 I'm Matt. For those of you who saw me earlier, I'm up here again and this is my partner in crime, Shanta. Hi, how you doing? Alright. So this is me. My name is Shanta. I'm a former instructor at Sheridan College and Mohawk College. I am now the Customer Experience Coordinator at Weaver Apps in Hamilton, Ontario. For those of you who don't know, you go across the border and head up for about an hour before you, around the turn that you take to go to Toronto. I am a serial word camper. I've been to over 30 in the last five years and I'm happy to say that my second word camp that I ever spoke at was Buffalo. So I'm glad to be back. I've done Mumbai. I've also done, I'm organizing word camp Hamilton this year, which is on June 2nd. We hope to see you all there. If you haven't got enough from word camp Buffalo, I'm a contributor and I've been called lead dudette. So if you want to look up Matt's Clancy, you can probably find that out. And I'm Shanta.ca on Twitter. Matt. That's me. I know it looked really mean, didn't I? I'm not really that mean. Yeah, so I'm a contractor with the City of Toronto, doing front-end web development. Graduated from Durham College. Full-stack PHP, JavaScript, CSS, HTML, the whole nine yards for ten years. We're a press developer for six, actually. I think that's seven at this point. I've done the whole nine yards when it comes to types of websites. Retail ads, these restaurants and education. Yeah, I do a lot of different things. Web development is just kind of what I do for my day job. And I'm the Maddie G on Twitter. All right, so what we're going to talk about today. Copyright. It's a big deal when it comes to building a website. Seems to be more of a big deal in the state centers in Canada, but it's still an issue. But yeah, talking about copyright, fair use, creative comments. And yeah, and there will be, well, you saw it, it's called Scavenger Hunt. So it's not something that we're doing, us too. It's going to be you guys. Audience participation. Audience participation. There will be prizes. There are prizes. Very Canadian prizes. We don't talk about that. Don't talk about fight that. Okay. No, don't talk about that. And some other resources that you can use when you're searching for images and other media for your website. So that's just a primer, not as an in-depth case study on copyright. That's right. So unfortunately, copyright is not universal. Even we as Canadians, yes, as Canadians, we will be apologizing a lot. Sorry. It depends on what the thing is. Sometimes it's an audio recording. Sometimes it's a book. Sometimes it's a painting. And so what we're meant to give you today is sort of a very high level and some guidelines when it comes to looking at copyright. How can I use this, mainly as it pertains to your website, right? If you find a Giffy, are you supposed to credit the person who created the Giffy or credit the person who actually created the photo in the first place? Or is it content? So it can get a little funny. In the U.S., it's usually from the author's death plus 70 years. In Canada, if it's registered there, then it's actually 50 years, not 70. A good resource that I found, at least on the Canadian side of things, is the University of British Columbia. They have a really good website that I used to give to all my students that sort of gave you a guide as to, okay, here's what the thing is, and it sort of asks you a lot of questions. So we've tried to find one that's close to the U.S. but we haven't found as nice of a comprehensive one. So while the actual rules here in the U.S. may be different, know that this is at least a good way to go, okay, are we talking about a book? Are we talking about an article? How do you reference those and so on? So that's a really good start, rather. And what the question is, who owns the copyright? So who's seen this picture before? Yeah, so does everyone know the story behind this picture? So for the people who don't, it's the monkey selfie. It came from 2011. A photographer that traveled to Indonesia was following a troop of macaques. He actually let the monkey use the camera, which I can't see doing. That's my camera sitting on the stage there. I can't see doing, and that's a cheap camera compared to what he took this with. But anyway, one of them actually took a selfie, and I mean, look at that. It's actually a really good picture. But he actually made enough money with the picture to pay for that trip that he went on. But a few years later, the photographer asked Wikipedia and TechDirt to take down the image on the grounds of copyright, and they refused. So the question is, because the monkey took the picture. Yes, it was his camera, but the monkey actually did the physical act of taking the picture. Did the monkey own the copyright? Or did the photographer own the copyright? He claimed that he owned the copyright. But later the US Copyright Office actually ruled that an animal cannot hold its own copyright. So this is the kind of question that you've got to ask yourself when it comes to copyright. Who actually owns it? Is it the person that took it? Is it the person that owns the equipment that took it? Or in the case of, say, music, is it the person who wrote it? Is it the person who played it? These are all questions that you need to ask. And when it comes to permissions, sometimes you have to ask multiple people. Right. And so in a case like this, for example, this is actually when we first did this scavenger hunt. This is all the Canadians that went to Rochester in 2017, just in the fall. So who owns the copyright? Well, first of all, you have a bunch of Canadians in the US at a US word camp. So the photo was actually taken in the US. It was actually taken on Kira Howe's camera. And she's the one in the far side there. But she's in the photo. So was she the one... She obviously wasn't the one who took