 So, let's begin. In today's session, the introductory part of this workshop will focus on a brief introduction to the intellectual property rights and what are the main types of IP rights, and then I will talk you through the origins of copyright. The main session will be run by my colleague Hannah, who will talk you through to the copyright issues in the context of publishing and teaching. So, intellectual property is something that you create using your own mind. For example, a story, an invention, an artistic work or a symbol. And type of IP rights include trademarks, which is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design or expression, which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others. And patent is another type of IP right. It is an exclusive right granted for an invention and third type of IP right is registered design. A registered design protects only the shape or appearance of a product. It gives its owners the exclusive right to the design of that product. And it can be used to deter others from copying it or stop them from continuing to do so without consent. And the final type is copyright, which is the protection offered for creative works, such as books, music and literary works. So this is the more relevant type to us. So you get some types of protection automatically others you have to apply for. You are the intellectual property holder. If you have created a work and that work meets the requirements for copyright, a patent or a design. You could also be considered as an IP holder if you have bought intellectual property rights from the creator or a previous owner or have a brand that could be a trademark. For example, a well-known product name and having the right type of intellectual property protection helps you to stop people stealing or copying the names of your products or brands, your inventions, design and your literary works. So in order to know about anything, I would always like to know its origin. So I would like to talk you through to the brief history of copyright. But before I begin, just a quick fun question. If you can go to menti.com and use the code 29685063 to answer if you can guess when the concept of copyright started in your view. If you are having any problem in logging on to Mentimeter, you can write it in the chat. 1800s. Good. So 171918. So around 18th century, 19th century, 17th century. Interesting. So far, someone has gone back to 1650. That's interesting. 1600s. So mostly 17, 18th century, 19th century. Yeah, it's a mix and someone says, where's that? 580. So, yeah, that's interesting. Still, people are still writing. Okay. 50 BC. That's very early. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for your responses. That's interesting. I'll come back to it in a minute. Actually, while you are on mentee, I would like to ask two more questions, though these are not relevant to this workshop, but just to gather feedback in terms of references for running face to face or in person events. I would appreciate if you answer the following two questions, providing your feedback. So if anyone is having issues in using mentee, you can answer in the chat, as I said earlier. Yeah. Coming back to my question, can you guess when the concept of copyright started? So mostly people have answered it as 1718, somebody says 500 and someone says 50 BC. So the cornerstones of modern copyright law, the right to be identified as the creator or the work and economic property rights have their roots in ancient Greece. Not only in ancient Greek, Roman and Jewish cultures as well and can be traced back as far as the 6th century BC. So someone who mentioned 50 BC is closer, I think. So it's 6th century in ancient Greece, but it was not until the use of the movable type printing press became widespread across Europe that the need for statutory regulation was realized. So the first recorded movable type printing for printing paper books was in China around 1040 and these early presses used either ceramic or wooden movable type and were invented by Beeshing. By the 12th century, China was printing using bronze metal type and there are also records printing in Korea using bronze movable type dating back to the 14th century. So in Germany around 1440 a goldsmith named Johan Skottenberg created a printing press that used metal movable type. This type was cast from an alloy of lead tin and antimony. The lead tin and antimony alloy melt at a far lower temperature than bronze making it easier to cast. This meant that reusable metal molds could be used to cast the type, making it far quicker to produce the metal type. So a single Gottenberg press could produce around 240 impressions per hour, perhaps 2000 to 3000 pages a day. Easily 100 times faster than hand printing or hand copying, this drastically reduced the cost of printing. So adoption of this press was fairly rapid. In 1457 there was a single press in a print shop in Maine by 1480. There were 110 presses in Europe. Anyone could buy or rent a press and as there was no copyright law in Europe at that time, new works were quickly republished by competing printers. So this brought about some very positive social changes in the short term. Prices of reprints were low, output grew exponentially, so publications could be bought by poorer people in Europe, so a swift price in literacy. And as the time went on, the European government set up systems of licensing controls over printers, issuing individual printers exclusive licenses to print a particular work for a period of time. So this prevented other printers from reproducing the same work during that period. This had the effect of maintaining a higher price for the work for that period to the benefit of the printer and author. So as early as 1483 in the UK, Richard III recognized the value of literary works and encouraged the spread of printing while at the same time seeking to limit the censored text deemed to be harmful to the church and crown. So the Printers and Binders Act 1534 banned the import of foreign books and enabled the law chancellor to limit the price of books. And further censorship was introduced by Henry VIII, who required that all books should be approved before publication. So in 1557, the Stationers Company received its Royal Charter from Mary I, giving the company the power to decree with print books and the right to seize illicit or pirated works. So this was not copyrighted as we understand it today, but rather a right granted to the printing company or publisher to copy up with particular work. So the licensing of the Press Act 1662 built on this framework and titled as an Act for Preventing the Frequent Abuses in Printing, Seditious, Tristinable and Unlicensed Books and Bamplets and for Regulating of Printing and Printing Presses. Now the Stationers Company had the responsibility to censor literary works. And this act had a two-year duration clause and so had to be renewed by parliament every two years. But censorship led to public protests and in 1694 parliament refused to renew the act. So the Stationers Company campaigned for new legislation to restore their role. This failed, but the failure led to an important change in tactic and viewpoint familiar to modern copyright law. So instead of focusing on the printers and publishers, Stationers now argued that authors should be to have a right of ownership in what they wrote. So this argument was swayed by the parliament and led to the enactment of the first Copyright Act, which is called the Statute of Anne in 1710. The world's first copyright law was the Statute of Anne enacted in England in 1710. So some of the people who were in favour of 1700 in the mentee pose, so they were, I think, close to this. So this act introduced for the first time the concept of the author of a work being the owner of its copyright. And it laid out fixed terms of protection following this act. Copyrighted works were required to be deposited at specific copyright libraries and registered at Stationers Hall. There was no automatic copyright protection for unpublished works. And legislations based on this act gradually appeared in other countries. And such as the Copyright Act of 1719 in the United States, but copyright legislation remained uncoordinated at an international level until the 19th century. So in 1886, the Berne Convention Protection of Library and Artistic Work was held to further protect artistic musicians, photographers and designers and writers. And the main aim was to provide mutual recognition of copyright between nations and to promote the development of international standards for copyright protection. And a fundamental new principles were laid down, namely that copyright automatically exists