 As you'll see, I'm Leanne Wiseman. I'm at Griffith University and I'm involved in the Australian and Centre for Intellectual Property and Agriculture. So I've been looking at drones from the legal perspective, largely in a large range of uses, agriculturally. I've been particularly asked to speak today about geospatial data, but essentially the legal position around the use of drones really from a copyright perspective, which is when we look at the issue of the law and how it interacts with drones, essentially we're talking about the law of essentially, as we heard from Melanie and Dez, we've got the CASA regulations, Dez has spoken about privacy and what I thought was most useful today to focus on copyright law because essentially when you're talking about using drones to capture imagery, whether it be photographs or aerial photography, essentially the subject matter that is collected on the surveillance technology on the drone will be the subject matter of copyright essentially. So I thought it best to just go through some principles around copyright and I'm then happy to open up obviously and take questions from you as well, depending on your particular areas of interest. Just a couple of basic kind of guiding principles about copyright law and most of you will be familiar with this is that copyright law essentially only protects expression of the idea and so not an idea itself. So it will subsist in something that's tangible and physically has to have some materiality. So that's why we look at the subject matter of copyright will attract to either a photograph because that's considered to be an artistic work under the Copyright Act or in terms of film footage that's viewed as subject matter, what's known as subject matter other than works and they're under part four of the Copyright Act is as cinematic graph films essentially. So if we focus on photographs and films probably today as being the tangible products that are being captured by aerial surveillance used on drones. One important factor is the fact that copyright won't protect raw data or raw facts per se. So when we talk about raw data we're talking about it in a legal sense and I know that you as data scientists will probably have a slightly different take on this but the law takes the approach that raw facts and figures are generally not able to be protected by copyright. They are too low a threshold and there's no originality in the collection of pure pieces of information. So generally raw data so if we're talking about raw tied times or sunrise sunset times or just geological information by itself then that wouldn't be able to be protected by copyright. But where copyright does step in is where those tables where data is actually created into data sets and becomes what the law recognizes as a table or a compilation. So copyright law essentially won't protect what the law recognizes as raw data but copyright law does protect the table in compilation of data. So essentially when we're talking about data sets and the collection of data sets from drones if it's a collection of data that has a selection and arrangement attached to it then the law will protect that as a copyright work and essentially a table in compilation of data sets will be viewed as a literary work under copyright law. So a copyright owner then has the right to control the use of that data set and they could for example license that data set to another party for use whether it's for free or for payment. As Melanie said there's quite complex licensing arrangements around a lot of the data sets. But as I mentioned so we can talk about aggregated data sets or the actual photographs and film footage and all of these three broad categories are recognized as copyright works. So if we look at the most of the controversy arises in copyright about who actually has ownership of the copyright work the general approach in copyright law to ownership is that the first owner of certain copyright works will be the copyright owner of those works and that's certainly the case with photographs. So the first owner of the photo will be the person who took the photo. So if you're thinking of a normal situation that would normally be the photographer and as Dez mentioned the person who is actually in the photo the subject matter of the photo has really no rights with respect to the copyright the ability to control the use of that resultant photograph. So how copyright works is copyright subsists in the image itself not in the subject matter of the image so the copyright owner then has the ability to exploit that image so it might be to reproduce it or to digitize it and place it online for example and that will be the photographer. So in the context of a drone usually because say whether it's an iPhone camera or a different sort of camera that's attached to a drone then it will be the capturing of the image will occur through the technology itself so it will really be governed the ownership of that image or in some cases the film footage will be governed by the terms of use of the particular technology that you're using. So copyright law always requires a human author for there to be copyright that subsists in any work so you might remember the controversy a couple of years ago about where monkey stole the photographer's camera took the camera into the cage and then took a whole range of selfies and then it was an issue of who could own the images that the monkey took of itself. It actually was litigated in the States and it was reconfirmed that without a human author there would be no copyright subsisting in those photographs because if the monkey was the one who took the photos a monkey is not a human therefore he cannot be or it cannot be an author under the Copyright Act. So essentially one of the guiding principles as I said this is essentially the same with film so under copyright law the first owner of a film will be the actual maker of the film usually the director or the producer and again you need a human author but under copyright law what's important to note is that you are allowed to contract out of the provisions of the Copyright Act by virtue of a contract. So regardless of who the Copyright Act says will own the image whether it's a photographer or the maker of the film for example you can vary that legally by entering into a contract to the contrary. So what we're seeing in the use of most technologies nowadays and if you think of social media platforms or any digital contracts it is essentially the contract between the user and the technology provider that will govern the terms of ownership of the essentially the copyright works. So it will be very much the terms of use that are entered into between the individual and the either the