To be precise: data, in the sense of a body of facts, cannot be copyrighted. For example, the white pages in a telephone directory are not protected by copyright. Nor can facts the patented.
A document that presents a selection of facts can be copyright. An idea about how to apply a fact can be patented. In a research context this is sometimes helpful and sometimes unhelpful. But the problem isn’t IP in data as such.
Regards,
Chris Morris
STFC
From: r.hosking=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of rhos012
Sent: 27 March 2015 08:55
To: Simon Hodson; RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG
Cc: Paul Uhlir; Mark Gahegan
Subject: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] [rda-legalinterop-ig] A smartphone app for understanding...
Hey All,
….
In my mind, we should aspire towards a situation where Copyright is no longer legislated over research data, full stop. I do realize this is not realistic given any reasonable timeframe, nor a helpful first step in any strategy. …
Cheers,
Richard Hosking
--
Richard Hosking,
PhD Candidate
27
Mar
2015
Groups audience:
Author: Richard Hosking
Date: 27 Mar, 2015
Hey Chris, I agree with the distinctions, but in practice making these determinations is often incredibly difficult, and likely beyond the legal understanding of most practicing researchers.
For machine-generated data, even separating the notion of ‘pure facts’ from annotated facts, or those same facts when considered as part of a collection, or a database is tough. I would guess that most published datasets would have some copyrightable portions sneaking in. Additionally, taking a broader understanding of research data would have to include: publications, videos, interview transcripts, novels, etc. Depending on what discipline you find yourself in, the type of ‘data’ you work with could look quite different from the lens of copyright.
I often refer back to this paper from John Wilbanks, who, at the time, worked at Creative Commons. http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/07/02/Jcom0702%282008%29C01/Jcom0702%282008...
Cheers,
Richard
On 27/03/2015, at 10:15 pm, chrishmorris <***@***.***> wrote:
To be precise: data, in the sense of a body of facts, cannot be copyrighted. For example, the white pages in a telephone directory are not protected by copyright. Nor can facts the patented.
A document that presents a selection of facts can be copyright. An idea about how to apply a fact can be patented. In a research context this is sometimes helpful and sometimes unhelpful. But the problem isn’t IP in data as such.
Regards,
Chris Morris
STFC
From: r.hosking=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of rhos012
Sent: 27 March 2015 08:55
To: Simon Hodson; RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG
Cc: Paul Uhlir; Mark Gahegan
Subject: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] [rda-legalinterop-ig] A smartphone app for understanding...
Hey All,
….
In my mind, we should aspire towards a situation where Copyright is no longer legislated over research data, full stop. I do realize this is not realistic given any reasonable timeframe, nor a helpful first step in any strategy. …
Cheers,
Richard Hosking
--
Richard Hosking,
PhD Candidate
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/rdacodata-legal-interoperability-ig/po...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/47987