 Welcome to another webinar number 61 in the series of copyright and online learning at a time of uncertainty. So I'm Chris Morrison and I'm Jane Secker and we are the co-chairs of the Association for Learning Technologies, Copyrights and Online Learning, Special Interest Group. We've got an exciting one for you today. It's going to be a really good session, so let me just get those slides back up and we can explain a bit. It doesn't look like a particularly exciting slide here, but it shows that there are two items today, copyright news and coming up next. So it is a copyright news special. We'll talk more about that and introduce our special guest in a moment. Shall we, before we do that, say a little bit about what's been happening since we last met? Yeah, let's go for it. So this is two weeks ago, isn't it now, that we were in Cambridge at the LILAP conference, the Information Literacy Conference and we had a lot of fun, didn't we? We had a session on podcasting for teaching and learning. I called it the chatting info, had a copy of Zilla Waffle mash up at LILAP. So there were three different podcasting teams coming together to do one live podcast recording at the University of Cambridge. I took all my toys with me, didn't I? All the toys, but it was a brilliant conversation and really good to actually meet face-to-face the chatting info-lit guys. So it's a new podcast that is the new professionals of the Information Literacy Group and they've released two episodes of their podcast. I think this one's going to be the third one. They're talking to us as well as Mark Childs, who is one of the geniuses behind Pedagod Zilla. And we kind of talked about podcasting more broadly, how it could apply to Information Literacy, play some silly songs. Talked a bit about copyright. Talked a little bit about copyright. Funnily enough. But also more broadly about Information Literacy. Yeah. And yeah, it was great. It was. It was really good. The only dampener I found out yesterday, I've got a parking ticket from the parking at the hotel. We'll have to deal with that another time. Oh no. You don't need to go into that. Yeah, that just needs to have a little bit of crying out and get some tugging of the heartstrings. Oh dear. Well, that's teach, take all that audio equipment. There we go. It required an enormous van. It was a bit like when the BBC go out on tour. It was a little bit. The amount of equipment that you were taking with you. Okay, so enough of that. Enough of that. But oh, just to say that the, so we did record that podcast. It's going to be the chatting info-lit third podcast. So if you, I would recommend you have a listen to that. If you're involved in any way in Information Literacy, it's really good and they're building up a, you know, a really good, you know, basic entry into being an Information Literacy professional. Definitely. So we'll get a link in the chat in a moment. And they look a bit like Fleetwood's Mac. Oh, so they do. Yes, absolutely. This is a reminder that the archive of webinars, recordings there on our blog, the copyright literacy.org blog, as well as the YouTube channel that's there. So again, we can share links in a moment. I think everybody here is pretty familiar with where those things are. We're wearing the ice pops t-shirts today. We are. We are from last year. So this is a reminder. Bookings are still open. They're coming in. Bookings are still open. They're going to be open for a while. They're only recently just open. They have, yes. A reminder. When's this taking place? It is taking place on 19th to the 21st of July and the University of Glasgow. And the main conference is going to be on the 20th of July. But we've got a pre-conference event, which we'll be looking at sort of ebook issues, ebook licensing, organised by our Kenny to create. We have Kenny Bar on the call today. So hello to Kenny, whose project is going to be, you know, hosting that event. And that's going to be really fascinating. We've got Kyle Courtney, haven't we? We have. Coming from Harvard, who's going to continue to. Someone who's at Alison Halske, if they get three t-shirts. I saw that at Alison. I think we could probably, you know, do a deal on cheap cut price t-shirts. Cut price t-shirts. Yeah. Well, I think we need a 2023 t-shirt. We do. What colour should it be? Yeah. Comments in the chat, please. We had grey for the first one, didn't we? We did. Yeah. We have red for the most recent one. Yeah. But we'll have to get a Glasgow t-shirt. Yeah. We have green for white stripes, gold for green. Yeah. Yeah. There's many. Try to avoid the range of t-shirts. Short t-shirts. Short t-shirts. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know. Well, if you're American, it's chartreuse. I don't know. I don't even know what colour it is. It's the uncoloured line. It's like a pale green. It's in the gear. Oh, okay. It's like made by monks. Okay. All right, yeah. Yeah. We'll get one of those. Okay. Thank you for that. Yeah. Right. Shall we move on from that? They've got lots of stuff to do with chatting. Yeah. Yes. Our webinar evaluation survey. I don't know if you can put the link in the chat to that. We've had over 50 responses so far to what you think of these webinars. We've been doing them now since 17th March, 2020. If you want it to all stop, this is your chance to tell us. If you don't want it to stop, this is also your chance to tell us. So, do fill in one of the, fill in the survey. Let us know what you think about the webinar. That would be really helpful. Slides have disappeared. Slides have disappeared again. Once again, it's once again, I think the Greenland Blackboard collaborates. It's, it always wants to throw us challenges, doesn't it? Right. In a moment, normal service will be resumed. In fact, we are now on to the main event. So, let us play. But it's not just copyright news. It's the copyright news special. So, you made a new jingle for that. No. Let's play again. Special, special, special, special, special, special with Matt Boyds from Ifler. Special with Matt Boyds from Ifler. Welcome, Matt. Hello. Hi. Hi. Great to be here. It's so good to have you joining us. So, I think we've mentioned, we've trailed the fact that you're coming on the webinar. I think we've mentioned you in previous