A Strategic Framework for Copyright-Free Science: Dismantling Publishing Monopolies in the Knowledge Commons

A Strategic Framework for Copyright-Free Science: Dismantling Publishing Monopolies in the Knowledge Commons The transition from proprietary, closed-loop innovation to a decentralized, global knowledge commons has historically concentrated on neutralizing patent monopolies and mitigating the corporate enclosure of scientific terminology via trademark law. Through mechanisms such as defensive publication, explicit open licensing, and intentional genericization, the scientific community has established robust methodologies to ensure freedom of operation regarding the physical mechanics and the operational lexicon of discovery.1 However, as the open science movement matures into the era of artificial intelligence and massive computational research, the primary and most pervasive intellectual property barrier remains fully intact: the monopolization of the scientific literature and raw data through copyright law. While patents restrict the practical implementation of an invention, and trademarks restrict the commercial identifier, copyright law restricts the fundamental communication, analysis, and computational extraction of human knowledge.1 By forcing researchers to assign their copyrights to commercial academic publishers—often without financial compensation—the publishing oligopoly has enclosed the scientific record behind prohibitive paywalls.4 This enclosure prevents the free dissemination of publicly funded research, criminalizes the computational analysis of vast datasets, and introduces severe friction into the verification and reproducibility of scientific claims.4 The economic and scientific damage caused by this monopolization is not merely theoretical; it is empirically demonstrable. Historical analyses of copyright relaxation reveal profound impacts on scientific acceleration. An investigation into the 1942 Book Republication Program (BRP)—which allowed United States publishers to reprint enemy-owned science books during World War II, effectively weakening the original copyrights—demonstrated that a 25 percent drop in the average price for these publications led to an additional 0.202 English-language citations per year compared to control groups.7 When the barrier to entry is lowered, scientific output and subsequent innovation compound exponentially. This report establishes a comprehensive, legally enforceable framework designed to systematically bypass, neutralize, and ultimately dismantle restrictive copyright monopolies within the academic domain. Adapting the foundational principles of the "Patent-Free Science" and "Trademark-Free Science" methodologies into the realm of literary and data rights, this analysis outlines how the global scientific community can exploit doctrinal vulnerabilities in copyright law—specifically the Merger Doctrine, Scènes à faire, and Copyright Misuse.1 It details the operational deployment of the Rights Retention Strategy (RRS), the exploitation of European Secondary Publication Rights (SPR), the use of blockchain-verified authorship, and the invocation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).11 The ultimate objective is to empower the Human Global Science Collective (HGSC) to establish an open, copyright-free scientific literature as the default operating system of global research. The Intellectual Property Friction Point: Copyright as an Absolute Bottleneck The traditional intellectual property ecosystem utilizes disparate legal instruments to protect different aspects of innovation. Patents protect novel, non-obvious, and useful inventions, granting a temporary monopoly over commercialization to incentivize disclosure.1 Trademarks protect reputational goodwill and source identifiers to prevent consumer confusion, operating under strict use-in-commerce requirements.1 Copyright, however, operates on a fundamentally different legal principle: it protects the original expression of an idea fixed in a tangible medium, but explicitly does not protect the underlying idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery itself (as codified in the United States under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b)).5 Originally conceived as a "perfect balance" designed to promote the progress of science and useful arts, copyright has been increasingly subverted by corporate actors utilizing restrictive contract law and technological protection measures to assert control over the underlying knowledge, not just the expression.5 A critical disconnect currently exists in modern open-source licensing paradigms regarding the intersection of software freedom and scientific literature. The open-source software community successfully weaponized copyright law against itself by creating the "copyleft" mechanism (e.g., the GNU General Public License), utilizing the copyright monopoly to mandate perpetual freedom for derivative works.16 However, academic publishing remains trapped in a pre-digital, proprietary paradigm. When a researcher submits a manuscript to a high-impact journal, the publisher typically requires the author to sign a Copyright Transfer Agreement (CTA), assigning all exclusive economic rights to the publisher.4 This creates an unsustainable paradox: governments and philanthropic entities fund the research, scientists perform the labor and peer review without compensation, yet a private corporate entity captures the copyright, subsequently renting the scientific outputs back to the academic institutions at exorbitant subscription rates.2 Furthermore, these copyright monopolies are increasingly utilized to stifle computational research. Publishers assert that Text and Data Mining (TDM) requires the reproduction of copyrighted texts, demanding that researchers purchase specialized TDM licenses and utilize publisher-controlled gateways, thereby preventing independent validation and algorithmic discovery.21 Therefore, the framework proposed herein fundamentally diverges from traditional defensive copyright compliance. Instead of asking publishers for permission to analyze data, this strategy seeks to aggressively assert internal limits on copyrightability, preempt publisher monopolies through preemptive licensing, and utilize equitable defenses to invalidate the enforceability of restrictive publication agreements. The Legal Architecture of Copyright Vulnerability in Science To systematically dismantle or bypass copyright restrictions within the scientific domain, the collective must leverage the inherent, structural limitations built into global copyright law. Copyright is not an absolute right over information; it is a highly porous monopoly designed to balance the incentive to create with the public's right to build upon foundational knowledge.5 By strategically applying these internal limits, the scientific community can render vast swaths of publisher-claimed material legally unprotected. The Idea-Expression Dichotomy and the Merger Doctrine The most potent weapon against the monopolization of scientific data is the idea-expression dichotomy, bolstered by the Merger Doctrine. Because copyright strictly protects expression and not the underlying facts, phenomena, or discoveries, the law must navigate situations where an idea can only be expressed in a highly limited number of ways.9 If there are only a few ways to express a specific scientific fact, equation, or data set, the expression is said to "merge" with the idea. Under the Merger Doctrine, when idea and expression merge, the expression becomes entirely uncopyrightable.24 If the law were to grant copyright