 Okay. Good morning everybody. Hello, good morning. My name's Chris Morrison and my name's Jane Secker. So we're the co-chairs of the Association for Learning Technology Copyright and Online Learning Special Interest Group and this is the 54th webinar we've run on online learning at the time of uncertainty. Yeah, it's been a journey. It continues to be a journey and it's great to be here today. And we are wearing our Ice Pops t-shirts today, feeling like being festive red. Some people said these were very Christmasy for these t-shirts. Yeah, they are a bit Christmasy. We can talk about let's not talk about Christmas. So yes, what have we got today and another excellent lineup? We have, yeah. What have we got? So there's some copyright news which we'll talk about. We've got a new Waffle Out new podcast, very exciting, some good events, but the main event today we'll be talking to David and Zoe. I think we've misspelt David's name there, so apologies for that. We'll come back to that later. Who are authors of chapters in the Navigating Copyright for Libraries book that we've mentioned on the webinar before. Yeah. And we're going to have an excellent opportunity to ask two of the authors about their chapters. Absolutely. So what have we been up to since we last met then, Chris? It's been quiet time, hasn't it? Not much going on. Nothing on that slide. We've just been waiting for things to load really. I think that's been our experience, hasn't it? Yeah. I don't know whether everybody else can see the content. There we go. Right. It's been honours all round. Honours all round. So this was first one, is you getting your honorary doctorate from the Open University? It was, yes. It was on the 4th of November in Brighton and we're trying to work out if I was on the same stage where ABBA performed Waterloo, aren't we? In 1974 at the Eurovision Song Contest. Yes. That was very... I wasn't watching that. Your costume is kind of similarly... Flamboyant. Flamboyant and colourful. Yes. Well done to you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry, I couldn't be there. There is there. So congratulations all round to Jane. We've got blog posts about that that I've just published yesterday. Yes. And that's Selena who took that selfie when we were on the stage. Yeah. And she's the Associate Director at the OU Library and read out a very lovely speech about me. It was very embarrassing because I had to stand there while everyone wondered who on earth I was. I was quite disappointed I wasn't Ronan Keaton because already Vice Chancellor had just mentioned that he'd given one to Ronan Keaton and everyone wanted a selfie. So I had to apologise not for the first time. For not being Ronan Keaton. Yes. But you had a similarly overwhelming experience online on Zoom at the Cilip ADM. Yes. I was very... Would you apologise for not being, you know, Gary Barlow? Carol Cavanaugh though, I think. So this was the Honorary Fellowship of Cilip which I was very pleased to have been awarded. It is the highest recognition for those in the information profession. Shame that it was as we can see from the picture on Zoom. Yes. It would have been nice. But I definitely do intend to catch up with other people from Cilip and I'm very honoured to have been given that. Yes. Yes. No, fantastic. I think what it means is I can walk into any library in the country and they have to open the special biscuits. That's what I believe. I haven't checked that out yet. The special biscuits. We'll see. We'll see. Okay. That's enough. Enough of this. This is just to remind you that we have an archive of all of the webinars or the previous recordings available on our website and that this content is also on the YouTube channel. Seamlessly. Seamlessly. I can copy and pasting. I think we just need somebody else to do all the copying and pasting. If anyone's happy to volunteer to do the copying and pasting, it might make things a bit more smoothly. I want Steve sharing in YouTube. He's put a link to something in YouTube. Is that our channel or is that something else? Not sure. Right. So let's move on to the next slide. Next slide, please. Copyright news. So we've got a new podcast out. This is really exciting. This is great. So over the summer, we were very honoured to chat to the internet activist, the sci-fi writer, Cory Doctorow, somebody who I'd actually heard him speak in Brighton, actually, on the stage at the SILIP conference quite a few years ago. But I followed his work for some time. He is a very avid user of different social media platforms, blogs, all sorts of things. But he also just written a book that he's touring at the moment with Rebecca Giblin, who's from the Authors Alliance. She's done a lot of work on ebook pricing. And their book is called Choke Point Capitalism, really fascinating book. We actually had a talk when we were up in Glasgow as well at the Create conference from them about the book. So he talks to us in the podcast about the book, but he also talks about copyright literacy. He talks about the role that librarians play, that he thinks is very important. And he talks about the way the big tech kind of works and the way he thinks it should work. And we talk about pixie, don't we, as well, and the practice of the kind of use of creative commons licenses where people are sort of trying to extract money out of you if you don't attribute them. Yeah, it's a brilliant conversation. I was really pleased. There's a few who are on CopySeq with discussion this, see that I was posting to it, not just for self-promotion, but actually because a lot of what he was talking about really hits the nail on the head of some of those fundamental underlying challenges about copyright. So that was fantastic. Yeah, really, really good. Yeah, yeah. So do check it out. Next up, this is a news item that we picked up with friend of the webinar, Claudia Optenkamp, who is a lecturer at Bournemouth. So we've worked with Claudia on our codes of fair practice in film education project. But this is an incredible experience for her as a researcher of both film and copyright to have found what they are referring to as the Big Bang of Cinema, the first documentary evidence copyright registration of audio-visual work. So we thought that might be interesting to those of you who are also into film and copyright. She's been digging around at the Library of Congress. Yes, she has been. Yeah, yeah. That's the kind of thing researchers do, I believe, in time