmid:22745249
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
7. vii. Rood J. Who Owns CRISPR? The Scientist. 3 April 2015. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42595/title/Who-Owns-CRISPR-/. Accessed 3 July 2015.
8. 8. The Intellectual Property Office. Exceptions to Copyright: Inquiry. Copyright. 2014; six:10. https://www.gov.uk/regime/uploads/arrangement/uploads/attachment_data/file/375954/Research.pdf.
9. 9. Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Quango of xi March 1996 on the legal protection of databases. Official Journal L 077. 27 March 1996: 20–28. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. Judgment of the Courtroom (Thousand Sleeping room) of 9 Nov 2004. The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others 5 William Hill Organization Ltd. Case 203/02. Official Journal of the European Spousal relationship. 1 August 2005. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1435941427227&uri=CELEX:62002CJ0203.
11. 11. Judgment of the Courtroom (Second Sleeping accommodation) of fifteen January 2015. Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV. Example C-30/14. Official Journal of the European Union. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62014CJ0030&qid=1435940638722.
12. 12. MIT Policies and Procedures. Data Policies: Invention and Proprietary Information Agreements. 13.i.4. http://spider web.mit.edu/policies/13/thirteen.i.html.
13. xiii. U.s.a. Code, title 17, § 201(b). http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html
14. 14. Malakoff D. NIH Roils Academe With Advice on Licensing Deoxyribonucleic acid Patents. DNA Patent. 2004 Mar 19;303:1757–58. https://www2.bc.edu/~zlate/biotech/ScienceMarch19.pdf.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. CoStar Realty Info., Inc. v. Field, 612 F. Supp.2d 660, 669 (D. Md. 2009). http://world wide web.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/CoStar-08-663-MTDOpinion.pdf
16. 16. Creative Eatables: Information, https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Data.

redmanunwhan.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002235