protection to such expressions, it would effectively grant a monopoly over the underlying idea or fact, "checkmating" the public and violating the core constitutional mandate of copyright law to promote the progress of science.27 In the context of scientific research, this doctrine represents a massive vulnerability for publishers. The boundaries of this vulnerability have been defined through decades of jurisprudence: Legal Precedent Copyright Doctrine Applied Significance for Scientific Publishing Baker v. Selden (1879) Idea-Expression Dichotomy Established that utilitarian methods, systems, and the diagrams necessary to illustrate them are not protected by copyright. A system of bookkeeping cannot be monopolized by copyrighting the explanatory book.23 Computer Associates Int'l v. Altai (1992) Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison & Merger Determined that when computational algorithms and code are dictated by efficiency concerns, their structure merges with their function, rendering them uncopyrightable.15 Ho v. Taflove (2011) Merger Doctrine Ruled that complex mathematical equations, models, and their resulting figures "mimic reality" and represent natural phenomena. Because the equations are required by the science, they merge with the idea and are immune to copyright.26 Assessment Technologies v. WIREdata (2003) Copyright Misuse / Public Domain Facts Confirmed that raw data and facts remain in the public domain regardless of how they are organized within a proprietary database or program. Attempts to lock down this data constitute misuse.32 As these cases demonstrate, a chart mapping the human genome, a diagram of a molecular structure, or a table of statistical p-values are all expressions dictated by the underlying natural phenomena. They mimic reality and are required by the science; thus, they are subject to merger and free to be copied, extracted, and republished by any researcher without fear of infringement.26 Scènes à faire in the Scientific Lexicon Closely related to the Merger Doctrine is the judge-made doctrine of scènes à faire. In literary terms, this dictates that incidents, characters, settings, or tropes that are indispensable or standard in the treatment of a given topic are not protectable by copyright.10 If a concept can only be expressed using standard conventions, granting copyright over those conventions would stifle future creativity and grant an unfair monopoly over a genre.10 In the context of the scientific knowledge commons, the scènes à faire doctrine is highly applicable to the rigid structure of academic literature. The standard "IMRAD" format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion), the formalized phrasing of statistical significance, the standardized terminology of laboratory protocols, and the necessary descriptions of experimental environments are the academic equivalents of literary "stock scenes".34 Publishers cannot claim infringement when subsequent authors, artificial intelligence models, or automated data extraction tools replicate these structural and linguistic norms. They are standard to the scientific genre, practically unavoidable, and completely devoid of copyright protection.33 Information-qua-Information and the Legality of Text and Data Mining The intersection of these doctrines provides absolute legal cover for Text and Data Mining (TDM) and advanced computational research. Computational research methodologies do not consume the expressive, copyrightable prose of a journal article; they ingest the article to extract non-copyrightable facts, correlations, and relationships—what legal scholars formally term information-qua-information.21 Because the ultimate output of TDM reveals statistical relationships rather than reproducing the original author's creative expression, the process is highly transformative and squarely protected under fair use doctrines.21 Furthermore, the intermediate copies made during the algorithmic processing of these texts—such as copies resident in a computer's active random access memory (RAM) or buffer caches—are often deemed transitory and legally insignificant. Under precedent established in cases like Cablevision, these buffer copies do not constitute "actionable" or "specifically identifiable" copies under the Copyright Act.21 Therefore, corporate publishers' attempts to mandate separate TDM licenses, throttle access speeds, or block automated crawlers from academic repositories represent an overreach of copyright parameters. The data extracted is factual, the computational processing is transformative, and the temporary copies generated are a technological necessity for accessing the unprotectable information-qua-information.21 The law explicitly gives copying for scientific purposes a remarkably wide scope, providing transformative benefits without harming the commercial markets that traditional copyright was designed to protect.21 The AI and Computational Frontier: Litigation and Boundary Testing As the scientific community increasingly leverages algorithmic tools, commercial publishers and data aggregators have escalated their litigation strategies to define the boundaries of fair use and training data extraction. The evolving jurisprudence of 2024 and 2025 highlights both the immense potential and the acute vulnerabilities of computational research. A landmark case in this domain is Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence (2024-2025). Thomson Reuters, the owner of the Westlaw legal database, sued ROSS Intelligence for allegedly scraping its platform to build a competing artificial intelligence tool.39 Westlaw sought to protect its proprietary "headnotes" (summaries of judicial opinions) and its "Key Number System".39 The district court made several critical rulings that illustrate the current judicial struggle with computational extraction. Initially, the court evaluated the originality of the headnotes. Moving away from earlier precedents that viewed such summaries as merely factual, the court elevated the practice of editorial selection, characterizing a headnote taken verbatim from an opinion as an "editorial expression" possessing enough "creative spark" to be original and thus copyrightable.40 Consequently, the court rejected ROSS's defenses of innocent infringement, copyright misuse, the Merger Doctrine, and scènes à faire, determining that ROSS's copying of 2,243 headnotes to train a competing commercial AI model weighed heavily against a fair use defense.39 However, the nuances of the ROSS decision provide critical strategic boundaries for open science collectives. The court's rejection of fair use was heavily predicated on the commercial, competing nature of the ROSS product.39 When a scientific collective extracts data exclusively for non-commercial, academic verification, or humanitarian purposes, the first factor of the fair use analysis shifts dramatically in favor of the researcher.21 Furthermore, the ROSS case involved the direct, verbatim copying of human-authored summaries, whereas true TDM in the hard sciences involves the extraction of raw numerical data, chemical structures, and p-values, which remain insulated by the Merger Doctrine.41 Bypassing Digital Locks: The DMCA Section 1201 Dilemma Even when TDM is perfectly legal under fair use, researchers frequently encounter technological paywalls. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), specifically Section 1201, prohibits circumventing "an effective technological measure" that controls access to a copyrighted work.42 Publishers utilize these digital locks (DRM) to prevent the automated scraping of their repositories. While shadow libraries such as Sci-Hub have famously bypassed these paywalls to provide global access to over millions of research papers—arguing a moral imperative to ensure universal access to science—such methods operate outside the bounds of traditional statutory compliance.43 For institutional researchers, circumventing a paywall to conduct legal TDM exposes them to DMCA liability, regardless of whether the underlying use of the extracted data is a protected fair use.42 This creates a chilling effect where the technological lock supersedes the underlying copyright law.45 To combat this, the scientific community has actively petitioned the Librarian of Congress for triennial exemptions to Section 1201, arguing that the DMCA unconstitutionally burdens First Amendment rights to conduct research.44 However, the administrative exemption process is burdensome and highly specific. A more systemic, offensive legal strategy is required to neutralize the publishers' ability to enforce these digital locks. Offensive Strategy I: Weaponizing the Copyright Misuse Doctrine If the Merger Doctrine provides the theoretical justification for extracting data, the doctrine of Copyright Misuse provides the offensive, tactical weapon to punish corporate entities that attempt to illegally restrict the scientific commons through restrictive contracts or aggressive DMCA enforcement. Derived from equitable principles and closely mirroring the historical development of patent misuse, the copyright misuse doctrine is an affirmative defense (and a potential basis for declaratory judgment) asserted against an overreaching copyright holder.8 The doctrine dictates that if a copyright owner attempts to leverage their limited statutory monopoly to gain control over areas outside the scope of the copyright (such as uncopyrightable facts and data), or utilizes the copyright in a manner that violates antitrust laws or the fundamental public policy of the copyright clause, they commit an act of copyright misuse.32 The penalty for a finding of copyright misuse is absolute and devastating: the offending party’s copyright is rendered completely unenforceable against anyone until the misuse is purged and its anticompetitive effects have fully dissipated.8 Publisher Contracts as Misuse Academic publishers routinely engage in practices that cleanly fit the definition of copyright misuse. By utilizing highly restrictive Copyright Transfer Agreements (CTAs) and draconian terms of service on their digital platforms, publishers routinely prohibit researchers from sharing, mining, or extracting the very raw data and methodologies that the courts have deemed uncopyrightable.32 In the landmark case Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals formally recognized copyright misuse when a software company used its standard licensing agreement to forbid licensees and their employees from independently developing competing software for a period of 99 years.47 The court explicitly noted that the plaintiff used its copyright as a "hammer to crush all future development of an independent idea," violating the public policy embodied in the copyright grant.48 The court ruled that the copyright was unenforceable, even though the defendant had actually copied the software. Similarly, in Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v. WIREdata, Inc., the Seventh Circuit ruled that a software developer's attempt to use its copyright in a database structure to prevent municipalities from extracting and sharing their own uncopyrightable, public tax data constituted egregious copyright misuse.32 The court noted that when a copyright owner attempts to "secrete the data" within a program to make it less accessible, they are attempting to use the law in an "appalling" way to block access to information they did not create.32 The HGSC must operationalize this jurisprudence directly against academic publishers. When commercial publishers embed clauses in library subscription contracts or digital terms of service that explicitly prohibit Text and Data Mining, or when they utilize the DMCA to apply digital rights management wrappers around uncopyrightable public-domain datasets, they are illegally leveraging a copyright over the prose of the article to monopolize the underlying factual data.22 Execution Guidelines for Misuse Litigation Unlike traditional equitable defenses, copyright misuse does not require the defendant to have been a direct victim of an antitrust violation; the mere existence of a restrictive, overreaching license in the publisher's standard contract is sufficient to render the copyright unenforceable against the world.50 Furthermore, standing is broad; a party does not need to be a signatory to the abusive contract to assert the defense.32 The scientific collective should adopt a highly coordinated, offensive posture: Declaratory Judgments: Universities, library consortia, and open-science organizations (like the HGSC) should fund strategic declaratory judgment actions against major publishers. By asserting that standard publisher contracts that forbid TDM or mandate multi-year embargoes on publicly funded data constitute per se copyright misuse, the collective can proactively invalidate these agreements.49 The Anti-Circumvention Defense: Legal scholars such as Professor Dan Burk have proposed a doctrine of "anticircumvention misuse".45 When researchers bypass paywalls or DRM to extract raw data, and publishers threaten DMCA Section 1201 litigation, the researchers must immediately countersue for copyright misuse. Leveraging a technological lock to prevent access to uncopyrightable information-qua-information is a direct, actionable subversion of the copyright balance.45 Preemptive Sovereignty: The Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) While litigation regarding fair use and copyright misuse serves as a necessary systemic corrective, it is inherently slow, unpredictable, and highly resource-intensive. The most efficient method to neutralize publisher monopolies is to prevent them from acquiring the copyright in the first place. The prevailing dynamic—where an author unknowingly signs away their rights at the end of the peer-review process—must be short-circuited. To achieve this, the HGSC will mandate the global adoption of the Rights Retention Strategy (RRS), a powerful initiative pioneered by cOAlition S.12 The RRS is a legal and operational mechanism that enables researchers to retain sufficient intellectual property rights to make the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) available in an open repository immediately upon publication, completely bypassing the journal's paywall or embargo policies.12 The Mechanics of the "Mexican Standoff" Under the Rights Retention Strategy, the author acts preemptively. Before a publisher ever reviews the manuscript, the author formally applies a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license to the work.57 When the author submits the manuscript for peer review, they include a mandatory, non-negotiable legal declaration in both the cover letter and the manuscript's acknowledgement section: "This manuscript is submitted under the Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) to comply with funder mandates. A Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license is applied to the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) arising from this submission. The AAM will be made available in a repository immediately upon publication." 