from the day a creative work is available in a tentable form, for instance, when it is recorded or written down. And this convention also states that the creator of a work does not need to apply for copyright or to register it. It automatically exists once it has been put into a fixed form. So one of the biggest changes implemented by the adoption of this convention was to extend copyright protection unpublished works and remove the requirement for registration. So in countries of the Berne Convention, this means that an individual or the organization they are working for owns the copyright of any work they produce as soon as it is recorded in some way. Be it be by writing it down, drawing, filming in any form. So it also formulates rules regarding the copyright duration, copyright permission and expects all signatory nations to incorporate the law in their national laws. So the Berne Convention does away with the need to register works separately in each individual country. And it has been adopted by almost all the nations of the world and almost I think over 179 of the 190 nations are at signatories. The Berne Convention remains forced to this day and continues to provide the basis for international copyright law. The main advantage of the treaty is that if copyright exists in one of these countries, then this copyright is valid in all other member countries. So this means that copyright automatically protects your work at a worldwide level. So just out of interest, I found a list of the countries that are not members and these are the countries that are not members of this convention. However, these countries may be member of other international treaties or may have national copyright laws. So just bear in mind that the details of the national law, the national laws may differ. The basic rights are the same in most countries due to the international conventions and agreements. So if you are interested in copyright issues in secondary data use, I'm running a workshop on 17th this coming Monday at 10 am. You can register for that. And thank you over to you, Hena. Thanks, Hena. I was really interested and I'm going to take over now by talking about copyright from the perspective of publishing and teaching. Okay, so first of all, just to introduce myself, I'm Hannah Craig and I'm the open research development librarian at the University of Essex and working within the library. So as I said, I'm going to be speaking today about copyright and a bit more kind of practically. So we're going to be thinking about copyright considerations that you have when you're publishing your research and copyright considerations when you're doing any kind of teaching. And so that will be the first half of my part and where I'm going to be speaking to you. And then in the second part, we're going to be looking at some common copyright questions together. And I'll be using the zoom poll so that you guys can vote on what you think is right or not right based on the information I'm about to give you now about copyright and publishing and teaching. So it'll be a bit more interactive in the second half. But first of all, I'm going to start by talking about copyright in publishing. So when you're publishing your research is really important to consider copyright from the very beginning of writing your manuscript. And because if you're not considering the copyright implications at the beginning, you'll find it much more difficult later on when you come to actually publishing your work. So when you're preparing your manuscript, keep in mind that later on in the publishing process, the journal or publisher will expect you to sort out all of the clearance for any third party material and give the appropriate attributions to that use of third party material. So when I say any third party material, I'm talking about substantial use of materials. So that includes kind of images, figures, tables, graphs, those kind of things. I'm not talking about just quoting from other people's articles or books or other works, because that would just follow the usual quotation and referencing format that you'll be used to within research. So I'm talking here about making use of substantial materials from other third party pieces of work. So if you are using substantial pieces, so for example images, figures, graphs, etc. Make sure when you're writing your manuscript, you're keeping a note of where you're getting that resource from. But not just that, that you're checking the license of that work to make sure that you will be able to use it in a publication later on. Because as I say, the journal and the publisher will expect you to have sorted out any copyright clearance for any of these. So if the resource that you're getting the image or graph from, for example, is published open access under a Creative Commons license, which I'm going to come on to talking about later, then you should be fine to use it. If it's published in a way with all rights reserved, then it's likely you'll need to get permission from the copyright owner to use that piece of work within your own work. So keep that in mind from the beginning and it will save you lots of time later on when you're at the publishing stage. Okay, so then thinking about getting to the actual publishing stage of the publishing process and how your research is published affects the copyright implications and affects how your work can be reused in the future and what you'll be able to do with it. So I'm going to go through some of the different ways of publishing your work now. So we're going to talk about subscription based journals, open access journals, hybrid journals, and then books and open access monographs as well. I should have said at the beginning if anyone does have any questions we go through please do feel free to put them in the Q&A and we'll get to them at the end. Okay so subscription based journals, when you're publishing your work in a subscription based journal, usually you will be signing over the copyright to the publisher. So a subscription based journal means that you're publishing your article with that journal and it will then be behind the paper. So people that want to read your paper will have to either pay to read that paper or they'll have to be affiliated with an institution that subscribes to that journal and therefore they'll need to use an institutional login to be able to access that paper. So because of the way subscription based journals work, usually through the terms and conditions that you sign when you publish that paper, you're usually signing over the copyright to the publisher. So that then means that they own that work so you couldn't reuse that work in the future without asking the permission of the publisher. Sometimes in the terms and conditions there'll be specific uses there that you are able to do but you wouldn't for example be able to republish it with someone else and because you've signed it over to the publisher. So that would be signing over the copyright would be in reference to the final full published version of the paper and so the final version of the paper that the journal publishes on their website, you will likely have signed over the copyright to the publisher. However, in those terms and conditions, usually you as the author would keep the copyright to the author's accepted manuscript. So the author's accepted manuscript which is also known as the AAM. And this is the final version of your paper before any of the journal formatting typesetting, those kind of things have been added. So it will be the version after peer review, but before all the formatting typesetting etc has been added by the journal. So the content will be exactly the same as the final published version, but the look of the paper will be slightly different. So it's usually that version of your paper that you keep the copyright to. However, even though you retain copyright on this version normally, you still might see in the terms and conditions that the publisher put some restrictions in terms of what you're able to do with that version of the paper. So this is where they can often stipulate that if you wanted to deposit the author's accepted manuscript within your institutional repository, which the most institutions do require authors to do that. In lots of cases, the publisher will say that there must be an embargo period on that author's accepted manuscript. That means while you can deposit the author's accepted manuscript within the repository on publication, no one will actually be able to read the full text of that author's accepted manuscript until a certain amount of time has passed. And this can be anything really from between three, even up to 36 months after