 Welcome back. We've now got three really important sessions in a row and to start off with we now have a session on copyright and creative commons which I think is very timely because we've touched on the issue of copyright licensing and associated issues on and off through the day so far so it will be great to have clarification on that and we're going to hear from Ben and Jocelyn in reverse order on the programs going to hear from Ben first and we've suggested they're going to make their presentations back to back so that they give us a good bit of content and then some time at the end for some questions and points on clarification so Ben would you like to start us off and welcome. Often these mic stands are not built for people that are six foot two can you hear okay yeah my name is Ben White I've got a background in rights and licensing first of all in the publishing community I used to work for Pearson and Longman and more recently as you can see I work for the British Library and my job here is mainly to license journal content and also do what we call licensing out which is public-private partnerships in and around public domain content. I've been asked to give a presentation really kind of a ladybird book style to introduce the very very very complex issues of copyright law and licensing in ten minutes so so really those those of you that don't know about copyright law and licensing live live a very blessed life it's it should be the plumbing that just sits or the wiring that sits in the background sometimes it is and that's the great times when you just don't know that it's there and sometimes as we've seen in and around open access particularly in the journal world sometimes it becomes some somewhat controversial so my presentation is really as I said to give a ladybird book style introduction to copyright law and licensing and then given that I'm up here I'm also just going to share with you two things that came from an interesting conference that I went to recently in which was the Society of Scholarly Publishers Conference a number of weeks ago where they were talking a lot about open access so the basics of copyright law copyright law sits with the author it's automatic doesn't need to be registered just by creating fixing an idea a creative act in in in the form of text or sound recording or a film copyright is created and it lasts for book authors for example for life plus 70 years and not an academic authors that I think are in a rather interesting position that whereas the the slides that I'm producing to the extent that there is some skill labor and judgment level creativity in them they don't belong to me they belong to my employer academics in the certainly in the UK that generally isn't the case although they're employed by the university the copyright law generally I believe sits with the the academic author so your academic authors are in a rather privileged position I think since 1988 UK copyright law has also given these things called moral rights and moral rights are essentially the right to be identified as the author to not be misattributed I need to be attributed correctly and also which is extremely subjective also gives you the right to object to derogatory treatment so so again moral rights this post 1988 continental European in origin I did essentially really gives you the right of attribution as well as to object to incorrect or derogatory treatment UK law along with other common law jurisdictions to my knowledge allows you to lend sell wave and give your your copyright away it is in a sense exactly the same as property in that particular sense that in common law jurisdictions you can essentially do what you want with it in the way that you can do what you want with with physical goods continental jurisdictions are slightly different but sent essentially in the UK you can assign your copyright or you can you can you can lend it for for a defined period copyright law talks about exclusive rights it gives the author the creator an exclusive right of ownership on the product of their intellectual creativity an exclusive right another word for that is essentially it's a kind of a de facto monopoly perhaps but actually very few if any jurisdictions globally give absolute control to authors and create creators there's a balance between the exclusive rights these monopolies and what are called exemptions or limitations and exceptions and certainly in the educational sphere in the academic sphere these exemptions are pretty important they allow things like copying for research purposes they allow criticism and review when you're reviewing or writing about other people's works and and and pretty important to scholars and the humanities and social sciences this was a review undertaken by the British Academy seven years ago and it's quite interesting if you look at the the results of of the work that they did working with scholars and academics and it basically said that particularly in the humanities and social sciences authors were were rather confined and and and felt that the limitations and exceptions the exemptions I just told you about were being defined too narrowly that when they were wanting particularly for criticism and review purposes to use other works other in copyright works that the rights holders and all the publishers were being too restrictive in terms of what they were allowed to quote how much in terms of quantity they were able to use so I you know a large audience I'm sure you will be thinking about the issues that are raised in very different ways but I think this study is quite interesting from humanities and social science academics where they they they essentially said that they were frustrated with the way that existing limitations and exceptions were being narrowly drawn and therefore that was limiting upon their ability to reuse works and and therefore to kind of progress learning and scholarship so and obviously this is something that open forms of licensing deal with very nicely licensing it's quite interesting I tried to look for some some surveys or studies on what sort of contracts authors are signing and I don't know if it's because of confidentiality clauses for business sensitivity reasons but it's quite difficult to find any study on this certainly for monographs this is one study I did find from ALPSP from 2008 which essentially says that 74% of authors journal authors this is should or commonly assigned their copyright outright to the publisher so that means that they give their copyright to the publisher in order for the