ones, largely because we take many of the items from copyright news, actually from the newsletter. Change the story. Change the story. Your copyright news. We can have an intellectual property dispute over this, right in this episode, if we wanted to. Well, I think that's a good idea. Yeah, let's do that, perhaps. But before we get into that, can you, we'll have a bit of an introduction from you. Can you first of all tell us, so you're working at the Ifler, the International Federation of Library Associations, and you're working in policy there. And one of the things that you do is put together this copyright newsletter, which is fantastic. But can you tell us a little bit about what your role entails, what you've been involved in? Because you've been there for a little while, but it's a relatively recent position for you, isn't it? Yeah, yeah. I've been there a little over a year now. So I am the Copyright and Open Access Policy Officer there. So we're a relatively small team. It's policy and advocacy. And my role, it's one part research on how copyright issues affect librarians around the world. We of course have an international membership. So I'm in touch with libraries and library associations globally. It's one part advocacy in international forums. So I'm especially active at WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organizations, a standing committee on copyright and related rights, which meets in Geneva once or twice a year. So I speak at events like this. I speak on behalf of libraries in those international policy forums. I work with members on copyright-related issues, particularly the copyright and legal matters, copyright and other legal matters that we're still always deciding what the other legal matters are, committee, and also working on their open access related things. So I'm one part in talking to librarians, one part doing a bit of research, and one part international advocacy. Sounds like a fantastic job, Matt. Can you tell us a bit about, because you've got a background in digital anthropology originally, haven't you? So can you tell us a bit about how you got into working in this area of copyright? Yeah, yeah. So you know, I have a master's in digital anthropology. I'm originally from the US, as you might tell from the accent. We haven't, yes. We haven't. Sometimes mistaken for British, depending on the mid-western sort of tones. But I did my master's at UCL in London in digital anthropology, and I did my PhD at University of Nottingham. So I lived in the UK for about... Well, you are British then, basically. I'm just what you are. We're not occurring to my passport, but you know, I can take it. But before that, when I was an undergrad at Worker College in the US, I did a semester abroad in China. And this was through that, I had a bit of an opportunity to do some research. You know, I'm a huge movie fan at the time, and I thought I was going to China. I'm going to do some serious study. I'm not going to watch any movies for four months. And when I got there, I decided to systematize into research what I found, which was that, you know, within a 10-minute walk of where I was staying in Kuming, I could get to 20 different DVD shops, each with a minimum selection of 2,000 unique titles selling for 60 cents a piece then. And this was 2005, you know. So basically what I found on that is, okay, all these are all pirate discs that are being sold by these entrepreneurs. You know, China was manufacturing a lot of DVDs at the time, and you had some local entrepreneurs be like, okay, these don't have official releases. There's no way to get these movies. So let's just sell them in the street. And this shaped my outlook very much that it was like, okay, well, if it wasn't for this process, these movies would not be practically available. And if you were a young film fan in China, you couldn't get a hold of the recent Oscar nominees, you couldn't get a hold of Citizen Kane. You know, if you didn't have this, this is the process that that that is how it kind of sorted out. So someone posted digital anthropology like the Facebook tribe, I will say that one of the things that digital anthropology tends to do there is, there is some branches of it that are like, we're going to study online life. But the UCL branch was pretty, their thing was, they started out as material culture, which were these archaeologists who thought instead of studying like, you know, old pots and pans and pottery that we dug up, let's let's study how people use them in their houses today. And then they thought, okay, instead of, you know, studying these very material objects, you know, let's study something that has a reputation for immateriality like the internet. And much more about the idea is much more about how you use this digital technology, how does it affect your offline life. So it's about kind of grounding that offline. I my master's dissertation on that was at summer camps in America, I looked at how people use technology at summer camps for you, ostensibly go to get away from technology. And then refugees manage privacy on social, social media. And in between I've worked in marketing and journalism. So yeah, I'm familiar with it myself, just because probably, oh, 10, 15 years ago when I was at the LSE, we used a video a lot from an anthropologist called Michael Vetch, who you might know, who does a lot about studying this kind of what it means for human. And he did a sort of a study of his students of how much time they were spending online and made a video that kind of went a bit viral. I'll try and dig it out and put it into the chat. But, you know, it was kind of about students, as you say, they're kind of online and offline lives. And this idea of students, you know, increasingly spending more and more time using technology, spending time on their phones, on Facebook, etc, etc. And what impact that has. Yeah, excellent. Mike Wesh is a fellow midwester. He's from Iowa. He's based out of Kansas. And he's definitely one of the leaders in the field there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, great. Yeah, and we're definitely going to pick up on some of those threads, definitely, in some of the stories we're going to be covering, because a lot of reports we see in the media about copyright