 Hi, everyone. Welcome to this UK data service workshop on introduction to copyright, especially in the context of copyright and publishing. My name is Hina and I work as a senior research data officer. And my main responsibilities are to provide guidance and training on ethical and legal issues. In the context of data sharing, my colleague Gill is also here with us today in this workshop. And she will be facilitating covering the technical side of the workshop. If you have any issues, just put it in chat and she will look after it. And my colleague Hina, she is here as well. And the main workshop will be run by Hina. The introductory part of today's session will focus on a brief, very brief introduction to the intellectual property rights and what are the types of IP rights. And as I said, main session will be run by my colleague Hina, who will talk you through to the copyright issues in the context of publishing and teaching. So the cornerstones of modern copyright law have their roots in ancient Greek, Roman and Jewish cultures and can be traced back as far as the sixth century in ancient Greece. But the world's first copyright law was the Statute of N enacted in England in 1710. This act introduced for the first time the concept of the author of a work being the owner of its copyright and laid out fixed terms of protection. So that was a quick origin of copyright. Intellectual property is something that you create using your mind. For example, a story, an invention, an artistic work or a symbol. And type of IP rights include trademarks, patents, registered designs in copyright. And as you're aware that we are focusing on copyright in today's session. And copyright is the protection offered for creative works, such as books, music and literary works. And you get some types of protection automatically others you have to apply for. Before I hand over to Hina, just to let you know that we are running a second session on copyright, which is on secondary data use next Thursday. I'll put a chat. I'll put a link in the chat for this event if any one of you is interested. So thank you for this brief intro. Over to you, Hannah. Thanks, Hina. It's really, really good to get that introduction. Hi, everyone. I'm Hannah Craig, and I'm the Open Research Development Librarian at the University of Essex. So as Hina has already introduced today, I'm going to be talking about an introduction to copyright and really going to be thinking about it from two different perspectives. So first of all, we're going to think about copyright in publishing and key kind of copyright considerations you need when you're publishing research. And then we're going to be thinking about copyright for teaching. And so thinking about copyright considerations when you might be developing slides for teaching or using scans of other people's copyrighted works within your teaching. Once we've spoken about those kind of two key aspects, I'm going to talk about those. And then we're going to work together to answer some common copyright questions. So we're going to run some polls. And I'm going to ask you some of the questions that we get asked a lot within my team and see if we can kind of think about those things together and establish a bit between us what the answer might be. So that's the overview for the session today. We have got nearly an hour and a half. I expect it might take that long. So we should have time for questions at the end that you might have as well. But if anything pressing comes up as we go through, please do feel free to put those questions in the Q&A and I'll try and get to them as and when I can. Okay, so let's start by thinking about copyright in publishing then. So copyright comes into lots of different elements of publishing. And you really want to start thinking about copyright at the very beginning of the process when you're preparing your manuscript to be published. So whether that be a journal article or a book or a book chapter, a textbook, a monograph, you want to keep copyright in mind all through the process of preparing your manuscript. And that's because the journal or the publisher will expect you as the author to sort out any clearance for third party material and give appropriate attributions where needed. So what I'm talking about here in terms of third party material, I'm not talking about short quotes or anything that you just kind of reference within your academic work. I'm thinking more about substantial materials like images or figures or tables or substantial bits of text potentially. But we're thinking about substantial use of other people's materials rather than just direct quotations, which you wouldn't need to clear copyright for. But for those more substantial things that you might be using within your research, you do need to make sure that you have permission to reuse those in your publication. So for example, if you were using something that had been published with all rights reserved, you would likely need to seek permission to use that within your publication. Whereas if you were using a third party material that had been published openly, open access under an open access license, and we're going to talk about that later, then you wouldn't necessarily need to get permission to use that. So understanding the way that your work is being published, but also understanding the way that other people's work is being published, is really essential to make sure that you're being compliant with your own publications. So the way that things are published, whether it be your own research or other people's work, can affect the ways in which you can use other people's materials and the ways in which you publish your own materials. So what I'm going to talk about now is I'm going to go through some of the different ways that research tends to be published and think about how copyright affects those different methods of communicating your research. So we're going to talk about subscription based journals, open access journals, hybrid journals, and books and open access monographs as well. So first of all, we'll start with subscription based journals. So subscription based journals are your kind of traditional journal article where you author a paper and it gets published by a journal and it's published behind a table. So for people to access the full text of that article, they'll need to subscribe to that channel or be affiliated with an institution that subscribes to that journal. So you'd need to usually log in and to access the full text of that journal article. So when you're publishing a subscription based journal, when you've authored a subscription based journal, usually through various terms and conditions through a copyright transfer agreement, you as the author would sign over the copyright to the publisher. So that will be the general way that it works with a subscription based journal. So you no longer own the copyright to your journal article. When you're signing that copyright transfer agreement, that is what it says it transfers the copyright over to the publisher. So in those situations, usually as the author, you would keep the copyright to the author's accepted manuscript. So that will be the version of the paper that is the final text. It's after peer review. It's when all those final changes and checks have been made. So I'm not talking about the preprint. It is the post peer reviewed version. But it's different to the final published version because it won't have all the journal type setting, formatting, the header, all of those kind of things that the journal adds to make it look like a traditional journal article. So it will be the author's accepted manuscript is the final text but not with kind of the final formatting. So usually if you're publishing a subscription based journal, you keep the copyright to the author's accepted manuscript, but you sign over the copyright to the final published version. However, even when you do keep the copyright to the author's accepted manuscript, usually there are restrictions put in place by the journal or the publisher in terms of what you're allowed to do with the content of that author's accepted manuscript. And often the journal will stipulate that there must be an embargo period on any sharing of that AAM, that author's accepted manuscript. So you'll see this when you're publishing with subscription based journals. Often you'll see on the website it's got kind of a self archiving policy and it will say something like authors can share the full text of their author's accepted manuscript six months after publication in an institutional repository, for example, or it might be 12 months after publication. And when