it's been published. So the publisher has still got quite a lot of control over the content of your research when you sign over the copyright to them through things like embargo periods etc on your author's accepted manuscript. However, some journals will allow you to request a change to the copyright agreement. So when you're reading through the terms and conditions before you sign, if there's something you're not happy with, you can go back to the publisher and you can request that they change some of these things. They may not always say yes, but they may say yes. So it's worth remembering that until you sign that work over, you own that work, it's yours. You can try to negotiate with the publisher if there are some terms and conditions that you aren't happy with. In some cases, you can even keep all of the rights to the document and this is something that's actually growing within academic publishing at the moment, due to what's known as the rights for attention strategy. And this is something that I'm going to come back to in a moment when we speak a bit more about open access. So we've just gone through kind of the copyright implications of publishing a journal with a subscription journal. So that's where your paper will be behind paywall. But now I'm going to talk a bit about open access journals. So when you publish in an open access journal, that means that your work is free to read by anyone. So anyone will be able to read the full text of your research and not only that, it will be free of most restrictions on reuse. So it's normally common that an open access article will be able to be reused in a much more free way. And I'm going to come on to the different ways of dictating how your paper can be reused when it's been published in an open access journal in a moment. But so when you're publishing an open access journal, you keep all the rights to your work. So unlike when you're publishing a subscription journal where you sign the copyright over to the publisher, if you're publishing an open access journal, you keep all rights to the work, including the final published version. So not just that author's accepted manuscript, you keep the rights to the final published version as well. You then give the journal a license to publish that work. So you are licensing them to publish that work on your behalf as the copyright owner. And that's how it works with open access journals. Hybrid journals are a mixture between the subscription-based journal that I described first and the open access journal. So with a hybrid journal, the journal itself is a subscription-based journal, so people are paying to access the content of that journal. However, hybrid journals give authors the option to pay a fee so that their article, their individual paper, can be made available open access. So even people who haven't got access to the whole journal would be able to read your individual paper within that hybrid journal. In those cases, if you're publishing in a hybrid journal, if you're publishing open access within a hybrid journal, so if you're paying an article process in charge to make your individual paper available open access, then it would be the same copyright implications as if you're publishing in an fully open access journal. So all the rights remain with you as the author and a Creative Commons license is attached to the work which dictates how your work can be reused in a feature. And I'm going to comment on that on the next slide in a bit more detail. If you're publishing traditionally within a hybrid journal, if you're not paying to make your paper available open access, you're just publishing behind the table, then the copyright will be the same as if publishing in a fully subscription journal. So the copyright will usually be transferred to the journal, but with you retaining rights usually on the author's accepted manuscript. So a hybrid journal really is just a combination between an open access journal and a subscription journal. It just depends which way you choose to publish your paper within that journal. So I'm going to talk now about Creative Commons licenses. So I've mentioned that when you publish your work in an open access journal, the reuse is much broader on your work than it would be if you're publishing within a traditional subscription journal. But you still get control of how much reuse you want to allow and you control that by assigning a Creative Commons license to your work. So all articles published in open access journals will have a Creative Commons license. And these are made up of the different elements you can see in the table on the slide. So these different elements can be combined in different ways so that you can take the parts of the Creative Commons license that's important to you and your work and combine them together into the license you see best fit for your research. So a license that I haven't got on here, which is not usually used within academic research, which is why I haven't got it on here, but just to mention the most free Creative Commons license is a CC0 license, also known as putting your work in the public domain. And this is where anyone can reuse your work with no, there's no conditions. You can reuse your work in whichever way they want, however they want, and they don't even have to acknowledge you as the copyright owner or as the author. So that's a CC0 license. It's not usually used in academic research because standard academic practice is you cite the author of your work. So with a CC0 license, you wouldn't need to do that. But you are probably familiar with CC0 licenses, public domain licenses for images. So all of the images I've used in this presentation today, for example, a CC0 license, which means I don't have to put any attribution on the slides or ask anyone's permission to use them or anything. So just to make you aware of that. But the least restrictive license which is usually used in academic research is a CC by license or a Creative Commons attribution license. And this is the top one in the table. And you can see that this means that reuse is allowed, any kind of reuse is allowed, as long as the author or the copyright owner gets credit for the work. So as long as they get the attribution for their work. So this is really common within academic research for open access published works. And this is the license which is asked for by lots of funders these days. So within the UK UK RI, for example, asks that any research published, which is funded by a UK RI funder and publishes the work with a Creative Commons attribution license. And this is to allow as broader reuse of your work as possible, but ensuring that you get the attribution as the author and the copyright owner. You can make this license more restrictive though, by adding the other three elements. So the CC by element would always be there unless it's a CC zero license. So you're always going to get attribution. But the other three elements can be added as you like them. So the first is CC by essay which stands for share alike. And that means that people using your work are able to distribute a modified version of your work, but only under the same or not more restrictive license as the original work. So if I, for example, had licensed my work under a CC by essay license, and then you wanted to reuse my work, and you couldn't then publish your work that was reusing mine under a all rights reserved license, because that would be more restrictive than I shared my work under and it would therefore be kind of contradictory to the license I'd put on my original work. You'd be locking down my work by using it within your work, which is locked down if that makes sense. So a share like license can be added to prevent people making more rest, making the reuse of your work more restrictive if that makes sense. The next layer to creative commons licenses is a CC by NC license and this stands for non commercial. So that means that anyone can reuse your work, but only if they're using it for non commercial purposes, so they can't use your work for any purpose where they're going to make money from it. This can often seem quite attractive to people when they first hear about it, but you do have to think about the implications for this. For example, if I'd written a paper and published it under a CC by NC license, and then someone wanted to reuse my work at a conference that they were getting paid to speak at, they wouldn't be able to do that because effectively they would be using my work for a commercial purpose. So it can put potentially unwanted restrictions on the reuse of your work. Non commercial purposes can be quite broad in what they're defined as. So just think about it if