issues, I think often make assumptions about people's behavior and the way that people interact and the sort of cultural societal condition. And so we'll definitely be digging into that. Before we do, I know that we've got a question about, you mentioned Facebook tribe. Is that a term of art? Is that something you can explain to us what you mean or what is meant by that? You know, that was posted in the chat. It's not a technical term, as far as I know, but definitely, anything can be a tribe. Anything can be a community. And it's, I think, a question of what type of community. And I think you get it less now that I think when I started this, when I started my master's, it was 2011. And I think there was a lot more, it was an earlier time in social media's history. And there was still kind of a push to be like, we need to legitimize this as a site of social interaction. This is like an actual thing that people are doing online. The phones are, there's this idea that the phones are keeping us apart. And I think that's become less prominent in popular discussion in recent years, as people are much more aware of the fact that they're using their phones all the time. Yeah, absolutely. So things move on. And so to bring them to the news, let's bring us into the to the current day, the topic on everyone's list, or on everyone's lips, everywhere you go, everyone's talking about AI. Absolutely. It's the big hot topic, moral panic, opportunity, end of the world, however you want to, to badge it. So do you, are you able to just, you've got, we've got some stories. There seems to be something new every day on copyright and AI. So what have you got for us? Um, yeah, yeah. So did you, did you want to show the screen on these different stories that we talked about? Or should I be the one that shows that? If it's the, if it's the, the still ones, we could definitely bring them up. So give me a moment. So which one do you want to start with first? Is it the, we've got the EU legislation story, haven't we? Yeah, I think that's a good kind of springboard to, to discuss some, some other things that are, to discuss a lot of angles on that. So yeah, if you want to pull that up. So now you can see it. So this is a story on the verge, isn't it, that reported EU legislation to disclose AI training data could trigger copyright lawsuits. We'll just put that one in the chat for you if you want to follow that up. But yeah, take it away, Matt. Tell us about this story then. Yeah. So I think this is, this is interesting because, you know, you're seeing here, the EU trying to address some copyright, there's a lot of copyright issues related to AI is, has been talked about this webinar, you know, and is all over the news. And one aspect that this is trying to address is the data that goes into these machine learning training modules. You know, these, because these, these, to train an AI, you need a lot of content and you have to get that content from that somewhere. And a lot of places that are training these models are using copyright content. And this exists in a, there are a lot of different laws around the world. Some countries have explicitly put it into law that you can use these models, you can pump in the copyright data, you can put in whatever you want, use it to train others, there's restrictions on commercial use, others have, have outlawed it all, all right. And I'll put in the chat here, there's a group at American University, Pigeon, that I spent some time with them at, when we're in Geneva, WIPO, but they've done some good research. If you want to follow that up on what these laws are around the world. And there's been a number of different ways to address that. I think the most interesting one, the most interesting wording is from Japan, where the, the wording in the law, and this is all in English translation, of course, you know, I don't know what it specifically sounds like in Japanese, but it, it puts a limitation, it puts an exception in copyright law. If you want to use it for, use the material for purposes, not for enjoyment. So if you have content, if you, if you hate it, and you know, if you, if you hate the material and you don't enjoy it, I guess you can use it. But what they're, what they're, they're saying there, what, what they're saying there is that, you know, if you're used that art is for some kind of engagement, and if you're doing research or you're a machine, you don't have an investment, these processes, the, the use is a different purpose. So we're putting that law that, that you can use it for that. So text and data mining, the, the exceptions are, are fairly broad on that. I think with this particular law that's, this particular bit that's being proposed in the EU, it, it, it's an aim for transparency. It's an aim to say, all right, if you use this copyright content, let's identify that it's, it's been in use. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to directly lead to some legal consequences, but you wind up with some, some weird things like, you know, you may have seen the, the images that were being produced that the machine learning had produced the Getty watermark on the images themselves. You know, that's, that's a classic example there of clearly this is, this is copyright, but at the same time, there's a lot of compelling interest for using broader material in this because this data has to come from somewhere. And if you're just using publicly available sources, they have all kinds of biases. One of the most, one of this, I understand one of the more popular datasets to train on is a series of emails that were released from the Enron Corporation in 2001 after the company collapsed due to all kinds of very colorful malfeasance that you can look up. You know, they, there was a legal case. And as a result, the emails became public. And now it's a dataset, you know, several million emails from Enron that you can train your AI on. But, you know, you're training on material from a bunch of sociopaths. So that's corrupt corporate villains. And that's who we want the, the machines to, to bother themselves on. Yeah. I'll show you the case about Sogetty are kind of basically suing some of these image generating AI. So we've been experimenting a little bit in the team I work in with the one