you're signing those copyright transfer agreements before your papers published, you're usually signing to say that, yes, you will abide by all of those terms and conditions that the publisher is giving you. So it's really important to be aware of what you're signing and to understand what you're signing when you're publishing. And because there's been situations, for example, where authors have published a paper within a subscription journal, they've signed something to say that they're not going to share their authors accepted manuscript for a certain amount of time after publication. And then they've uploaded it straight away to, for example, academia.edu or research gate or something along those lines. And then the journals had to ask them to take it down because the author will be in breach of their contract. So it is really important to make sure you know what you're signing. And I know that all of us, myself very much included, get used to reading terms and conditions of things scrolling to the bottom, ticking the box and saying yes, I agree. But do make sure that you are reading the contracts that you're signing when you're publishing the work. Because it is your work and you want to be sure that you know what you're doing with it and what you're allowed to do with it. With that in mind, I also wanted to flag that you are the author and you do have control over your publication until you sign something. And so you don't always have to just say yes to the terms and conditions that the journal or the publisher offers to you by default. You could request to change the copyright agreement for you sign it. And you can ask them to reword different parts of it. You could ask that you keep all the rights to the author's accepted manuscript, for example, or even to the final published version. You don't have to always just say yes to the paperwork that they give you. There should be room for conversation and maneuver around these things if that's something that you're interested in. There is a movement in academia at the moment called rights retention. And I'm going to talk about that a bit more in a moment. But rights retention is really about this. It's about empowering authors. It's about giving authors a chance to really keep control of their work and use copyright to their advantage. And I'm going to talk about that a bit later on. So that's kind of the situation for subscription based journals where generally, as I say, you will sign over the copyright to the publisher and you no longer own the text of your final published piece. In contrast to this, if you're publishing in an open access journal, usually as the author, you would keep all rights to the work, including the final published version. And then you give the journal a license to publish that paper. So you retain the copyright on your paper. You are still the copyright owner. You can share your publication however you want to. But you're giving the journal permission to publish that paper on your behalf. So you'll still be there as the copyright owner. You'll still be listed as the copyright owner, but you're enabling the journal to publish it for you effectively. And open access journals mean that everyone can read the full text of your publication as well. So open access has loads of different benefits. One of them is that authors keep the copyright. Another one is that everyone can read the full text, download, review, use your article, however you want them to. And I'm going to talk about that in a moment in terms of the different licenses you can give to your publication to ensure that it's being reused in a way that matches how you want to see your work reused. So again, this kind of ties into what I was just talking about about authors being in control of their work and authors getting control over how other people can use their work as well. But before we go on to talk about different copyright licenses, you can also publish articles open access within hybrid journals. So within a fully open access journal, everything within that journal will be published open access. Within a hybrid journal, some of the content will be published open access, and some of the content will be published behind a paywall, and you'll need to subscribe to the journal to have access to the content. You'll need to log in to access that content. So a hybrid journal, as it says here, is a subscription based journal. So the journal itself, people can still subscribe to to access any paywall content, but there's an open open access option for single articles. So as an author, when you're authoring a paper in a hybrid journal, you can choose to make your individual article open access and there'll be a cost involved in this. So you pay to make your individual paper available open access within that hybrid journal. And then you would keep the copyright on your paper, and you would assign a creative commons license onto that paper. So when you're doing that, all the rights remain with you as the author, if you're publishing open access and giving it a creative commons license. In contrast to if you're publishing traditionally within the hybrid journal, and then it would be the initial scenario I described where the copyright is usually transferred to the journal or to the publisher, and you no longer own the copyright over that. So a hybrid journal really is what it says on the tin. It's a hybrid. It's a it's a mixture between that traditional subscription journal that I described first of all, and that fully open access journal that I described secondly, and as the author, you get to choose whether you want to be following the open access rate and retaining copyright, or whether you want to be publishing behind a paywall and transferring the copyright to the journal. So if you do choose to publish open access either within a hybrid journal, or if you choose to publish in a fully open access journal, you choose a creative commons license to assign to your work. So creative commons licenses vary. There are different kind of layers of a creative commons license, and these different elements can be used with each other or on their own to kind of create the license that you that you want for your publication. And what these different elements do is they they dictate how others can really use your work. So I've got four of the different layers on here, four of the different elements of a creative commons license, and I'm going to go through them all in turn. But just to say that the very most open creative commons license is a CC zero license, or when something has a creative commons zero license, and that means that it's in the public domain, and that means that reuse can be it's completely open so people can use the work in however they want to, and they don't even need to attribute the author of that work. CC zero licenses really don't tend to be used within academia, within academic works, because academia is all about attribution and citation and these kind of things. And so CC zero doesn't tend to be used for academic work, which is why I haven't included it here. So usually when you're publishing something in open access, you'll be choosing between these four licenses or the different elements of these licenses. The most common used in academia and one that research funders increasingly ask for is a CC by license or a creative commons attribution license. And what that means is that reuse is allowed, really wide reuse, reuse however the user wants to, as long as the author or the licensor, so the person that owns the copyright, gets credit or gets attribution. So if you were reusing part of a work that had been licensed under a CC by license, you could reuse it, you could reuse a figure or a graph or an image or a substantial bit of the text and that would be fine. But you would need to attribute the original author and the original source and the original copyright owner. So CC by is the most common for open access works and it is the one that funders tends to be requesting. There another layer you can add to a CC by license. So you'll see that they all have CC by so attribution is always required, apart from if you're using a CC zero license. So CC by essay is the second kind of license and this essay stands for share alike. And that means that people who are reusing your work, they can distribute and modify the work and reuse it in kind of whatever way they like, as long as the new work that they're creating is under the same or a not more restrictive license than the original work. So if someone had published something under a CC by essay license and you wanted to reuse a substantial part of that within your work, you can then license