you did want to put a non commercial license on there. Think about what wanted reuse you might be restricting by adding that. Of course there can be situations where a non commercial license is wanted. So but just just think about those implications. And the most restrictive element of the CC by licenses is the final one. So CC by ND, which stands for no derivatives. And that means that people can reuse your work, but only in the absolute exact form that you published it in. So no modifications are allowed. Again, this can seem quite attractive to some people at the start, particularly more so in the arts and humanities where they might not want modifications because it can completely change the context of their work. But again, do you think about the implications of no modifications that would mean, for example, no translations could be made and different implications like that. So thinking about the implications of these licenses is really important because once you assign a license to your work, you can't change it. And so you have to think about it from the beginning. Of course, if I had published my work under a CC by ND license, for example, and someone came to me and said, I want to make a translation of your work. And I was happy for them to do so. I as the copyright holder could override my own license and say, I'm giving you permission to make that translation. But it does just add that extra layer of you having to go through the administration of accepting that, talking to the person, and also them actually coming to you to reuse your work and not just going, oh, there's one here. There's a CC by license that will be easier for me to reuse. I'm just going to reuse that. So think about the purpose of your license before you're assigning it and think about the implications of it. And there's lots of guidance online about what these licenses mean. So don't worry if you think you're not going to remember what all of these mean off the top of your head after the session today. And there's lots of help and advice out there on what these licenses mean and the implications of assigning and using them. Okay, so another thing that I said I was going to speak about when thinking about publishing a research open access is the rights to tension strategy. So the rights to tension strategy was developed a year and a half ago now roughly and by plan by coalition s, which is a key group of international funders who came up with plan s, which is a set of rules for researchers to follow when they're publishing their work and if their research is funded by a coalition s funder. So the kind of funders that are part of coalition s includes UKRI and welcome trust and lots of different funds European Commission, and there's lots of well used funders that are part of coalition s. And these funders are increasingly asking for open access publication. So they're funding researchers work and they want that work to be published open access they want as many people as possible to be able to read that work, especially because it's publicly funded work in most cases so they want the public to be able to read it. So plan s stipulates three ways that researchers can comply with their rules to ensure that their research is published open access. I'm not going to go through all of these now because this is a talk on copyright and not on publishing open access. But one of these three routes is really important for copyright. Because one of the ways you can comply with plan s's rules for publishing open access is to make your authors accepted manuscript available open access within a repository with a zero month embargo period. So this route is really used for if you're publishing within a subscription or a hybrid journal and then and your research is funded by a coalition s funder, then you need to make a version of your paper available open access with a zero month embargo period in a repository. So this can be a subject specific repository or it can be an institutional repository as well. So the problem with this is that your funder might be saying that you must publish your work in a repository with a zero month embargo period. Great. But the journal that you're looking to publish with might be saying, as I mentioned earlier, that you can't make the full text available until six months after publication or 12 months after publication. For example, so there's a mismatch between what your funder is asking you to do and what your publisher is asking you to do. So this can be really difficult for researchers on that in that situation because they need to be following both effectively. So in order to help researchers to get around this situation coalition s developed the rights retention strategy. And what the retention strategy is, it's a statement that researchers or authors add to their submission to a journal at the start of the publishing process. So when you submit your paper to a journal, you add a statement on that submission that says that you as the author will retain the rights. So you are going to retain the copyright to the authors accepted manuscript of that paper. And you're going to apply a Creative Commons attribution license to that version of the paper. So this is known as a prior license. And what that means is that you have told the journal that at the moment that you've submitted your paper to that journal. And because of that legally, the journals cannot make you go back on that. The journals policy is overruled by the statement that you're putting on your paper when you submit it to the journal. And that's because as I mentioned earlier, once you've assigned a Creative Commons license to something, it can't be changed. So at this moment you're saying you're assigning a Creative Commons attribution license to your authors accepted manuscript. And that means even if the journal policy says you must have a six month embargo period on your authors accepted manuscript being added to a repository. This Creative Commons attribution license prevents that taking effect. It overrules it because you are the copyright owner and you've put a Creative Commons attribution license on that version of the paper. So what this means for open access is that regardless of what your publisher says or the journal policy is, there will be a version of your paper immediately available open access on publication. Even if the final published version is behind a paper, this authors accepted manuscript can be made immediately available on publication within a repository. This is really important for authors, especially if they're funded by a coalition as funder, as I said, in those cases, it's an issue of compliance and you would need to do this. But even if your research is unfunded, you can still make use of this statement is not directly linked to coalition as it's not only for coalition as funded authors. Anyone can add this statement to their research on submission to journals and it allows you as the author to keep control of your research to a certain extent because you keep the copyright on that authors accepted manuscript version. It means you will always own a form of your research. You will always keep that paper and you'll be able to reuse that in whichever way you like, rather than having to go back to the publisher to read to ask for permission to use your own work. So we do encourage people to use this if they happen to hear Essex when they're submitting to journals. It absolutely isn't compulsory at the moment here at Essex. Some institutions are beginning to have this as institutional policy, and I think that it's likely that that will probably grow over time as something that becomes more common practice when authors are submitting to journals. So just to make you aware of this, because it does have quite broad copyright implications, which at the moment are just there for journal articles, but which in the future could be extended to other forms of publication as well. Okay, so I've spoken a lot about publishing journal articles, but now I wanted to look at it at book publishing and the copyright considerations that come into effect if you're publishing a book. So when you're publishing a book, usually the publisher will ask the author to assign certain rights to the publisher. So with book publishing, and there's not as kind of standard blanket approach in quite the same way as there is with journals, I saying that realizing I've just described lots of different ways with journals, but that's because of the different types of journal publishing. But usually with subscription journals, there's quite a standard blanket agreement that you sign, whereas if you're publishing a book, the copyright agreements can vary quite a