technology provider itself whether that be the drone manufacturer or whether it be in some cases a third party for example you may engage a consultant or a contractor to come onto your property to operate drones and collect imagery and and data sets in relation to aerial imagery if that's the case it will be your your contractual arrangement with that consultant or that contractor. So a lot of the times these arrangements are entered into as social not social arrangements but informal verbal arrangements for example then may not be a whole lot of paperwork that's evidencing the discussion around the use or the scope of the works that are being done but what's very important is that if in absence of any discussion around who will own the imagery from the use of drones then it will be the copyright law who will determine who will own and in most cases the copyright law will say whoever operates a drone or whoever has owns the technology will own the resultant footage data sets or or photographs of what what it might be. So there's particular contractual relationships under the Copyright Act for employees and employers so if an employee is a drone operator and you are employing them to do that then if that's an employment relationship as opposed to a contractor one-off payment for service type arrangement then as an employer you may have ownership rights over the imagery in those situations. So basically to put it simply essentially it's always the terms of use of the technology that will essentially govern the use the copyright works that will be generated from the drone technology. So essentially what we're seeing particularly in the agricultural context is a very similar line that's happening with the new digital precision agricultural technology such as the tractors with all of the embedded technologies essentially what we're seeing is farmers who are turning on their tractors by turning on the vehicle you agree to the license that's embedded into the technology that drives the tractor and that is extracting the data and perhaps beaming it straight up to a cloud based service. Those licences are often entered into farmers when they turn the machine on or if you're thinking of a software service when that software is downloaded as well. So what we're seeing is that where we've got larger drones basically with really complicated technologies embedded in it usually the drone operator themselves perhaps will only be owning the physical equipment and not the actual have no rights to the technology that's embedded into the equipment and so again it comes back to the license agreements in these cases. So what some of the clauses that I've seen in some of the license agreements I've just given you a sense of some of the types of clauses that you might come across is often in these types of license agreements with these new technologies are clauses around ownership and often there'll be statements about you will be the owner of all of your intellectual property rights. What's interesting to note is if you're talking about IP and you're talking about intellectual property intellectual property basically is the umbrella term that covers copyright, trademarks, designs, patents. So it doesn't most definitions of intellectual property will not cover data. So what's really important if you've agreed that you are the owner of your intellectual property often that won't address raw data it may address and incorporate collections or compilations of data that literary works that would be covered under copyright. So just the language of intellectual property isn't really broad enough to cover data in all instances. So when you see a clause such as the first one you should be you'll be the owner of all intellectual property rights to the data that you provide to all maps, graphics and reports. What's really interesting about that is that often these types of claims are made but that can't be really that's not necessarily correct because if you are using a third parties in map for example and you're overlaying data from your drone operations onto another map then you've got more complicated copyright issues because essentially the map that's been given to you unless you've had a license or permission to use that map to overlay your information on it you've got different sets of copyright essentially that you'll have to deal with it. So it's important that you understand what these some of these clauses are trying to say. Often there'll be provisions in the contracts about testing provisions as well that they'll be able to use the data that's been collected for the purposes of performing technical services or testing or improving or analytical processing of your equipment. What we often see is that any derived data will actually be owned by the company so this may be a combination of data that may be from one person's property combined with another person's property and where that's aggregated then the aggregated product may be owned by the technology provider. The issue of access and who's accessing the information is also one that's caused some concern within different industries and that is very much a case where there's a lot of cloud based services being used where that information is being stored from surveillance attached to drone technology that again it will be the license that will determine who can make access have access to that information and how far we've even we've seen clauses that say we will share this data with our affiliates and in some cases their affiliates as well so you can see how broad that third party sharing can go can go on. So essentially what's really probably the most important message is for those who are operating drones for the purposes of gathering data sets and surveillance and aerial and obviously in the research context that it's very important that you understand the licenses that are being entered into because it'll be the license generally that will govern the ownership. Most times the researchers and these people who are providing the services tend not to have those discussions about upfront before the service is provided about who can use the information that's been collected whether it's imagery or photographs or data sets for example and best practice in terms of licensing is that those issues need to be addressed and dealt with at the start of any commercial relationship rather than somewhere down the track. So you'll notice that even though your researchers and you're using some of these technologies for research that unless there's research exemptions in your license agreements with these commercial operators that research per se is not really a ground for claiming permission to use data sets if you don't already own them under the contract.