in libraries. Yeah, well, they probably don't get the special biscuits, though. No, not like you. So yeah, well done to Claudia, and that was an interesting story. So what else have we got? A webinar coming up, and there's lots of talk about rights retention for those of you who are involved in open access questions. What does it mean for this particular route for making publications available, open access? So some excellent speakers here. Chair by Sally Ramsey, I think. Chair by Sally Ramsey. Yeah. Is Peter Zuber actually joining it as well? Yes, yeah. So I am going to be going to that one, definitely, because we're doing rights retention stuff at Oxford, which is all good. And then our last item is another one that's slow to load, but this is a webinar coming up on the 21st of November when it ever loads. I'll put a link into the chat, but it's organised by Knowledge Rights 21. So they've been doing a lot of events. This one is about how do we fix the ebook market, a discussion on the future of libraries and authorship. So that looks like a great session, taking place next week, Monday, two o'clock. I think with all of these, if you can't make them, a lot of them are all being recorded. So they're worth having a look at anyway, just so you can follow it. But yeah, that looks like a great session. Okay. So without further ado, we are speaking today about the IFLA book that came out over the summer, published Open Access, Navigating Copyright for Libraries. Chris and I have already talked about this book briefly, because we wrote a chapter in it. Chapter 13. Lucky for some. We're not going to talk about our chapter, but our chapter, we could talk about it at some point if anyone's interested. I think we should at some point, but anyway. But our chapter is about the relationship between copyright education and information literacy. But the whole book has got 20 chapters. If you haven't yet had a look at it, I'd highly recommend it. You can download the PDF in its entirety. You can buy a print copy if you want a print copy. A print copy. We're still waiting for ours. I think they do exist. But one of the things we thought would be great, because there's so many fascinating chapters in there, would be to get some of the authors from the different chapters to join us on the webinar. So this is the first in a series of two. We're going to be doing a second webinar with some other authors joining us. But today, who have we got, Chris? So tell us about our panel. So we have David Meehan, who is Associate Director of Special Collections and Archives at the O'Reilly Library in Dublin City University. And David's chapter is about the application of limitations and exceptions to copyright across the European Union. So a really important subject because of the recent directives that have come out in Europe. So we're going to be really interested to dig into some of those and how they are being applied in Ireland, across Europe, but also in university libraries. And our other guest is Dr. Zoe Croqueta, who's a lecturer in intellectual property law and EU law at the University of Stirling. So Zoe's chapter is about the use of filtering technologies by online intermediaries. So area of great controversy and intense debate because of its wide reaching implications for how people share and access content online. So two really great topics, two that clearly have some strong links to each other for how libraries and educational institutions operate their services. So we're delighted to have both of you joining us today. Thank you so much. So hello, David. Hello, Zoe. Hi. Jane, Chris, how are you? Hello. Thank you so much for your invitation. Not a problem. Great to have you. So if I could just start, I think what would be great would be to hear from both of you about how you got involved in the book, maybe, how did you come to write the chapter? So David, do you want to just go first, maybe? Just tell us a bit about your chapter is on the limitations and exceptions that apply to libraries. So, yeah. Well, I suppose, apart from my day job, I'm also the chair of the regulatory affairs group on Connell, which is a consortium of Irish University of Search Libraries. So we deal with, as a matter of course, a lot of copyright, other stuff as well, but tends to be mainly copyright. And I was there kind of minding my own business in the day job and in the regulation affairs group when I got an email that somebody apparently had kind of pulled out and they needed a chapter fast. So I got cracking on it and produced a couple of drafts. So you're good at writing things quickly? I was kind of liaising with the editor going reasonably well, but can you be a little quicker because we want to get this show on the road, get the book out? Yeah. And it kind of ruined the summer on me, but you know, last summer, especially the evenings towards the end. But anyway, I got it done, got it in, and then when I submitted my manuscript, I was told as one of the first people to submit. So, but look, it doesn't matter. It kind of, in a way, it eased the pain because it forced me to scrunch everything up into a relatively short timescale of about nine months, which doesn't sound that short at all. So yeah, there we go. That's how I got on board. And so I like to do it because I have a little bit of a background, a legal background anyway. I studied law and I worked in Brussels for a few years and in Berlin as well in private sector like for a law firm and then also for a university institute. So I had a good background in European law, not copyright at all, but European law. So I kind of understood the basic framework of, you know, European legislation, how laws, operation, especially the interact with member states, that kind of thing. So I wasn't a bad candidate to write this chapter at all. Okay, great. And Zoe, you're a lecturer in intellectual property law at Stirling, aren't you? So presumably you've got something similar, an email saying, well, not one's hopefully saying, oh, someone's dropped out. Can you be the first preserve? And well, I will tell you how did that happen. So my research interests lie on internet service providers liability for copyright infringements. And part of my research is also on filtering tools, all these upload filters that online platforms, some of them are already using it, some of them you are developing now. And also part of my research was all these implications that, that all these filtering tools