your work under a all rights reserved license, because that would be a more restrictive version of the license that the original work had been published under. This one doesn't tend to be used much within a academia, but it is something that you could request if you wanted to. Another layer you can add to a creative commons license is the NC element and that stands for non commercial. And that means that reuse is allowed again and with attribution. But that reuse must only be for non commercial purposes. So someone couldn't reuse a substantial part of your work within a textbook that was going to be sold commercially, for example. So that that element can be added. It's more common within open access books than journal articles. And I would say that this one quite often people think that they do want this, that they do want to stop people making money from substantial parts of their work. But I think it's important to remember that any extra element you add to your licensed work can have knock on effects on reuse that you maybe don't intend. And so it might be that someone then wasn't able to present about your work at a conference in which they were being paid to present that, for example. And they might not be able to use it as a say in a textbook that was going to be sold, but you might want them to be able to do that. You might want your work to be reused as broadly as possible. And then the final element that you can add is a N D element and that stands for non derivative. And basically that's the most restrictive layer you can add to a creative commons license, because it means that reuse is allowed, but only exactly as your work was originally. So no modifications are allowed at all. And again, sometimes this can be helpful. It's more common within arts and humanities where work might potentially be misinterpreted with modification. But again, just consider maybe some of the knock on restrictions that that can add in terms of people wouldn't be able to translate your work potentially into another language, because that would count as a modification, for example. And so it's always just worth thinking a bit more broadly about what is it that you're actually trying to stop happening by not having the most and the CC by license, the most open license and argue by adding these extra elements, would you actually be preventing a reuse that you would be happy with and maybe potentially restricting how your work would be reused, because generally in academia, openness is good to people building upon your work, using your work, sharing your work, developing that academic conversation is usually, you know, kind of the bread and butter of academia. So just keep in mind what these different elements can add to the restrictions before you before you set them. And because once you have chosen a creative commons license for your work, that can't be changed. And so that is is then licensed in that way permanently. Before we move on to talk about rights retention, I'm just going to have a quick look at the questions that have come in in the Q&A. And if anyone wanted to ask anything else at this point and what I've spoken about so far, and please do feel free to add a question there. So the first question one of your papers was accepted is open access that the license is a CC by and then the journal rather than yourself found the situation a bit contradictory. That is quite unusual. And usually it will be CC by and then your own name as you copyright owner. It could be that you have signed something that says that the journal has the copyright to that to that version of the article so that they might own the copyright to that iteration of your work. So that published version of your work that they've published within their journal. And hopefully you would still own the copyright to the the full text and rather than that individual instance of the work published in the journal. But that would be unusual. But that could be the situation that it is. But you would kind of need to follow up with the the journal or the editor and just to clarify that. But where it's CC by you would still be able to reuse it anyway. However you wanted you just have to attribute to the the published version which you'd be doing anyway. If you were citing the work you'd cite it in the journal it was published in. So it shouldn't be too much of a problem. But it is kind of an unusual situation. Can you use these licenses on your own blog? I not through a journal. Yes. Yes. So I've been talking about these licenses within the context of open access journals. But these licenses can be assigned on anything you create. And so you might have noticed at the start of the presentation I had a statement on these slides that said they were CC by the University of Essex. So I just I've just licensed them in that way. On our web pages on our library website for example at the bottom of our web pages we have CC by the University of Essex. And so they're not exclusively for journals and journal articles. That's just the context I've been speaking about them. And so yes you could use a license like that on your blog. And assuming that the blog site you're hosting on doesn't have its own kind of umbrella licensing for all of the content on there. But yes they're not just for journal articles. And then the other question is about rights retention. I'm just about to talk about rights retention. So I'm going to talk about rights retention first and then I'll come back to your question to see whether I've answered it already or not. If that's OK to the person that's asked the question about rights retention. OK, so we've talked about publishing journal articles open access and I've spoken about open access journals and hybrid journals where you can publish open access with the journals. But they are not the only ways to publish work open access to publish journal articles, open access and increasingly research funders are asking for open access publications. So UKRI for example, all journal articles that are funded by UK research and innovation have to be published open access. So any any journal articles that acknowledge that funding must be published open access and this is the case for several different funders now and it's all kind of led by a group of research funders called coalition coalition S. So where funders are increasingly asking for open access publication and there are different ways that you can do this. So one way is by publishing in a fully open access journal. One way is to publish in hybrid open access journals and that are covered by reading published agreements, transformative agreements, whether journals have kind of committed to transitioning to fully open access and not going to too much detail on either of those here today because it's less focused on copyright. But the third way that you can make your work available open access if you're required to do so by your funder is to follow the Greenroot open access, which is where you self archive a version of your publication. But there has to be a zero month embargo period. So this is really important for funder compliant because research funders ask for full and immediate access to journal articles that acknowledge their research funding. So this immediate access is really important because earlier when I was speaking about publishing in a subscription journal, I mentioned that often within the copyright transfer agreements and journals and publishers are saying that yes, you retain the rights on your author's accepted manuscript, but you're only allowed to publish them open access after six months, for example, or 12 months or 24 months even. And in some cases, you don't even keep the copyright to author's accepted manuscript. In some cases, you sign that either as well. So this can be really problematic for complying with funders policies. If you're publishing in a subscription journal, because you need to be making a version of your paper immediately available open access on publication. If your journal is saying you can't make it immediately available open access, and your funder is saying you must make it immediately available open access, you can see how there can be a mismatch between the agreements there with your journal, or your publisher and with your funder. And this can lead to quite a complicated situation where you're going to have to be in breach of one of those. So because of that, research funders have come up with something called rights for attention, or they encourage this. And it's a way to ensure that you as the author are able to deposit a version of your publication within a repository immediately on publication. So you're able to achieve