12 This simple declaration triggers a profound legal reordering, effectively creating a "Mexican Standoff" in contract law.20 Because the author is the original, undisputed copyright holder at the moment of creation, they possess the absolute legal right to issue a prior, non-exclusive CC BY license to the public. Once this license is declared, it is irrevocable and travels with the manuscript.19 When the publisher eventually attempts to force the author to sign a restrictive Copyright Transfer Agreement or an embargo contract at the acceptance stage, the publisher receives a pre-encumbered copyright. The publisher cannot legally force the author to revoke a previously granted CC BY license, nor can they sue the author (or the author's university repository) for copyright infringement, because the global public already holds a valid, prior license to the AAM.12 While commercial publishers may attempt to threaten authors with desk rejections or demand formal policy waivers—as seen when the Nature Publishing Group attempted to force Duke University faculty to waive their institutional open access policies—the collective power of the RRS renders these threats inert.59 When mandated by universities (as seen with pioneering institutional rights retention policies at Harvard University in 2008, and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)) and major funding bodies (like the European Commission's Horizon Europe program), publishers are forced to either accept the CC BY terms or reject high-quality, fully-funded research.19 Rejecting top-tier research inevitably erodes their prestige, impact factors, and overall market share. Statutory Liberation: The Secondary Publication Right (SPR) While the Rights Retention Strategy relies on preemptive contracting and individual or institutional diligence, the ultimate objective is to strip publishers of their power at the foundational statutory level. To achieve this permanent realignment, the HGSC must lobby for, implement, and exploit Secondary Publication Rights (SPR) globally.62 The Secondary Publication Right is an inalienable, non-waivable statutory right granted by a sovereign government to its researchers. It empowers authors to make the final peer-reviewed manuscript (and crucially, the underlying data) publicly accessible on a non-profit digital platform, regardless of any exclusive contractual terms signed with a commercial publisher.14 Because SPRs are enshrined in national law—either within the copyright code itself or via separate legislation governing scientific research and innovation—they act as a constitutional-level override. Any clause in a publisher's contract that attempts to restrict, delay, or penalize this right is immediately rendered legally null and void.65 The European Vanguard and Global Extrapolation Europe currently leads the world in the implementation of SPRs, providing a highly effective blueprint for global legislative extrapolation. Currently, at least eight European nations have successfully integrated SPR into their legal frameworks, albeit with varying degrees of aggression 64: Jurisdiction Legislative Vehicle Embargo Period Scope & Key Provisions Germany Copyright Act (UrhG) § 38(4) 12 Months Implemented in 2013. Applies to research that is at least 50% publicly funded. Allows authors to make the accepted manuscript version publicly accessible. Contractual agreements to the contrary are ineffective.14 France Digital Republic Act (Article 30) 6 Months (STEM) / 12 Months (HSS) Implemented in 2016. Applies to research 50% publicly funded. Crucially, Article 30 explicitly prevents publishers from restricting the reuse of research data associated with the publication.66 Slovenia Scientific Research and Innovation Act (Article 41) Zero Embargo Representing the most aggressive implementation to date (2025). Explicitly nullifies contrary contractual provisions and permits researchers to publish in an open repository as soon as the research is accepted for publication.64 Belgium Code of Economic Law (Art. XI.196) 6 Months (STEM) / 12 Months (HSS) Situated directly within the copyright provisions, establishing the right to make publicly funded research available in Open Access.73 Despite this progress, the current landscape represents a fragmented patchwork of national approaches, complicating cross-border research collaborations.62 The HGSC must actively advocate for a harmonized, robust SPR at the international level, targeting organizations such as the European Union (via the European Research Area Act) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).62 As outlined by advocacy groups like Knowledge Rights 21, the ideal, modernized SPR framework guarantees the right to openly publish regardless of contract, mandates a zero-embargo period for maximum immediate societal benefit, covers all publicly funded research outputs (including raw data, statistical charts, and monographs), and grants clear, unrestricted reuse rights to end-users to facilitate seamless text and data mining.62 By building automated, decentralized repository infrastructure that instantly scrapes, verifies, and hosts SPR-eligible manuscripts the moment the legal embargo expires (or immediately, in progressive zero-embargo jurisdictions like Slovenia), the scientific community can legally siphon the vast majority of high-value literature out of proprietary databases and permanently into the commons. Evidentiary Independence: Blockchain Verification and the Collective Public Registry (CPR) Dismantling the legal framework of copyright monopolies requires an equally robust technological infrastructure to replace the core functions traditionally provided by legacy publishers. Historically, commercial journals provided two critical services: physical distribution and timestamped proof of priority (verification of authorship). In the digital age, distribution is frictionless and essentially free. However, establishing immutable, legally admissible proof of moral authorship without relying on a publisher's centralized, proprietary timestamp remains a vulnerability.77 Version control systems like Git are useful, but commit dates can be spoofed, making them potentially insufficient in high-stakes intellectual property litigation.77 To construct an impenetrable defense against plagiarism, corporate misappropriation, and to secure priority for foundational datasets before they are integrated into commercial AI models, the Copyright-Free framework mandates the integration of blockchain timestamping. By anchoring digital assets—including Author Accepted Manuscripts (AAMs), raw datasets, analytical source code, and complete reproducible research packages ("Repro Packs")—to a public, decentralized ledger (such as the Bitcoin network or layer-2 solutions like Polygon), the community generates an immutable, cryptographically secure chain of custody.11 The Admissibility of Cryptographic Proof The transition of blockchain intelligence from theoretical technology to routine courtroom admissibility is accelerating rapidly. In the United States, cryptographic hashes are treated as mathematically proven digital fingerprints, and protocol-generated timestamps consistently bypass traditional hearsay objections under the Federal Rules of Evidence (such as FRE 901 and FRE 803(6)).1 Internationally, judicial adoption for copyright verification is even more advanced. In a landmark 2021 ruling, the French Tribunal Judiciaire de Marseille recognized blockchain timestamp reports as full and legitimate evidence of copyright anteriority (prior creation and ownership) in a counterfeiting dispute.11 The court explicitly accepted the principle of establishing prior art through the deposit of digital fingerprints (hashes) onto the Bitcoin blockchain, relying