might have for users fundamental rights. So one day when I received an email from EFLA asking about a chapter, if I would be willing to write the chapter of filtering applications, and they accepted immediately. So this was Yeah, well, well, we'll come into it more. I really actually enjoyed your chapter. And I learned a lot about how some of the technologies work as well. But let's come to that in a moment. In a moment, David, if we can go to you first, I wondered, because your chapter is about the limitations and exceptions. I mean, I don't want you to go through it kind of like page by page. But you know, what you're trying to do is actually, it's quite ambitious in a way, because you've got to try to summarize them across Europe, and then how they apply to libraries, haven't you? So do you want to say a bit about how you went about that? Pretty much. Well, I suppose your starting point is your national perspective. And all of us here would have national perspectives. And I think a lot of the cover regimes in nation states are pretty advanced. I mean, it's been the groundwork was done a long time ago, like internationally, even the late 1800s, there was, you know, principle being established. And it's turned into an iterative process. And in a sense, what the European Union is trying to do is it's trying to establish, you know, the framework of all the exceptions that typically apply. And we all pretty much understand them, I think, intuitively, because we've been operating for so long. And it's been trying to create a common, common type of system so that there's no real huge variances between the various member states. So that was if you like one, one particular goals, try and put a bit of manners on that and try and get that across to people, that really it's not that it's not as bad as it seems when you look at it at first hand. And really, if you've got any way a kind of a half decent national regime, there's nothing too much to be afraid of. That'd be like the introductory part of it. But then towards as I went through, especially towards the end, I started to consider more of the things that are a bit more topical, like what's what's actually coming up on the European agenda now, things that have settled leave that to one side. And like maybe focus a little bit on the digital shift. And I spent a bit of time talking about that too. That's probably the thing that's most topical interest to people. And it's also very, very real, very, very real kind of a kind of a change that's taking place. That's really kind of if you like the context without going into the chapter itself and it causes a lot of there is a lot of detail in the chapter. But I would use into the end down to themes, maybe in a different world might have done a different chapter, taking the changes that are taking place and trying to discuss those in more detail. But that wasn't the brief. Yeah. Yeah, because you do pick up don't you on the digital single market directive. And I think there's a couple of countries where they look to implement it. And you talked about that. I mean, how far would you say it is going to do you think it's going to be successful at trying to harmonize exceptions across Europe? You know, when we're thinking of, you know, cross border education, it's, it's, you know, it is something that concerns people. The one thing the EU says that they're not trying to codify the law. That's one thing base base principle and what they're doing is they're basically basically letting people go about doing things their own way. So we would have a lot of in a lot of countries, we'd have collection management organizations like in England, you know, the CLA, the corporate licensing agency. And I think I think a lot of the day to day stuff is covered by that. And in some ways, there's probably not a huge amount of the need for libraries to worry too much about things that are happening in European law. So if you take the digital services directive, the digital single market directive from years back, that's really just suggesting what a few changes like text and data mining. So if libraries are active in lazing researchers and want to pursue an active role in that, or it is even just a simple advisory role, they will probably, they're dealing with something very, very, very specialized and they probably know and understand that the terms and conditions of engaging with that themselves. So there's probably, it's not something that can be addressed very, very generically. It's something that people deal with in a very, very specialized basis. You've got other kind of elements then as well. You would have the cross-border education. Again, that's largely covered to an extent by the CMO operation. There's a compensation involved, where there's compensation involved. Money has to be got from the libraries and given to the rights holders. And that tends to be again managed by the CMOs, by the CLA, by the ICLA, et cetera, et cetera. So in one sense, what you're doing there is you're being given some kind of cover there, because if you remember back in the old days with the photocopying or the printing off, especially photocopying, you're just looking for cover really. So when your library was paying the fee to the CLA, whatever, you knew you were kind of covered unless somebody was egregiously breaking the rules, you were all right. And it's probably a similar thing in the digital world. Once you do things online with the VLEs, the virtual learning environments, it's not so much of a problem when you're dealing with that on your campus. But now that a lot of institutions have an international footprint, they're putting their courses on VLEs, making resources available through VLEs, and that they now are finding because of this legislation, they have some amount of cover to get to that they can proceed with confidence and just do their normal thing. So probably not a huge amount to worry about there as far as the data is concerned. There's a couple of other aspects of the DSM, don't want to go through unless people want to ask specifically about them. But I'm kind of thinking the one about the items, grey literature copying those, but that tends to be dealt with by heritage institutions more than say research libraries. So I think one of the things that your chapter does very well is gives that sense of the overarching intention of trying to harmonize those laws across the different member states, but the inevitable