this green open access with a zero amount in Bargo period by using rights for attention. So what do I mean by this then? Right retention sounds like something really complicated and something that you need to be a copyright expert to understand. But it isn't. All rights for attention is is the adding of this statement that you can see on the slide to your submission. So this statement here says for the purpose of access, the author has applied a CC by public copyright license. So that's the Crota Commons attribution license to any author accepted manuscript. So again, that version post peer review, but before any of the journal formatting and type setting. So to any authors that do manuscript version arising from the submission. So you have to include that statement when you submit to the journal. And that's because you need to be giving the journal prior license or prior warning that you're going to be doing this. So before the journal has put in any work or any effort and finding any peer reviewers doing any of the copy editing, anything that the journal does to add value to your publication. They know that you as the author are setting your rights, applying a CC by license on the authors accepted manuscript that doesn't even get exist. This is really important because legally that that's when you have you have to do it before they have put any of the work into it. And what this means in practice for authors then is that you retain the copyright on the author's accepted manuscript. And not only do you retain copyright, you're already licensing it under a CC by license. And as I just mentioned, once you've placed a license on something that can't be changed. And this cannot be overruled by any journal policy. So even if the journal policy still stipulates that there must be a six month embargo period on the authors accepted manuscript. For example, and even if you sign that, and it that will be overruled by this statement because you've already licensed that authors accepted manuscript under a CC by license. And that then means that you can reuse that authors accepted manuscript however you like. So you can deposit it within an institutional repository immediately on publication. And it won't be a problem because you're keeping control of your authors accepted manuscript, you're licensing it openly. And you're allowing your work to be shared as openly as you want. So this is really important for funded compliance. If you need to publish immediately open access and you're not publishing a subscription or hybrid journal. But more than that, it's really important for authors to retain their rights to assert their rights to keep control of their work to be in control of how their publications are being used, reused, shared all of these kind of things. And increasingly, institutions are developing institutional policies on rights retention where the default is that authors add this statement on submission to any journals for all of their publications whether their research is funded or not. And we encourage that at Essex as well. It's not a policy here yet, but we say it's really good for authors to do this if they want to. And if they're happy to, it helps us kind of a backstop of if you're unsure or unclear about any funded policy you might have or any kind of compliance you might need for the ref, for example, any of those kind of things. But also just in terms of it ensures that you can always make a version of your publication available open access, regardless of what you might be signing with your publisher or with your journal. So it's a really powerful tool. It's a movement that's really developed very quickly in academia across the UK, but also across Europe, North America. It's really developing quite quickly. And it's something that is really empowering for authors and for researchers to get this control back over their publications. So I'm just going to reread that question. So could you explain how Writes Retention works? You advised by University to include Writes Retention's statement in your papers and that you will have the ceasefire license, regardless of what the publisher asked you to sign as the university now has a legal agreement. If the publisher comes back saying I violate anything, their issue would be to deal with the university, not me. Yes. So this can be another benefit of institutional policies on Writes Retention. And what some universities are doing is they're actually going to publishes and giving them the prior license themselves and saying that all publications authored by the University of X are the authors are applying a CC by license to any authors accepted by any script arising from the submission. So they're kind of doing this bit for the authors and giving those publishers that prior warning and exactly as the the person that's asked the question is described then if there were any legal issues, they would go back to the university rather than to the author themselves. What I should say though is generally, we haven't seen and I say we meaning the sector as a whole, not just us here at Essex, and we haven't seen legal situations really arising from this. And it's becoming so common now and publishers couldn't really push back too much on the authors because authors ultimately give journals and publishes the content for them to publish. So if they were to reject papers that they saw this on, they wouldn't then have any content to publish in that way. So it's thinking about the fact that authors are the ones that have controlled here. Authors are the ones with the power really. And it's just a setting that through this kind of movement. Hopefully that answers the question in the chat there. I see another question here. Does this apply globally? Yes. So created comments at speech and license are globally recognized. So it should be, legally it should be, it should work if that's the right kind of terminology. Globally, whether all journals around the world would be familiar with this as a concept, I couldn't answer so much for. But again, I haven't heard any scenarios where it's become particularly problematic. But it is still new, it is still developing. But generally, it's a really positive move for authors. Okay, so I think that's enough to be said about rights attention for the moment and the kind of journal articles more, more widely. And so I'm going to move on now to talk a bit about publishing books and monographs, because they work in a slightly different way. And generally, when you're publishing a book, the publisher asks the author to assign certain rights. And so usually, like with the journal article, you sign a copyright transfer agreement when you're publishing a book or you're signing your contract and it will have lots in there about copyright. And usually you're assigning quite specific rights to the publisher. For books, it does vary a bit more than it does tend to for journal articles. And so they tend to differ quite a lot between publisher. And so just as it is important to read for journal articles, potentially even more important to make sure you understand your copyright agreement for signing when publishing a book. But generally, there's three different ways this can work. In some situations, you might assign the copyright to the publisher. And that would be where the publisher then owns the work, they own the full text of the book. And usually then the author gets royalties or payments, a certain percentage that will be agreed in the contract, as when that book is sold. So that's when you assign the copyright entirely. For exclusive rights, it will be where the author would usually keep the copyright. But they're giving the publisher the exclusive right to publish their work. So the author, even though they retain the copyright, isn't allowed to publish or disseminate their work elsewhere or with any other publisher. Or there might be non exclusive rights, which is where again, the author would usually keep the copyright to the work. And dissemination might be allowed, but republishing with another publisher usually isn't. So they tend to be the three most common scenarios with publishing books. And but growing is open access monograph publishing as well. So this is the same concept as publishing journal articles open access. So it will be where you would publish your monograph or book under a Creative Commons license, the exact one Creative Commons licenses we've just spoken about in terms of journal articles. And often the open access version would obviously be online. And often there will still be print book sales alongside that. And so you often have the open access version available online. And then usually the