 Well good morning everybody and welcome to the 66th Copyright and Online Learning at a time of uncertainty webinar. My name is Chris Morrison. My name is Jane Tecker and we are the co-chairs of the Association for Learning Technologies special interest group on copyright and online learning. Yes. Which is the coolest group. It's the coolest special interest group of all the interest groups in the part of the association. It is cool. I have to say we're feeling a bit warm aren't we? We are. We're not feeling that cool. This shirt seems to get tighter every year. I'm not sure what that's about. Mine's fitting me nicely actually. I've got loads of room in mine. Some of us have been working out this year. So we are delighted to be with you today with what you can clearly see is a Christmas themed webinar. Yes. Well I can't believe actually how much effort Matt's gone into as well with the Fat Clock. That is looking lovely Matt really. We will introduce our guests today in a moment. Shall we actually get the slide back up that will explain to people what's going on. What is actually going on. I don't know if someone's been doing what's going on. That'll be handy. So as we said today is our Christmas special. It's the Big Fat Copyright Quiz of the Year with Matt Boyce and Catherine Drum. So welcome to them. Thank you very much for joining us. Yes. Very exciting. We've been doing some copyright news and also talk about what's coming next because this is not the end of the road by any means is it. No. We can go on forever and ever. Yeah. Right. So let us do a quick update of what's happened since we last met. What's been going on. So in my world on the left I have recently bought a new guitar. Anyone that's seen me in my natural habitat will see that I've got a ridiculous number of guitars on the wall. Now I've got a new one. Looks a bit like a violin doesn't it. It does a bit. This is the Lapsfield guitar and I was very excited to get that and I've got some benders to go on as well. String benders. I don't even know what those are. They bend strings. I don't know what those are. I'm sure they'll feature at some point if we want a sort of morose country tinged web themed webinar at some point. About got the copyright country blues or something. Something like that. Yeah. Looking forward to that. Your news on the right. This was a photograph taken at a particular moment in time. You just received some rather excellent news. I did. Yes. Yes. Yes. Now I was very excited to find out this week. It's been announced to my colleagues that we made an associate professor. Lots of people keep calling me professor but I think I'm actually only half a professor. I'm very happy to accept the title of professor. I will answer to it but I think I'm actually technically an associate professor which means don't call me that. But you are a twice a doctor. Well yeah. So does that bump you up? You're a doctor, doctor, associate professor. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. If you had those together that must make you a proper professor. Thank you everybody. Yes. Doesn't mean you're allowed to become abscindent and aloof. Again. It doesn't mean I'm going to become serious any time soon. Don't worry everyone. Everything's just to say. Massively well deserved. You put a lot of work together where you've got to. Thank you. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No. It was it was it if nothing it was a round in a paperwork. Yes. Okay. So we do have an archive as most of you will know all the recordings in the YouTube channel where we keep all the stuff that we've done in the past. Everyone knows where that is. Every other 65 episodes if you want to catch it. Yeah. So we are going to cover copyright news. It's copyright news and the first thing we were going to point out probably a few of you are aware of this that the copyright licensing agency has just recently published some research into artificial intelligence which is involved interviewing a number of different stakeholders and rights holders and publishers and finding out what their thoughts are around particularly generative AI which is which is clearly of relevance to this community and we've had a couple of sessions recently on that so it will be useful to have a look at that. Yeah. Yeah. So we flag that. Yes. Another thing that's coming up. Everyone's talking about AI. Everyone's talking about AI. Everyone's talking about AI. Everyone's talking about AI. Everyone's talking about AI. Everyone's talking about AI. Yes. CLA and not talking about AI. Yes. Yeah. Of course they are. Yeah. So the next thing is related to the fact that we are coming towards the end of the year. It is. Yes. Yes. Public Domain Day. Yes. So on the 1st of January every year if you don't currently celebrate Public Domain Day then why not think about having a Public Domain Day party. You can invite all of your friends and family. It may well be. You're all hung over on New Year's Day. Yes. To have another party to celebrate I think the works of Hank Williams, Sergei Prokofiev, Joseph Stalin. Looking forward to this. This is going to be a great 1st of January 2014. Yeah. It is. Yeah. So also Django Reinhardt. So I've got this idea that you could have this sort of supergroup where you have classic country, a bit of Gypsy Jazz, some sort of intense, a sort of highly chromatic, romantic orchestral music and some sort of authoritarian over-vibes. Yeah. Sounding amazing. You bring them all together and no one's going to chase you for licensing fees if you want to create some hideous AI measure. So there we are. Somebody's probably on it already. Yeah. Yeah. But no, it is well worth noting each year and what are the works, which authors' works are coming into, going out of copyright, coming into the Public Domain. And I've got a link here which has got a link on Wikipedia to the works that are going out as well. I've got those names from. Yes. Yes. You always do your research so well, Chris. I do my best. Well done. Well done. So what's our next news item? Are we looking ahead? We aren't. What will be the end of the winter? I know we haven't reached Christmas yet, but we will be out the other side of all this darkness and coldness. And then what better way of looking ahead to