complexity that happens when you're trying to take all these different traditions of countries have those, as you say, some collective management with remuneration and others that don't clearly UK not in that mix anymore. We can get the lights to come back on. But what I'm interested in is picking up another thing that adds to that complexity, of course, as well is the the case law and what happens when a particular case is brought in in a European Union member state. And then they ask those questions of the Court of Justice of the European Union and then how those filter back down. One of the cases that you talk about is the Technical University of Darmstadt in Germany and the looking at how exceptions and limitations apply when a library is digitizing their collections in order to make them available to readers, to researchers, to students at their institution. So can you tell us a bit about how that is playing out in the new vegetative environment? How a decision like that is what impacts it happening in your institution, in your country, in Ireland and across the EU? Yeah, that's a really good question that like because you've got these kind of formula that appear in European directives such as like new forms of exploitation, they very much accept that the world has changed. We were moving from print to digital and right back as far as 2000 they were they were taken down on board and that's been picked up in case law as well. So we mentioned the TU Darmstadt case. That's a technical university that I think it was a test case. I think what they were doing was they probably sat down and thought this is something we should be allowed to do. Let's pick a hard case and throw it at our national court and see what happens. And they digitized a book that was in their collections. It was a textbook. It wouldn't be something that people would normally do to be honest, I don't think. And then they made it available on a dedicated terminal, which is a very, very limited form of access. And that was tested to the court. So of course you can do that. There's some problem here. There's a right to use dedicated terminals and therefore there's a corollary right digitized to put something on a terminal. So that was, if you like, the basic facts of the case. But also the publishers who were not happy with this said, look, we gave you guys the option of a digital subscription to the same book and you didn't pick it up. So back down the technical university said, the law states a certain right and the court basically supports them. Court said, yeah, actually, you don't actually have to take up a digital subscription. So not only can you digitize a book in your collections, but you're not obliged to take up the digital equivalent, which is, as we often find out, very, very expensive. So they established a principle there. But what does that mean in practice? It's very, very hard to say, because even if you've got the right to digitize a textbook, like how many books are you going to actually go out and digitize? I mean, there's the cost, the practical cost of digital is very, very expensive. How do you mediate it? You have to have a system for providing access and a digital sort of dedicated terminal is a very, very controlled method of access. But that's not useful in the internet age. People want to be able to access from their own devices. So like I suppose the next question is there is a question corollary question to that that wasn't addressed in teardown stuff, but like, can you actually convert in some way access through a dedicated term to access the internet in a little bit along the lines of the VOV case, the Dutch case, which allowed you to digitally lend, that manual lending is the same as digital lending, is digital access through a device controlled, digital access the same as through a controlled dedicated term? Absolutely. And that question in the VOV case is central to whether control digital lending is something that has traction in the European Union. Is there the legal justification for it to libraries feel confident in relying on the law there? So is that something that you were looking into when you were putting together your chapter? Yeah, I looked at that too, because again, it's the court is addressing these issues, but the court is in the same court judgment is in the same as a piece of legislation, legislation tends to have very, very general coverage. Court's deeper, very, very specific facts. So the VOV case, the Dutch case that concerned public libraries. And so this whole thing about control digital lending, strictly speaking, only applies to public libraries. I'd make the case that actually it has wider application. But that's not that wasn't addressed by the court. The court didn't give clearance on that. And there's no legislation on that. And this whole CDL thing is more like an if, initiative, the thing about the own to loan ratio that's it's in paper, they've written, but it's not in any legislation. And it's not really existing in any court case that I'm aware of. So there's a bit of a gap. I think there's a, personally, I think the risk is low. I don't see why an academic library couldn't do something that a public library couldn't do. There is a different legal basis that public libraries are covered by the public lending right university libraries aren't. So there's an economic consideration there. But when you consider how much we pay for our books or academic books are so expensive, maybe there's a corollary there that we're actually covering ourselves there, we're giving so much money to the publishers, you know, let us do what we want to do. There's certainly, there's certainly a lot of money involved in it, which is clearly why why we have all of these challenges to address. So we're bringing Zoe. Yeah, Zoe. Yeah, your, so your chapter is around the use of filtering technologies by online intermediaries and the legislative framework that that exists, not just in the European Union, but around the world and laws that have been developed. So I wonder if you could, could we just start by, can you explain what we're actually talking about with filtering technologies? These are, many of us know about YouTube and content ID, which I think is a fingerprinting filtering technology, but there are other kinds of technologies that fall into different categories. So can you give us a bit of an explanation of that? Of course. So there are many types of filtering technology, like