PDFR48 | Sharing research data by depositing it in connection with a published article or otherwise making data publicly available 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 data management plans, common questions are

(1) what are the legal rights in data;
(2) who has these rights; and
(3) how does one with these rights use them to share data in a way that permits or encourages productive downstream uses? Leaving aside privacy and national security laws that regulate the sharing of certain types of data, this Perspective explains how to work through the general intellectual property and contractual issues for all research data | Highlight Abstract |

1. Introduction pg. 1
2. What Are the Legal Rights in Data? pg. 2-
-Trade Secret (Also Known as Proprietary or Confidential Information)
-Copyright
-Box 1 Layers of Copyrights in Databases: Creative Expression, Organization Level (field names in excel, it increases with relational databases- As the amount of organizational choice increases in, for example, the structure of a relational database, the amount of copyrightable expression increases as well). Annotations, visualizations, and other forms of metadata can receive separate copyright protection if they are sufficiently original. Creating visualizations, figures, charts, graphs and other forms of “processing” of research data often involve discretionary decisions about expression to which copyright applies, and copyright becomes an issue for a user who seeks to reuse these forms of original expression. Finally, compilations of datasets—used in meta-analysis, for example—might receive a separate copyright if the selection and arrangement of these involve sufficient discretionary choice. Such a copyright would apply only to this selection and arrangement and not to any of the underlying items or organizational features of individual datasets
-Sui Generis Database Rights—Europe and South Korea pg. 5
-Patent pg. 6
3. Who Holds These Rights? pg. 7
-Trade Secret
-Copyright
-Sui Generis Database Rights—Europe and South Korea pg. 8
-Patent
4. Recommendations for Increasing Data Sharing and Openness pg. 8
-Clarifying the Terms of Use
-Removing or Limiting Rights Restrictions: Trade Secret, Patent, Copyright and Database Rights
-Box 3 Creative Commons the licenses impose some conditions on reuse
5. References

1. EBI Terms of Use of the EBI Services. EMBL-EBI. 2015. http://www.ebi.ac.uk/about/terms-of-use.
2. 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. Contreras JL. Data Sharing, Latency Variables, and Science Commons. Berkeley Tech L J. 2010;
4:25: 1601–1672. http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj/vol25/iss4/2
4. The University-Industry Demonstration Partnership. Researcher Guidebook: A Guide for Successful
Institutional-Industrial Collaborations. Institutional Researcher. 2012; 6:28. https://www.uidp.org/
publication/researcher-guidebook-and-quick-guide/
5. Reichman JH, Uhlir PF. A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific data in a highly
protectionist intellectual property environment. Law & Contemp Prob. 2003; 66: 315–462. http://
scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1515.
6. Jinek M1, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier E. A programmable dual-RNAguided
DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity Science. 2012 Aug 17; 337(6096):816–21.
doi: 10.1126/science.1225829 PMID: 22745249
7. Rood J. Who Owns CRISPR? The Scientist. 3 Apr 2015. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/
articleNo/42595/title/Who-Owns-CRISPR-/. Accessed 3 July 2015.
8. The Intellectual Property Office. Exceptions to Copyright: Research. Copyright. 2014; 6:10. https://
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/375954/Research.pdf.
9. Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 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.
10. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2004. The British Horseracing Board Ltd and
Others v William Hill Organization Ltd. Case 203/02. Official Journal of the European Union. 1 August
2005. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1435941427227&uri=
CELEX:62002CJ0203.
11. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2015. Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV. Case C-
30/14. Official Journal of the European Union. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=
CELEX:62014CJ0030&qid=1435940638722.
12. MIT Policies and Procedures. Information Policies: Invention and Proprietary Information Agreements.
13.1.4. http://web.mit.edu/policies/13/13.1.html.
13. United States Code, title 17, § 201(b). http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html
14. Malakoff D. NIH Roils Academe With Advice on Licensing DNA Patents. DNA Patent. 2004 Mar 19;
303:1757–58. https://www2.bc.edu/~zlate/biotech/ScienceMarch19.pdf.
15. CoStar Realty Info., Inc. v. Field, 612 F. Supp.2d 660, 669 (D. Md. 2009). http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/
Opinions/Opinions/CoStar-08-663-MTDOpinion.pdf
16. Creative Commons: Data, https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Data.

SA - US Patent Office
RT - Intellectual Property Rights
BT - Authorship Protections
NT - Database Item Sharing
UF - Collection Metadata Management
SN - This is a formal article explaining how various legal protections of stored data items may influence a collection. (This entry does not reference a hierarchical list)

-