this because we actually handed it to somebody and said, here, can you take this? So the photo was taken by an American on a Canadian's camera on US soil with a bunch of Canadians in it. So who actually owns this? Again, this becomes really difficult. And is it actually each person in there that actually owns part of it? This usually comes up when you're dealing with models, right? When you have somebody have their photo taken or a celebrity where their photo is being taken. Is it the celebrity themselves that owns that copyright? Not necessarily. Is it the person who took the photo who is being paid to do those photos? Let's say it was for a magazine. If you're being commissioned to take those photos, is it the person who took the photos? Is it the person who's commissioning them? Or is it the subject matter? This is where it can get really, really confusing. And this is an example of that. Where you've now not only got those three dimensions, now you've also got international borders. Because does Canadian law apply because it was actually taken on a Canadian's camera that went back across the border? Does it apply by U.S. law? Because that's where it was taken. And the person who actually took it was an American. So now what are we dealing with? Now we're dealing with cross-border, and it gets even more complicated than that. So, which comes to fair use. So it's a legal doctrine that portions of copyrighted materials may be used with out permission of the copyright owner. Provided it is fair and reasonable, does not substantially impair the value of the materials, and does not curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner. So an example of that, a prime example of that, is education. So you are allowed to, say, photocopy a chapter of a textbook. Because if you're not going to use the entire thing, and you just want to use that one chapter, you're actually allowed to do that, but you can't do the entire thing. Because then you're cutting into profits, right? So, yeah, that is, I can't think of another example where fair use works that way. But that's the main one. Enter Creative Commons. Creative Commons is a legal structure under which you can license your own work, as well as use the work of others depending on what they choose. This is a common practice now across almost the entire world. And you don't have to hire a lawyer to decipher this, okay? What it does is it gives you a structure by which you can say, I am going to allow my stuff to be used in this fashion. And some of those questions that are usually answered, it helps, you know, can I use it for commercial purposes? Can, you know, do I have to give credit to the creator? Whatever that piece of work is. And can I make changes to it? The Creative Commons structure actually allows you to say those types of things and determine how it is that you're going to be using this. Or allowing others to use it. So, for example, that photo, I have permission by the person who owned the camera and the person who uploaded it to her own Flickr account to use it. Now, the license that she actually has on it, I believe, is fair use. And you can use it whenever you like, okay? I think it's Creative Commons Zero, I think it is. We'll talk about that as well in a minute. But I'm using it as part of my presentation, even though I'm not being necessarily compensated for my work. Let's say that I was being paid thousands of dollars to be here at WordCamp today and give you this talk. Well, then she might say, you know, you're getting paid to use my stuff. Maybe not. With the Creative Commons structure, you can easily say, I'm going to allow this to be used for commercial use. If I'm using it in a presentation for which I am being compensated, that's considered commercial use. And if the license says that you're not allowed to use it for commercial purposes, then you are actually in breach and you can be sued for this. This is why we decided to give this talk. Because you, as users of the internet or creators of the internet, need to be aware of both sides of this. How am I allowed to use things? And also, how can I license them in my own way? So my recommendation is definitely go to Creative Commons and look that up. And again, it is a universal structure under which you can use these. And you can also use a combination thereof. You can say that this is not permitted for commercial use, meaning if you're a non-profit but you're getting donations out of it, technically that is a commercial use because you're gaining money from it. If I'm just using it for a blog post and I'm just making commentary on it, well, that's not really making money. However, if my site has ads, guess what? That is actually considered a commercial use. So if you have ads running on your site, and you use an image that is actually not allowed for commercial use, you are in breach of the law. So keep that in mind. And now it becomes the fun part. Oh, sorry, yes. It's for the entire site. As I understand it. I'm not a lawyer, but yes. But sometimes they say you can use it for editorial use. So you could use it in your blog post, but you couldn't use it in an ad. But you're not using it in an ad, right? For example, I'll give you a great one. Joey Coleman is an independent journalist in Hamilton. He releases all of his stuff on Creative Commons, including non-commercial use. The Hamilton spectator cannot use his work because they're behind a paywall. They also run ads. Even though the post itself has nothing to do with ads or anything else, the fact is they are making money in some way, shape, or form because of his content. Simply says editorial. In the Creative Commons structure, there isn't. Oh, okay. It's basically you are allowed to use it for commercial use or you're not. Okay. Fair enough. There was another question. It's noted there that you... Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. Question. Then the creator of the site can sue you. Yeah. It's... It's up to them. It starts with a cease and desist, and then if you don't comply, then it turns into a lawsuit. It could. It depends on how bad they want to meet. It depends on where they're from. It depends on how... Yeah, exactly. It depends on how badly they want you to take it down. Exactly. Yes, sir. For instance, could I include just the link to video in terms of permission to use? Could I use the link to it but I couldn't necessarily embed it in the page? So I could link and say, you know, check out this video and I'm going to make some comments about it. But the minute I embed it in the page, I'm using it? I think because you're referencing the original video, it's not like you took the video, downloaded the video, and uploaded it again. You're using the original embed code which does automatically source where it came from originally. I think you'd be pretty safe on that one. Yeah. But again, it's a matter of whether or not you're allowed to use it at all. Yeah. Right? It's not a matter of whether you're referencing or not. It will have a license usually with YouTube. Plus, if the user that uploaded it doesn't want it to be embedded, there's actually a flag for that. And then it won't show up on your site anyway. And then they can click on it to go to the original and then it would be fine. But there's a lot of, it could be, especially when you're talking about cross-border copyright law. I'm not sure which country it was. It might have been the States. It might have been Europe. That was talking about copyright being you couldn't even post a link to the original work if it was not allowed to be used. I can't remember where that was but I was like, I was reading that. I'm like, wait a sec. You're basically saying that you want to tear down the fundamental mechanic of the internet, a link, and say, no, you can't use that. Wait. So I don't think that's become law but there was talk of it at one point. There was talk of it. So if that were being enforced, could you even just say, well, Google, do a Google search for the following title. Yeah, exactly. Funny you should mention that. Next slide. This is where you guys get to get into the participation. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, and you will, is going to be finding these things. Now what we're going to suggest that you do is you get into groups. We can have a maximum of 10 groups. I think about five people per group is probably about right. You are going to have 10 minutes. Your mission is to find these items based on the criteria that is there. Okay. So for example, a sunset doesn't say that it has to be with a certain level of criteria of Creative Commons or not. But you just have to find a photo of this. So the idea is we've given you a list of items and they've basically gone from the simplest thing that you can Google for, which is typically what we do, to almost the most restrictive thing on the planet, or not on this planet as the case might be. It's far from right. And or, come on, that was good. I'll tell you about that one later. Anyway, so here's the job. You have to go and find these things based on the criteria that you see here. So for example, a flicker photo of a maple leaf, and it is allowed to be modified for commercial use. So just as a sunset, that's all you have to do. Just find a sunset. That's it. Okay. So what we're trying to do is teach you that there are different ways and different levels on which you can actually look for these things. There's also a bonus mark if you find a Giffy of one of the speakers at WordCamp Buffalo in a Giffy. Good luck, because we're having trouble. Yep. So if you go to shanta.ca forward slash scavenger dash hunt dash 2018, go there and you just say which group you're with, and you submit the link to your answers. Do not put the Google search. Okay. Actually go to the image or whatever the source is, and give us the link to the actual image itself, not from the Google search. Okay. Because the Google will just give me a long URL. But we want to see actually where you got it from. So put yourselves in groups. It is 1120. You got 10 minutes. Go to it. And we'll be wandering around if you need help. So the timer for 10 minutes. That's nice and clear. Okay. Your timer is set for 10 minutes. What's it going on? I want 3G and the love signal. And I have it connected to the internet. Interest reduction. Remember, there's prizes to the most points. Just saying. Each of your items will be the same. Yes. Yes. I enjoy it. Yeah. You're basically only going to get a point for each one. I'm not sure. What? And potentially you get six out of five if you find that shirt. That's right. If you find the furthering point there. What's that? I know what you're talking about. EMP. Yeah. Does he need any help with anything? Just say the word. I'm just going to do this. I just can't read stuff. I have a good idea. I just want to know that. Yeah. Do you want me to do one? You guys have a group one? Whoo. Okay. Okay. You guys are familiar with group three? And you guys over there are group four? Four. Four. Four. Four. Yeah. Hey, did I miss anybody? Or is that supposed to be group three? Yeah. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. We see again things then give me permission. Oh, but listen then we can see that. See who will opened those? Nobody got my room change. So what my officers, escrow, junior, and Chiang. I just have to get a picture of that. Five minutes? Which one is there? We do it up there, guys? All right. And we're going to tell him he's up in the prize that we've given out if there's closing remarks at the end of the day. Let's see that. So we've got it. Yes? Yes, of course. I'm going to call it a pleasure at the reception. Well, yesterday was the same before. Today is the fifth. Ah, three minutes. Three minutes. Are you almost done? Tell Kira that I actually did that. One minute. We have one minute and 50 seconds. That's all right. That's the only one they have. Yeah, I've got them. 14 minutes. 