the simple forms of technology, filtering tools, filtering technology are more sophisticated, like the content ID system. So for instance, there is the metadata, which is actually the simplest form of filtering technology that goes along with the work. For instance, metadata is information about the duration of a video, about the title of the book. And in order to identify copyright infringement, we match metadata of that file against, we compare actually the metadata of that file with the metadata of files that exist in the database. This is a simplest form. There are also other forms of filtering technologies, such as hashing filtering technology. So hash is a unique digital signature for each file. In order to identify the copyright infringement, we compare the hash of that file against the hashes of files that exist already in the database, and that have been submitted by the copyright holders. Apart from these are also other types of filtering technologies, such as watermarking, which places a hidden barcode in the files, and these are commonly used by the film industry in order to identify to locate who is actually accessing the films or videos without authorization, without permission. There is the fingerprint-based technology that is used also by YouTube and other big tech platforms that is actually filtering technology. This fingerprint-based technology identifies the inherent characteristics of its file, of its video, and then it matches the characteristics of that video with the database of files that have been already submitted by the copyright holders. Apart from these filtering technologies that are based on audio, video, and images, there are also types of filtering technology that identify textual infringements. Apart from the metadata and apart from watermarking and fingerprint-based technology, there is for instance the natural language processing system filtering technology or the blacklisting technology. They conduct a textual analysis, a semantic analysis. They examine the words in the sentences, the negative or the positive sentiment of the text, and then they try to receive that text as much as with the text that is available online, that is available in the database or online. So there was actually, there is this filtering tool developed by Facebook, the Rosetta technology, the Rosetta software. So in order to try to extract text that is available online, so it matches with extract text and then matches with text, other texts that are available online. So apart from all this fingerprint-based technology, as I said, there are also filtering technology that manages to identify textual infringers by making this sophisticated analysis in the text by categorizing towards two. So sophisticated analysis, but as you point out in your article, that doesn't actually necessarily align with what is good for society. Machines make mistakes, they can either block too much, or they can let things through, and we can end up with a situation that is hampering and impacting on people's ability for freedom of expression and commenting and sharing things. So can you talk to us a bit about the, there's a tension, isn't there, in the legislative reform? You've been talking about what happens in your chapter across different countries in the EU, in Mexico, in China and elsewhere. And in all of these laws that have come in to address the infringing content that is available online, there's part of it that says that there shouldn't be this monitoring, this automatic monitoring, but then at the same time the laws effectively, even if it's only implicitly require the laws or countries to start putting those laws in place. Yes, exactly. So in the chapter I address how the online platforms from public forums, from public spaces where users exchange information, exchange content, exchange videos with each other, how these platforms, due to this legislative framework, they turn to be tools of censorship. So for instance, as I address in my chapter, there are similar laws in Mexico and in India and in China, that on the one hand they say that in Europe too with the copyrights and the digital market direct, let's say that well general monitoring obligation is prohibited, but on the other hand they require from the platforms to prevent the reemergence of these infringing content. So in that way the platforms, they either need to deploy human moderators, human reviewers or resort to filtering tools to the so-called upload filters. And that was actually the case in Europe with a copyright in the digital single market directive with article 17. That was at the beginning, it was called article 13 and then it turned to be... It's quite a change, yeah. It's like Prince. It's the article formally known history. And it took like more than two years to finalize that directive, that on the one hand if you have a look at article 17, it states that general monitoring obligations are prohibited and then it says in paragraph four that the online content sharing service providers, they need to demonstrate that they make the best efforts to prevent the availability of infringing content. So in order to avoid liability, most of the platforms, they might resort to these upload filters and of course the problem with all these upload filters is the fact that they they cannot differentiate between lawful and unlawful content. No, so you talk about the chapter, don't you, about, you know, they, for example, they don't recognize exceptions. And we had joining us last year, Ben Marsh, who is an academic at the University of Kemp, but he's also made a lot of parody songs with his family that he made during the lockdown, the Marsh family. And they found in the first instance that their videos were being taken down off YouTube because they were considered to be infringing. And, you know, it took a lot of effort to actually get them reinstated to start with because, you know, you need that human intervention, don't you, to get that to happen. And I think you talk in the chapter about, you know, how many, how many potentially, you know, there are items that are up there legitimately, but people have to make quite a lot of effort to get them reinstated. Yes, exactly. So for you, because of this lack of accuracy, there are so many videos, local videos that are removed from the platforms that they should have been removed because they fall within the copyright exceptions, like parodies. I give some examples in the chapter. So there was