dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
50 hile public sector bodies have not been (officially) granted an exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the re-use of their data-which is the prerogative of the exclusive rights enshrined in copyright law-in practice, conditions regulating the use and re-use of public sector information could have very similar effects. For example, the requirement to always mention the original source of data 51 does, in practice, implement some kind of paternity right over data; whereas the prohibition to alter or distort the meaning of public sector information 52 can be assimilated to some kind of integrity right. 53 The introduction of licenses and royalties for re-use constitute, however, the strongest restriction on the 'right' to re-use public sector information. Indeed, from the perspective of data re-users, what is the difference between paying for a license to re-use data from database protected by the 'sui-generis' right and paying public sector institutions for obtaining a license to re-use of their data ? Even 48 See Article 4 of the 2013 PSI Directive (Requirements applicable to the processing of requests for reuse).
Accordingly, even though citizens have been granted a right to reuse public sector information, this right appears to be, in fact, more like a trompe l'oeil (an illusion, a deceiving technique that fools the eye). In practice, very few citizens can actually appreciate the existence of such 'right', whereas the others only experience restrictions which are very similar to an exclusive right. The emergence of a right over data per se Within the 1996 Database Directive, a clear distinction is made between the copyright over the structure of a database and the 'sui-generis' right over the use or extraction of the database content. Neither copyright nor the 'sui-generis' right do, however, provide protection over data per se-which cannot be subject to direct appropriation and remains (theoretically) in the public domain.
Through case law, courts have confirmed the fact that the 'sui-generis' is not concerned with data themselves, since the investment undertaken for the production of the database content should not be taken into account in determining the existence of this right. 54 Of course, the prohibition on extracting a substantial amount of data from a protected database introduced some form of control, on the basis of an exclusive right, over the re-use of data-but at least the principle stipulating that data shall belong to the public domain was preserved. With the introduction through the PSI Directive of a new right to re-use public sector information, a shift has occurred, gradually revealing a new form of exclusive right directly related to data themselves. This shift first emerged on a semantic level, for the right 'to re-use' public sector information can easily be confused (sometimes willingly, sometimes not) with a right 'over' public sector information.
In a sense, this interpretation of the cultural exception can be regarded as the most advanced stage of transgression: an attempt to move away from the original intent of the PSI Directive towards the establishment of a new exclusive right over data per se-and that is, therefore, much more restrictive than the rights they would have been granted with under the 'sui-generis' protection for databases. In France, the cultural exception created a serious deadlock, as various cultural institutions interpreted the law in their favour, as giving them the opportunity to prohibit the re-use or to prevent the commercial re-use of their data. Most notable is the case of the departmental archives of Cantal that did not want their data to be reused by private actors for the purpose of providing commercial services.
Cultural institutions are also entitled to set higher re-use fees than other institutions, which are restricted to marginal costs. In addition, as regards the documents on which libraries, museums and archives hold intellectual property rights, these institutions may decide whether or not to allow their re-use-a choice which may be particularly problematic for all the information included in protected databases. Finally, it is important to note that the new PSI Directive does not eliminates the derogatory for research institutions, whose datasets could thus continue to be subject to specific conditions that do not favour re-use. All these elements contribute to the risk that the 'cultural exception'although theoretically removed from the text of the Directive-may well continue to exist in practice, reinforcing the subsistence of an implicit exclusive right over data per se.
Open Data: open, but at what cost? Of course, one should rejoice that many Open Data initiatives have been conducted in recent years to promote and facilitate the dissemination and re-use of data in several European countries. These approaches have shown that, despite an inadequate legal framework, pragmatic solutions can be found to properly implement the right to re-use public sector information enshrined in the European Directive. Legal instruments such as the various Open Data licenses are effective tools to regulate the free use and re-use of data, while ensuring interoperability with other datasets already available on the Internet. However, in the end, it is important to note that-from a symbolic point of view-Open Data licenses can only effectively 'open' data by accepting the validity of many layers of rights, which contribute to regulating the use and re-use of information, often with a restrictive approach.
Most Open Data licenses nowadays recognize the legal protection for original and non-original databases, including the 'sui-generis' right which protects the contents of these databases. The right to re-use public sector information is nothing more but an exception to the proprietary paradigm introduced by the 'sui-generis' right of databases. Besides, this right to re-use public sector information has itself has many limitations and exceptions-as we have seen in the case of cultural and research institutions. Since it does not introduce an obligation to make data freely available to the public, a true Open Data approach can only be implemented through the use of specific licenses designed to actually waive these right. Finally, if one considers all the layers of rights accumulated over public sector information, Open Data licenses appear to be an exception to the exception to the proprietary principle of exclusive ownership, derived from the legal protection of databases.