10 minutes. Yeah, 10 minutes. 30 seconds. All done. Oh, there it is. I think we did that the same time. All right guys, time's up. All right. So we will announce the winners at the end of the day. We will go through the answers. We will double check them all and make sure that everything is well submitted. So please stick around for the end of the day and you will be rewarded with some imported goods. Yes. Not illegal anymore. Apparently. No, apparently not. Yes. So where do we find some good stuff that you can use? So one of our friends here actually found out that through something like Flickr, you can actually go to Flickr and search by those particular licenses. If you've done your search well enough, that's exactly what it should do. Some other places that you can go. Unflash is a really amazing website. They have some really good quality stuff. And Andy McElwain was one of the guys who gave me that link earlier. It uses Creative Commons Zero, which basically means you can use it, you can alter it, you can change it, you can use it for commercial use, but you do not necessarily have to attribute it to the original user, okay? It's nice that if you do, you know, attribute that to the user, but you don't have to. And I remember reading an article just under a year ago where a photographer actually said that he was actually making money after he had submitted some of his work to Unflash because people really liked it and then they would hire him as a photographer. So it is possible to contribute to these types of communities and then make money afterwards. Pixabay is, of course, another good one if you want to use it. Not many people know about Unflash. It's becoming a little bit more popular, but Pixabay is another good one today. Yeah, which is where the problem becomes. Unflash does a part of our job, I think, of ensuring that their stuff is from the person who took the photograph in the first place. Ever wondered where an image came from? Look at 10i. 10i actually looks at the image itself, dissects it, and will actually go and find the origin of the photo. So if you ever want to find out where your images are being used, go there, have a look, and have it do a reverse lookup in a way. That's it. That's it for us. Do you guys have any questions? Yes, go ahead. So let's say I go to one of these Unflash and get an image and use it, and then it turns out the person who posted it on Unflash really wasn't supposed to do it. Can I say, well, I found it on the source that was supposed to be legitimate, and as long as I take it down, am I not expecting you to give legal advice? Of course. Is that likely to at least demonstrate good faith? I think it would, in my opinion. As long as you can present to the court the same look, I found this on Unflash, that's where I downloaded it from. Almost every single of the images, not even just the site as a whole, but each and every single one of the images actually says that you're allowed to use it in this format and it's licensed under Creative Commons Zero. If the person who uploaded it did not upload it in good faith, then they're actually the ones at fault, not you. So I think if that were to go to a court, the court would probably look at it and go, no, they used it in all good faith. So I think we're fine. Again, not a legal opinion, but just common sense. I would say, yeah. Two things. One, a great resource, please, from the US is, I got a buddy who's an entertainment lawyer and an LA, and he does an entire series on using what you think is Creative Commons or copyrighted work or trademark things within different platforms. I think his site is firemark.com. But he has a great YouTube video, so please check that out. The other thing is, I've been on both sides of the coin using something that I didn't know I was in violation of. I had a podcast, one of the graphics that I did for the post was The Seven Happens for Highly Effective Simplicity. Just the term Seven Habits. It was one of our most popular shows. We built a graphic completely ourselves, did not use any of the Seven Habits college, and posted it on Pinterest. It had thousands and thousands of lights, chairs, and so forth. And the company for Seven Habits for Highly Effective Simplicity, legacy company, we think, put in a complaint with Pinterest. And it was immediately taken down. So in the same vein, somebody took every episode of our podcast, which was just audio, made videos and posted them on YouTube. And so they were getting listens and views from our content. And so it was very simple. This is the DMCA violation notification to YouTube. And it was taken down. And come and find out they've done that for hundreds of podcasts. They sent your iTunes and did it. But I think the main crux of my comment is, if you're trusting on somebody else's platform, most people are not going to take the time to contact on a term you do a cease and desist. They're just going to contact the host of the platform. And that platform, it's incumbent upon them to protect their rights. And so they're just going to check your account now. And that could be your website host, your YouTube channel, whatever you might face your life with. Well, the other thing that we were talking about earlier was on fair use. One of the other reasons for fair use, in addition to education that I just remembered, accessibility. If you have a book that somebody cannot read, then you can actually under fair use have somebody read it and record it for their sole purpose. Same thing with PDFs, for example. Again, in accessibility. And in many cases, the person with the accessibility has to acknowledge that they