the rest of the year than if they're dealing with, which we wanted to flag now in order to encourage people if they want to do something, if they're in a position to put into the programming at their institution, then please do. It's a good time to run some copyright training. It is. Yeah. Yeah. Encourage people to understand all about exceptions and how fair dealing works. So yeah, a bit like Open Access Week. We want to make this a big thing really, don't we? So yes. What are we going to be doing? Well, we haven't determined exactly what we're hoping to do. We are hoping to do something. Yeah. And there are some projects going on that may be ready for admission where we can sort of share stuff, but we will let you all know. Watch this space. Watch this space. Yeah. Yeah. And we are going to have a chat with Kyle, aren't we, at some point? Yes, we absolutely are. Yeah. Kyle Courtney at Harvard, who's actually behind Fair Use Week. He set this up. So we are in touch with him and we'll definitely do some more collabs in the future. Definitely. Yes. More of which. Yes. Anyway, I will say no more because I don't want to steal the thunder, give the game away, say anything I shouldn't because the main order of today is the big fat copyright quiz of the year. So, so can we say hello to Matt and to Catherine? Hello, Catherine. Hello. Hello. Hello, Matt. Hello. Hello. So excellent to have you with us and having devised this marvellous quiz. So those of you who tuned in last year will know that Catherine is quiz person extraordinaire. This is a picture from Catherine on. Only commit. Only connect. Was this two years ago now, Catherine? On the telebox. Something like that. Something like that. It's a blur. During the pandemic, so. Yeah. It was. Yeah. And you weren't actually wearing that Santa hat. I don't think that you were on TV. But it does look good on you. Yeah. Thank you. And Matt, the mastermind behind the recent reimagining of Iflus Copyright News and previous guests on the show, you've agreed to help set some questions. And we're going to find out how much people have been paying attention this year. So what's going on in the world of copyright? Yeah. How are you doing, Matt? You all right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's excellent over here. A nice, nice rainy day, as usual on the Hague. And yeah, looking forward to copyright. Love that Northern European climate. Right. So I'm going to stop sharing the slides now because Catherine, you've set up a quiz for everyone using poll everywhere. So it's a case of you're going to share your screen. Yep. Hopefully this is going to work. Excellent Christmas jumper, by the way, Catherine. Oh, thank you. That's as close as I get to a Christmas jumper. So we have a URL to go to or a QR code if you want to scan that on your device. And hopefully you should be able to join the quiz if we can have some messages. I don't think we're allowed to join, are we? Well, I'm just testing it. I'm just testing it. Yeah, that's fine to test it. But I think given that we've seen the questions coming out of this. Why would that be a problem? I think that might be a problem. Why would that be a problem? I thought Professor Secker might give it a go. We are still recording this, aren't we? So we should probably stop recording if we're actually going to not record the quiz. Is that right? Why are we not recording the quiz? I thought we weren't. Oh, I thought we just weren't recording the final bit. Yeah. Yeah. Do we want to record the quiz? Yeah, we can record the quiz. We will record the quiz. I'm not sure whether people will want to. Oh, no, I suppose they will. There's interesting stuff. Yeah, we might have this conversation on your own. Christmas provides an excellent summary of what happened in the last year. So yeah, years later, people can play along or they can use it to refer back to what happened. Absolutely. We'll put up a Creative Commons license on the video as well, then people can match it up. All sorts of things can be done with it. Good. Well, we'll see. Let's see. Can I actually say that there should be an option to enter your participant name? Good. Something's been going a little bit odd with their automatically generated IDs, so they're not matching up with what appears on the leaderboard. So if you think you're in with the chance of winning, make sure you put in your own ID so we can know who you are. Absolutely. So can a couple of people maybe put something, a response in the chat just to say if you have, if you can see in front of you, call SIG and 24 questions. That's what I can see, Catherine. So is that what we're meant to be able to see? Yeah, I'm checking on my phone as well. Okay, great. Okay, so I think we might be ready to go. Okay. Buckle up your seatbelts, get ready to play that big fan of copyright quiz of the year. Okay, we're ready. Yeah, well, it depends on correctness and how quickly you answer. So speedy fingers get the points. Okay, there we go. Excellent. So the first question, this July, the fast food chains Taco Bell and Taco John settled a trademark dispute. Now, everyone is free in America to advertise which Mexican food on a particular day. Okay, so that's the first question. And then is it the case, Catherine, you kind of open up the options and everyone can see what. And you can see the countdown there on the bottom left. That's the news day for Heater Friday. It's salsa Saturday. So there's a timer. We could have some countdown music. Yeah. That was that. That was good. That was good. You don't need one of those little things with all the little jingles on. You just got me. Do you know, we're having like a Mexican thing just on Christmas Eve. Right. Right. With the pinata. Pinata. One of those as well. Excellent. So do we know the time's up? 91% got the correct answer. So Matt, can you tell us about what happened here then? What's this all about? Taco Tuesday? Yeah. So like a lot of people in American elsewhere, I had no idea that it was actually trademarked. I assumed it was generic. At a previous job, like on Tuesdays, I remember a friend of mine would come around in the office and be like, Taco Tuesday, Taco Tuesday, and we just go get tacos at a place that was not a chain. But it was in fact under trademark