publisher will publish some print books as well that can then be sold. And the question there, what's the difference between dissemination and republishing? Dissemination might be sharing it on a sharing the text on an institutional repository, for example, of your book. So if you retain the copyright and you're only giving the publisher a non exclusive license to publish, you might be able to disseminate your work within an institutional repository or within academia.edu or something like that. But you wouldn't be able to republish the work as a whole with another publisher or as kind of a whole book published in that way. Hopefully that kind of makes sense. But it is kind of a bit of a gray area then. So yeah, with open access books, that's the way that it will work. You publish the book under a Creative Commons license just as you would a journal article. And open access book publishing is behind open access journal publishing journal articles. But increasingly funders are also asking for monographs to be published open access as well. And for the ECRM in particular, from January, it's going to be that any monographs that acknowledge ECRR funding should also be made available open access. But it isn't going to be immediate like for journal articles that it's going to be up to 12 months after publication to be made available open access. So we're kind of still waiting on the exact guidance and exact exceptions and criteria from UKRI. But it just shows that there is this shift to open access for monographs as well. And potentially it could mean that right pretension becomes relevant for monograph publishing too. So it's kind of a watch this space situation with that at the moment. Okay, so that's all I wanted to talk about specifically about publishing and copyright. Now I'm going to talk a bit about copyright implications when you're teaching, because copyright can affect what can be used in your teaching materials, things like your presentation slides, all of those kind of content. But also it can affect what can be included on online reading lists. So online reading lists have become a massive part of teaching and including copyright materials on those reading lists is important to understand when you're generating the course materials that you have any modules that you might be teaching. So when we're thinking about copyright and teaching, one of the key things to keep in mind or to know whether your institution has or not is a CLA license for higher education. So this is copyright licensing agency license and institutions, universities pay to have these copyright licensing agency licenses to enable them to make it easier to reuse copyrighted content for teaching. So not every institution has a CLA license. So it is important to find out if your institution does. But if you do have a CLA license, it means that you will be able to copy copyrighted content from books, journals and magazines and so kind of print content and more so than you can without a license. So the license allows people educational establishments to copy up to 10% or one chapter, whichever is greater of a book or one journal article within one issue of the same journal. So when you're making copies under the terms of the CLA license, copies can only be shared with students and staff at the institution. So generally, in order to do that, the copies made under the terms of the license are kept within pathway protected locations like a virtual learning environment, Moodle, for example, or usually with it in online reading list platforms. So things like Talus as Viya, for example, which is the reading list platform we use here at Essex. And the really important thing to know when you're making copies or when your institution is making copies under the CLA license is that they do need to be reported to a CLA annually. So usually because of that, copies that are made under the terms of the CLA license are usually hosted in one place, usually within the, usually within reading systems, online reading systems, because usually there are mechanisms in place with these online reading systems that allow a kind of level of automatic reporting to the CLA license to the CLA, sorry, not the CLA license. So at your institution, you might see that you're being asked that any scans need to be hosted through particular platforms, and that will likely be why. And because reporting needs to be done back to the CLA. Some materials aren't covered by the CLA license. So the CLA license isn't able to just give permission to copy 10% or one chapter from every single book ever written. It covers a lot of content, but in some cases, material isn't covered by the license. So in some cases, you might need to apply for permission directly from publishers to be used. If that's something that your institution offers. So it's just to be aware that not every single piece of work ever written is covered by a CLA license, even if your university does have a CLA license. I can see a question in a chat about publishing. So I'll come back to that at the end while we just talk about teaching. So the CLA license is one license your university might have, but you also might have an ERA license. And this is for the Educational Recording Agency. And again, this is a license specifically for higher education. So it is about educational use. So what the ERA license allows is it allows broadcasts, so things like television programs, films that have been broadcast via the television and radio broadcasts to be made available for educational use via VLAs, again, online regional systems or embedded within presentations or shown within teaching context, so within seminars and lectures and things like that. So the educational aspect of it is really, really important the ERA license can't be used just to show films for entertainment, for example, and certainly not for any commercial activity. And again, the materials can't be shared on public platforms, so it's best to stick to virtual learning environments and reading lists. The main way that the ERA license is actually used within the UK is to allow institutions to subscribe to Box of Broadcasts or BOB. So this might be something you have access to at your institutions. And Box of Broadcast is a online database that has lots of TV programs and films that have been broadcast in the UK available to view and to download. So the ERA license is really important for enabling that service to go ahead. So if you subscribe to Box of Broadcasts, it's very likely that you also have an ERA license. But again, do find out at your institutions whether you have those licenses available to you. OK. So where the sharing or reusing of materials for teaching isn't covered by either of those two licenses or any other blanket license you might have, you can rely on copyright exceptions to share resources for teaching. And that's because Section 32 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act does refer to an exception illustration for instruction. So. There are lots of other copyright exceptions within UK copyright law that can be relevant. But Section 32 is the most relevant for teaching and because it is specifically about illustration for instruction. So the reuse under the terms of this exception must be non commercial purely for instruction and must also have sufficient acknowledgement. So acknowledgement is always really important when you're making copyright decisions. And the thing with copyright exceptions is they are somewhat open to interpretation as with lots of things in copyright. So for example, non commercial seems quite straightforward. But within UKHE we do charge students to come to university. So can we really see this as non commercial? The general consensus is yes. And this exception issues widely across UKHE because we do work on a not for profit basis. So it's not seen as a commercial activity in the same way. We can see how this might still be kind of open to interpretation. Also, the for instruction aspect has previously been interpreted as being just for in class materials. But the general agreement now is that online platforms have become so much a part of education that they are an essential part of teaching. And therefore they're just an extension of the classroom. So using kind of VLEs and those sorts of things to host materials made under copyright exceptions is seen as fine as well. But we do need to ask kind of the standard fair dealing questions. So fair dealing is a concept within copyright. So we need to kind of ask ourselves is what we're using under the terms of this exception directly relevant to what is being taught? Is it really essential for the lessons that we're giving to