publisher to to publish and as I said at the beginning that means that the copyright doesn't sit with the author but with the publisher for life plus 70 years unless there are some other clauses in the contract which in some way ameliorate that that assignment last Thursday when I was thinking about this presentation I took a very interesting voyage down the imprint pages of lots of books that sit on my shelves in my office and it was quite interesting looking at the monographs and where where the copyright sat and essentially I think I think monographs is far more gray than journal publishing and there was a real mixture some of the books copyright sat with the publisher generally the larger publisher and again to generalize horrendously seemed that the smaller the publisher the copyright then sat with with the author but there are different ways licensing is is very complex as I said at one end of the scale you can assign your your copyright or copyright was traditionally assigned to the publisher outright and in that instance you as an author would know would have no further ability to use the your own work other than what copyright law i.e the limitations and exceptions allowed you to do another model common I think is to assign rights to the publisher for a time limited or period only or for a certain print run and then the rights revert back to you but as I said licensing is very complicated and you can really kind of cut and dice this any which way that you want creative commons licenses as I said at the beginning my job is licensing to me a creative commons license is perhaps better than many other licenses because there are only two pages many of the licenses that I see are kind of 15 to 20 pages so I do kind of like them for their brevity but as a as a licensing professional you know I understand and interact with the creative commons license just in the way that I do with any other license that I get from any other publisher and I recognize things in the creative commons licenses that that I will see in the 15 20 page horrors and again you know they are durations of copyright creative commons licenses build on that moral rights attribution is is always dealt with creative commons licenses are excellent in the fact that they allow limitations and exceptions to be used something that that we see to varying different extents as a library certainly from the large licenses that we get from large publishers that that give certain rights but don't generally allow all the limitations and exceptions that you would see in UK law to be exercised and creative commons also deals with commercial non-commercial use derived use etc etc and they have a great advantage in that not only is obviously if the material is openly available on the web the text can be discovered you can also do a search on the license so something like half a billion works are available to be indexed by search engines and for example if you go on a search engine and put creative commons search engine you come up with a search engine which allows you to search on material that's available under a creative commons license so there's kind of double exposure and discoverability there okay final two slides from from my conference a couple of weeks ago one of the I think misconceptions about creative commons licenses that you see is that somehow they encourage plagiarism I think the only answer to plagiarism is write your book and then put it in the box and then sellotape it up so no one can read it I don't think that's why most people write certainly not why I write for no one to read it you know plagiarism sits out from copyrights it's an ethical issue and I think it's very clear that that people understand that you can plagiarize in copyright material out of copyright material but essentially you can only plagiarize material that you can discover and I think everyone is writing for their material to be to be discovered that isn't a picture of the universe that's a picture of the well maybe it is it's the digital universe it's the internet and I think it's really important that people start to think about impact and how people how impact the impact of scholarly information is is changing you know it isn't just as we see in the journal world impact factor now companies like impact story there are running businesses on for publishers but also importantly for funders to say okay you know what is the impact of this article this monograph that I have funded you know 300 copies going into going into the libraries is one sort of impact but actually with the open web with tools like text and data mining you can you can measure impact in different ways and and clearly with open forms of licensing of of content the way that you're the material that the author creates and writes because it's discoverable on the open web allows us to measure impact through social media and other other methods of dissemination very very differently and this this company called impact story gave a really interesting presentation saying that the day before they'd been in Washington DC talking with the National Institute of Health they're the Department of Health in the US and they were really interested in what impact story we're doing because for them it really showed how in the public arena away from scholarly communications but on the open web for citizens what the impact potentially of material funded by NIH was so I would implore you to think about discoverability and and the way that impact is can and will be measured thank you I'm Jocelyn so I've been asked to talk about Creative Commons generally and also to address some of the key things that have been discussed and thrown up by consultations and debate recently so that's basically what I'm aiming to cover hopefully won't run out of time so we're going to have a brief overview of Creative Commons I appreciate a lot of you are quite familiar with it already talking to a few people at lunch time some of you aren't so I am going to give an overview of it and then kind of move on to discuss four key areas that I've kind of come across in reading what's been sort of submitted in the consultations what's been written about what's been spoken about and the four areas I've kind of identified that there are concerns around in relation to Creative Commons licensing and open access in HSS are to do with things like attribution how attribution works getting credit where credit's due and the integrity of the work or you know what is the fear what is the concerns about putting your work with a Creative Commons license