 First up we've got Naomi Corn to talk about rights and commissions and how to avoid reinventing the wheel and passing off as your own and then being sued by the original inventors presumably. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you from me for inviting me to come along to talk but also I've so enjoyed the talk so far and so thank you so much all the speakers. I wanted just to start my session off by kind of going back in the past little bit about ten years ago and sort of sharing with you story and then after sharing a story with you I'm going to draw you a picture. OK. And we're going to do copyright that way today. So my story is that ten years ago I was working at the Tate. I was a copyright officer. I was pretty new in post and it was at the time of the Matisse Picasso blockbuster. And these are two of the most in terms of copyright. They are the estates that actually are probably two of the most ferocious estates not only because of wanting to control if a work by one of those artists can be reproduced or not but also how it's treated. The issue of moral rights is particularly strong in France. So in other words the colour had to be absolutely bang on for the reproduction of the images. Excuse me. And also every time that the Tate wanted to reproduce one of those images it had to send proofs multiple times to the estates. Apart from that both estates are represented in the UK by DAX, the Design and Artist Copyright Society who charge a fortune for the reproduction of those images. So there were a number of rights issues associated with using those works. And I was approached by Tate Modern's Education Department and they said look Naomi, they said we want to do this project. We want to create an online interactive tool for visually impaired users using the works of Matisse and Picasso. And I'm a candy type of girl. I really am. I kind of have my heart sunk. I just thought how, how are we going to do this? I want it to happen. I really want it to happen. And I was determined, a bit Sarah was saying that she was determined for this to happen. I was determined for this project to happen because the value I could see would be massive not just for the time of the show but also for longevity. It was a project that would really change something and help people who couldn't traditionally engage with these works, engage with them. So I said look we're going to have to come up with a strategy. And it was the first time I think that Tate had ever heard the words copyright and strategy said in the same sentence. I said we're going to come up with something. We're going to make it happen. We're going to sit down and we're going to work this out. So I sat with them and we did, we planned, excuse me, we planned a strategy where we timelineed it. And this was just when the project was an idea and we timelineed it and we thought about the issues and we worked them through. We factored in trips to Paris, which was rather nice. We worked out exactly what we wanted our users to do with these works and we did it. We achieved it. We managed to work with DAX. We went straight to the Matisse and Picasso Estates. They at first actually said no. They said we will not let you do this. We will not let people interact with our works. And we put the arguments together. We got the curators together. We brought the curator of the show over to Paris to meet them. I went as well and we sat down and we chatted to them and we explained about the project. And they said yes. And I think it's still live on the TAKE's website. It was a huge, huge achievement. So that was the story and it was that sort of relationship of copyright and strategy that I wanted to talk to you more about today. I'm not going to talk about what is copyright. There are lots of places you can find that out about. But the places where it's less prevalent is the issue of process, strategy. How do we get from A to B from beginning of a project to actually seeing the project coming into fruition because we've considered the rights and permissions issues. And also because I like pushing this stuff as well. I'm going to talk a little bit about how that interacts with business models and sustainability. So how can we really think about the bigger picture, hence the flipchart and pens. So I'm going to try and do this in terms of concepts. This ball represents a ball of content, a ball of material, a ball of resources. It could be anything and probably it is everything that we have spoken about so far in this room today. I don't think about it, but I'm not at such a caudro, but we'll get there. And these people are the people that we want to engage with these resources. This content, this material, it can be text, it can be dance, it can be music, it can be images, it can be audiovisual, whatever. Because we're about digital archives today and making them accessible and reusable, that represents a platform of delivery. It could be a website, it could be a virtual learning environment, it could be a handheld device. It doesn't matter. Now, we've spoken today as well about reuse. We ideally want not only these people to be able to see the resources that we have in our archives. We actually want them to be able to engage with them, we want them to be able to reuse and potentially repurpose them as well. We want them to really be able to use them creatively to add to them, to interpret them. Now, there is an obstacle. There's an elephant in the room, which is why I'm talking today, which is that in an ideal world, and I think the sort of work that Paul and Jake were talking about, shows the sort of ideal that we can have these spaces where all this stuff exists. And wouldn't it be brilliant if we didn't have to think about copyright and we can just let people use it and do what they want with it. If it does exist, there's a whole other discussion we can have about if it's good that it exists or not, and that's not what I'm going to talk about. But I'm going to talk about the fact that within this ball of resources there's going to be a whole range of rights that