on the decentralized ledger over traditional state certifications to verify the absolute integrity and exact deposit date of the digital files.11 Institutional adoption mirrors this judicial acceptance, with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launching WIPO PROOF to provide digital certifications, and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) building anti-counterfeiting blockchain infrastructure.13 The HGSC will deploy the Collective Public Registry (CPR). Whenever a researcher uploads a manuscript, lab notebook, or dataset to the CPR, the system will instantly generate a cryptographic hash of the file and anchor it to the blockchain.79 This automated process creates a decentralized "Proof of Authorship" that contains the author's public key, the file's unique fingerprint, and an official, tamper-proof network timestamp.83 This decentralized registry completely severs the scientific community's reliance on commercial publishers for establishing priority. If a corporate entity attempts to claim ownership over a dataset, or if a publisher attempts to assert that a manuscript was generated entirely under their purview and therefore subject to their exclusive control, the researcher can produce the blockchain certificate, providing mathematically irrefutable evidence of prior creation, independent moral authorship, and unencumbered public release.11 Seeding the Commons: The Open Science Non-Assert (OSNA) Pledge and Defensive Termination Securing the manuscript and data in the public domain requires a resilient licensing mechanism that mirrors the "Copyright Copyleft" philosophy. The open-source software movement utilized copyleft to ensure that derivative works remained free, creating a viral mechanism that prevented corporate enclosure.16 Standard Creative Commons licenses (like CC BY) are excellent for ensuring basic attribution for scientific literature, but they lack the punitive teeth necessary to deter aggressive corporate litigation or prevent data from being locked inside proprietary AI models.16 Drawing architectural inspiration from the Apache 2.0 open-source software license, the Universal Permissive License (UPL), and Google’s VP8 Patent Cross-License—all of which successfully pioneered aggressive defensive mechanisms—the HGSC will overlay CC BY releases with the Open Science Non-Assert (OSNA) Pledge for Copyright.86 This unilateral covenant serves two critical functions: it explicitly guarantees that the author will never assert copyright to prevent the educational, scientific, or humanitarian use of their data; and crucially, it integrates a "Defensive Termination" (or Defensive Suspension) clause.86 The Mechanics of Defensive Termination Defensive termination is a mechanism designed to create a "zone of non-aggression" by using the threat of total license revocation to deter intellectual property lawsuits.86 Under the OSNA framework, the license to utilize the scientific data, computational models, or literature is granted to the public freely and perpetually. However, the pledge contains a strict, legally binding condition: if any commercial entity initiates copyright or patent litigation against the HGSC, its members, or the broader open-science community regarding the use of foundational research tools, or attempts to sue a researcher for engaging in Text and Data Mining, the licenses granted to that specific aggressive entity are immediately and automatically terminated.86 If the corporate aggressor continues to utilize the community's datasets, open-source algorithms, or repository infrastructure after the defensive termination is triggered, they become directly liable for massive copyright infringement themselves. This structure brilliantly weaponizes copyright law to protect the commons, deterring patent trolls and monopolistic publishers by threatening to sever their access to the collective intelligence, software libraries, and data sets of the entire global scientific network.81 The International Trump Card: The Human Right to Science When domestic copyright laws, restrictive corporate contracts, or technological protection measures fail to align with the principles of open science, the collective must appeal to the highest echelon of international law: the human right to science. Enshrined initially in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, and formally codified as binding international law in Article 15(1)(b) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1966, the right of everyone "to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications" is a fundamental, stand-alone human right.13 The drafting history of these instruments reflects a profound ideological battle regarding the commodification of knowledge. During the Cold War, Western liberal nations often pushed for the inclusion of "moral and material interests" to protect individual authors, while other delegations—including the Soviet Union—argued that scientific research must pursue progressive social aims and that monopolies should not hinder access.13 While commercial publishers frequently attempt to utilize the "material interests" clause (Article 15(1)(c)) to justify massive corporate copyright monopolies, human rights scholars and the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) have explicitly clarified that human rights are distinct from, and vastly superior to, temporary statutory intellectual property regimes.82 General Comment No. 25, issued by the CESCR, emphasizes that the right to science mandates active participation, global access to scientific knowledge without discrimination, and the absolute freedom indispensable for scientific research.96 Recent reports by the UN Special Rapporteur in 2024 further underscore that participating in science requires unfettered access to the underlying literature.97 Overriding Copyright Monopolies The HGSC must weaponize Article 15 of the ICESCR as an international legal trump card.99 Because binding human rights obligations supersede domestic commercial statutes and bilateral trade agreements, any copyright enforcement mechanism that actively harms the public's ability to participate in scientific advancement is fundamentally a human rights violation.93 This includes DMCA takedowns against open repositories, publisher injunctions against text and data mining, and the enforcement of multi-year embargoes on publicly funded research. By aligning with international civil society, the scientific collective can actively litigate against overly broad copyright claims in international tribunals, regional courts (such as the European Court of Human Rights or the Inter-American Court), and domestic constitutional courts. By asserting that a "Right to Research" is an indispensable component of the right to science, the collective can argue that the enforcement of academic paywalls actively degrades human rights, thereby forcing national governments to implement broad, mandatory statutory exceptions for scientific research and zero-embargo secondary publication rights.99 Implementation Roadmap for the Human Global Science Collective Transitioning from theoretical legal strategy to systemic global change requires highly coordinated execution. The establishment of the Copyright-Free Science framework will follow a rigorous 90-day implementation roadmap, directly mirroring the logistics of the Patent and Trademark frameworks to ensure rapid deployment by the Founding Cohort of the Human Global Science Collective.1 Phase Timeframe Strategic Objectives Legal & Operational Deliverables Phase I: Foundations Weeks 0–2 Establish the legal architecture, licensing standards, and cryptographic infrastructure. 