out there on the web for instance and how do you make sure that it's not used in a way in a fashion that you're not happy with in a disparaging way for instance then thirdly the issue about third party content you know if you're going to be integrating third party content in your own work that you may license with a Creative Commons license how do you get clearance what are the issues there how can you make sure that you're protected from any claims by a third party and lastly this issue about commercial use you know whether it's desired what does it mean should you should you be using a license which kind of prevents other people making money out of your own content so those are the kind of four key areas we'll hopefully move on to discuss after the overview okay so what is it then well Creative Commons is a non-profit organization they've been around a long time so it's not a sort of new fad hippie organization they're well established in the U.S. non-profit and what basically their remit is to provide free copyright licenses so they are copyright licenses just like any other that has been said and you can attach them to works that you own copyright to so whoever you are you've got whatever you've created has copyright you can put a Creative Commons license on it and basically just spells out for other people that come across that content that's licensed what they can do with it legally what can they do with it so the aim of the Creative Commons organization when they formed all those years ago was really to allow people to communicate how they want their work to be shared because not everybody wants to lock their work down in all rights reserved copyright you know people on lots of occasions want other people to reuse it to share it to remix it do wonderful things with it and they wanted to make that easier for people by providing these simple licenses so their aim was to sort of go from the all rights reserved situation that you've got automatically with copyright that Ben refers to as well to this some rights reserved so really the message I always sort of hammer up home really about Creative Commons licenses it's about choice you know you exercise your copyright according to what your particular aims may be in relation to that piece of work and you've got a choice of different licenses so exercise your copyright as you want it rather than how copyright dictates that's basically what Creative Commons is so even though they started in the US it's kind of spread globally and it's in different jurisdictions including the UK and I was involved with the UK team of affiliates for a number of years and that's why Karen approached me to come and speak about Creative Commons here so basically set of licenses free user all over the world as Ben referred to this you know half a billion works a lot of it you would have come across if you use the web I think it's also important to say what Creative Commons isn't there is a lot written about Creative Commons you know it's like like events already referred to but it encourages plagiarism it encourages piracy and it's not that at all I think people who are familiar with it familiar with the licenses know that it's a copyright license it's built on top of copyright and if copyright didn't exist then obviously Creative Commons wouldn't be needed either but it is important to also recognize that it's not a copyright enforcement body so if you use Creative Commons licenses to touch that license to your work and there is infringement in you know somebody has used it in contravention of the terms of the license Creative Commons is not a legal enforcement body that you can go to and they can fight your case for you and they like to make that quite clear and when they communicate what their role is so it's not legal services it's not legal enforcement organization and it doesn't store like a big database of cc license contents either you go and get your license from the site yes but they don't actually keep track of who's license what and when okay so that's what it isn't so there are six licenses so i'm just going to run through a bit briefly the different ingredients if you like that go into the six different licenses there's four core sort of ingredients that go into the different license so the six licenses are there on that kind of scale so on the left hand side there you've got all rights reserved copyright and on the right hand side they're pd referring to public domain where either the copyright is expired it's run out at the time that you know we're referring to has run out or someone has chosen to state articulate that they are not interested in retain their copyright so they may use one of the Creative Commons tools which i haven't put up there it's not a license it's a tool where you can actually communicate that you're not interested in retaining your copyright so some people use the tool cz0 to articulate that i know Cameron Nailand does on his blog he uses cz0 to say that that's that's his intentions towards the copyright of his blog so let's have a look at the ingredients then attribution the much talked about attribution cc attribution is a license which has this component all six licenses of the cc sweeter licenses have attribution and basically what it means is that if somebody reuses the work that is licensed with the Creative Commons license they have to give you credit they have to give you attribution and they have to give you attribution as they usually dictate or as they prefer so you can dictate how you prefer and if it's reasonable for the reuser to do so they should attribute as you've sort of indicated as your preference so attribution across all six licenses it's a requirement second component is the share a light component and what how this works is that if you've got a lot if you take content that has been licensed with a share a light license and you build on it you remix it or you repurpose it in some way you adapt it in some way your adapted work also has to be released under the same license you have to share it back under the same terms of the license so if you adapt to a piece of work that is licensed with share a light you also have to share a light so that's quite important for some people who don't want their work to be reused and then locked up with a more restrictive license they want the license to say well my work when it goes forward in the adapted work should stay as free as my original work was so wikipedia for instance uses the cc by share a light licenses if you adapt wikipedia content then you should license