lot more. So I'm just going to go through the three most standard agreements that there are. So the first is that you would assign copyright to the publisher. So this is similar to if you were publishing an article with a subscription journal. If you're publishing a book where you assigned the copyright to the publisher, the publisher now owns that work. But the author usually gets royalties or payments when copies of the book are sold. So that's another difference with books. There's usually money involved, which there isn't with journals, journal articles. So you can assign the copyright to the publisher. And then in that agreement, it will stipulate the royalties or payment that you as the author would get. The most common way of publishing a book, however, is usually that you assign the publisher exclusive rights. So usually you as the author keep the copyright of the work. So you remain the copyright holder. You have seen it in books and the copyright pages. You'll have the copyright symbol and then the author's name. So usually the author would keep the copyright, but they give the publisher exclusive rights to publish that work. So that means that the author is not allowed to publish or disseminate their work elsewhere with any other publisher in any other means, including within a repository because they have given that publisher exclusive rights to publish their work. So that still means if you wanted to republish the work with someone else, even though you would be the copyright holder, you would need to go to the publisher to ask if you could publish it with somebody else. So that's the exclusive rights is the most standard way that books are published. The other way is that you assign the publisher non exclusive rights. So this is where you again retain the copyright and you're giving the publisher non exclusive rights to publish your work. So that usually means dissemination is allowed but republishing with another publisher usually isn't. So that might mean that you could put the text in a institutional repository and because that wouldn't be seen as republishing and that you couldn't republish the whole work with another commercial publisher, for example. So that's the kind of three levels of book publishing that generally arise. But if you are publishing a book, same with journals, but even more so with books, I would really recommend that you read the copyright agreement and perhaps ask a copyright expert at your institution to also have a look through that with you and to make sure you understand all the implications of that copyright agreement. Another way that you can publish a book however is to publish it open access. And so open access monographs are somewhat behind open access journal articles in terms of publishing. But funders are also starting to ask for open access monograph publishing to. So this could mean that the right attention strategy that we just spoke about could become relevant for monographs in the future we don't know yet. But the UKRI, for example, are asking that from January 2024, all monographs that are published with UKRI funding are also made open access as well, although they are stating that there can be a 12 month embargo period for monographs. And that is mostly because, as I say, open access monograph publishing is somewhat behind open access journal article publishing, but also because there are more financial implications of the publication of monographs that aren't there for journal articles in the same way. But when you're publishing a monograph or a book or book chapter open access is the same concept as for open access journals so you as the author would retain copyright and the work would be published under a creative commons license, whichever of those you had assigned to the work. So open access monograph publishing is much more similar to open access journal article publishing than the traditional book publishing is to traditional journal article publishing. Okay, so that's everything that I wanted to say about copyright in terms of publishing as a kind of introduction to the considerations. So now I'm just going to talk briefly about the copyright implications and considerations that you have when you're teaching. So when you're teaching copyright affects what can be used within teaching materials, and it also affects what can be included on online reading lists. So we're going to have a look at both of these now. So when we're teaching the main license that affects the way that we can use work for teaching is the CLA license for higher education, and this is within the UK. So the CLA license, which stands for the Copyright Licensing Agency license, and as the name would suggest covers copying within higher education. So it's a license that higher education institutions purchase, and then copying is done at that institution under the terms of the license. Most UK higher education institutions will have a CLA license we have one here at Essex, and obviously do make sure you check at your own institution. But if you do have a CLA license in effect, then it covers the copying from books, journals and magazines. And it allows for copying of up to 10% or one chapter, whichever is greater, or one article from each issue of each journal. So that means you could legally make a copy of that 10% one chapter or one article, and you can share it with students and staff within your institution. It is important that they are only shared with those within your institution. And because of that they're usually the scans that are made under the terms of this license or the copies are usually shared on a platform that is you need an institutional login to access. So here at Essex, we share all of our scans that are made under the terms of this license via our online reading this system, and we use TALISAS FIRE, and that is the platform that we use to share all of our copies made under this license. It's also important with the CLA license to know that the institution has to report all materials that are copied under the terms of the license. And so that's another reason why here at Essex we use our online reading list to share all of the copies made under the terms of the license, rather than just uploading them to our virtual learning environment. For example, because what the online reading list TALISAS allows us to do is it allows a more automated process of reporting to the Copyright Licensing Agency license, whereas if scans are uploaded within our VLE, we would have to go manually through that and report them all one by one, which as you can imagine with online reading lists now would take an enormous amount of time. So they need to all be added to our online reading system here at Essex, and I expect lots of other institutions do similarly. Where material that's needed for teaching, so where chapters or articles, for example, aren't covered by the Copyright Licensing Agency license, so not every resource will be covered by the CLA license, and teams of staff do check this, where they're not covered by the license, then you need to make use of Copyright Exceptions, which I'm going to come on to in a moment, if you want to make copies of materials and there will be different restrictions there in place. So having a CLA license does allow for much broader reuse of materials than would be possible without it, and I'll come on to that in a moment. The other license that I just wanted to touch upon first though is the ERA License for Higher Education, so this is another UK-wide Higher Education license that can be used. ERA stands for Educational Recording Agency License, so this license allows staff and students to record or make copies of programs for educational use. So it allows programs or clips of programs to be shared on virtual learning environments, embedded in presentations, for example, and generally shared with students and staff at the institution. An important point with this license though is that it is for educational use, so you can't be sharing programs or clips of programs for entertainment and certainly not for any commercial activity. And materials also can't be shared on public platforms, so like with materials, copies made under the CLA license, copies made under the ERA license should be shared in a password protected way so that they're just for students and staff. The main way that the ERA license is used within the UK Higher Education allows us as institutions to subscribe to Box of Broadcasts, which is also known as BOB, and Box of Broadcasts is a database of television programs, so it has TV programs and films that have been broadcast within the UK. So it's only because of having an educational recording agency license that institutions