Public Domain; Public Interest; Public Funding: focussing on the 'three Ps' in scientific research

Waelde, Charlotte and McGinley, Mags Public Domain; Public Interest; Public Funding: focussing on the 'three Ps' in scientific research. SCRIPT-ed, 2005, vol. 2, n. 1, pp. 83-106. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[img]
Preview
PDF
3ps.pdf

Download (352kB) | Preview

English abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the 'three Ps' of scientific research: Public Domain; Public Interest; Public Funding. This is done by examining some of the difficulties faced by scientists engaged in scientific research who may have problems working within the constraints of current copyright and database legislation, where property claims can place obstacles in the way of research, in other words, the public domain. The article then looks at perceptions of the public interest and asks whether copyright and the database right reflect understandings of how this concept should operate. Thirdly, it considers the relevance of public funding for scientific research in the context of both the public domain and of the public interest. Finally, some recent initiatives seeking to change the contours of the legal framework are be examined.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Public Domain; Public Interest; Public Interest; Scientific publishing.
Subjects: E. Publishing and legal issues. > ED. Intellectual property: author's rights, ownership, copyright, copyleft, open access.
B. Information use and sociology of information > BD. Information society.
Depositing user: Zapopan Martín Muela-Meza
Date deposited: 29 Jun 2005
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:01
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/6346

References

J Litman, “The Public Domain” (1990) 39 Emory Law Journal 965 at 968.

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (hereafter CDPA) s 12. Directive 96/9 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (hereafter the Database Directive) Article 10.1

Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) Article 9(2).

P Samuelson, “Preserving the Positive Functions of the Public Domain in Science” (2003) 2 Data Science Journal 192

J Litman, “The Public Domain” (1990) 39 Emory Law Journal 965 at 967. For more on the public domain see “The Public Domain” (2003) 66 No 1 & 2 Law & Contemp. Probs. (the whole issue) available @: <http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/lcptoc66winterspring2003.htm >

J Boyle, “The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain” (2003) 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 33 available @: <http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?66+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+33+(WinterSpring+2003)>

C McSherry in Who Owns Academic Work? Battling for Control of Intellectual Property (2001) at 219.

M Biagioli. “Rights or Rewards? Changing Frameworks of Scientific Authorship”, in M Biagioli and P Galison (eds), Scientific Authorship. Credit and Intellectual Property in Science (2003) at 257.

International Council for Science, Scientific Data and Information – A Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel, December 2004. Available @: <http://www.icsu.org/Gestion/img/ICSU_DOC_DOWNLOAD/551_DD_FILE_PAA_Data_and_Information.pdf>

< http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~ajgh/DataDeluge(final).pdf >

< http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/96/171&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en >

J Gaster, Communications Law Vol 5 No. 3, 200 at 97.

< http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=11403> at 23.

International Council for Science, Scientific Data and Information – A Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel, December 2004. Available @: <http://www.icsu.org/Gestion/img/ICSU_DOC_DOWNLOAD/551_DD_FILE_PAA_Data_and_Information.pdf>

British Horseracing Board Limited and Others v William Hill Organisation Limited [2001] 2 C.M.L.R. 12. Laddie. J.

British Horseracing Board Ltd v William Hill Organisation Limited, Case 203/02 Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 8 June 2004 paras 37-49.

There is also the right the right to prevent repeated and systematic extraction and or re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the database contents. Database Directive Article 7.5.

Database Directive Article 7(5). The purpose of this provision stems from a concern to ‘ensure that the lack of protection of the insubstantial parts does not lead to their being repeatedly and systematically extracted and/or re-utilised’. Common Position (EC) No 20/95 adopted by Council on 10 July 1995 (OJ 1995 C 288 at 14.

G Laurie and C Waelde, “Privacy, Property and Personalities: Whatever Happened to the Public Interest?” Forthcoming. Currently on file with the authors. At 22

Ringer, “Authors’ Rights in the Electronic Age: Beyond the Copyright Act of 1976” (1981) 1 Loyola Entertainment Law Journal 1.

UNESCO, Third Medium Term Plan (1990-1995), adopted in November 1989, para 195.