1. Draft and ratify the Open Science Non-Assert (OSNA) Pledge featuring robust Defensive Termination clauses. 2. Formalize the mandatory institutional Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) pre-submission wording and distribute to university libraries. 3. Launch v1 of the Collective Public Registry (CPR) utilizing blockchain timestamping protocols for immediate data anchoring. Phase II: Securing the Lexicon & Data Weeks 2–6 Execute mass data preservation, invalidate restrictive contracts, and secure authorship priority. 1. Execute a bulk ingestion of legacy Author Accepted Manuscripts (AAMs) and datasets into the CPR to lock in cryptographic priority. 2. Fund and file strategic declaratory judgment actions invoking Copyright Misuse against restrictive publisher TDM clauses and embargoes. 3. Launch automated scraping tools calibrated for jurisdictions with active, zero-embargo Secondary Publication Rights (SPR). Phase III: Alliance Formation Weeks 6–12 Seed the collective defense pool and decentralize the operational framework globally. 1. Recruit 5-7 anchor institutions (universities or funding bodies) to formally mandate the RRS for all affiliated faculty. 2. Establish international lobbying efforts targeting the European Union (ERA Act) and WIPO to enact harmonized zero-embargo SPR legislation. 3. Initiate widespread deployment of the ICESCR "Right to Science" framework in international intellectual property litigation. Conclusion The privatization of scientific literature and raw data through restrictive copyright assignment and commercial paywalls represents the most profound friction point in the acceleration of human discovery. However, the prevailing assumption that copyright grants publishers absolute dominion over scientific knowledge is legally flawed. Copyright is an inherently fragile legal construct, strictly limited by the idea-expression dichotomy, the Merger Doctrine, scènes à faire, and equitable doctrines of misuse. By systematically targeting these structural vulnerabilities, the scientific community can dismantle publishing monopolies. The coordinated deployment of the preemptive Rights Retention Strategy, the aggressive legislative enforcement of global Secondary Publication Rights, the utilization of blockchain-authenticated prior use evidence to bypass publisher timestamping, and the offensive weaponization of Copyright Misuse and Defensive Termination offer a comprehensive, highly effective playbook for academic liberation. Through the unified efforts of the Human Global Science Collective, and grounded by the fundamental, overriding Human Right to Science, the core principles of open discovery can be irrevocably embedded into the legal architecture of intellectual property, ensuring that the cumulative knowledge of humanity remains forever in the public domain. Works cited Open Trademark Framework Strategies.pdf Full article: Open Access 'Unaccomplished' – Reforming Copyright ..., accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/18918131.2024.2390277 Antitrust problems in patents and copyrights: A primer for policymakers - Niskanen Center, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.niskanencenter.org/antitrust-problems-in-patents-and-copyrights-a-primer-for-policymakers/ Managing Copyright & Negotiating Publishing Agreements, accessed April 14, 2026, https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/for-authors/managing-copyright-agreements/ "Defeating the Economic Theory of Copyright: How the Natural Right ..., accessed April 14, 2026, https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2495/ Restricting Innovation: How Publisher Contracts Undermine Scholarly AI Research, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.authorsalliance.org/2024/12/06/restricting-innovation-how-publisher-contracts-undermine-scholarly-ai-research/ Increasing access to knowledge - American Economic Association, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.aeaweb.org/research/charts/copyright-protections-scientific-innovation (forthcoming 2007) Thomas F. Cotter Abstract: The misuse defense in copyright and patent law is, accessed April 14, 2026, https://law.uh.edu/ipil/symposium/prior/final/Cotter.pdf IS THERE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH DATA? - Berkeley Technology Law Journal, accessed April 14, 2026, https://btlj.org/data/articles2015/vol1/1_2/1-berkeley-tech-l-j-0447-0482.pdf connecticut - law review - Digital Commons @ UConn, accessed April 14, 2026, https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1619&context=law_review Blockchain timestamping recognized by the courts - Coexya, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.coexya.eu/en/publications/blockchain-timestamping-recognized-by-french-courts-a-turning-point-for-digital-evidencer/ Rights Retention Strategy - Plan S, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.coalition-s.org/resources/rights-retention-strategy/ Full article: Codifying the human right to science, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2023.2269091 Beyond Copyright - Verfassungsblog, accessed April 14, 2026, https://verfassungsblog.de/copyright-open-access-research/ JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW, accessed April 14, 2026, https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NYU_JIPEL_Vol-7-2-3_Jin_Think_Big.pdf The Copyleft Movement: Creative Commons Licensing, accessed April 14, 2026, https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=crt A Quick Guide to Software Licensing for the Scientist-Programmer | PLOS Computational Biology - Research journals, accessed April 14, 2026, https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002598 Copyleft and the theory of property | Cairn.info, accessed April 14, 2026, https://shs.cairn.info/journal-multitudes-2010-2-page-50?lang=en Implementing the rights retention strategy for scientific publications - Ouvrir la Science, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/MEN_Guide_non_cession_en_gb_updated_V2_web.pdf Rights Retention Strategy or How to End a Mexican Stand Off - Part One | Kluwer Copyright Blog, accessed April 14, 2026, https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/rights-retention-strategy-or-how-to-end-a-mexican-stand-off-part-one/ Copyright and the Progress of Science: Why Text and Data Mining Is ..., accessed April 14, 2026, https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15026/files/media/documents/53-2_Carroll.pdf Repair as Research: How Copyright Impedes Learning About Devices, accessed April 14, 2026, https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=mtlr Commentary on: Baker v. Selden (1879) - Primary Sources on Copyright - Record Viewer, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRecord.php?id=commentary_us_1879b Winning the Copyright War: Copyright's Merger Doctrine and Natural Rights Theory as Solutions to the Problem of Reconciling Copyright and Free Speech - The Federalist Society, accessed April 14, 2026, https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/winning-the-copyright-war-copyright-s-merger-doctrine-and-natural-rights-theory-as-solutions-to-the-problem-of-reconciling-copyright-and-free-speech Copyright Infringement Cases: Jurisprudential Overview - WashU Law, accessed April 14, 2026, https://law.washu.edu/news/analyzing-noteworthy-copyright-infringement-cases-a-jurisprudential-overview/ Second Request for Reconsideration for Refusal to Register Converse Flow Depths (May 9, 2017) - Copyright, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/converse-flow-depths.pdf The Freedom to Extract in Copyright Law, accessed April 14, 2026, https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7009&context=nclr In the Supreme Court of the United States - Copyright, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/briefs/google-llc-v-oracleamerica-inc-no-18-956-2020.pdf The Uneasy Legacy of Baker v. Selden - USD RED, accessed April 14, 2026, https://red.library.usd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2045&context=sdlrev 1 Reconceptualizing Copyright's Merger Doctrine Pamela Samuelson* I. Introduction Surprisingly little has been written about t - NYU Law, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Reconceptualizing%20Copyrights%20Merger%20Doctrine.pdf WHY 72 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SCHOLARS SUPPORTED GOOGLE'S COPYRIGHTABILITY ANALYSIS IN THE ORACLE CASE - Berkeley Technology Law Journal, accessed April 14, 2026, https://btlj.