called Dali and, you know, getting it to generate some images. But obviously, you know, company like Getty pretty protective on their copyright, aren't they? And similarly, you've also highlighted a story where the Universal Music Group are doing the same thing with music, say that they wouldn't hesitate to take steps to defend their access. So the, the, the, the large content owners are clearly not happy. And there are shots certainly being fired across the boughs here. I'll put a link to that story in the chat as well. I think the interesting thing here is, you know, you mentioned that Japanese law and the idea of not enjoying something. But typically in copyright debates, we've, we've had this distinction, haven't we, between consumptive and non-consumptive use that if something is there to, you know, if it's being read or listened to or somehow consumed by human beings, then copyright restrictions are there in order to, to, to regulate the access. But if it's the non-consumptive uses, it's the use of the text and data mining to do the research, to understand within that data set. But it's now we're at this stage that was inevitably going to come. We all knew it was going to come, where it's starting to, to be kind of hybrid between that because it's, the stuff is being consumed by machines. They are then reproducing new works based on it. They're not just reproducing the works exactly as they were. But, but I think as you pointed out, Matt, the machine doesn't care, does it? The machine does what it was built to do. Exactly. I mean, I think that's one of the problems with AI is the machine doesn't know and doesn't care about any of this stuff. It doesn't care about copyright. It doesn't care about truth. It, it doesn't have a conception of truth. So, you know, you can't really trust it to understand context, whether that's about not producing infringing content or producing something where a degree of accuracy is important. You know, you ask, did this person commit a crime? Is this person alive? Please give me a bio of someone and it's, you know, it spits it out. It spits out a bio of someone who just doesn't even exist. There was a bit in Twitter. There was a Twitter comment I read where someone said they were from, from a library and a student came to them with a list of, a list of articles to find and they found out that the list had been machine generated and they were trying to find these articles that didn't exist. Because it makes up, doesn't it? That is the thing. It makes up conversations. I, I was playing with it and said, you know, write me an essay and put some citations in and they're just entirely made up. There's, you know, it's, it's, it wrote a biography of me saying I've written books I hadn't written that don't exist and things like that when I tried that as well. It's some of it, and it mixes that up as well. That's what I've seen. So, you know, it, it got the fact that Chris and I have written copyright and e-learning, but then it kind of created another book that we'd supposedly written. Yeah. I mean it'd be nice. It was nice. Didn't have to do any work. It's, it's associating words with other words and yeah, it might get that you're working in the field of copyright, but it doesn't understand why it would be important to get the precise title of something that you've written. It doesn't understand that you haven't written these books that it's talking about. It doesn't know what a book is. So as it turns out all these things are quite important. You know, you may not think about them when you're, you're talking every day, but it is quite important when, you know, when you realize it's not happening. So Diane's also mentioned that the inquirer's team at Exeter have had some experience of these fake references. I guess it's really something, you know, librarians are going to just have to be, have a heightened awareness of the, you know, before you spend the hours and hours looking at, you know, how to find some stuff on a reading list. Actually, a couple of questions about where did you get the reading list from in the first place? You know, it's yeah. I think the thing I'd be interested to get your thoughts on that is what the conversations we're having here about artificial intelligence within primarily educational and cultural heritage institutions are very much focusing on the ethics about what does this mean for us in our discourse and how people learn and how we express ourselves and how we create a, you know, a decent society. From my view, it looks like most of the things that are coming from the, certainly from the commercial organizations and looking at it from a legislative point of view in the world of copyright are very much focused on the money, on who gets to make money off these things. I mean, is there something from the, from the, from the library sector, from the area you're in? Is there something missing in that public debate? And is there something, if there are hoping to somehow influence? Well, I think for, I think for one, it's, it's in these international policy discussions like at, at Waipo. When we're there, there's a group of civil societies that were there and we kind of act together and we tend to be the ones that bring up the other half of copyright law, the other half that's not about profit, but it's about access and limitations and social good. But there is otherwise a kind of normative aspect in these conversations that's just like, well, the state of things is control and very intense rights management. And anything that violates that is something we automatically have to do something about. So that sort of normativity happens in those discussions as well. But one of the heartening things that I've seen really about the recent, you know, I mentioned about kind of where the conversation in digital anthropology, what it was, what it was really going against, you know, 10 years ago, 15 years ago. And I've really seen just a huge number of facets of the discussion that you can find online about what AI is doing and what the implications are. And that includes, you know, are these ethical violations that this also includes, can I offload some parts of my job that are just really formulaic, that are really prosaic? Can I offload that onto AI? Can I use