also, there was also an example with a professor from Harvard that uploaded a lecture on YouTube and this was removed, but due to, because of educational purposes, this should have been removed. So the system, the filtering tool didn't manage to differentiate between what is local and what is unlawful. And all this over blocking impact that has created, but from this platform, this filtering tools is also demonstrated in, has been evidence also during the pandemic where 11 million videos, it was in April, between April and June 2020, 11 million videos have been removed. And then from YouTube and then 300, 320,000 have been appealed. So the users, they submitted a counter notification for erroneous removal of the content. And half of them, they have been reinstated back to the platform. So the use of filtering technology for sure does not, does fails to differentiate between lawful and unlawful content. Yes, clearly an issue. So what I'm interested to know is we've had the changes that have come through in the EU with the digital single market directive and other legislation around the world. That is designed to change the availability of content. Online rights holders have been making their case that they feel that this is an issue for them and the way in which they run their businesses. Are we yet seeing an impact on what the way information is made available? Are we seeing an increase in things being taken down or more platforms being subject to this? Or is it too early in that process to know if they actually have that impact that we're fearing? Well, there is already, with regard to the filters, of course, there is already many examples, many cases that evidence this high margin of errors that the filtering tools are having. But with regard, for instance, to Europe, most of the, now most of the member states, EU member states have implemented the directive. Of course, the deadline was on the 7th of June 2021 and most of the member states they implemented later. They are still ongoing processes, so there are still member states that haven't implemented. So I assume that probably in the near future we'll see increasing more cases, higher cases of all these erroneous removals of lawful content online. Yeah, so we have to watch this space. Yeah. I'm keen to bring David in. Oh, sorry, Zoe, did you have another, you wanted to mention? Yes, I just wanted also to add with regard to there was the case about Article 17 about the annulment action of Poland against the parliament and the council about arguing that Article 17 is not compatible with freedom of expression. So the advocate general in the opinion clearly stated that all these filtering tools could be convincing option for identifying copyright infringements due to the inability of the human moderators to review all this content that is disseminated online. So we can see also that there is a judicial level. There is like an open door for these filtering tools, but of course objecting to the principles of proportionality. Okay, great. So David, I wanted to bring you in, as I just said, the changes in the EU, and you've been talking about it, it's a major once in a generation reboot of limitations and exceptions. So are there other impacts that you see coming on the way that libraries and educational institutions and cultural and heritage institutions actually operate? Are there things that you're thinking, excellent, we can now get on with this job making these things more available, our collections, and serving our communities? Or are there additional challenges that come with this new legislative framework? I think we need more clarity on access, on digital access. I think it needs to be made clear that I think these things that have been happening in the courts and initiatives that they are proposing, such as own-to-lone, racial, CDL, that kind of thing, that these are actually enshrined in law, basically, so that people know that there's a baseline they can operate off. So I would think the European Union itself seems to be, doesn't seem to, it seems to start off classifying things and then moving back in 2001 and out 2019 with the DSM directive, trying to pick on specific things that are, if you like, hot and try and deal with them. So I'm thinking possibly it might need to look at where it needs to coordinate a bit more to give people more confidence as to where they cannot break, you know, there's still that tension between publishers. And I'm not even sure that it's the problems with the rights holders, I think the problem is more with the publishers, so much control over the way they, a lot of what we've been talking about now is relates to very exceptional types of circumstances. The reality for most libraries is they're dealing with, you know, big deals, you know, the e-journals and that kind of thing, and those are very specific licensing issues. And a lot of the response to that has been, like, you know, academic level, library level has been to try and push open access. And similarly with textbooks to have, like, some kind of a way of mediating resources to students that's not dependent on very expensive published resources. So what law can do, I don't know, very often times you can't, for example, get the law to tell academics to stop publishing with classical publishers and go open access. Practices are really what ought to develop there. So if I was to sort of say what can the law do, what can Europe do, what the European Union do in particular, I would suggest maybe it's time for some kind of a directive specifically on digital access to take that formula that they've used in the past that they fixed on very, very early about, you know, just technology changing and really there's no difference between analog and digital, they're just formats. And to find some way of expressing in terms of people understand how we can actually now set the rules so that, say with the digital access thing, you know, dedicated terms is almost like a meaningless term now in some ways, like what can you do, how, what do you do, what controls you to introduce to, say, limit access to a document on the internet that fits with the legislation. I mean, very often times European, like, corporate law is about balancing interests. So you really do have to respect the rights of the right order. You can't just willingly allow things to be distributed over the internet for free. Just because, say, 20 years ago, we thought everything was about cooperation