it under the same license so that's the second component thirdly the no derivatives license so basically you can use the content under a license where it says no derivatives but you can't do any adaptations to it you can only use it as it is now that is quite restrictive and as an educator as a tutor as an academic that may go against what your intentions are whenever i talk about sort of licensing creative commerce license i always kind of get people to think well what's your intention what's your aim in thinking about this license what do you want to happen to your content and if it is that you want people to share it and learn from it and maybe translate it then no derivatives license may not be the right license to go for but it it is attracted to some people where they want that control they don't want people to translate it to remix it but it is a very restrictive license and the last component is the non- commercial component okay so basically if you license something with a non-commercial license you allowing people to reuse the content but you don't want others to make money from it now this is this again is a much discussed component because questions that are thrown up as to what does non-commercial mean who is a university a non-commercial entity is it the entity or is it the use that we should be focusing on so we'll come back to that so though those are the four ingredients that go into one or more of the licenses you've got the six licenses so you've got the choice as a creator as an author you have a choice as to which license now the cc by license is the much discussed license i think in open ox access recently in a lot of the debates we'll come back onto that in a minute but just want to say also i think ben referred to the the sort of the machine readable aspect of creative commons license or repeat that but i'll just sort of remind us why it's important that cc license do allow you to be discovered on the web you know we're talking about digital content with that came up a lot in this morning's discussion so it is important to realize that but it's also important to mark up your content properly when you go and get a license because you have got those three layers including the machine readable the the metadata the code aspect of it which you should mark up when you go and get the license so what you see before you're there is the actual license tool so you go to the creative commons license chooser and you answer a couple of questions and again going back to what i said just a couple of minutes ago it's about what you want to permit what's your choices are in order to get the license and at the bottom left hand corner there help others to attribute you well this is the bit that you do need to pay attention to i think a lot of people forego that bit thinking i don't really need to bother with that but that is really important i see a lot of content where you know well-intending people kind of say on their blog or say on their website saying yeah this is creative commons license cc buy or cc buy non-commercial but it's not actually marked up properly which means it hasn't got the html there it doesn't link back to the actual license it's just text so the intention is there but it doesn't really give enough information to people who come along and discover that content as to what they can do with it google won't pick it up if you haven't marked it up properly so it's important to get that html and if it is digital content put it on there so you can get discovered because otherwise you're losing out on google love you're not getting discovered as i think most most people want to be online so that's that's basically the license chooser so give enough information and you can specify how you want to be attributed who you want to be attributed so in an open access kind of hss situation it may not just be the author who wants to be attributed you may want yourself as the copyright owner because what usually happens with cc being used in open access publishing is the author it researcher retains the copyright and uses the cc license but you may want the publisher to be attributed as well you may want the funder to be attributed as well so that's just an example i made up so the you know the learned academic published by so and so publisher funded by particular trust so all of them get the credit because they've all contributed to that piece of work so you can word your attribution so that everybody gets the credit and if it is a work that's based on another piece of work you can say what it's based on and link it back so this particular slide kind of relates to two of the issues that i mentioned that is areas of concern so attribution how you make sure you get attributed properly and also to make sure that there is you know the integrity of your work is protected in some way so attribution you can specify how you want to be attributed who you want to be attributed where you want to be attributed you can ask that your original work be linked back to so that if you're worried about oh you know jocelyn's going to take my work and make a real hash of it i don't want any association with it you can ask that i link back to your original work so people can see well that was really good this is the you know rework of it which isn't as good so you're in the integrity of the work is reserved so i think attention more attention a little bit of effort on that makes a lot of difference as to achieving the credit that you do as the copper owner and the other parties if that's what you choose as the copper owner okay so that's attribution and marking your work up properly i think it's really important again the first point i think ben's already covered it in terms of plagiarism yeah it is an independent thing you know anybody can pass off work and if you put your work out there it will happen to a lesser or a greater degree and you know there is no way of hundred percent proof you know whatever license you use if you go and use a commercial license or they use the cc license if it's out there people are going to see it and therefore minority will do stuff with it that you may not have actually given permission to do the second point which again is a concern for people is that somebody might come and take my work that i've cc licensed and they may imply i've somehow endorsed it i support it or i'm some way connected with it well creative commons recognizes this as a concern and actually is in the terms of the license that there is no endorsement there is no sponsorship implied so if somebody