needs to be identified and then managed effectively in order for these people to use this stuff. And this is the idea of a process already kicking in. So I'll draw this as a pie chart. So within this ball of resources, we will assume there'll be material that you created yourself. Okay, so I'll put another little figure in there. If it's by paid members of staff, one would assume that you can use it freely. Okay, there won't be any rights issues to think about. If the material has been created by contractors or freelancers or students, then issues start building up. Because actually the default is that these other people who work with our organisations, and I suspect there probably isn't any organisation in the room who doesn't interact or have work created by volunteers or students of freelancers, that's an issue because there will be rights issues that you will need to sort out with them. You will need to get their permission in order to use their stuff. And I will symbolise that by an arrow coming in. Okay. We spoke today about thinking about rights issues early. So in terms of process, before a work is created, ideally you have a conversation about who owns what rights and then what permissions do they then grant to your organisation to be able to use that material. You may have objects that are created by third parties. In an ideal world, before you acquire these objects, if you're acquiring these objects from the person who created the works, then again you can have the discussions about do they give you permission to be able to use these works, or maybe they want to assign you the copyright. But ideally the point of acquisition, confusion I admit sets in with documents such as letters where actually it's not the person who has received the letter who would be the person who can give you permission. It would actually be the person who created the letter, who wrote it. And in my lifetime I have never come across a letter where someone has written something down and said, oh by the way, I will let you use this work for x, y and z purposes. It just doesn't happen. So you've got to think about the relationship between the person who gave you the stuff and their relationship to the copyright. You happen in your ball of stuff, the big question mark, often works. These are works that are in copyright, but where the rights holders are either unknown or cannot be traced. JISC is a very prevailing theme today. It's actually another JISC funded initiative. We did a big survey of orphan works across the UK a couple of years ago. So works, as I said, that are in copyright, but where the rights holders are either unknown or cannot be traced. Massive problem. We estimated that there are actually over 50 million orphan works in the UK's public sector alone. You can read out more about this. I'll show you some links at the end of my presentation. So you need to have some kind of strategy. What do you do? Something's in copyright. You can't trace the rights holders. Currently it's an infringement if you use it. So we then get this issue of risk management, which I think is synonymous now with rights management. If you're going to manage rights, you're going to need to think about risk management as well. And thinking again in terms of policies now, what is your organisation's appetite for risk? I think we can begin to start seeing, if I can just put this on hold for one moment, what I like to refer to you as the magic triangle of copyright in your organisation, which is that actually copyright in any organisation for it to be effective has to be determined by a policy. What are you going to do about X, Y and Z? What are you going to do about all from work? How do you want your staff used by your users? It needs to be supported by processes so that staff know how to deal with it. It then needs to be supported by the right tools. So they have to hand the right types of mechanisms in order to deliver the processes that support the policy. And that all needs to be underpinned by staff awareness. If staff don't know what the issues are, they can't do any of that. Okay, so back to our ball of resources. We might have stuff in here where we've just taken it from the web. We don't know who created it. We know there is a rights holder. We're almost sure it's not a right. It's not something that's an awful work. And then we might have other material that's either out of copyright or perhaps represented by an organisation, a rights holder. Maybe it's PRS and PPL for music. Maybe it's DAX for images. So we've got a right society of some description. So invariably, as I said, in order to deliver this ball of stuff to our users, we're going to have a number of permissions that we need to get from third parties illustrated by these arrows coming in. Now, this is the trick and this is the clever bit and this is the bit that actually often gets forgotten about. That's only one part of the equation, getting the permissions in because actually you don't know what permissions you need to get from all these stakeholders in this stuff. You want to deliver to these people unless you've worked out exactly what do you want these guys to do with your stuff? If you have this kind of very general aspiration that you want material to be used, what does that mean? Under exactly what circumstances, what terms and conditions do you want these guys to use the material that you're going to put on the web for which you don't own the rights? Unless you answer that question, you can find yourself in a situation where you're pretty vague and you've not really decided about it, you get the permissions in and the permissions you get in aren't enough. They're not full with thinking. What you can't have is a situation where these third party rights holders give you less permissions for these guys to use this stuff than these guys are actually going to be doing. If these guys or users are going to be using the ball of resources for anything more than you've actually got permissions, that's basically an infringement. It's not going to work or if it's not an infringement, it