AI to write a first draft of a paper? And I think if done carefully, you know, that's something where it really, there's a lot of potential there. If not done carefully, then you wind up with just gibberish, you wind up with, you know, a boss that is just going to hire an AI to do the copywriting. And I mean, interesting, you see in the writer's strike in Hollywood right now, there's some, I believe, provisions they're asking for in the new contracts that say that AI can't be used in the direction of scripts. And I understand why they'd want something like that in there. But also, I think, you know, I follow Paul Schrader, the writer, director of quality Facebook follow. And he was saying something about, you know, I think his idea was that, you know, you just still need to attach a human writer to it to get paid. And I think that might be a better situation there, because there are a lot of ways you could use these tools in writing. And I think being so active and having these, and I say that as somebody who's made a living in writing, you know, you know, there are a lot of ways that you can work with this. And I think, you know, listening to... Absolutely. I think like the first draft when you're getting stuck with, you know, something... Or maybe even a short story. Maybe even a short story. Is it time to share a little bit of the, I don't know if anyone's seen our latest blog post. Yeah, well, there's something of a thought experiment, wasn't it? It was a little bit. So, I mean, yesterday was what they call Star Wars Day, May the 4th. It was May the 4th. Yeah. And we're big Star Wars fans. But actually, this idea that the librarians are the kind of rebel alliance, I think it came out something we talked about. I think we invented it. I think it's just something we've become slightly fixated. Yeah. So, we basically, two weeks ago when we were at Lyok, we were in a session about chat GPT and AI and misinformation and all those kinds of concerns were being raised. And the presenter said something about, you know, like, let's get chat GPT to write a story about rebel librarians. And I was actually, I was nude and barred and I thought, yeah, I'm gonna, I'm gonna see what it comes up with. And it came up with a pretty... The year is 2042. The world is a very different place than it was just a few decades ago. The rise of artificial intelligence and automation has led to mass unemployment and the gap between the rich and the poor has grown wider than ever before. In this new world, knowledge is power and those who control the information control the future. That's where the rebel librarians come in. They are a group of dedicated professionals who believe that everyone should have access to knowledge, regardless of their ability to pay. They fight against the corporate interests, but are trying to privatize information and make it exclusive to the wealthy. So, it goes on. It has invented a whole character. Dr. Sarah Jones. Dr. Sarah Jones, if you're on this call, we need you now. It's a classic disaster movie set up. It is. Yeah. She's a brilliant librarian and a fierce advocate for open access. So, fantastic story. Sounds a bit like Emily Probinski. I think we should move on from AI. Because it's the word on everyone's lips, but there are other things happening. So, the next story that we were going to look at is about the Z library. Do you want to explain to us what Z library is slash was and what the situation is with that? Yeah. We'll put the link into that one in the chat for people as well. Yeah. Well, kind of, you know, kind of like LibGen, which is I think with articles, it's an online repository of books that completely disregards copyright restrictions. You know, if you want a book, you can find a copy of it there. Or at least you could. Now, I believe you have to go to the dark web, or you have to use Tor. You have to find ways around it because there was a complaint by the heart. I mean, there was going to be a complaint somewhere, but this one was from the Harvard business publishing and that led to the US blocking it. And this raises all kinds of issues about inequalities and access because, you know, around the world in institutions where it was not necessarily so easy to get a copy of a book, you know, if the book was not released, it was not released physically, if it was not released digitally, or even in the UK, in Europe, in America, if you're at an institution that is not as well resourced. And take as the examples they used, you know, it's like, well, the library would take two months to get this book. Well, I need to write my dissertation now. And, you know, someone who did a PhD, you know, all of this, this adds up, you know, these little pieces where it's like, oh, there's a delay here, there's a delay there. And there is a huge difference between if you're in a place where something like an IT issue can get resolved quite quickly, or if it just gets de-prioritized, and that's how you wind up going beyond your funding, that's how you wind up not finishing, that's how you wind up not getting publications necessary. So there are all kinds of ways that these are layers of inequalities that add up. And one of them, of course, is access to books. And one way around that for a lot of people was using something like Z Library. And again, it's, you know, this is, I think there's an assumption in a lot of these policy discussions that we're going to sort things out by providing access through these really structured means. And I think that doesn't really tell us about what happens when you step into reality, when you step outside of that, and there's all kinds of ambiguities of, all right, I need the book now, there's no digital copy, you know, or I need a book, and I'm in the middle of, you know, I'm in the middle of a country, I'm in Nigeria, I'm in Kazakhstan, or I'm in somewhere where it's not been built up as much. How do I get this? So this is in the middle of it, to Sihub, isn't it? And the kind of the work, you know, that, yeah, yeah, has done to sort of, you know, say that this is helping scholars around the world where they don't have access to this kind of content and highlighting, you know, some of the barriers to knowledge. Yeah, I mean, even, you know, even I can say, like, moving from