our students? Are we reproducing an unreasonable proportion of the original? So there isn't a set limit to how much you can use under a copyright exception, but generally you need to only be using exactly what you need for the point of trying to make. So if you're making a copy of 50 percent of an entire text available under a copyright exception, usually this wouldn't be seen as fair and you'd be producing a reproducing an unreasonable amount. And really that that reuse would become would have become a replacement for purchasing additional copies, which isn't seen as fair either. Also have to think about whether the reuse could damage the interest of the copyright owner in any way and thinking about whether you've acknowledged the author and the source adequately and so have you directed people to the original source and all of those kind of things. With copyright that is open to interpretation, there is quite a lot of discussion that maybe goes on, especially when making decisions around whether the use is fair under these kind of copyright exceptions. But a general good rule of thumb that we always say within my team is put yourself in the shoes of the copyright owner. We've just been talking about copyright from a publishing perspective. Very often in academia copyright users are also copyright holders in some form or other. So imagine if you will work would you be happy with your work being reused in the way that you're reusing someone else's and putting yourself in that position, seeing it from both sides can usually help with establishing whether the reuse is fair or not, but also usually you'll have someone at your institution who can answer questions and be a sounding board and have these discussions about whether reuse is fair or not. So get in touch with your copyright team or you know similar kind of people at your institution and ask those questions and have those discussions. We're going to go on now to answer some common copyright questions to get there, but before I do that I'll just answer the two questions in the chat. So as an author our book chapters the same as four monographs. Would you ask the editors about making open access? Yes. So book chapters within edited collections for example often can be made available open access, either the individual chapters or it might be the whole edited collection, but if you're just a chapter author and you want your chapter to be open access, definitely do ask the editor about that. It might be that you can pay to make your chapter available open access with the publisher or it might be that you can make your chapter available open access via an institutional repository for example for free as well and in quite a lot of situations for edited collections individual chapters can be made open access via a repository. And also if you are a single author on a whole monograph often again the self archiving policies of the publishers mean that one individual chapter could be made open access via a repository even if the whole text of the full book isn't open access. So yes, we'd definitely ask the editor about that. And then the other question what happens when a higher education institution prints out copies of the PDF version of a 20th century book online. So if a university is printing out copies of PDF chapters and circulating them and printing out usually if it's an ebook for example then individuals are able to download and print chapters and that isn't a problem. I think that's what you mean but it's where you're kind of making scans from print versions that we're talking about as needing to report the CNA rather than students for example being able to print copies and circulate them or institutions being able to print copies of ebooks that they do have access to and circulating those so that students have an alternative format and usually that's a different kind of issue and isn't normally a problem. I think that's what you mean but if you want me to clarify that any more feel free to ask again. OK, so what we're going to do now is I'm going to launch a poll because we're going to be looking at some common copyright questions and I'm going to be asking you for each one and whether you think the answer is yes no or it depends. So each question is going to have the same answers but there will be different questions and then I'll ask you guys to put in the chat any thoughts you have about why you think that is the case. So why you've given that answer and there will be some discussion there might be some gray areas and so don't be afraid to answer honestly. So I'm just going to launch the poll now if I can find the poll button. Oh, so we go and. Let's just look back and do this one. OK, so hopefully you can all see that question now. So we've got the question on the slide. Do I own the rights to my PhD and then I'm going to ask you yes no or it depends. So if you're a PhD student do you own the rights to your PhD? And I'll just give you you know that seconds or so to answer that. And if anyone has any thoughts on why they've put their answer then please do put those in the chat so that we can kind of have a discussion a bit about why why you think that is the case. OK, so I'm going to end this poll and share the results. So we had. Most people are voting yes that you do own the rights to your PhD and some people have voted it depends and I can see someone else coming in the chat say someone said about sponsorship terms and whether they're doing a sponsor PhD and someone's put put yes to be honest I have a doubt so you doubt about whether you do or not. So the people who have written yes I'd say in lots of situations the answer would be yes. So here at the University of Essex the answer is yes. Our PhD students do own the rights to their PhD and that will be the most common across the UK I would say and the majority of PhD students do own the rights to their PhD because as students they're paying to study there. So they own the rights to their PhD. In contrast often academic staff the IP of their their publications and sometimes the copyright as well is owned by the institution because they're there to work so it's kind of content created during their time of work but often the institutions then give it back give the copyright back to the authors but anyway I digress. For PhD students generally yes but for those who said it depends it can depend between institutions and also it can depend if as people are saying in the chat if you are doing a sponsored PhD then do check the terms of your kind of funder or your sponsor of whether they do still give the whether they say that they must have the copyright to the PhD that comes the thesis at the end of it. Okay so the next question then can I use images I don't own in my PhD thesis? So should be relaunching the poll but it doesn't seem to be doing well. Well seems to just be going about the same one again. Okay let's try this. Yes so same answers to choose from but the other question there can I use images I don't own in my PhD thesis? And again please do feel free to put any thoughts you have on this in the chat and a bit more of a mix of answers this time. Just give you a couple more seconds to vote. Okay so someone has put in the chat that they think it comes under fair use. We've got an exact split between yes and it depends and a couple of no's so the answer is yes. So as Colin has said in the chat it comes under fair use. So yes there's a copyright exception for education and research that means you can use a reasonable amount so where it's deemed fair use you can use a reasonable amount of someone else's work within a PhD thesis because the thesis is a method of assessment. It is a piece of work that's being used for education and research. So you can therefore use images that you don't own within your PhD thesis but they must be properly cited properly acknowledged as well because that comes into the fair use aspect of it. Okay so the next one then we've got can I include the images I used in my research in my publication? So if we think back to the previous question we were using images within our PhD thesis if you then wanted to go on to publish that thesis could you use those images that you don't own in your publication? And can any thoughts in the chat very welcome? So let me end the poll and share the results. So we've had a bit of a mixture again but we've had most people saying yes with quite a few it depends and a few no's so quite static on this one. So the answer here would actually be it depends and people have written in the chat here about this. So permission would be required except public domain images. You can use them but only after seeking permission