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/0003-36-1-Samuelson.pdf Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v. Wiredata, Inc.: Seventh ..., accessed April 14, 2026, https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1357&context=chtlj Scènes à Faire: Archetype, Innovation, and the Philosophy of Trust - DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law, accessed April 14, 2026, https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1384&context=jbtl University of Miami Law Review What Is Standard Tomorrow, May Not Have Been Today: An Argument For Claiming Scènes à Faire Ar, accessed April 14, 2026, https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4669&context=umlr Home Sweet Copyright | The University of Chicago Law Review, accessed April 14, 2026, https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/home-sweet-copyright Propertizing Thought | Stanford Law School, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/event/266730/media/slspublic/Collins_Propertizing_Thought_1_6.pdf Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises | 471 U.S. 539 (1985) - Justia Supreme Court, accessed April 14, 2026, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/539/ Photocopies, Patents, and Knowledge Transfer: 'The Uneasy Case, accessed April 14, 2026, https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2518&context=faculty_publications Fair Warning: AI's First Copyright Fair Use Ruling, Thomson Reuters v. ROSS, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.hunton.com/insights/legal/fair-warning-ais-first-copyright-fair-use-ruling-thomson-reuters-v-ross Fair Use Defense Failed in Thomson Reuters v. Ross, Jury Still Out for Generative AI, accessed April 14, 2026, https://perkinscoie.com/insights/update/fair-use-defense-failed-thomson-reuters-v-ross-jury-still-out-generative-ai 2025 Copyright Developments - Kirkland & Ellis LLP, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.kirkland.com/-/media/professionals/s/simmons-josua/2025-copyright-developments.pdf?rev=327bcc8fd8d64b088490398377ba2d61&hash=6B8D0C795826E011713C3C22B08B290C 17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems - Law.Cornell.Edu, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 Sci-Hub - Wikipedia, accessed April 14, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub Copyright on the Calendar: Top Cases of 2024 and What to Watch in 2025 - IP Watchdog, accessed April 14, 2026, https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/12/20/copyright-calendar-top-cases-2024-watch-2025/ When Copyright Law and Science Collide: Empowering Digitally Integrated Research Methods on a Global Scale - PMC, accessed April 14, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3955386/ Copyright Misuse As A Defense In An Infringement Action: Lasercomb America, Inc. V. Reynolds, accessed April 14, 2026, https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1857&context=wlulr Engineering Competitive Policy and Copyright Misuse - Digital Repository @ Maurer Law, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2306&context=facpub The Uses of IP Misuse - Emory Law Scholarly Commons, accessed April 14, 2026, https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=elj Restoring the Balance of Copyright: Antitrust, Misuse, and Other Possible Paths to Challenge Inequitable Licensing Practices - Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW, accessed April 14, 2026, https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3430&context=facpub First Amendment Based Copyright Misuse - W&M Law School Scholarship Repository, accessed April 14, 2026, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3367&context=wmlr Super-Copyright: Contracts, Preemption, and the Structure of Copyright Policymaking - UC Davis Law Review, accessed April 14, 2026, https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15026/files/media/documents/DavisVol41No1_Moffat.pdf THE EVOLVING COMMON LAW DOCTRINE OF COPYRIGHT MISUSE: A UNIFIED THEORY AND ITS APPLICATION TO SOFTWARE - Berkeley Technology Law Journal, accessed April 14, 2026, https://btlj.org/data/articles2015/vol15/15_3/15-berkeley-tech-l-j-0865-0932.pdf AI Infringement Case Updates: June 9, 2025 - McKool Smith, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.mckoolsmith.com/newsroom-ailitigation-26 YES, IT'S ILLEGAL TO CHEAT A PAYWALL: ACCESS RIGHTS AND THE DMCA'S ANTICIRCUMVENTION PROVISION - NYU Law Review, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-90-1-Troupson.pdf The Prospects for Protecting News Content Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - HLS Journals, accessed April 14, 2026, https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jsel/wp-content/uploads/sites/78/2012/03/201-244.pdf Plan S Rights Retention Strategy, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.coalition-s.org/rights-retention-strategy/ Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) - Maastricht University Library, accessed April 14, 2026, https://library.maastrichtuniversity.nl/research/publishing/information/copyright-licensing/rights-retention-strategy-rrs/ Rights Retention Strategy or How to End a Mexican Stand Off - Part Two - Wolters Kluwer, accessed April 14, 2026, https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/rights-retention-strategy-or-how-to-end-a-mexican-stand-off-part-two/ Attacking academic values - Scholarly Communications @ Duke, accessed April 14, 2026, https://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2014/03/27/attacking-academic-values/ cOAlition S's Rights Confiscation Strategy Continues - The Scholarly Kitchen, accessed April 14, 2026, https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/07/20/coalition-ss-rights-confiscation-strategy-continues/ Reviewing the Rights Retention Strategy – A pathway to wider Open Access? - LSE Impact, accessed April 14, 2026, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/10/26/reviewing-the-rights-retention-strategy-a-pathway-to-wider-open-access/ Secondary Publishing Rights - Knowledge Rights 21, accessed April 14, 2026, https://knowledgerights21.org/publishing-rights/ A Right to Republish: Redesigning Copyright Law for Research Works, accessed April 14, 2026, https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1556&context=mjlst New! EIFL provision on Secondary Publication Rights in copyright law, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.eifl.net/news/new-eifl-provision-secondary-publication-rights-copyright-law Secondary Publication Right - Universitätsbibliothek der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.ub.hu-berlin.de/en/researching-and-publishing/open-access/legal-aspects/secondary-publication-right