since 1989 in every state except New Jersey, where there's a different trademark held by Gregory's Bar. But by a relatively smaller taco fast food restaurant called Taco Johns, which has about 400 locations, Taco Bell is international. I've seen them now in the UK. You may have eaten there and made about 7,200 restaurants in the US. But Taco Bell challenged Taco Johns in court about this and Taco Johns said it didn't want to spend millions of dollars in lawyers. But my guess is the ruling would be generic anyway. The result was that they relinquished the trademark. So now in everywhere except New Jersey, you're welcome to say Taco Tuesday until your heart's content and you're not risking anything except in New Jersey, where Gregory's Bar may come after you. Right. Okay. So in New Jersey, I mean, presumably you're allowed to eat tacos on a Tuesday still. Oh, definitely. I assume so. I certainly have. And I hope that's a criminal admission there. Lovely. Okay. And now I'm starting to feel hungry. Yeah, I was thinking exactly the same. So where are we? Right. So we have a lot of people with full points and we have people's names on here. So we can actually see your names are excellent. So we can see right. So all to play for still, I guess. Okay, Catherine takes to the next question. So hashtag versus Internet Archive, the famous lawsuit. Yes, we've all been studying it. So everybody of the 1.4 million titles that the Internet Archive made available, we all know the story during the pandemic at the Internet Archive, making an emergency public library. How many of those titles were also commercially available? So what do you think? And we have got a number of choices for you here. So do you think it was 17 titles? Do you think it was 33,000 titles? Do you think it was 520,000 titles? Or was it practically all of them? 1.39 million were available commercially. Pop your answers in now. Pop them in now. Pop them in. Off you go. Hey, I missed that one. I'm going to be losing. Well, you're not supposed to be playing. I wanted to play. I would suggest you put your phone down because it's cheating. He's told me off. I have told you off. Okay, I'll be there, Catherine. We are. Oh, a bit more division on this one. Yeah. Okay. So the correct answer is actually 33,000 titles. Can you name some of them, Chris? I don't think it was copyrighted on my learning. No, I don't think it was. Maybe we should check. Yes. So it was, yeah, well, we've got a reasonable number of people that got that one right, but I think that might have had a big impact on the leaderboard. Let's see where we get to. But yes, Matt, do you want to talk to us about that number then? Yeah, so that was cited at Ice Pops this year actually by Kyle Courtney. What's significant about it is that following the ruling, which is a lower court ruling in America, so it's going to be challenged at the higher courts. That's just how the process works. But following the ruling, which looked quite negative for the Internet archive, the judge issued a permanent injunction specifically against the titles that also had commercial e-book equivalents. So that it doesn't necessarily legalize the rest of it, but it certainly indicates a narrowing of scope. And it's important to note that that applies only 33,000 titles. That is a fraction of what the Internet archive actually made available. So that's an important context on what was being done and also important context on the law and actually signalling where it might be enforced in the future. It's very useful to know that. I think often when we're thinking about copyright risk, we're talking about controlled digital lending concept, it's like, is it okay? Yes, no, binary decision. There's a lot more nuance to it, so that's very good. So we have three people buying, so we've got Caroline, we've got Megan, and we've got Guest 791. Guest 791. The enigmatic Guest 791. Okay. Totally, they're here. Yeah, that's a good job. It's always a party when they're here. Right, next question. Who has promised to play a concert on Marrakesh Treaty's conclusion is credited with motivating delegates? So it is a performing artist who promised to play a concert at the conclusion of the important Marrakesh Treaty. And who is this that credited with motivating the delegates to come to the right decision? So next, that was my consideration, but it clearly was the right decision. Is it Stevie Wonder? Was it Ray Charles? Was it, I think, André Bocelli? André Bocelli. André, that's it. He could be Andrew, purposes of this quiz. Maybe this is a trick question and actually was Andrew Bocelli. He could be his cousin. Let's see. We'll just pretend it was that and not my proofing skills. No, absolutely. So, what was the answer? It was Stevie Wonder. Why are there people who thought it was Andrew? Andrew Bocelli. It was Stevie Wonder. Man, what happened? Yeah. Well, I wasn't at Marrakesh. We did at Waipo this year. There were a number of celebrations at various events for the 10th anniversary. The statistics that I have off the top of my head are that the Accessible Books Consortium there, they've shared, I believe, 900,000 titles through Marrakesh. That's titles that are available for people with visual disabilities, visual impairments. This can be blindness or shortsightedness. This also, I believe, covers things more broadly as well. But it's a hugely important treaty. It's one of the last times that they produced something like this. It's the first rights-based treaty, I believe it was negotiated there. And part of the story goes that there were really intense negotiations going on. And at some point, word was getting around from Stevie Wonder that he was going to play a concert. There were a lot of factors at play, but Stevie Wonder said, if you get this done, I'll play a concert. And he did. Fantastic. Stevie Wonder, so fantastic. I just love him so much. And you couldn't love him any more, could you? Really? Yeah. Yeah. Or Caroline, you're edging ahead there. Catherine, what did you saw? Seeing Stevie Wonder in a gift shop in Tokyo, that's what we need to follow. I went on holiday to visit some friends in Hong Kong. And on the first day in Hong Kong, I saw Jackie Chan leaving a hotel. And then my friend and I went to Tokyo for three