can then subscribe to Box of Broadcasts, which effectively does all the hard work of making all the copies of programs available on an online database that institutions can then just use and embed within their BLEs, reading lists, or show within classes, for example. Okay, so as I mentioned, where the sharing of materials isn't covered by one of those licenses, so it's not covered by the CLA or the ERA license, higher education institutions would need to refer to copyright exceptions. So there are various copyright exceptions within UK copyright law, which we can refer to in making decisions about copyright, but the main one that is important for teaching is section 32, which is known as illustration for instruction. And effectively what this allows is it allows fair deeming of copyright materials in terms of illustration and instruction, so materials can be used, they can be copied and shared, where the sole purpose is for instruction. So this is somewhat open to interpretation, as with lots of things with copyright, because there are specific terms of this exception. So the exception specifies the use must be for non-commercial purposes. So this seems straightforward when we're thinking about education and instruction, but we do charge students to come to university. So there have been debates about whether this is truly non-commercial, but the general consensus is now that yes, it's non-commercial and we are not for profit. So they do deem that section 32 can be used for illustration for instruction within higher education as well as other school within the UK. The third instruction part as well is sometimes interpreted as just for in-class materials, and this would certainly have been the case in the past. But now the general agreement is that online platforms like virtual learning environments, reading lists, for example, are an essential part of teaching and therefore an extension of the classroom. And the for instruction part can also be transferred to these kind of online environments. The main thing though is that copyright exceptions are open to interpretation. They don't have strict set rules like the CLA license, which has 10% or one chapter, whichever is greater. For example, copyright exceptions are open to interpretation. So you do have to ask yourself the general kind of fair dealing questions, which is where copyright experts at your institution will be able to help you with making those decisions. But generally, though, we say that we would ask is the use directly relevant to what is being taught. So the illustration for instruction means whatever you're sharing, copying must be directly relevant to what is being taught. Ask yourself, are you reproducing an unreasonable proportion of the original? Have you copied five chapters of a sixth chapter book? This would probably be unreasonable because of the next question, which is, is our usage really a replacement for purchasing additional copies? So you can't be copying so much of it that it's preventing people from ever needing to have to purchase the original because it's not fair to the copyright owner and the author. So it can't be a replacement for purchasing additional copies. Also, you have to ask yourself whether it could damage the interest of the copyright owner in any other way, so there's financial but also kind of the moral side of things. A pretty obvious one, but you must always acknowledge the author and the source adequately. So this comes quite easy to us in academia. We're very used to acknowledging the sources, but we would need to do that. But generally, if you're making use of copyright exceptions, a good rule of thumb I always say is just to put yourself in the position of the owner of the copyright. Think about if you were the author or the copyright owner, would you be happy with your work being used in the way that you're using it? If it's three pages out of a book to illustrate a very specific point, probably yes, you would probably be more than happy with them to use your work in this way. If it's copying five chapters out of a sixth chapter book and therefore no one ever needs to buy your book again, no, you probably wouldn't be happy with that use. Obviously there are two quite extremes, but putting yourself in the shoes of the copyright owner, I always find it is the best way to think about the kind of copyright decisions that you're making. And that's true within teaching, within research and within life really of the copyright decisions that we all have to make on a day to day basis. Okay, so I think I've spoken for plenty long enough about all of that. So what we're going to do now is I'm going to run some polls so that you guys can share some of the thoughts that you have on copyright. So it's going to be the same question for the same question on the poll for each question that I'm going to share. And you'll see that basically you can vote whether you think yes, no, or it depends to each of the scenarios. And we're going to have a different question on each slide. If anyone has any thoughts on that answer, please do feel free to put it in the chat. It'd be really great to see the reasoning behind the answers that you're giving, and we can have a bit of a conversation about it. If anyone did want to, I don't know, run a webinar, so yeah, just put it in the chat and that will be great. Okay, so the first question that we've got here is can I use images that I don't own within my PhD thesis? And then you should see on the poll, we've got yes, no, or it depends. So imagine you're writing a PhD thesis and you want to use images that you don't know within your thesis. So what do we think? Yes, no, or it depends. Just give you, I don't know, 30 seconds to put your answers in just so we can make sure we get through them all. Okay, so we've got a bit of a mixture here. We've got a few yeses, one no, and mostly on it depends. So we've got quite a lot of caution, but I would say that I would agree with the three yeses. So, well, actually, I would say it does depend. Here at the University of Essex, I would agree with the three yeses, and that's because at the University of Essex, our PhD students own the copyright to their own thesis. So, oh, I've just answered the next question accidentally. Okay, but anyway, yes, so you own the rights to your... I've just realised why I've done this because I'm looking at the next slide instead of this slide. Apologies, I've messed the first one up. So the question was, do I own the rights to my PhD? That's what you guys can see on your screen, isn't it? So the answer is at the University of Essex, yes, our authors do own the rights to their PhD thesis. But with the... it depends, yes, that would be right, because it can vary by institution. So it depends on what your institutional policy is. So always check out what the policy is at your institution of whether you as a PhD student or whether people you're supervising as PhD students do own the rights to their thesis or not. I'd say generally it is more common that people do own the rights to their own PhD thesis, and that's generally because they are seen as students because they're paying to do their PhD rather than being staff members who are being paid to work at that institution. Okay, I'll try not to mess up the next one. So the next one we're going to do is, can I use images I don't own within my PhD thesis? Apologies, I read this on the first time. But now we're looking at, can I use images I don't own in my PhD thesis? So again, I've got yes, no, it depends. And again, if you have any thoughts on your reasoning behind your answer, please do feel free to put them in the chat as well. Just give you a couple more seconds because I can still see some groups coming in. Okay, so again, we've got here a bit of a mixture and we've got six yeses, one no, and 17 it depends. So with this one, the answer would be yes. So well done to those sixes, those six who answered yes. So there is actually a copyright exception for education and research. And this means that you can use a reasonable amount of another person's work within work that is for education and research. So a PhD thesis would be for education and research. It's not for commercial reasons. It's not published. It is just primarily for education and research. So that means that yes, you can use images that you don't own. You can use images that you don't own in your PhD thesis. Just, of course, they must be properly cited. Okay, so the next one that we're looking at is can I include the images I use in my research in my publication? So imagine you've written your PhD thesis and now you want to publish based on this. Can you use those images that we've just said you can use in