Understanding author rights | Science ouverte - Université de Rennes, accessed April 14, 2026, https://scienceouverte.univ-rennes.fr/en/understanding-author-rights Rights Retention and Secondary Publishing Right in Slovenia | Kluwer Copyright Blog, accessed April 14, 2026, https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/rights-retention-and-secondary-publishing-right-in-slovenia/ An EU Copyright Framework for Research: Opinion of the European Copyright Society, accessed April 14, 2026, https://europeancopyrightsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ecs_copyright-framework-for-research.pdf Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Urheberrechtsgesetz – UrhG) - Gesetze im Internet, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html Provisions in the German Copyright Act (UrhG) - Berlin Universities Publishing, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.berlin-universities-publishing.de/en/beratung/zweitveroeffentlichung/grundlagen/regelungen-urhg.html White Paper – Open Science in a Digital Republic – Strategic Guidelines for Implementation, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.science-ouverte.cnrs.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/White-Paper-digital-republic-October-2016.pdf New French Digital Republic Law boosts support for OA and TDM - OpenAIRE Blog, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.openaire.eu/community/blogs/new-french-digital-republic-law-boosts-support-for-oa-and-tdm-1 Looking for a Home for the Secondary Publication Right: Lessons from National Legal Frameworks - Wolters Kluwer, accessed April 14, 2026, https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/looking-for-a-home-for-the-secondary-publication-right-lessons-from-national-legal-frameworks/ EIFL publishes new provision on Secondary Publication Rights - infojustice, accessed April 14, 2026, https://infojustice.org/archives/46451 ALLEA STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SECONDARY PUBLICATION RIGHTS FOR SCHOLARLY ARTICLES, accessed April 14, 2026, https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ALLEA-Statement-in-Support-of-Secondary-Publication-Rights_2024.pdf Opening Research Information by Law? - Knowledge Rights 21, accessed April 14, 2026, https://knowledgerights21.org/news-story/opening-research-information-by-law/ Timestamping GitHub Commits with Blockchain-based OpenTimestamps for Permanent Records | by B. Burak Kılboz | Medium, accessed April 14, 2026, https://medium.com/@bbkilboz/timestamping-github-commits-with-blockchain-based-opentimestamps-for-permanent-records-d5a824c699ba ResearchProof, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.researchproof.com/ Bernstein.io: Blockchain for Intellectual Property – Protect Trade Secrets & Know-How, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.bernstein.io/ OpenSig | Digital Signatures & IP Protection Made Simple, accessed April 14, 2026, https://opensig.net/ A Strategic Framework for Trademark-Free Science: Dismantling Monopolies in the Knowledge Commons - Zenodo, accessed April 14, 2026, https://zenodo.org/records/19487190 A/70/279 - General Assembly - the United Nations, accessed April 14, 2026, https://docs.un.org/en/A/70/279 liuyanqi/bitright - blockchain for copyright protection - GitHub, accessed April 14, 2026, https://github.com/liuyanqi/bitright Blockchain-Enabled Software Engineering for Secure Collaboration and Intellectual Property Protection in Global Teams - ResearchGate, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395844836_Blockchain-Enabled_Software_Engineering_for_Secure_Collaboration_and_Intellectual_Property_Protection_in_Global_Teams Spec-Up-T KERIsuite Glossary, accessed April 14, 2026, https://trustoverip.github.io/kerisuite-glossary/ Defensive Termination Clause Samples - Law Insider, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/defensive-termination The Universal Permissive License (UPL), Version 1.0 - Oracle OSS, accessed April 14, 2026, https://oss.oracle.com/licenses/upl/ Patents and Open Source: Understanding the Risks and Available Solutions, accessed April 14, 2026, https://opensource.org/blog/patents-and-open-source-understanding-the-risks-and-available-solutions-2 Can a Licensor Terminate if the Licensee Claims Patent Infringement?, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.shaked-law.com/can-a-licensor-terminate-if-the-licensee-claims-patent-infringement/ Don't Over-REACT to the Facebook Patents License | FOSSA Blog, accessed April 14, 2026, https://fossa.com/blog/dont-over-react-to-the-facebook-patents-license/ THE NON-DISCRIMINATION PRINCIPLE IN OPEN SOURCE LICENSING - Cardozo Law Review, accessed April 14, 2026, http://cardozolawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GREENBAUM.37.4.pdf Anticipation in the biosciences and the human right to science - Oxford Academic, accessed April 14, 2026, https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/11/1/lsae002/7610575 Opinion: Advocating for science progress as a human right - PMC, accessed April 14, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6205482/ The Human Right to Benefit from Advances in Science and Promotion of Openly Accessible Publications - Scandinavian University Press, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.scup.com/doi/10.18261/ISSN1891-814X-2013-03-09 IP Rights and Human Rights (Chapter 3) - The Right to Science, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/right-to-science/ip-rights-and-human-rights/DCEFF70DABBB52A19DD42E6C97823EA4 The Complex Interplay Between Intellectual Property and the Right to Science - Texas A&M Law Scholarship, accessed April 14, 2026, https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3273&context=facscholar The right to access to and participate in science | OHCHR, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-cultural-rights/right-access-and-participate-science Full article: A Human Right to Science: Inadequate without Participation in Science? Human Rights as a Governance Tool in Scientific Fields - Taylor & Francis, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/18918131.2024.2398350 Conceptualizing a 'Right to Research' and Its Implications for Copyright Law: An International and European Perspective, accessed April 14, 2026, https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=research Freedom of Research and the Right to Science - Bryant Digital Repository, accessed April 14, 2026, https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=hist_book Access to Scholarly Publications in the Global North and the Global South—Copyright and the Need for a Paradigm Shift under th, accessed April 14, 2026, https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/context/research/article/1141/viewcontent/Beiter___ACCESS_TO_SCHOLARLY_PUBLICATIONS_IN_THE_GLOBAL_NORTH_AND_THE_GLOBAL_SOUTH__for_PIJIP___1_.pdf Right to Research in International Copyright | American University, Washington, DC, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.american.edu/wcl/impact/initiatives-programs/pijip/impact/right-to-research-in-international-copyright/ Licensed under the Human Global Science Commons License v1.0 (HGSC-OSCL-1.0). Public reading, copying, preservation, citation, distribution, adaptation, implementation, text-and-data mining, computational analysis, and open-science use are permitted with attribution, provenance preservation, public access, rights retention, and no enclosure. Patent, copyright, database, trademark, paywall, TDM, or contractual aggression against open-science use triggers defensive termination.