the UK to the Netherlands, in the middle of it was, there was the move, but there was also Brexit. And when Brexit went through officially, then suddenly I found my access to British Amazon channels cut off my access to then HBO, and with it access to huge amounts of catalogs of film that were in the definition that just have not been sorted out for a market like the Netherlands, where it's, you know, it's obviously a, you know, it's a country with money, but it's a relatively small market. So no one's sorting out rights issues for world cinema classics. I lost access to the, I think it was the BFI season on Japanese cinema from the 50s, you know, Ozu Kurosawa, I love this stuff, couldn't get it, B movies from the 70s, you know, no one's getting that sorted out. So even in there, we, I think there's a drastic overestimation of what material is available in different markets, if you're looking for something really specific, whether you're an individual or whether you're trying to work through a library, yeah, library system, and again, there are all kinds of things like CDL, there are ways we can mitigate this, you know, and it's, but the discussion of, you know, it's, it's violation versus not violation, it trips it up, this is why we need flexible roles, this is why we need options. And I did pick up on the comment from the author's guild in the US, we are not unsympathetic to the plight of those college and other students who have perhaps felt forced to resort to such illegal pirate websites and other free sources of textbooks to help them manage the extremely high cost of higher education. However, these students' anger is misdirected, the exorbitant cost of education should not be borne by authors and publishers, but by universities. There we go, that's, that's a new one's point, yeah, rather than saying yes, it's a complicated issue, like, no, it's your fault. And I think the thing I wanted to just comment on towards the end of this section is this isn't a new thing in some way. Yes, it's new that over the last 10, 20 years, we've got access to this kind of material, but actually in countries that don't have the funding and the resources, the unofficial means of getting hold of educational materials has long been the case. You mentioned your experiences in China with sort of consumer access to DVDs, but say in India there's been case law there that's been proven that it is there dealing to copy material that, you know, the official rights holder bodies are not happy with it because, like you say, it needs to be available, isn't it? Yeah, it's not available and people need it and where people need access to something, inevitably they'll be able to find access to it somehow. But not to say that we endorse any unofficial causes on this particular webinar, of course. Shall we pick up, you know, in the way that they do on news channels, a lighter story now? Let's do something a bit more like, yes. It's over, okay. This evening some of us might be enjoying a nice beer. I believe you have a light beer story. Yeah, perhaps a bit too light, or what many of us think about American beer. Over to you, Matt. Yeah, yeah. So this was a story here. Were you going to pull it up, or should I? Yeah, we'll do that one. Yeah, you start and we'll flash it up on the screen in a moment. Yeah, so this is a story of Coors and this happened at the port in Antwerp. It was just in Antwerp a few weeks ago, second largest port in Europe, and a private consumer in Germany had tried to import some cans of Coors. I think it was around 2000, and Coors has a slogan. The slogan has been there since I believe 1906, calling itself the champagne of beers. And when it was tried to bring in these cans, it had something like champagne of beers on the label. There was a complaint lodged by the Committee Champagne that has the regional protection on champagne, and they ordered them not imported, and the cans were destroyed. So these regional protections are something that, at least when I started coming into place, I believe is 1995. Again, this is quite a long time. This is like 90 years after Coors was calling itself the champagne of beers. This was something that Americans kind of made fun of. It's the constant online need of, it's not real whatever, if it's not from the whatever region of France, now it's just sparkling. But I think there's some interesting things, and I tried to look up a bit about the regional protections and what they're technically legally protecting. It's obviously protecting the brand integrity. It's something like a trademark. It's preventing association, but association with things which are not your product. But at the same time, it's a weird sort of wording because champagne of beers suggests that it's not claiming to be champagne. It's claimed to be like champagne quality for a beer. No one disputed this, and if it was disputed, I think you could have had some interesting disputes. I hope that Coors starts filling itself as being banned in Europe. I think that would be quite funny. Again, the thing is though Coors, when it was calling itself this way back when, right now when I think of Coors, I think of an American light beer, not unlike Bud Light. These are beverages that as you mentioned are not terribly well regarded today, not in the era of craft beer. No, they really don't taste of anything, do they? I mean, they're sort of one step away from big sparkling water, but they are alcoholic. Yeah, and this had to do with legal restrictions around making the beer only 3.2% alcohol, which had to do with some prejudice against German immigration back in the day. But this does get into intellectual property in that the American light beer started to come into being in the late 1800s when you had these brewing companies trying to upscale. All this was happening at the same time, and at that time, one of the challenges of upscaling was producing a consistent beverage and also producing something that was clearly labeled, because a lot of play, if you had a good reputation for beer, some place would buy your beer, and then they'd run out and they'd start packaging a gutterswell that they brewed in their own basement under the same name. So this American light beer, this upscaling, this standardization, it's all really