and freedom. It is, there really are interests to be protected. So the legislation, I think, needs now to find a way of, you know, how do we express these specific, how do we codify these specific issues in such ways that that libraries can go ahead and say we want to digitize and make things available. It's a point that reminds me of one of the things that came up in the conversation with Corey Doctorow about whether copyright really is the issue that we're talking about. So if you're talking about, is there something that the EU can do more generally on access to collections? Because the conversation about copyright is about how fast the windscreen wipers are going, not necessarily about where the car's going on the journey. That's his metaphor. And I'm keen to ask Zoe, if we're thinking about what libraries and education institutions are doing, are they things around filtering technologies going to have an impact, or are they really so heavily focused on the consumer-facing social media platforms that anything that a university is doing, for example, in its virtual learning environment, is totally separate to that? Or is there a potential concern? Well, there is a concern too, because all these filtering tools could also be used from libraries, and these could also be the risks. It would be very useful to already identify all these discrepancies that all these margins of errors that these filtering tools might perform, because I think also that the access to creativity could be violated. The users' fundamental rise of freedom of expression could be violated, so with all these erroneous removals of lawful content, so these filtering tools, these filtering technologies, software systems, they could also be applicable also in the library, in the library's context. Yeah, I'm thinking about, we had on one of our previous webinars, Peter Yazi and Meredith Jacob and Will Cross, based in the US, who've created a code of best practice in fair use for open educational resources, which is great, and there's a Canadian version in the pipeline, and we're also keen to see how that might apply to UK law. Similarly, it's a thing that we see a great value in having in many different jurisdictions, because I think there's a basic sense of what is fair, whether it's fair dealing, fair use, or any of the other limitations and exceptions for Asian teams. But if you're talking about open resources that are out there, it's not the same as thinking, okay, well, it's all in a virtual learning environment, within our own registration wall, we don't need to worry about the copyright implications. As soon as there is, as David just saying, push towards open access and open education, if that movement is kind of going in one direction, and then you've got the legislation and all the platforms that actually people access. It's going to really hamper people's ability to rely on exceptions, isn't it? The educational impact of it is not just about a parody and something that's a bit of fun. This is fundamentally important to be able to incorporate things into resources that are increasingly going to be openly shared and expectation and actually a desirable thing for them to be open. So there is a real tension there, isn't there? Indeed, yes. Exactly. So how this filtering, how this software filtering technology would be able to identify whether that, for instance, content, that article is in the public domain, there might be, and this actually, this was that I was addressing before, like the difficulty of this filtering tools to differentiate between copyright exceptions and lawful content. Yeah, I think that's really key. Zoe, could you just sort of maybe what's your kind of key message for, so we've got a lot of copyright specialists, librarians on the webinar today, have you got kind of a key takeaway other than just say, you know, a plug for your chapter to tell them to read it, but any sort of key message? So for instance, with regard to the filtering tools, just there is a need for this something now that is happening with the implementation of the directive for article 17 of the directive into you, Member States, to use Exante safeguards for users' fundamental rights. That is, I think, a key, one of the key solutions, the key recommendations in order to avoid or to mitigate any risks for users' fundamental rights for the right freedom of expression and the right to arts, the right to freedom of arts and sciences. Yeah, great. Okay. Well, that's something I'm sure lots of librarians will get behind freedom of speech. Yeah. Yeah. David, if I can go over to you, have you got any sort of key takeaways from your chapter, any messages you think, you know, that are really important for the library and copyright specialists on the call? Oh, David, you're on mute. First time I had to say that. Yeah, it's less about law and more about practice. I think that really, whether you're involved in research teaching or special collections like I am, there's always going to be some resources in your collections that you want to digitize, and I think you really should be not put off about doing that. I mean, you have to be discriminating because obviously it's self-limiting. You can't digitize everything, otherwise you're replicating the publishing industry first. You know, that's just not practical. But there are obviously ways of getting content to readers to users that are enhanced by digitizing certain of your resources. And I really think that's a core thing that librarians should be loving for, that we have a right to do this. It's not specifically expressed in law. It's kind of indirectly expressed through the court of justice. But as far as university libs go, it's not quite all there yet. And we university libs need a bit more clarity. We're not going to go running off digitizing the coal collections. You're not allowed to anyway. But there are things that you want to do that just segments certain collections, say pamphlets, for instance, things like that. So I would say go ahead and try out those projects and talk to each other. And if anybody kind of comes down like Donna Briggs and you see what you can do, see if you can take the approach that you Durham stat took, which is take a test case. Absolutely. I think that's a message that we're always trying to repeat and to make very clear that copyright maybe have complexity in it. But that doesn't mean that you can't do things. Can I say one last thing? I said a lot there