and possibly paying yes exactly. So it's different here to a publication than when it's your PhD. So I mentioned about PhD thesis being used for education and assessment whereas a publication, remember the very first thing I spoke about today was about clearing copyright for third party materials. So once you're publishing work you do need to seek permission unless you're using public domain images or any images that are published under a CC by license or any of those CC by licenses you would be able to use them as long as you're abiding by those terms. So for just CC by you just need to give attribution for CC by MC for example you'd need to make sure you weren't publishing commercially. For MD you'd have had to not made any significant changes and for the SA you'd need to be sharing it under the same or not more restrictive license. But as Colin says, if the images where they aren't licensed openly you would need to seek permission and possibly may need to pay as well. So it is really important to keep that in mind and the reason I do these two questions one after the other is that sometimes people use images within their PhD thesis and it's fine and they haven't sought permission to use them and then they want to publish their PhD thesis and then it becomes a problem if they don't know where they've got those original images from or they have to then spend a lot of time going back to clear the copyright of them. I can see some questions coming through about this. So Gabriela, if you use pictures you took during your fieldwork you need to think about copyright. No, because if you're taking photos yourself you will be the copyright owner and still that wouldn't be a problem. So it's only when you're using someone else's images that you'd need to think about it. And the other one, taking a photo of a report or a document the credit is for you, the photographer or cite the original report publisher. This is a really good question and basically you get kind of different layers of copyright. So there would be two layers of copyright there if you were taking a photo of a report that someone else had done. Yes, you were doing the copyright in terms of the copyright of taking that photo but the copyright of that document would still exist. So you would still need to cite the original report publisher as well, so there'd be kind of two layers there. Okay, so we're going on to the next question. So can I reuse content from work that I have published before? So it's your work that you've published before and then you want to reuse it in another publication. Are those fighting any explanations in the chat? Very welcome. So on this one then, we've got most people saying it depends with a few guesses and one no. So it would be, it depends. So you can use them but only after seeking permission and all that, that's the previous answer, sorry. So yeah, Colin, this is the whole thrust of the talk. So it depends. It depends if you still own the copyright. So if you own the copyright to the work that you published before, then yes, you would be able to reuse them in future publications but if you have signed over the copyright to your previous work, then you would need to seek permission from the current copyright owner just as if you hadn't authored it at all because once you're not the copyright owner anymore, your author rights wouldn't be there in the same way. Whichever way it is though, make sure you still self cite. So even if you still own the copyright, so if you've published open access, for example, you still own the copyright, you can reuse anything from it in your later work but you still need to self cite where you're reusing your own work. So let's go on to the next one then, which you'll see is quite a similar question. So we're thinking, can I reuse figures from my published work in future works? I'm not going to give you as long on this one because it is very closely related to the one previously but there is a particular reason why I've asked this one separately, okay? So most people have written, it depends, which yes, again, exactly the same as the previous one, it depends on whether you still own the copyright. The reason I've asked this one separately is because I wanted to highlight a website called FigShare and this is just one of the websites that can be used in this way. But if you're creating figures, feel creating graphs and any of those kind of things, kind of, yeah, diagrams, models, anything like that. If you want to, you can upload those figures, graphs, et cetera on a FigShare. It will then create a DOI for that work and you assign a license to it. So you assign a Creative Commons license. That means then that you own the rights to that figure and you can then use it in different publications and cite your own figure. So what that enables you to do then is if you've created a figure, a graph, et cetera, that you've published on FigShare, you've got the DOI, you've got the CCBiLicence, if you then use that figure within your journal article and your journal article is published in a subscription journal, you wouldn't be signing over the rights of that figure to the journal because it's its own entity, it's its own separate licensed figure and you could then reuse that figure more widely than you'd be able to reuse the article itself. So that's just a tip for you there on kind of figures, models, graphs, things like that, you might be creating, that if you publish them early as you're creating them, put them on FigShare, get a license, then get a DOI, you can reuse them and that would be the case for data as well if you're publishing data, those kind of things. So keep that in mind to think about the different layers of your own work as well rather than thinking only about that final and published piece. The next one then, thinking a bit about teaching, can you put your reading materials on a virtual learning environment? So thinking here about scans of, say as an example, could you put a scan of a chapter on your virtual learning environment? And any reflections or thoughts or reasonings on this in the chat, also very welcome. So I'll share these ones. So we've got mostly yes, a couple of noes and some it depends as well, so quite scattered on this one too. So yeah, it does depend. So this does vary by institution. So if they're making scans under the terms of a CLA license, the Copyright Licensing Agency license, there needs to be a mechanism in place for reporting. So yes, as just had in the chat, must be clear permissions and talk to your library. So if you're not sure about this, talk to your library, find out if they're using a CNA license, find out where you need to be uploading those materials. It might be that the VLA is fine. It might be that you need to use your online reading list platform because that's where reporting happens. So do check with your reading list team or you know, Copyright Advisor about how it works at your institution. So it does depend, but usually there is a way to share their materials in some way or another. Next one then, I wrote the chapter so I can do whatever I like with the full text. And so you've written a book chapter and you can now do whatever you like with it. So most people have answered no to this one with some it depends on a few, yes. So you might be starting a trend here with lots of copyright, it does depend. And again, it does depend on how you've published that chapter. So do you still own the copyright to it? When you say I can do whatever I like with the full text, do you mean the final published version of the text? Do you mean the original text you submitted to the publisher? Do you mean the version after peer review, but before the kind of the formatting and copy editing? It really does depend on what you mean by this. The reason I put this chapter in is because within our reading this team, authors can get quite frustrated because they want to use their chapters for their teaching within their modules, which I absolutely understand. And they think then that sometimes the rules around kind of licensing and sharing and these kind of things don't apply if they wrote the chapter. And I can see why that would be really frustrating if you were told you couldn't reuse your chapter in the way you want to. But this is why it's really important to know about what you're signing when you're publishing, to understand what your rights still are, and to think about rights of attention if that is something that's really important to you to keep the rights over a version of your publication. Okay, next one then. It's freely available online so I can share it with my students. So thinking here about the sources that you