is doing that if somebody is implying that they are in breach of that term of the license so you know you are protected as you can be by legal terms uh in in in that and similarly with um unfavorable remixing you can actually ask people to not attribute you so if you come across something that's been rehashed piece of your work and it's absolutely dismal or it's actually associated with the calls that you really disapprove of you can ask that you don't be attributed because that's part of your moral rights your moral rights are not affected by the cc licenses it's reserved so you can ask that it you be not attributed so that's important to remember as well and you can require the link back to your original work always so that travels with any re remixes of your work so your original work is not kind of denigrated anyway it's preserved the last point i would uh is make it's not really a cc point but i think it's a point that kind of highlights these kind of concerns aren't unique uh to to yourselves as a as a community UK government introduced the open government license back in 2010 i don't know how aware you might be there so the open government license actually allows licensed a lot of government content with an open government license which is mirrored very closely on the creative commons attribution license cc by license so sites like hmrc that is majesties revenue and customs acas which is the employment advisory body gov uk like business link content all contain very kind of regulatory i mean they can't call it advice but regulatory information you know how to form companies how to pass resolutions as directors to wind down your company what sort of tax applies to you these are very kind of regulatory thing and obviously the government were worried people are going to take that distorted be out of date they'll do all sorts of weird and wonderful things with it they were concerned about that but they overcame that fear because of the terms of the license protected them sufficiently so the message there really is if the government who is probably the most cautious entity you can think of is that able to overcome that fear and go with an open government license that is mirrored on cc by i think you know if you get the terms of the license if you familiarize yourself with the cc by you may think well yeah that is enough protection or that is as much protection i can get if i'm going to put my content out there that's the only reason i've put the the ogl in there okay the other aspect of it was to do with third party content you know how do you have content where you've got your cc license content and you've got third party content that might be created commons or it may be a different type of created commons license content how do you make sure it all sits okay and nobody's going to be kind of full foul of copyright law well wired uk the reason i've got wired uk is that they sometimes use created commons license content on their site they did a really good feature on the 10th anniversary of created commons where they released some of their articles under created commons license but obviously wired is all rights reserved copyright publication generally so the point is that you can do both you can by clearly marking clearly demarcating the different types of license content all rights reserved content with cc license content to make sure that you know the reuse understands what they can do in relation to third party content so it's a question of you having a co if you are negotiating clearance with third party content owners it's a case of maybe negotiating that and say i can we can do this properly so that your rights are preserved and i can cc license it as well so that's what created commons recommends you know the copper up clear copper up notices can alleviate that or limit that risk because other organizations sometimes guardian uses images that are cc license bbc have and you know there's there's are even been situations where bbc haven't correctly attributed in the cc community on twitter go berserk and suddenly they they do attribute properly so that happens so it's important to know that you can do the mixing but it's a question of negotiating the clearance lastly and permitting commercial use and they're talking to people about open access and hss you know there is a kind of a sort of a leaning towards commercial you know preserving a commercial using a non-commercial license and when i started to ask why is that do people intend to you know make money out of it themselves does a lot of money get made from publications in the future and the kind of feedback tended to be well no it's not really about the money it's to do with the control not losing control as so that you know by not allowing other people to make money of it you people feel that they're in more control of the content but again i think you got to go back to what are you trying to achieve what is the aim of what you're trying to do by putting your content out there with an appropriate license are you going to make lots of money out of it what is the gain overall for other people allowed to make money out of it and then think about what you know what does non-commercial mean you know increasingly it's uncertain as to whether universities of commercial non-commercial by having a non-commercial license are you going to be preventing other universities from using your content that's cc license with a non-commercial license possibly so it's important to realize sort of what are you trying to achieve and not use non-commercial license as a way of controlling your work i think in conclusion i would say cc offers choice you know there's a different range of licenses i know cc buys talked about a lot and there's lots of benefits that i think covered in different sessions as to why cc buy might be appropriate funders have the choice as to what sort of conditions they attach to the funding that they're going to be distributing and two researchers and authors choose to accept the terms of that funding and if the terms of that funding or the conditions attach that funding is a particular license then it's you know you have to negotiate that or you have to understand what what is it that i'm trying to achieve and does this license suit my needs cc licenses are well established globally and it's recognized globally you know where it has been challenged in the courts it's legally robust it hasn't been shown to be some fad license or an inferior license it stands up in court and they are just copyright licenses so it enables frictionless