days and we saw Stevie Wonder in a gift shop. Best star spots ever. I'm going to hang out with you some more, Catherine. Absolutely. It's probably nearly as exciting that time that you saw almost Professor Jane Secker in the theatre and ended up sat in a train to her. Do you remember? I know. I know. I can't get away from her. We can move on now. Let's move on. Come on, we've got to speed this up. We've got to keep going. Okay, right. So next question. Which of these iconic poo elements? Probably should have sent Winnie the Pooh. Just to clarify. You might want to provide some context on here as well. Over to you if you want to provide a bit of context. So Winnie the Pooh created by A.A. Milne and the drawings are E.H. Shepard, I believe. But it's all the property of Disney. Or the famous Disney cartoon. So, yeah, Matt, what is the context here? Well, in 2023, a poo or at least elements of poo entered the public domain. And that prompted, of course, the release of horror film, Winnie the Pooh, Blood and Honey, was financially successful. Wikipedia says critics said it had poor dialogue, a lack of humor and connection to its basic source material. But since it's public domain now, you can also make your own horror film if you think you want to do better with poo-based elements. However, one of these things is still under Disney's copyright. So. Okay. So what do we think it is, everyone? Here we go, folks. So is it piglet? Is it poo's insatiable love of honey? Is it the 100-acre word or is it poo's red t-shirt? You just get the timing right. There we go. Yeah. Two thirds were correct that it was poo's red t-shirt. Yeah. Matt, anything more you can tell us about that? Oh, well, I wish I knew who made the joke on the internet, but the rule is generally now, shirt on the bear, artist beware. But if nude, the bear below is free. Very good. Excellent. Caroline, you are still in the lead. Deborah is not far behind them as well. So I think given you get a thousand points for a correct fast answer, you can easily jump ahead. And even Louise is not far behind. So let's keep playing. Let's keep going. Here we go. Next question. Okay. Are you doing this one? Yes. So Matt, I think we probably want some context from you here, but it's about Disney attempting to keep Mickey Mouse under its control through trademark. So this is about the fact that the original Mickey Mouse drawings were, again, the copyright in them was expiring. Yes. Yes. So the first Mickey Mouse cartoon was Steamboat Willie. And that is due to enter the public domain the January 1st. So obviously Mickey Mouse, Steamboat Willie, all this is quite central to the Disney brand. And the version, we'll see. We'll see what the line is between where Steamboat Willie ends and where the modern Mickey Mouse begins. But some have speculated that Disney has been making a play to keep Steamboat Willie under their control. So this question is what will they be doing? What did they do this year or recently that might be an effort to expand their IP control of the Steamboat Willie? So I can speculously, suspiciously, high volume of IP filings, incorporating Steamboat Willie into its logo, repainting its theme class black and white, or suing yet another daycare. Which of these is the option? That we suspect they may be using to keep the Mickey Mouse under their control. You're going to do that countdown music now? I think we need to do it in two seconds. So the correct answer here is in corporate steamboat Willie into his logo. So what's happening here? Yeah, so recently if you look at, I think you can see this on like Disney Gloss or the streaming. You'll see it start with the Disney logo that they've incorporated actually a bit of Steamboat Willie into that. I found out about this through John Oliver's last week tonight, a British comedian who works in the US. But he did a wonderful show that's kind of hard to find online because it was a few just a few minutes segments where he had someone in the Steamboat Willie costume come out and he he's taunting Disney to sue him and noted that he incorporated the Steamboat Willie into his show's logo over the last year, over the last season, so that he's also claiming it's part of his brand. So John Oliver wanting to sue him, quite funny, but we'll see again what happens. We'll see whether Disney is going to assert this in this way or whether you can also make a Steamboat Willie horror film now. Yeah, well, we could consider both the Steamboat Willie horror film and incorporating it into our logo. I think we might run out of time. You can make a crossover. You can make your own cinematic universe of horror films now with Winnie the Pooh and Steamboat Willie. Catherine and Deborah now tying for and Louise. Yeah, not far behind at Julie. It's all to play for. It's very tight. Right, next. Let's get on to the next question. Let's see what else we've got. So we're talking now about Arthur Conan Doyle. Yeah, Conan Doyle's estate claimed which element of the Sherlock home mythos? Mythos, that is the right word, had not been introduced until casebook and therefore it was still subject to its in control in the U.S. Talking about copyright law in the U.S. And we're talking about Sherlock Holmes. It's not like a like a construction company that is building new homes. Sorry, Catherine. I'm picking up on the type of credit there. It's ridiculous. Right. I think we should move on to the answers. Okay. Right. So which element of the Conan Doyle's estate has not been introduced until casebook. So it's still subject to control in the U.S. Is it Holmes dear stalker Hatham Pike? Is it his heroine habit? Is it the fair phrase elementary my dear Watson? Or is it showing emotions and character growth? So which of those is still three, two, hey, we got it that time. So let's see. Catherine, tell us what's the answer was showing emotions and character growth. Okay. So please explain this to us, Matt. Yeah. Yeah. So this is the last, the last Sherlock Holmes book. This is actually a 2023 the last Sherlock Holmes book written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was the case of Sherlock Holmes. And that was the last book to expire the rights that to enter the public domain in 2023. And before that in 2020 Doyle's estate decided there were elements of Holmes that were only introduced in the last book that would still be under its control and unsuccessfully sued Netflix over its recent adaptation, saying that it was only in the last book that Holmes showed character growth emotions was a bit warmer prior to that he was more aloof. And therefore, if you have a Holmes who grows as a character, it is still under still was under their control. Again, they lost wasn't successful. I guess you can't blame for trying. But now it's case books remain. So you're free to do this without having to fend off nuisance lawsuits from the Arthur Conan Doyle estate. Yeah, something else we can add into our mashup film. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Oh, Caroline. You're just still edging ahead. Yeah. Oh, it's still close. It's a close thing. Caroline clearly very fast on the fingers. Okay. Next question. Next question. So what was the name of the if the book that Chris and Jane wrote a chapter in, which featured on a number of webinars earlier this year was actually the end of the four beginning of the next year. Yeah. Now, we know that it's obviously top of everybody's reading this book. It is an open access book as well. Yeah. So shall we, we don't need to say any more about it. Let's look at the options. So making sense of copyright for librarians chapter inverse navigating copyright for libraries purpose and scope. So copyright, what's a lot about then? Or was it copyright and online learning a guide for practitioners? So what do you reckon? I know which one I'd like it to be. I don't have we had our time again. We have our time's not over. There's plenty of time. No, no, but you know, in that if the book we could write another one. We could write another one entire end into collection. Yeah. Sure. Okay, right. Time's up. Let's have a look. It was navigating copyright for libraries purpose and scope. It wasn't copyright and online learning a guide for practitioners that 2016 much waited sequel because it's not that's never come but by facet. Well, we'll get there. We'll get there eventually. We've replaced that book with the webinars. Okay. Caroline still in the lead. Deborah is not far behind. Okay, let's go to the next question. Okay, right. So we this is about the film Metropolis. This is a film that's also I think about to enter the public domain this year. Enter the public domain in 2023. So it's now in the public domain. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification, Matt. So there was a West End musical version of Metropolis and the the which British actor played the despotic ruler John Freeman in this 1989 West End musical adaptation of that film. There we go. It's the auction. Let's go for it. Yep. So was it Oliver Reed? Was it Lawrence Olivier? Was it Brian Blessed? Or was it Patrick Stewart? Have you seen? Did you see that musical? Was that one you went to? It wasn't one I went to. No, no. The first musical you ever went to either was. Cats. And me too. Yeah. We like to think we were actually there, don't we? In the same shirt. Yeah. That was in 1983, 1982, 34. That was about four. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. Okay. So anyone? Oh. Oh, nobody's answered. Oh, what's that? Yeah. Oh, no. Let me try doing it again. Okay, let's get this one to go. You can you can answer honestly or you can just treat this as a freebie, I guess. Yeah. Yeah. You might want to vote for Brian. Gordon Delight. He was faster. It is the musical. I mean, it's the lyrics are horribly, horribly literal. I have listened to it, but you get this boom and then it's the machines are beautiful, more perfect than man. It must have been. We're not saying it was good, but it would have been something to see. Oh, no. The thing in starts when people are allowed to leave. Yeah. They've got to continue with this for a more time. So it was always understated. Brian blessed. Yeah. Lovely. Okay. Caroline smashing it once again. Yeah. Come on. Come on, people. Come on. Let's see what happens. Okay. There's lots to play for. Okay. Right. So Bill Willingham, which comic book series in the public domain? So about who is Bill? Well, Bill, Bill Willingham is a comic book artist who had a dispute with his publisher this year and he authored a certain comic series that we'll find out here and he decided it's still disputed by the company if he has the right to do this. But he said, forget it. I'm retiring. I'm radicalized on copyright. I believe that after 30 years, all rights should expire. So I'm getting older. Let's just put my stuff in the public domain. Okay. Yeah. Fables, Watchman, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, or Dream of the Rare Bit Fiend. Wow. I wish I was playing now. Yeah. I know. But you wouldn't let me. No, because you're not allowed. Come down. No, not quite yet. Okay. What's the answer? It was fables. 47% of people got that one right. Okay. Let's have a look. Was it Caroline? Did she get it right? Yes. Somebody's been paying attention. Caroline got access to the answer. No, surely not. Okay. Let's go to the next question. This one is about another law case. It is. Yes. Matt, tell us about this visual arts ink versus Goldsmith. It was about Andy Warhol, wasn't it? Yeah. Yeah. It was about a Andy Warhol, I believe, screen print that was based off of a photograph. And this has been, of course, disputed in copyright circles. The assumption was that if the ruling was against the Warhol Foundation here, then it could really upend a lot about a particular aspect of copyright law here. I don't want to get into it necessarily too specifically to spoil the question there. But I haven't heard so much commentary after it happened. So this was at the U.S. Supreme Court level as well. So that's the issue. Okay. So what was the issue? Okay. So what was Warhol Foundation's unsuccessful defense? Was it that the use was fair or transformative use? Was it that there had been a licensing agreement produced under a prior law? Was it that it was relying on the quotation exception or was it that it was fine? The classic finders, keepers, losers, weepers, legal argument. Yes. Use that one in court. All the time. At your peril, maybe. At your leisure. Let's see what the answer was. I wonder if I use, was it fair use? It was fair transformative use. So this is a classic appropriation art fair transformative use case as in the Richard Prince arguments, wasn't it? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Good. Good. Good. Okay. Is steaming away again in the lead? Right. Should we go to the next one? Yes. Let's go for it. Yes. Okay. So this is about open AI. How long to the nearest hour did it take for open AI? Chief Executive Sam Altman to be reinstated after he was removed from duties by the company's board of directors in November. So recent topic. Yeah. Let's see the options. Was it 63 hours, 99 hours, 107 or 124? I could vote. If only you could vote. If only. If only you'd let me play. Yeah. You still wouldn't beat Caroline. No, I don't think I would. Fire. Right. Let's see what the answer was. It was 107 hours. Wow. Yes. Did you want to tell us a bit about this map? Oh, I wouldn't necessarily have much background to add as well. It's still, there's a lot of commentary out there on this and you can read up on the background there. Okay. Excellent. Well done, Caroline. Your guessing is pretty good. I'm having you on my quiz here. I can tell you. Okay. Right. So next, another kind of trade, kind of IP broader question. So Belgian customs crushed 2,352 cans of the American beer Miller Highlife featuring an advertising slogan that violated EU regional protection laws. And is the question in which country? No, the question, if we look at the answers, which was the advertising slogan? Oh, okay. Was it parrot with parmesan, champagne of beers, better than Pilsner or indistinguishable from Evian? Oh, okay. Right. Okay. So which which advertising slogan was it that they customs claimed violated an EU regional protection law? I have to say 2,352 cans of beer is kind of a standard Saturday night, really, isn't it? Yeah. It must have been a good time. Well, your house. Yeah. It is American light beer, so I'd, even after drinking that much, I'm not sure you'd, you'd experience. Okay, let's have a look. Yay. So lots of people got that one right. The champagne of beers. How dare you refer to a beer as a champagne? Absolutely. And we covered this, didn't we? Earlier on in the year map when we had the special. So that should be one. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay, Catherine, how are we doing? And how is the end of the site? I think we're about halfway through. So we might need to speed up a bit, of course. We're going to speed up. Okay, let's, let's wrap it through the next few. Yeah. Okay. So this one's dead easy. So you'll all know this, which of the following was not created by a member of the old Corsic community this year? So it's a copyright education initiative. So which was not created? So was it copyright heights? Was it the copyright escape room? Or was it that fantastic resource? Copyright sucks. Okay. What do you reckon? Off you go. We could even make the time in shorter. We could. I can, I can skip forward if you want. If we think okay, everyone should know this one. It's copyright sucks. So I was just checking to see whether the creators of copyright heights and the copyright escape will actually with us. They don't appear that they are. So Tim Riley, Erica, VV, who works at Coventry, created the two excellent resources. Copyright sucks. There's an entry in the marketplace. There is. And you can't have copyright on a title. No. Someone needs to stop it. Someone wants that one. Well, once again, Caroline smashing it. Right. Let's go. Next question. Let's find out the next question that Caroline's going to get right. Okay. Which of the following authors was not edited to fit with modern sensibilities? So let's have a look at our options. Okay. So it's the one that was not. Was it not Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie, Ian Fleming, or Dr. Seuss? I think we should end it after 20 seconds. Okay. No, I can skip forward. There we go. Yeah. Okay. Right. This one's a bit tricky because these are the estates of these authors making these edits. And the Dr. Seuss estate, in fact, it made the decision not to release six books, but it did not release them in edited format. Whereas the others had all released edited versions. And some of these authors were edited when they were live as well. But you got edits of Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie, and Ian Fleming. You just didn't get the books period with Dr. Seuss. Right. Okay. Okay. We do have a podcast in the tank, which does a lot about Ian Fleming, which hopefully we'll get out to you before too long. Caroline again. Fantastic. Good work. Right. Next question. Okay. Why did Science Victor magazine in Clark's world temporarily stop accepting submissions in February of this year? So let's have a look at the options. Too many AI written submissions, that AI software created better stories than the submissions to cut the carbon out for their servers. Well, he had just looked at the world that decided the dystopia was here. Oh, are you familiar with the science fiction magazine, Clark's World? It's not not on the top of my list. No, no, no. Just wanted to know if you read it back on Tuesday. I was drinking all your beer. Yes. No. Okay. So it was because there were too many AI written submissions. Do we want to say anything more about that one? I think they were really ahead of the curve on this. I mean, this was back in February, just when people were really this year in this current cycle of AI discussions. And there was really early warning signs on the things that are happening, the differences in AI and where it creates problem points. Yeah. Several people are thinking it should have been D, really. Yeah. Okay. Also, I should add that Clark's World does have very detailed submissions guidelines that are quite useful to look at. So if you ever want to look it up. Thank you, Matt. Okay, next question. Which part of Dungeons and Dragons can the wizards of the coast not assert IP rights over? So should we go on to the options? Yeah. Let's have a look to see what they are. Character design, character designs, monsters, and other artwork, rules of the game, the backstory, content from the out of the print first edition of advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Whoa. You want to know your Dungeons and Dragons? And this context earlier this year, Wizards of the Coast, which owns Dungeons and Dragons, made changes to their open license on what they would control over how user generated content, which is integral to the game, what they would assert rights over. But they couldn't assert rights over one particular thing here. Okay, let's see what the answer is. The rules of the game. Interesting. Interesting. Well, presumably. Because rules are not protected by copyright as an expression of creativity. The rules are not predictable in the way that theories and facts are. It's the old idea expression dichotomy. It's a little bit like some of the rules around the publishing trap that we kind of borrowed from other games. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, shall we go on? Let's go on. Let's go to the next one. Of course, Caroline's doing the these. There we go. Okay, so this is testing your knowledge of a fantastic resource that was released earlier this year. I think in June, July time, we created a code affair practice for the use of audio visual works in film education. Along with Bart Milletti published by Learning on Screen. So shall we see what the options are? So which of the following activities is not addressed by the code? So we've got some great examples past his fingers. Here we go. So is it allowing equitable access to a diverse range of films? Is it allowing students to critically analyse film? Is it adapting films for teaching and learning purposes? Is it giving students popcorn and a nice company chair? Or is it format shifting of film content? That's a tough one, actually. I find this one really difficult. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we wrote it and they all just seem all just kind of obvious things that you'd want to include in film education. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay, let's see. Who's paying attention here? Of course. We're going to wait for format shifting. That's ridiculous. No one would suggest that. That's a good idea. Caroline, well done. Well done. Yeah. I think we probably should write a code about giving them popcorn. Next one. Okay, your turn. Which countries caught the following derivative AR images in fringe on the rights of the human artist who generated the first AI image. So when you look at the answers, let's move to them. Now you will see that there are the original work on the left and the alleged AI copies. So which country said that these were an infringement? China, Japan, North Korea or South Korea? And of course, the key bit on this is that this is like a protection for an AI-generated image, which is a bit more expansive than other countries have ruled. This is a tough one. Yeah. See, we can catch Caroline out. Let's have a look. It was China. It was China. So it just goes to show that there are major differences still between the countries, how they're treating AI-generated works and still no consensus. So where are we with the scoreboard? Caroline's still out in front. Right, let's go to the next question. Which country wrote this? This is another image that's partially AI-generated. It's a combination of an AI-generated image and another one. And here it is. So which country said that this was protected by copyright? As you can see, it's got Van Gogh in it, hasn't it? It's the merger of a merger of Starry Night and the artist's own photograph. A photograph, right. Starry Starry Night. So anyone? Right. Okay, correct answer. Yeah. So was India this was? Yep. This was also ruled not protected in the U.S. So this is an indication of diversion on particular. The name of the image is Suriast, if you look it up. Okay. Okay. Interesting. Interesting. Okay. Next one, Caroline still, although I don't think Caroline's hanging at the same score, but I think that was a tough one. I don't think many people got that one, right? So let's go to the next one. Okay. After closing their Twitter account, what percentage traffic reduction did NPR, the public broadcaster in the U.S. subsequently see to its own website? What reduction in the traffic? So let's look at the options. One, 12, 17 or 23 percent. This was after the whole mosque, the various mosque issues that have happened. Twitter then reclassified NPR's state run media, which typically is for propaganda channels. They left Twitter and they saw a certain percentage reduction in their traffic. And the answer is one percent. So just goes to show Twitter really isn't what it used to be. Whatever we're going to call it. Yeah, absolutely. Let's go and see where we're going to go. So I don't think there's much change in the scores. Right. Let's move to the next question. Okay. So there is a long running publication and it's going to cease to be sold on American news stands. So anyone got any ideas of which long running publication this is going to be? Is it going to be people? Is it Harper's Bazaar? Is it popular mechanics or is it National Geographic? And then perhaps Matt can tell us a bit about this story. I subscribe to this and read it regularly. So yeah, and they also fired all their staff writers. So it's it's not good for this publication. No, no, no. It's another tough one, though. Okay. So the answer is National Geographic. Wow. So they got rid of all their staff writers. Yeah, they're going to. I mean, National Geographic, of course, used to fund quite a bit of relatively longer term expeditions to use their stories. And now it's going to be, I think, on a short term contract basis. This is Disney as well. I think it speaks to challenges in the public publishing industry, but also the short-sightedness that you have a strong legacy publication that still generates interest. And they're not going to be investing the amount to create the long term produced quality content that they've been known for. We've got a new player coming up the leaderboard. I can see the Grinch. Oh, the Grinch. Oh, well, exciting. Let's have a big fat cover of Christmas quiz of the year. No, let's get going. Okay, so who's been paying attention? Subscribe to our Copyright Waffle podcast. Which of the following people has not been a guest on our podcast to date? So let's see the answers. So is it Richard Ovenden? Is it Emily Drabinski? Is it Carl K Courtney? Or is it Mark Lewisen? And what are you going to do then? I'm going to put a link to Copyright Waffle. Excellent. We are going to be running slightly over time. I think we are. We're going to get this through these questions. We'll go through it there. Catherine, how many we've got left to go? Oh, and we have the answer. Let's see. The answer was, we haven't got him yet. He keeps thinking that we have, but we will. We have been lined up. But the others, you can catch on Copyright Waffle. Lovely plug. Let's move on to the next thing. Caroline, are you going to need some role? Is that what's happening? Yes, I think just the top people. What's the interest in video games that have ever been released? Are now currently still available commercially? Yes, a percentage point two, seven, thirteen or twenty one percent. This is done and released this year. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Matt. Two more questions after this. Okay, fabulous. Thanks Catherine. Thank you. Screw you. You haven't got to disappear, I hope. Screw you, Nintendo. No, no. They are. They are pretty aggressive. They're copyright. But they're so much fun. Right. What's the answer? Thirteen percent. So there's a major issue here in terms of archiving and copyright is fixed. That's something one of the challenges that I certainly have in my day job. Maybe we should get some of them from the video games industry to talk to us on Copyright Waffle. I think we should. Let's do it. Okay. Next question. Oh, we're all right. Clearly, the leaderboard is kind of... Yeah, look at that. Okay. So in June, a US federal judge sanctioned two attorneys for using AI to write a filing on behalf of their client who was suing an airline. In part, how did the courts know that something was wrong? Let's have a look at the options. Oh, actually, this is the last question. So all comes down to this. Oh, Catherine. Okay. Was it incited Canadian case law, incited EU case law, incited non-existent case law, irrepeated use of the phrase kill all humans. So let us know what you think. And just remember, it's all to play for now. I think this is going to be between Caroline and Lethal, I think. You think so. Ready for that countdown? Okay. And the answer was that it incited non-existent case law. So it was hallucinating. It was hallucinating, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So where does that leave us, Catherine? Oh, well done. It was never really in doubt. Was it the front row? It was at the end. No, I suppose it was. Yeah, I think that was pretty close. I think that, Lethal, you made a very good look at that. Look at that coming up with really only 300 points in it. And Evelyn as well. So Caroline, would you like to speak? Take the microphone. Some of you've got a dash. Can you hear me? Yeah, hiya. Well done. Thank you. I'm slightly baffled because I was guessing on a lot of those. But I'm pleased to have won it on the last question because I still find that whole story about the lawyers hilarious. Lethal, are you still there? Would you like to join us? Would you like to say hello? Hi, yes. Hiya. Hello. Yeah, I'm thrilled that apparently my nerd interests of Dungeons and Dragons and Bables and all that help down. Fantastic. Well done. Well done. And thanks so much to everyone that came along. Thanks to Matt for getting those questions together, Catherine, for making it all happen. Yeah. That's been excellent. There is no prize, is there? Well, I'm sure we can find it. We can maybe think of one. Yeah, I think so. Yeah, we'll think of a suitable gift for you both. Maybe that we'll just release another podcast or something for Christmas. Yeah, hopefully you will find this useful. Lots and lots of copyright news stories as well. And we will stop the recording, I think, in a moment. We've just got a very, very quick thing to let you know that we do have some webinars coming up in the new year and we've got some excellent topics. So we're going to do the future of these webinars. We have Sarah Hammond who did the report based on the survey that people build out what do they want. Yeah. And we're going to be asking or talking about what we're planning to do. Yeah. But then we, in February, we have Claire Pater and Professor Emily Hudson, who along with Tanya Applin have written a guide on third-party copyright research outputs for UKRI, which I think many people are aware of. So we'll be hearing from there. And then we've got some other topics lined up, haven't we? Yeah, we're definitely going to be doing copyright specialists again. So here are some of these people that did so well in the companies as well. Yeah, there's your prize, you come along and tell us all about how you got involved. Yeah, we are going to be talking about the ethical framework. We've had confirmation from Natalie and Sharon, who've been working on that for alt ethics in learning technology and how is it linking to copyright cross-border licensing as a topic we think we'll come back to. Yeah, we've been talking to the Swedes, haven't you? Yes, yes. And control digital ending. Maybe some stuff happening. Let's see, yeah. So on that note, we will say thank you very much for spending your Friday morning with us. Yeah, an absolutely huge thank you to Catherine and Matt for all their work we've put in this together. Big, big cheers. Well done, both of you. Any final words, Catherine? How does it compare to being on any company? Well, it's much easier to ask the questions than to answer them. Matt, anything from you? No, nothing at my end. Thanks for having me once again, and this was really fun to put together, and I hope everyone else also enjoyed it. And all the best for you as well with your new, you'll be leaving IFLA, won't you? Yes, yes. I'll be going on to other things, and if you are looking for a full-time colleague, do message me. Particularly somebody who knows a huge amount about copyright. And social anthropology, and policy, and lots of awesome things, so yeah. PhD and anthropology as well. Fantastic, fantastic. So we've got one last thing. And we're going to say just before we stop the recording, a great Merry Christmas and a happy new year to everybody. Yeah, thank you for tuning in this year and joining us, and I hope to see you next year.