and these things are obviously, these are not, this is not legal advice. I'm not giving legal advice. I just have to say that because you asked me, you asked me if I was to take away, what would I recommend? And it's really talking to colleagues here is something you're very, very risk averse. They won't go down those routes or those are prepared to go down that route. So it's it's really all on the individual institution concerned. But like I say, talk to each other when you're doing it. Yeah, definitely, definitely advice. Has anyone in the audience, anyone want to ask anything? I just put it in the chat if you want to raise your hand or you want to ask any questions. But I know we've got quite a lot of you here. So we've got a couple of minutes. If there's anyone, we can get David's lights back on. So if while gathering your thoughts, it's, it's, yeah. I think the thing that I took from, and I'll kind of wrap it for a bit until you see if anyone's got a question. As we've been saying, there's quite a lot of detail in it. And I think that having the book and those chapters is a really useful guide for us. If we need to go in and find the reference points that we have to the various bits of legislation, they're very clearly laid out. So I think it's, it's a really excellent resource. Both, both chapters actually, I learned lots of things reading both of them. It kind of, yeah, I liked, I learned a lot about how filtering technologies worked and, you know, kind of, I think when you're thinking about AI and how clever it's getting, you know, it's still kind of, I ended up concluding at the end, you know, well, however clever, you know, technology is going to get surely, you always need, you know, when it comes to making a judgment on copyright matters. We still need human beings for the time being. Is there a point when this whole webinar would just simply be a load of robots talking to each other because they've actually far exceeded our ability to make sense of this? Maybe, no, but David, I found your chapter as well, just like not the way you kind of went through everything sequentially. And I was like, oh, yeah. So that's where it all started with the InfoSoc directive, which, you know, I've read a lot about things, but to have it all condensed in that chapter was really great, actually, and to bring it right up to date as well with what's happening. So nobody's coming up with any questions. So I think you've basically done such a good job, both of you, and really great to have you join us this morning. And the great thing about plugging the book of course is it's open access, it's free, everyone can access it and must immediately go and download certainly the two chapters, well, the three chapters we've mentioned today. Chapter 13, that hasn't been renamed at all, has it? It wasn't previously known as Chapter 17, and they've got no chapter that nearly killed us. Right, so let's go back to our slides, shall we? Yeah, thank you so much, David. Thank you both so much. Yeah, it's really great to hear so much. Have any native questions, anything they pick up in your chapter, presumably, you'd be happy to kind of answer any questions that anyone has separately, putting you on the spot. Excellent, yeah, well, we will be making these slides available with the links, and yeah, we'll have a recording up soon, hopefully, for everyone. So just quickly before we go, then we've got some future webinars coming up. So Navigating Copyright Part 2 is going to be on the 2nd of December, and we are able to reveal that we've got three speakers for that now. We have one of the editors of the books, the book Jessica Coates is joining us from Australia, she's looking forward to the party. It's going to be in the morning still, isn't it? Yes, it is. It is going to be in the evening. It's going to be evening for her. We've also got Tom Cochran, who's from Queensland Institute of Technology, no, is that what it's called? Yes. You're going your own with this one. Yeah, and we've got Stephen Wyver from IFLA as well joining us, 2nd of December. Don't forget, thank you for your diaries, the Christmas special. We have a very special treat coming up for you. It will probably involve fun and games and not a huge amount of copyright law. We'll see. But who knows? We haven't finalised exactly. No, no, no, no. So, and yeah, you've put my birthday special. We haven't got a topic for it. We haven't got a topic. We'll just make it all about you if you like. Yes, excellent. So hopefully you can join us on those ones. Yeah, hopefully. And then shall we stop the recording now? No, this is one last thing. Okay, one last thing. You're going to play the jingle, aren't you then? Not the one last thing, jingle, because I think that's probably going to be too much. Yeah, okay. So yeah, thank you again for all of you that joined us. Here is our one last thing, right? We are going to give this one a go and see if we can actually get this set up. You're going to take down. I think I would stop it. Well, are we going to go to take down? Okay. Is this a third? It's an original work. It's been copyright checked by the filters. So we're going to share with you the song that was composed commemorating our conversation with Corey Dr. Rowe. So this is the point at which we say, please don't leave. But you know, clearly you can leave if you want to. We are going to share a window, share application screen. It's going to be a Chrome tab. It's going to be this one. We're going to get it to the point where it's, we've got past the advert. Yeah, everyone's enjoying this, but let me just, okay, we're almost there. Here we go. Go. Go. Share. Share. It's probably no audio. Right. Now we might get horrible feedback here, but let's give it a go anyway. Copyright in farming tool. Mr. Corey Dr. Rowe. A sci-fi copyright hero. He fills his fridge with groceries. But gives his work away for free. Mr. Corey Dr. Rowe. He joined us on our podcast show. He told us how he changed his mind. From being PRM inclined. Mr. Corey Dr. Rowe. The way he talks is not so slow. His book with Rebecca Guggingly. On your point, Capitalism. Mr. Corey Dr. Rowe. What more do you need to know? Time to get on with the show. Check out the podcast and his books. And his pluralistic blog is good. And his book is understood. Well, thanks for bearing with us. Wait, we will stop the recording. Thank you for joining us. Oh, I missed that. You missed the credit. I missed the credits, didn't I?