The complexity of this legal framework explains, by and large, the difficulties encountered in implementing a proper Open Data policies in various countries across Europe. Was it actually a good idea to implement an Open Data policy in this multi-layered framework? Was it not possible to find an easier way to open-up public sector information? The issue is particularly timely and relevant, as Open Data has recently become an important global policy aimed at improving State transparency and corporate governance. How can these objectives be realistically achieved in front of such complexity and legal uncertainty? Open Data exists, but there is an important cost that comes with it: taking for granted an established system made up of several layers of rights to exert control over information. From this point of view, even if it presents considerable improvements, the new PSI Directive may not actually succeed in changing the rules of the game, as it does not change the legal framework that must necessarily be acknowledge for any effective Open Data approach to be successfully implemented.
To proceed further in the process of opening up public sector information, shall we not, perhaps, completely change the strategy, moving away from the current approach to Open Data licensing, to focus instead on a fundamental reform of the legal framework in which it is embedded? A NEW APPROACH TO OPEN DATA Promoting legal predictability by reducing legal complexity Today, the Open Data movement is growing at an incredible pace as the benefits of Open Data are being acknowledged by both the public and private sector. As stipulated by the PSI Directive, a growing amount of data produced and/or collected by public institutions is made available to the public under a variety of Open Data licenses which facilitate the access, use and re-use of public sector information. It is important to remember, however, that-as elaborated above-every contractual license constitute, in fact, an additional layer of regulation that sits on top of the legal framework for the protection of databases.
Open Data licenses thus contribute to increasing the legal complexity of the overall framework, by introducing additional contractual provisions that stipulate new rights and obligations. The result is a complex system of norms-combining legal rules and contractual provisions-which might in fact discourage the practices of data sharing and re-use due to the additional transaction costs resulting from the legal and administrative burdens imposed on database users and producers. 63 mmon licensing schemes Providing a high degree of legal certainty as regards the rights and obligations of database producers, data providers and end-users is a precondition to the success of any Open Data approach. 64 et, the legal framework regulating the protection of databases is made up of several layers of legal rules (copyright, neighbouring rights or sui-generis rights) and exceptions (fair use regime, public sector information regime)-whose content, scope and applicability significantly differ from one country to another.
Precisely determining the extent to which a database is protected under copyright or other laws can therefore be a difficult task, especially when the database producers or contributors are located in different countries. 65 o begin with, the sui-generis database right exclusively applies to database producers located in the EU. Indeed, under European law, the structure of original databases is protected under the copyright regime, while the content of both original and non-original databases is protected under the sui-generis rights to the extent that a substantial investment has been undertaken for the production thereof. Instead, in USA, databases are only eligible for protection under copyright law, insofar as their structure presents a certain degree of creative endeavour. Besides, even amongst countries with a similar legal framework, different standards of protection apply.
68 his problem could (potentially) be resolved by means of a more standardized set of licenses. While international licensing schemes-such as the Open Data Commons licenses and dedications of the Open Knowledge Foundation, 69 or the more general set of licenses provided by Creative Commons 70 -have been developed with a view to provide a consistent system for the licensing of data by public or private institutions, 71 the terms of these licenses have, however, not been sufficiently harmonized. Many of these licenses present specific licensing terms-such as the copyleft or share-alike provisions 72 -which might potentially conflict with each other and preclude legal interoperability amongst different licensing schemes. Data interoperability can therefore only be ensured by means of international collaboration aimed at establishing a consensus as regards the licenses that should-or could-be used by different institutions.