your PhD thesis? Can you use them within your publication? So again, we've got yes, no or it depends. Okay, so this time we've still got the most of it depends. But we have also got quite a few guesses. This time the answer would be, so we've got Salma has written in the chat here. Thank you. We can use but with proper references and how many does just put it depends on the licensing. So yes, how many that would be correct. It does depend this time. So publication is different to research. So where for the last slide, I said there's a copyright exception that allows you to use works because it's for research and education. Publication would be different. So once you are publishing based on your research, you need to think about those third party copyright materials you have used. So this is what I said at the very start of my part of this session. So you have to clear the copyright for any third party materials you're using. My homie just said it depends on the licensing. So it depends on the license of the work you're using. So if they've shared their work under a CC by license, as long as you are giving them proper attribution you'd be able to use it. And but it also depends on can also depend on the license that you're going to be publishing your work under. You have to think about both sides as well. The good thing to do is use open access sources wherever you can. And if they're not open access sources, then you would need to seek permission to reuse that image within your publication. And that would be the case for any substantial work. So a figure, a graph, any of those kind of things. Okay. So we're going to go on to the next one. Can I reuse content from work I have published before? So what do we think? Can I reuse content from work I have published before? Okay. So share the results again. So we've got lots of it depends again this time. I think I'll catch up with the trend here. And yes, it does depend. So I didn't have any ideas of what it would depend on this time. They want to put in the chat. So it's similar to the last one in a way. So it depends on whether you own the copyright this time. So you see something in the chat. Yes. So thank you, Eleanor. It depends on whether you still own the copyright. And yet as lots of people are saying, yeah, the publishing contracts, the journal licensing agreements, the terms under which the previous work was published. Exactly. And so it depends whether you still in the copyright for that previous work. If you published it in a subscription journal, you would probably have signed over the copyright and therefore you'd have to ask the publisher if you could reuse that work. And if you hadn't, if you still in the copyright, if you published open access, then you would be able to reuse work. Either way, though, you'd still need to self site. And so whether you own the copyright or not, and this is not really about copyright. It's about citation, academic integrity, but make sure you would still self site and which other way around it is. But yes, just remember if you have signed over the copyright, even if it's content you've created, it's likely that you will have to ask the publisher. But check the copyright agreement that you signed as well in case you did stipulate something there that said that you could reuse it in future work. The next one we've got is very similar. And can I reuse figures from my published work in future works. So a figure being like graph or a table. And so you've created it within your previous work, which has been published, and then you want to reuse it in your future work. Okay, we've got nobody saying no this time. So again, this one is very similar to the last one, so it depends. And it depends on whether you still own the copyright for that. The reason I've separated figures out is that I just wanted to highlight something that is possible to do with your figures and that I'd really recommend. You can use websites such as fixture to enable you to retain the rights on your individual figures, regardless of how you're publishing the final publication that those figures are within. So when you're creating when you're writing your manuscript when you're creating your figures and the data and all those kind of things. If you upload your figures to figure share, for example, which is a free online kind of repository for figures and things like that. You have effectively published that figure. And you are claiming the copyright on that figure. You assign a license to that figure, one of those CC by licenses and you get a DIY for that figure as well. Which then means that you can use that figure in any publication that you create it going forward, regardless of whether that individual figure is in a publication that you sign the copyright over to. You're still in the copyright on that figure itself. And so if you're working with graphs, data, that kind of thing, I would recommend that you put your figures into sites like fixed fixture so that you can then reuse them more easily and going forward. Okay, the next one moving on to teaching. And so can I put my reading materials on a virtual learning environment. So thinking here about things like moodle or blackboard and those kinds of sites. So this is if you were running a lecture and you have stands of chapters and things like that. And again, any, any thoughts welcome in the chat. Okay, so we've got mostly yeses this time and a few it depends on no nose. And so the answer this time and the answer here at the University of Essex would be no. And that is because we ask for all of our reading materials to be uploaded to our online reading the system which is talus instead of our virtual learning environment which is moodle. And can you see how me does put in the chat here about a limited amount. And so it, but yeah, it can depend of whether you can put them on a virtual learning environment or not based on institution. But if they're making copies under the CLA license, there will need to be a mechanism in place for reporting these scans back to the CLA so in lots of cases that will be through a online reading the system, rather than a virtual learning environment. But as some institutions, it will be by the virtual learning environment. So it does depend. And as Hamid says in the chat, the general point here is that it will be a limited amount, whatever platform they're using to share. And it will depend on whether it's covered by that CLA license, whether your institution has a CLA license, or whether you're relying on copyright exceptions. So this one isn't it depends on lots of different levels. Okay, the next one. So we've got an I wrote the chapter so I can do whatever I like with the full text. So imagine you've written a chapter and you want to share the chapter in any way that you see fit because you've written it. Okay, I think this is the first time we've had the most nodes. So generally, you know, you can't just do whatever you like with it. But I would agree with the it depends because if you do still in copyright to that chapter, then in effect, yes, you can do whatever you like with it. But in lots of cases, particularly with chapters, authors do sign over the copyright to those when they're publishing the book. So in lots of cases, you wouldn't be able to do whatever you wanted with it then and because you wouldn't still be the copyright owner. So again, you can see this concept coming up in lots of different scenarios through these questions. It really depends on who the copyright owner is. And if you're not the copyright owner anymore, what licensing conditions you've signed with that publisher or with whoever now owns the copyright. Okay, just a few more to go. And so now we've got it's freely available online so I can share it with my students. So here we're thinking about you as a teacher have found a resource that's freely available online, and therefore you can share it with your students, regardless. That's quite a close battle going on here on the results or share them in a second. Okay, so it was battling out between yes and it depends very close on this one and then we had one no come in at the last second. And so I agree with the it depends on this situation. So the yeses might have been thinking about open access resources. So open access resources and you would be able to share with your students and of course then opening available online and some other resources that are freely available online might be perfectly legitimate and this would be absolutely fine to direct your students to. However, for that it depends and not all materials that are freely available online are legitimate. So if something has been illegally uploaded and we here at Essex at