find online, freely available, you can use it with your students for teaching. Happy to hear any thoughts in the chat too. So majority of people have said yes on this one with quite a few people also saying it depends. It does depend because not all materials that are freely available online are legitimate. So Megan has put from an open access point of view it's best practice to share links and individual downloads. Yes, so that's a really good point and that's not what I was thinking at all but it's a really good point to make that if we are talking here about an open access journal article, for example, it is best practice to share the link to where it's published online so people can get the kind of download stats that all of those kind of things. And also so that you know you're linking to the most state version, all of those kind of things. Rather than just downloading the PDF and sharing the PDF even if it is an open access resource, best practice is still to share the link. So thank you for highlighting that Megan. But also what I'm thinking here is not everything that's freely available online is legitimate, we can't police the internet. There will always be things online that aren't legally able to be there but in these situations kind of a responsibility to not be openly directing our students to these kind of resources. If we know that they're not legitimate resources or they're not legally able to be hosted online in the way that they are. So I think this is the second, last one or maybe the third, last one. So we've got here, I only want to use a few pages so it's fine to scan and share. So we're thinking about a print book and we want to just use a few pages of it so it's fine to scan it and share it with our students. So I'm just bringing in a bit more of a mix of answers. So we really have got a mix here and I think that it's absolutely fair that there is a mix here because you can interpret this in different ways and we've got in the chart here it depends on what 10% is. So the 10% rule is definitely relevant if you're making the scan under the terms of the CLA license. So the 10% is what the CLA license dictates you are able to scan if the material is covered by the license. So yes, if it was under 10% and it was covered by the CLA license it would be fine to scan and share. If it isn't covered by the CLA license or if your institution doesn't have a CLA license it can still be a legitimate point under copyright exceptions thinking about fair use. Generally, if you're using 5% or less of a work and you were probably citing it and all of those kind of things generally this would be seen deemed as fair under that education and illustration for instruction exception because you wouldn't be reusing a disproportionate amount or using the scan of a couple of pages as a replacement for purchasing additional copies. So generally that would be seen as fair but we do still have to be able to source the material from a legitimate source and we still need to be making those acknowledgements and having those thoughts and conversations around it. Okay, so this one is the second, last one. So it's very old, so copyright doesn't apply. This isn't something we've really touched upon yet but it's just a point I wanted to make before we end the discussion today. Okay, so we've got a bit of a mix again. So mostly yeses and it depends on that few nos. So this one again is and it depends within UK copyright law 70 years after an author's death written works in the UK and no longer covered by copyright law but you do need to keep in mind that international laws differ and you also need to keep in mind that while the text itself becomes out of copyright 70 years after an author's death the copyright remains on like an actual book. So the kind of the way the text is laid out the way it's been published, the way it's been formatted within a book would still have copyright. So for example, if we were to think about Pride and Prejudice, the text by Jane Austen that the text is out of copyright. It was written, Jane Austen died lots more than 70 years ago but the Penguin fourth edition of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice isn't out of copyright that individual book. I couldn't just stand the entirety of that book and share it because the book isn't out of copyright. It's the original text. So the text could be typed up online and downloaded online in just a plain text form but the book itself wouldn't be. So it's important to think about those kind of layers of copyright as well around this. Rules also vary for other materials. So broadcasts for example are protected 50 years from the date of the broadcast was made in UK copyright law. But when things are out of copyright, they're determined to be in the public domain and then they can be used. Also Colin has just highlighted in the chat that there are some kind of more unique situations like the copyright might still be owned by an institution. So for example, Peter Pan, I believe the copyright for Peter Pan I know this incorrectly previously but I believe that the copyright was donated to is it Great Ormond Street Hospital? Something along those lines anyway. So there can be these kind of specific situations where copyright has been transferred in a way that doesn't go by the general rules of UK copyright law but generally that is the way that it would work. Okay, and then the final thing just to end on and this is really just something to reflect on but I will let you all vote again. So no one will know and it will help my students so it's fine to use. Okay, so we've got almost consensus on this one. So the majority of people have said no. So yeah, I think about if you'd written the work and we spoke earlier about putting yourself in the shoes as a copyright owner, you would want others to respect the work. It can also affect people's kind of metrics in terms of downloads and views like we were just saying about the open access articles. So think about that side of things if you were the author as well. We also have to manage risks within the institutions and while individual risks might be low of kind of you might think, I'm just gonna scan this and it'll be fine. No one will know those kind of things. There could be serious for computational and financial ramifications on kind of a university level if this were to go on on a large scale. But generally I think aside from all of that, copyright isn't there to be a restriction on reuse. Copyright is there to help protect authors and protect copyright owners and empower authors. And we were speaking about that earlier with rights retention and making sure authors get the credit they deserve, get the recognition they deserve and all of those kind of things. So I do understand that sometimes when we're thinking about copyright from a teaching perspective, it might be frustrating to think, I just wanna get this material out to my students and the easiest way possible and sometimes copyright can prevent that. But really if we think about copyright from a rights of the author, rights of the creator kind of point of view, you see it through a completely different lens and you appreciate why copyright is there, why it's there to help protect the authors but also while it's there to give authors the power for their work to be used in the way that they want it to be. Thinking about those creator commons licenses, thinking about the way authors can choose which of those they want so that their work can be reused in the way that they are happy with. Copyright is empowering rather than restricting when you view it from that perspective. So I just wanted to end on that today. Otherwise, thank you very much for coming on to the session today. I hope that you found it helpful and you've learned a bit about copyright and maybe feel a bit more empowered yourself either as an author or as an educator or as someone that makes copyright decisions to think that there are gray areas with copyright, that are things open to interpretation. You do have to reason things through sometimes but that's fine and it's fine to ask and to have discussions about copyright and think about the ways we can use copyright to our benefit. So I hope that you've taken that away with you today. If anyone has any questions, thoughts or ideas that they want to share with me now, please do feel free to do so. But I've also added my email address there if anyone wanted to get in touch at all and you can also follow me on LinkedIn or Instagram if you wanted to ask me anything. Sorry, not Instagram, LinkedIn or Twitter, X, whatever I call it now. If you wanted to get in touch or find out any more. Thank you very much.