This has been done, at the national level, in countries such as the UK with the Open Government license,  73  France with the 66 Blanke JM, 'Vincent Van Gogh,"Sweat of the Brow," and database protection' (2002) 39(4) Am Business Law J 645. 67 See eg the UK Open Government License, the French Licence Ouverte, the Italian Open Data License, etc. 68 Dulong de Rosnay M, 'Creative Commons Licenses Legal Pitfalls: Incompatibilities and Solutions' (2009) IvIR Working Paper. 69 Open Data Commons is a Open Knowledge Foundation project aimed at providing a set of legal tools to help people release and use open data <http://opendatacommons. org> accessed 1 October 2014. 70 Creative Commons provides a flexible range of licenses and dedications (with different degrees of protections and freedoms) for authors and right-holders to choose from.
gov. uk/doc/open-government-licence/ for more details> accessed 1 October 2014. Licence Ouverte,  74  Italy with the Italian Open Data License,  75  Australia and New Zealand, where public sector information is automatically released under a Creative Commons license. 76 et, in addition to the practical difficulties for a common licensing scheme to be unanimously adopted at the national and international level, there are also a few conceptual issues to address as regards the validity and effectivity of Open Data licenses. Indeed, to the extent that they rely on the subsistence of one or more underlying exclusive rights, contractual provisions designed to license these rights might ultimately result in a number of unintended consequences. The problem arises from the fact that it is often difficult to assess whether or not a particular database is eligible for protection under the sui-generis right regime.
77 esides, even after the subsistence of the sui-generis right has been established, significant analysis is required to determine the extent to which the extraction and/or reutilization of the database content will be 'substantial' enough as to actually trigger that right. 78 Thus, in view of the complexity and the necessary degree of subjectivity involved, neither the database producer nor the user will know, with any reasonable degree of certainty, what their corresponding rights and obligations are. 79 s a general rule, a database that is not eligible for protection under any applicable law does not require any specific licensing agreement. Yet, given the uncertainty surrounding the subsistence of the 'sui-generis' right, most database producers will be tempted to regulate the use and re-use of their database's content by means of contractual provisions, regardless of whether or not the database is actually eligible for protection.
80 In order to avoid the risk of potential liability, users 74 The Licence Ouverte is a license created by the French Etalab committee to establish the framework for open data licensing in France. This license, published on October 2011, was designed to be compatible with the Open Government Licenses, the ODC-BY and the Creative Commons CC-BY 2. 0 licenses. For more details, see <http://ddata. over-blog. com/xxxyyy/4/37/99/26/licence/Licence-Ouverte-Open-Licence-ENG. pdf> accessed 1 October 2014. 75 The Italian Open Data License (IODL) was launched in October 2010 as the very first official license for public data in Italy. Version 1. 0 of the IODL contained a Share-Alike clause, directing producers of derivative works to release those works under similar licensing conditions. Version 2. 0 of the IODL has subsequently been developed, where only attribution of the source is required.
This is the version now in use on the Italian data portal data. gov. it 76 Governments in Australia and New Zealand have adopted strong open licensing policies for all public sector information, released by default under the Creative Commons license CC-BY. See <http://nzgoal. info/> (accessed 1 October 2014) and <http://www. ausgoal. gov. au/creative-commons> (accessed 1 October 2014) for more details on the Open data policy adopted in New Zealand and Australia, respectively. 77 Rowland D, 'The EC Database Directive: an Original Solution to an Unoriginal Problem?' (1997)  Ltd, where a claim for infringement was dismissed by the Court-after the European Court of Justice clarified that the legal protection under the sui-generis right regime can only be sought when there has been substantial investment in collecting and organizing existing materials into a database, regardless of the investment undertaken in the production of such materials.
will, however, often be reluctant to breach the contractual provisions of the license-even when the database does not qualify for any underlying statutory protection. 81 he same applies in the context of Open data licenses. A license-as open as it may be-is premised on an exclusive right (be it either copyright or the 'sui-generis' database right) which precludes or restrains certain usages of the underlying content or data. While these limitations might be either partially or totally waived through contractual provisions, the license does, however, implicitly endorse the subsistence of an underlying exclusive right insofar as its contractual provisions are explicitly tied to that right. 82 Hence, despite the intentions of the licensor, the mere fact of releasing data under an Open license might create the illusion of there being an exclusive right which, unless properly licensed, could preclude the use and re-use of the available data.
Public domain dedication The complexity and the high degree of uncertainty surrounding the application of copyright  84  and other laws for the protection of databases-combined with the lack of international harmonization due to the difference in legal doctrines-makes it difficult to establish clear and predictable rules to regulate the use and re-use of data by contractual means. Many Open Data licenses are therefore made up of long and complicated provisions addressing the specificities of the underlying legislation. 85 omplex legal language might increase the transaction costs associated with the interpretation of these licenses by imposing a significant burden on users (due to, eg, legal costs or delays) and thereby contribute to ultimately discouraging the exchange or re-use of data. The problem has first been addressed by Creative Commons, 86 which provides, in addition to a legal contract, also a 'human-readable' and 'machinereadable' version of each license, along with a set of easily understandable logos to illustrate their options.