least wouldn't openly direct our students to this source via a reading list or a virtual learning environment for example, because it's not very good copyright practice. So I'm envisaging an example say where someone has made an illegal scan of a book and uploaded it onto a freely available website. And we wouldn't want to be directing our students to that resource for copyright reasons, primarily, but also often for kind of accessibility reasons and those kind of things as well. So we can't police the internet. We can't get all of these things taken down. We can't stop people making illegal scans of things. But we as an institution wouldn't openly direct our students to obviously illegal material online. But yeah, it would depend because obviously a lot of freely available content online is perfectly legitimate. It's been published open access and we absolutely would really encourage our students to use this kind of material so it would depend. Okay, next one. So I only want to use a few pages so it's fine to scan and share. I think there's two more after this one. So you've got a book in front of you and you only want to share a couple of pages so it's fine to just scan and share it with your students. Again, any thoughts in the chat? Welcome. We've got again and mostly it depends but a bit more of a split on this one in terms of the yes and no is both in six votes each as well. So it does, it does depend. This can be a really legitimate point note as under copyright exceptions for teaching. So for that illustration and instruction that I spoke about and the general rule of thumb is that roughly up to 5% of any work can be used. But with those fair dealing questions in mind so that we spoke about just a moment ago about the rule of thumb, putting yourself in copyright owners position, whether it's undermining the commercial use, all of those kind of things that we spoke about. But assuming that we think that it's a fair use, generally if you were just using a few pages and you'd thought about all of those questions of fair use, then yes it should be fine to just scan and share a few pages with proper acknowledgement and all of those kind of caveats. But we do still have to be able to have a source of the material and it needs to be a legitimate source for us to be able to do that. So again, we can just take a few pages from a website that was just there online and we could just take a few pages and send it if it wasn't a legitimate source. So similar kind of to the one before in that respect. If you did own a print book that you'd purchased and you wanted to scan a couple of pages and all of the fair dealing things applied and it was for illustration for instruction, then it would generally be fine. Okay, second last one. So it's very old so copyright doesn't apply. This isn't actually something that I've covered in the content but I thought I'd just judge your views on this one. Yes, Susan, I've just seen your answer to the previous one. Yeah, a limited amount I'd prefer to be shared via a reading list, yeah, fair use, yeah, perfect. So thinking about the age of the material and whether that affects copyright. Okay, so we've got mostly it depends again with quite a lot of notes and a few yeses so this one is and it depends again. Copyright laws differ between different countries and also between different materials within those countries. So again, it don't expect you guys to memorize this. But in terms of written works within the UK 70 years after the author's death written works in the UK are no longer covered by copyright. And but as I say, bear in mind international laws differ. But also keep in mind that what that means is 70 years after the author's death, the writing itself is out of copyright. So for example, the text of Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen is out of copyright. However, the Penguin second edition of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice published in 2010 is not out of copyright. You couldn't just scan the content of that book because that book as an individual work is in copyright. The text of the book is out of copyright. So if there was a Word document online with the text of the book, you could copy it, you could scan it, you could find it and print it and sell it and those kind of things. But you can't reuse a published book of it because that book is within copyright. So you have to think about it like that with the writing. So often people say that this must be out of copyright, but it might be that the text is that the content itself isn't. So keep that in mind. Also the rules vary for other materials. So I'm not going to go through all of these now. But just for an example, within the UK broadcasts are protected by copyright for 50 years from the date the broadcast was made. So that again just varies from the 70 years of the author's death of a written life. So it does vary for these kind of things. But when materials are no longer covered by copyright, they're termed to be in the public domain. So the text of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice just to carry on that example is now in the public domain, but that Penguin Second Edition isn't. So hopefully that makes sense. Okay, and the final question to end us on today. So we've got no one will know and it will help my students. So it's fine to use. So I'm going to copy the text of this book, but no one will know and it's going to help my students. So it's fine to do that. Just seen the in the chat about the questions to be phrased a bit more clearer and be more specific as they can be quite open-ended. I completely agree, Daniel, they are open-ended. It is kind of deliberately open to help us think about the different ways that copyright can be interpreted. So with copyright, there's lots of different interpretations that go on. So that's kind of the way that that's why they've been phrased in this way. But obviously in real situations, they would be more specific just to kind of fuel discussion and get people kind of want people to put the different answers so that we can discuss different sides of it. Okay, so share these results. So we mostly had everybody saying no here. And we've got some comments in the chat as well talking about integrity ethical considerations and just saying absolutely not. So I think with this, I can see the side of you want to share a resource with your students. It's something that's very helpful. And I know that it can be really frustrating if you want to share something with your students that is important and copyright reasons. I mean that you can't. And here at Essex, we always try to do everything we can to get the resources to our students in a copyright compliant way. And it is good because with the CLA license and with the exceptions, there aren't many situations where we can't get a resource to our students in some way or another. But we can't take the the view that no one will know and it will help my students. It's fine to use because if you think about if you've written the work, you would want others to respect it and use it in the ways that you had dictated by your license terms. And you can also think about it kind of from a metrics point of view. So if we're thinking about resources that are online, if you downloaded a PDF of a journal article, printed it and shared it with all of your students. It would affect the authors metrics in terms of downloads and views, things like that. Also on an institutional level and UK institutions have to manage the risk within the institution. So while as the slide says, no one might know about your individual copying and the individual risks are quite low. If we were all doing this institutions that could be serious, reputational and financial ramifications university wide. So we do have to keep that in mind as well. But the main one for me is think about if you'd written the work, put yourself in the shoes of the copyright owner. Lots of work goes into the publications. You know, you want to think about the author and respect their desires for their work. So that just to end on there. I think the key takeaway from today is put yourself within in the shoes of the copyright owner when you're using work and think about if you'd written it how you would want that work to be reused. Okay, so thanks for sticking with me today through it's been quite a long session here on copyright. But if you do have any questions about anything I've covered specifically, please do feel free to get in touch with me. You can use our research support team email address that you can see here on the side of mum happy to discuss anything that I've talked about today at all. So please do feel free to get in touch.