sharing while acquiring attribution in every license so that's that's why we think i mean my background is a legal background but the moment i'm working on a startup which concentrates on attribution and what you see there is an attribution graph where people have been attributed so you may recognize some of the the names there so what i've done there is is that's just a filtered content of people writing about open access or being featured in open access so there's knowledge and latch there there's Karen Milloy there so there's just a filtered bit bit a graph based on attribution so that's what we're working on at the moment at zilpa and attribution is important so i empathize with the need for attribution and a correct attribution i think the alternative might be that you know you're going to be out there well protected but you're not going to be maybe out there enough you know that people don't know enough about what you're doing and what great things you're doing so that might be worth bearing in mind okay thank you thank you ben and jocelyn i think what we could do is to take a um a quick round of questions and then ask ben and jocelyn to address them as a set before we we move on i thought that was a invaluable briefing session on some of the issues for all of us that lie behind any debate on one open access whether from on a grass or elsewhere anybody want to come in any points of clarification go ahead margo bargea from university press in guttingen um we had a meeting of our editorial board and we are dedicated open access publisher for my university and our editorial board suddenly was bringing up all these misconceptions we almost wanted to lay down and cry and the question is um how do you get this idea that research integrity is actually protecting research much more than a license how do you get it across when it comes to open access because obviously authors and editors and scholars seem to have these misconceptions about plagiarism and so the question is is are we do we need new strategies to put into people's heads that research integrity is a protection for scholarly work thank you that's good hold on to that one let's take another couple of couple of points anybody else come in anybody else yes yeah we can most restrictive form of creative commons license and then if they became more comfortable relinquishing control so how much choice do they have in that regard good question thank you it's got another one two more one at the back and one here and then we'll then we'll move move on that's right there we go and then one at the back after that go ahead Jill Russell from the University of Birmingham Ben rightly said that authors as when they're employed sometimes have to transfer their rights to their employers the requirement from the funding councils that authors use a particular license on some of their publications is that because the relationship is the same as that employer employee relationship could you perhaps clarify that thank you and then to the back and then right the back here we go and then we'll we'll we'll have some answers to those four questions please go ahead Jenny Boyle Warburg Institute it's just a short question should publishers be dictating the kind of cc license that they also should choose thank you got that one right jen ben justin you've got to answer all of these questions now free legal advice go ahead okay um research integrity i i i i do think that studies might be very useful um there's something in the audience who i won't name who used to work for a very very large um open access publisher who's published open access for many many years in the science sphere and they said they've never had a problem with plagiarism or complaints or etc etc in terms of reuse of work so i do that person knows who they are so yes they let me say who they are that be fine um but i do think studies is is um sitting on a platform a very good way of going justin right the second question was um can you start with a restrictive license and move on to a different more lenient license or more permissive license well creative commons licenses aren't uh are non-revocable meaning that you can't change your mind you can't pull the license from underneath someone who's already exercised their rights under it so if i come across your content and your content is under a particular license and i reuse it that i'm bound by that but you can change your mind and re-license content and that would affect people that come across it subsequently the problem is of course when you put it on the web it's out there and you don't really know how far it may travel so it may go it may um affect a lot more people that you may have intended but going back to your question it does happen where people kind of experiment with a restrictive license first and when they feel a little bit more at ease with creative commons gain more confidence with creative commons and how licenses work they may in future license with a more permissive license so they do experiment that way because it's important to remember it's non-revocable against people who may have already exercised their rights under it does that make sense um question three about the funding councils is that relationship the same as the employer-employee relationship um no it's a different relationship UK law other than sound recordings for reasons that i won't go into um essentially the copyright of the employee belongs to the employer i think essentially universities are very liberal in the way that they treat their employees um aren't you lucky academics clothes brackets you don't realize it but you are um funding councils that's a contractual relationship i.e as in return for the funding we as funder require certain things so that's that's the difference in the relationship it's employee employer as opposed to fire contract from from the funder and then question four leading question should publishers dictate the license i would say that um you you can think about this as having at least three different players you have the funder you have the author and you have the publisher um you might argue that there are different balances of power there but if the funder the author and and the publisher were equally educated and knew how licensing worked then i think you could have a kind of a mature relationship um i would say that the the funder has the upper hand because essentially you know it the work kind of comes from from what is being funded so the funder definitely has the upper hand good thank you both very much indeed thank you