87 Yet, many other licenses do not provide any similar supports and remain therefore difficult to understand for many 'lambda' users. 88 any of the drawbacks inherent to Open Data licenses can be bypassed by means of public domain dedications 89 : simple legal tools that merely waive the rights potentially vesting in a database without introducing any of the rights and obligations generally found in a contractual license. As such, they can be drafted in a simple language and be readily understood by inexperienced users. Public domain dedication schemes thus considerably reduce the transaction costs involved in extracting and/or re-using data from a given database. They also reduce legal uncertainty to the extent that the public domain dedication explicitly acknowledges the absence of rights in a database.
90 As opposed to Open Data licenses, which implicitly recognize the subsistence of a sui-generis right that will be subsequently licensed to the public, public domain dedications eliminate-at the outsetthe subsistence of any potential right. This is likely to facilitate comprehension and encourage the use and re-use of data by a broader variety of people-who no longer have to comply with any specific requirements in terms of practices or formalities. Public domain dedications can also resolve the issue of interoperability, since different dedication schemes can be used without incurring the risk of introducing incompatibilities between different datasets. As a result, both data providers and users could benefit from broader data exchange across different countries or communities, along with a higher degree of legal certainty as regards the use and re-use of such data.
Striking at the root Transaction costs subsist, nonetheless, insofar as most database producers are required to take action in order to waive the rights they have been automatically granted with under the law. While this situation might be regarded as acceptable by most private actors, who actually see a benefit in maintaining a certain degree of 87 Creative Commons licenses can be expressed in four different ways: (1) the Legal Code of the license which constitute the contractual agreement, (2) the Commons Deed-also known as the 'human readable' version of the license, (3) the actual Code-or the 'machine readable' version of the license-written into a format that software systems, search engines and other kinds of technology can understand, (4) the Logos (or badges) that represent graphically the various permissions and obligations incorporated into the license.
Hence, rather than introducing a rule (according to which the producer of a database whose production required a substantial investment is entitled to an exclusive right over the extraction and/or reutilization of the database content) and an exception (according to which-in spite of this exclusive right-public sector information should be made freely available to the public), a better solution might be to reverse the standard of protection provided by the default under the law, turning the exception into the rule and the rule into the exception. We, therefore, suggest reforming the law so that public sector institutions are not granted a 'sui-generis' right to begin with-although they might, in certain special and exceptional situations, impose a series of limitations or constraints on the re-use of such data, if they can justify the need for such a derogatory regime.
A more drastic-but perhaps more effective-solution would be to entirely eliminate the 'sui-generis' protection for non-original databases, for both public sector and non-public sector information. This approach would ultimately restore the status quo (pre-1996) by eliminating the risk of establishing exclusivity over data per se, while ensuring that all factual data inevitably fall into the public domain-regardless of whether or not it belongs to or has been extracted from a particular database. In addition to reducing the complexity of the legal framework, this approach would also eliminate the divergences that subsist between US and EU laws as regards the legal protection of data and databases. Indeed, although premised on the idea that the lack of a monopoly right over data would undermine the incentives to produce new and competitive databases, the efficacity of the sui-generis database right in Europe has yet to be demonstrated.
93 Indeed, in the USA-where no such protection exists-open and unrestricted access to a large quantity of data facilitated the development of a broad variety of cost-intensive databases and promoted the growth of many information intensive industries, which has been flourishing over the past few years. 94, 95 By relying on antitrust laws and common law principles of misappropriation and unfair competition, USA successfully managed to protect the investment of database producers  96  without introducing a new exclusive right on information. It might, thus, be worth considering whether such approach is viable and could easily be transposed into the European context. 97.
CONCLUSION The Open Data movement has brought a whole new dynamism the online and offline world. By facilitating the public disclosure of data by a variety of actors coming from both the public and the private sector, Open Data licensing schemes established the necessary legal framework for the successful deployment of innovative services and applications (developed by public institutions, market players or civil society organizations) which led to the emergence of a vibrant network of linked open data. 98 ne of the key successes of Open Data is that it has successfully brought the issues of transparency and accountability at the core of the public discourse. Moreover, after observing the benefits that can be derived from the adoption of an Open Data policy by several public sector institutions, a number of private actors also decided to experiment with an Open Data approach, even if they are not obliged to do so under the law.