will not allow that copy to leave their possession. Right? Or in some cases, they will actually have to purchase a copy of the book and then they'll get like a digital copy of a PDF or whatever that case is. So at least that they enjoy, you know, the person who created the work does enjoy the benefits of your purchase, but it can be recorded for things like accessibility. And that also comes under things like digital media rights, no, DRM, sorry, digital rights media. If it is encoded that it is, it can't be cracked. It can actually under some circumstances be cracked for purposes of accessibility only. So you might want to double check on that one too. But yeah, playing off of what you were just talking about. Yeah? That's not what fair use is. So people will link back to your website and it's like, I know. No, that's not what fair use is. That's correct. Because if somebody takes that photo and they pin it to Pinterest from their website, they're getting the traffic. Not me. I was out in the 80 degree weather taking that photo. That's right. Yeah. That's right. And again, I mean, the purpose that the reason that we wanted to do this presentation was not necessarily, you know, like you said, we're not lawyers, but that we wanted to open your eyes to the idea that you can't just use whatever you want, right? We wanted to at least give you a stop provoking presentation where you have to actually think twice now about what it is that you're putting on your website and how you license your own stuff, right? How can I make my stuff available or choose not to make it available and have it all rights reserved, right? So that was the big reason why we wanted to give this presentation. Doesn't mean it isn't happening. That's right. You know what? To speak to that, I would almost assume that it's copyrighted before I would assume that it's anything else. You should. So you have that permission of like the subject of the photograph and the person who took it and like, we could do the HXL stuff and then return it where it was. It's hard to put it in your home. Yeah. Good to know. Yes. I guess my question is the opposite. So if I put, I take a picture of that as my writing and then I put it on with a computer or something else. Now did I just automatically give rights to everybody who's going to use it? Yeah. But, but if you, but if you put it on your website and then you put it on Pinterest from your website you don't, just because it's on Pinterest doesn't mean you give rights away to everybody to use it. You still own it and people just share it on Pinterest. Right. But it doesn't mean they can just take it and use it on their own website. But I think the point that the gentleman's trying to make is that if you're uploading it to something like Wikipedia where the entire site is basically dedicated to sources that are open source. Yeah. And that are allowed to be used and that kind of thing by uploading it you're accepting their terms which is that kind of thing, right? Yeah. Sorry. There's a question up there. Yeah. It depends on what the creator has put onto their work as, as the license. Is it all rights reserved? Is it licensed under creative comments? You need to check that first. If there's, if there's nothing stated you have to go back to exactly what we were talking about. You have to assume that it is all rights reserved unless it says otherwise. And usually when someone wants a creative comment they will put it with that. They will put it. Yes. Like with the image specifically, not the site, the image. Because unless, like again, the default is copyright. You can't use it. It's the most likely to be able to modify and use it for sharing all that. Do you still recommend that you do like an attribution on your site to where they come from? I think it would be a nice idea to do so. Yeah. The fact that they've created this work and then made it available would be nice to do so. Yeah. Anything else? Yes. It is more from the content creation standpoint. How could I feel about making sure that my work, if I had proposed it somewhere, is used in a public manner? How would you like it to be used? Maybe I just wanted it. Then you would probably license it under Creative Commons by attribution. And say that I'd like it to be attributed to me. You don't have to. But if that's what you are licensing it under, then yeah, you're completely entitled to do so. And like if you have control over where you're posting it, I would put it as a caption right below it. This photo taken by open to Creative Commons and then give the Creative Commons license code. And if it's something like Flickr, then it has that built into the metadata that you can attribute to that photo. But yeah, beyond that, then you've got, if you're going beyond something that you have control over, you've got to worry that someone's not good, that hasn't been in this room that says, okay, copyright's the default. They might take it if there's no thing saying, you know, you can use it this way. Last question. So do you have to write with the picture, or can you do it elsewhere, like say on the website, to the bottom, like photo one attribution? I think as long as you've made some kind of attribution, I don't think anybody would fault you for that. I mean, usually you would put it with the photo itself. As a matter of fact, in many cases, especially in stuff like WordPress, it will actually allow you to do things like put a subtitle and things like that and alt tag and description, right? And actually when you download things from Unsplash, it will actually give a pop-up and it'll say, would you consider, you know, attributing this and it will actually give you like an embed code with that attribution to it. So I highly recommend that. Yeah. Thank you everybody for coming. I know we're in between you and lunch. So have a wonderful time, guys. Enjoy.