Department of Culture, Media and Sport Creative Industries Economic Estimates Statistical Bulletin, August 2004 available @: <http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/research/statistics_outputs/creative_industries_eco_est.htm >

Westminster Media Forum Seminar on Intellectual Property and Rights Ownership, addressed by the Rt Hon Estelle Morris MP, London, 9 December 2004.

J Reinbothe, untitled paper presented at WIPO’s Protection of Databases Workshop on 16 September 1999, Geneva.>

S Maurer, P Hugenholtz, H Onsrud, “Europe’s Database Experiment” (2001) Vol 294 Science 789-790 at 790.

European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001, OJ 2001, L167/10 (hereafter the Infosoc Directive).

C Waelde and H MacQueen “From Entertainment to Education: the Scope of Copyright?” (2004) 3 Intellectual Property Quarterly 259 at 270.

Implemented in the UK in the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, SI 2003/2498.

C Waelde and H MacQueen “From Entertainment to Education: the Scope of Copyright?" n 69 above.

Chapman, “A Human Rights Perspective on Intellectual Property, Scientific Progress and Access to the Benefits of Science”. Available on the WIPO website @: <http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/activities/1998/humanrights/papers/pdf/chapman.pdf >

J Reichman and P Samuelson, “Intellectual Property Rights in Data?” (1997) 50 Vanderbilt Law Review 51 at 164.

Database makers/vendors are protecting their data with both clever business strategies and technology. N. Gallini and S. Scotchmer, “Intellectual Property: When is it the best incentive system?” (2002) Vol 2 Innovation Policy and the Economy 51

RTE and ITP v Commission Joined Cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P [1995] ECR I-743; IMS Health v NDC Health Case 418/01; Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 772/2004 of 27 April 2004 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of technology transfer agreements

< http://www.rae.ac.uk >

< http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,5500,784805,00.html. >

Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration. Final Report December 2003. ISBN: 0-947819-76-2.

Recommendation 4.1.

N. Gallini and S. Scotchmer, “Intellectual Property: When is it the best incentive system?” (2002) Vol 2 Innovation Policy and the Economy 51 at 53

For arguments that intellectual property rights do inhibit the progress of science see e.g. J Reichman and P Uhlir, “A Contractually Reconstructed Research Commons for Scientific Data in a Highly Protectionist Intellectual Property Environment” (2003) 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 315 available @: <http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?66+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+315+(WinterSpring+2003)>, M Heller and R Eisenberg, “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research” (1998) Vol 280 Science 698 available @: <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/698> and Keeping Science Open.

< http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html >

< http://www.oscommerce.com/about/philosophy >

< http://www.gnu.org >

< http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html >

<http://www.sparceurope.org/ >

< http://www.doaj.org/. > On 11 January 2005 there were 1408 journals in the directory and 62788 articles.

Trends towards open access, in a variety of forms, are gaining ground in a number of countries around the world. Many initiatives are led by those directly involved. E.g. DAREnet, a joint initiative by the Dutch universities, which facilitates digital access to the results of their research. Available @: <http://www.darenet.nl/en/toon >; WSIS Declaration of Principles & Plan of Action <http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi-en-1161%7C1160.asp >; call by twenty-five Nobel Prize winning scientists on the U.S. government to make all taxpayer-funded research papers freely available. < http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2004-08-29-free-research_x.htm >

An Economic Analysis of Scientific Research Publishing available @: <http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/assets/wtd003182.pdf >

The Wellcome Trust says that it planned to distribute more than £400 million (approximately $662 million) in funding to biomedical sciences in the year 2003–2004. < http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/ >

J Sulston “Intellectual Property and the Human Genome” in P Drahos and R Mayne (eds) Global Intellectual Property Rights: Knowledge, Access and Development (2002) 61-73

Science, Technology and Innovation for the 21st Century. Meeting of the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy at Ministerial Level, 29-30 January 2004 - Final Communique

Declaration on Access to Research Data from Public Funding adopted on 30 January 2004 in Paris.

See for example the recent UK Film Council Report Film theft in the UK Anti-Piracy Task Force: an analysis and recommendations for action. December 2004. Available from Communications Department, UK Film Council, 10 Little Portland Street, London W1W 7JG.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item