means that halfway through a project you're going to need to go back and ask for more permissions. It also means that if you identify the rights to these early enough you can plan in terms of how long you think it might take you to clear the permissions, i.e. process, process in your project management, you can put aside suitable resource, who's going to be seeking permission, what help do they have, how long might it take them to do and the costs. Costs of someone or some people clearing permissions but possibly there might be rights holders who need to be paid. It might be that because you've done this early enough and treated it as a process that you decide to change your mind, that maybe works that you are going to put online and make available to these guys to maybe reuse, it's just not going to be feasible, it's going to be too expensive but you've got that timeline within your project in order to allow that to happen. This is really the idea of the compatibility of permissions coming in with the permissions that you then grant out to your end users. You might want to, for example, use an open content licence like a creative commons licence and you would certainly absolutely need to specify that in your permissions from any third party rights holders. This is where things get a little bit more interesting. In the world that we operate in, in this technology rich world where we are all content creators and content publishers and where the users of our stuff are also potentially contributors of content as well, you have almost a cyclical model which is by recognising that cyclical model that's taking place at the point of these guys accessing your site, engaging with the content, you can try and get permission from them to not only give you permission to use the materials that they create but actually permission to use the materials that other people create as well. You have a synergy between permissions that they give you and permissions that they're using, everyone else has given them. You have this sort of even playing field where ideally if you're submitting content it's under the same premise as somebody using someone else's content. Now to add to that picture and to build how long have I got? Five minutes. I just want to say something about business models and sustainability which is that within this sort of bigger picture of allowing people to use your stuff. I personally don't believe that that precludes you from developing business models that surround your content and certainly it was picking up on a question that was raised. Certainly if we're going to make our materials available more openly I think there's a very strong business case that actually that can act as a marketing mechanism and can propel the value added services that you have. So I would say that almost what you could be thinking about if you wanted a really big picture is almost not only the value added surrounding your resource recognising that the delivery of your resource to your end users can propel the value added but also you can simultaneously have similar resources being delivered to the same or different users. So an example might be that you have low resolution images or low resolution types of your resources being delivered to your users under one type of licence but high resolution images being delivered under another type of licence. There would be nothing to stop you actually delivering the same content under different licensing frameworks. That's absolutely feasible but it's recognising that this is all part of a much bigger holistic picture. Now I haven't spoken about the detail because actually I've been working with GISC and the SCA on some of the detail. Access, thank you. Can't you see? Okay, so what you want to know is kind of the issues associated with this particular bigger picture. Over the last two to three years or three years plus I've been working with the Strategic Content Alliance on an IPR and licensing toolkit which can be used by public sector organisations to help them manage the rights and permissions associated with their content. It exists in paper form as a series of template rights clearance letters, briefing papers, risk assessment tables. Your heart's desire in one book in terms of helping you is all free and it can all freely be customised and adapted. It is genuinely free, free, free, okay? But in this digital world we wanted to do something a bit cleverer than that and so we developed six learning objects as part of a learning module that contained all our resources and the context surrounding the resources. So then if you can see clearly that we've made it into an introduction to IP, created commons licences, orphan works and risk management, the Digital Economy Act, accessing and using third party content, protecting and managing rights. So if I just load up for you the orphan works and risk management one. So if you want to find out more about orphan works and risk management you can click your way through this little module. You can listen to this woman having a chat to you about the toolkits and post it on your own more. You get a structure, some more talking heads, a little post you can download. You'll have a look at it, you'll see it on there. Briefing papers and reports. Okay, a whole load of stuff. A risk management calculator which is kind of quite neat. If you want to actually try and get an indicative score associated with the risks that you might be encountering associated with using orphan works there's a little resource here that you can play with. So one of the benefits of going to this is that it's all out there. It points the process as being absolutely key in terms of rights management and obviously risk management. But even better than that this little resource can be freely used and adapted and customised. So if you don't like any of the talking heads you can take them out and put your own in. It's all available under open content licenses. So I hope that you have found it interesting and please have a play with the tools that we've had such fun in creating.