happening at the same time that Coors is also starting to call itself the champagne of beers. So this all goes back to around IP around the early 1900s, at least in America, late 1800s, early 1900s. The challenges they had then, and now we're over in Europe in this different context. It's all a bit muddled, but there's a book, Marine Ogle is the author, and Bish is Brew, the story of American beer that talks all about this. Well, some light reading. Some Coors light reading. There are other beers available. I'd like to mention that the Curious Brew that's brewed here in Kent, actually, I believe uses champagne yeast. Oh, they don't call it the champagne. They don't. No, no. It's nice. Perhaps people could share their favorite drinks, they don't have to be alcoholic in the chat, and they can get us ready for what we might want later on, seeing as it's Friday. Absolutely. And it's a bank holiday weekend. Yes. Yeah. So, I mean, we're kind of heading towards the end of our time. Copyright news could obviously have been an extended sort of two hour special, but I'm conscious that people will have lunch. We'll be getting off like... But there is a big copyright story that's going around, well, the world, but particularly in the UK media at the moment, about everybody's favorite talented musician, not Chris Morrison, actually, no, but it's Ed Sheeran. So, we like to talk about copyright and music on these webinars as well. So, Matt, tell us a little bit about what's happening in the music world and Ed Sheeran and the recent case. Well, Ed Sheeran has won the case. So, he is no longer on the hook for violating Marvin Gaye's intellectual property claims, though. He was, of course, in court, saying a number of things that were quite passionate about the building, these chord progressions that he was using, being the building blocks of music, and you can't copyright that specifically. I think this is all quite standard rhetoric that we often use in policy spaces as well. One thing that I haven't quite seen reported as much on this, that might be some useful context, is that the Marvin Gaye estate is a bit litigious. They previously, I believe, sued, they sued Pharrell and Robin Thicke for the song Blurred Lines, and they didn't claim, and this was, they won this, and I think this is very badly decided, but they didn't claim they used a sample, they didn't claim that they used the same progression, they claimed it was a vibe, they claimed that they copied the vibe from this, and it wasn't fixed, and yet somehow they won that case, so they've done that before, and that time they won, and that was 2018, and this time they lost. Yeah, absolutely. I think in that case, I mean, in this particular action, it wasn't actually Marvin Gaye's estate, it was Ed Townsend's estate, one of the co-writers of the song. Okay, sorry, sorry, I'm not saying that. I haven't thought of this, honestly, so you've got a way. What we actually have, though, is the same people behind it, I think it's the same lawyers, and certainly the same, and in my view it's the classic where there's a hit, there's a rift, and inevitably if someone's very successful there's lots of money to be made, and I personally, I mean, I follow a lot of sort of music nerds on YouTube, I've got a link to a video putting in there, Adam Neely is one of the best music YouTubers, and he talks about music theory and majorism, and these copyright cases very coherently, and very excessively, even if you're not into music, and I'm going to beat self-indulgent here, but the thing that he points out, if I can get the guitar here, that in that particular case, what we're talking about is it's like the chords that you've got to play with, particularly if you're working in a particular genre, and in this case we're talking about a pop-soul ballad, they're both two pop-soul ballads, you've kind of got chord one, two, three, four, five, six, and then you've got seven, and then back to the same chord, so you've only got that many chords, and what is happening in the etcher and so is he's got this kind of, and that's the groove that they seem to be saying is the same as the Marvin Gaye one is, which is a different chord, because that's F sharp minor, not that one, which is chord one in the first inversion, because it's a different chord, sounds kind of similar, but the melody is different, the songs are clearly different, the fact that he did a mash-up where he used the you know the melody of let's get it on, it's just something that happens, you can just do with pop songs, because the reason why Ed Sheeran's songs sound like other people's songs is because he's working in a tradition of accessible pop songs, and I think it's a good, he said he was going to give up music if he'd lost the case, I might have had to give up making novelty copyright songs if he'd lost the case as well, I'm not sure I would be willing to make that little statement, okay. Yeah, so it's, well I mean hopefully what we've given people today is some you know topical kind of copyright stories, it's always good to have some of these, be able to talk to them in, you know, talk about them as a librarian in, when you're running training, I think the kind of key thing for me was always, you know, where's the hook when you're trying to get people to come and engage with copyright, I don't know if you have any kind of insights to sort of end with, you know, like working, you know, librarians have got quite a hard challenge, haven't they, I think really, when they're sort of setting themselves up as experts around copyright, but also people that are kind of going out and advocating as well. Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, obviously as librarians working in copyright, while people working around that field, whatever our job titles are, there's some really practical stuff that we try and advise people on, but at the same time, there's a lot out there that I think does get people's interest, like I recall someone visited our office one time, they wanted to talk to different members of staff and, you know, they talked to me about copyright and what I started talking about eventually as I got around to it was about comic books and was about how writers of, you know, you have these comic book characters that have been running for decades and decades, and how do you sort out the rights for a particular aspect of a character that sticks, you know, like the iteration of the Joker in Batman that was, you know, written in Denny O'Neill, I think wrote in the 70s that really influenced the character, Alan Moore's version, the killing joke, you know, you get these aspects that just get picked up out of thousands and thousands of issues that are published. And the way that's typically been handled is, you know, the rights just get signed over to the company and the company manages that. And then if you're a writer that produced a particular or an artist who produced a particularly influential thing, you're just out of luck. And this really stuck with this person because her, you know, her daughter had, or her son, I believe, had, you know, he worked in illustration and he created illustration for a particular campaign and they were still using it. And so these connections and these sort of larger stories and these more pop cultural stories, I think there's, there's a lot of hooks that interest people. And that's also just a lot of stuff going on. And of course, AI is a endlessly, much as AI itself is endlessly generative, the discussion around AI is endlessly generative as well, if you want to follow implications. And again, I think it's in a much more sophisticated place than it was 10 years ago, 15 years ago. Yeah. And so if people want to keep up to date, you have a list, don't you, which you'd be really happy for any members, anyone attending the webinar today who's not signed up. Can you tell us a bit about the list? Yeah. Yeah. So it is the list for again, part of my work with IFLA is with the Copyright and Other Legal Matters Committee. And the Copyright and Other Legal Matters Committee has a mailing list. And I started using that to send out the weekly copyright news mailings. So you do get other mailings, other bonus mailings as a part of this, but the copyright news has become the most consistent feature of that. So you're completely welcome to sign up for that. I believe the link was in the story, the new story. Yeah, I think it was in the blog post. Yeah, I can see if I can pull that up as well. Okay, that would be great. That would be great. It's been fantastic, hasn't it? It's almost, yeah. Thank you so much, Matt. That was so brilliant. And perhaps we can have you back on the webinar another time to do another I'd love to be here. So thank you very much for having me. It's our roving reporter. Absolutely. Yes. Yeah. So hopefully, everybody's found today really useful. We'd welcome your feedback. And if you've got any other kind of key copyright topics that you'd like Matt to talk about, if you'd like us to talk about, then just drop us a line filling our survey. We've got some, we've got a webinar coming up in June. So to say on that, I mean, one of the stories that Matt highlighted recently, there are things that are happening in streaming media and the wider broadcast world. So related to that is our slides just keep stopping sharing that we have next week, not next week, next month, the launch of the code of their practice, that means audio visual works, it fulfilled an education, the work that many of you have been waiting for for some time that Jen and I have done with Bart Miletti for learning on screen. And we're getting ready to do. And the code is going to be coming out. So we're really looking forward to sharing that. We are going to be talking about it at Ice Pops as well. We'll be taking a break for July and August, but we're not really taking a break because Ice Pops is happening in July. August we probably are. Future topics to be confirmed, but we are planning on perhaps a session looking at copyright and ethics in learning technology. So picking up on some of those things that we talked about around artificial intelligence, but more broadly about the ethical framework that the Association for Learning Technology have put together and how do we look at that with a copyright. And I've also been in discussion with some colleagues who are working on projects around open textbooks. So I think we should have a, well over the summer we'll get an up-to-date schedule for our autumn webinars, but we definitely looking to have one on open textbooks. Yes. And don't forget, if you're not aware of it already, that at Ice Pops in July we are having an AGM annual general meeting of the Copyright and Online Learning Specialist Interest Group. There's an opportunity to find out from you face to face what it is you're looking for from these webinars or from the group more broadly. So really looking forward to seeing you there. So thanks again for everyone for coming and for joining us. Yeah, thank you so much Matt. We have big round of applause for Matt and everyone. Yes, round of applause, well done Matt, excellent. We have one last thing we often do. This is a sort of follow-up for those of you that are still on the call. You know that we had, well I'm a huge Beatles fan. We spoke to Beatles expert Mark Lewisen for our podcast last year. Yeah, follow-up. This is a follow-up, something that we found out about just a couple of days before it was due to be announced from Mark that the journalist Samira Ahmed, who works for BBC Radio 4 Front Row, got this amazing scoop of this undiscovered live recording of the Beatles from Stowe School back in 1963. And it's a brilliant programme. We recommend you, if you're interested in the Beatles at all, that you could listen to the Radio 4 piece. But there's also here a link to Samira's own website and also a podcast, I Am the Eggpod, in which he talks about, there's a question about the copyright implications of it. So there is a copyright angle on it and we have a quick chat with Mark about how this might be used. An undiscovered tape, could it be brought up by the BBC? How does, you know, who owns the rights in that? It's a live recording, made by the people who actually arranged the concert so he felt that it was his right to make that recording. So it's something that we're really interested to see what happens to it. We believe that is the one. The recording has been given to a institution. It needs to be tight cleaned up, but you can hear clips of it on that recording. So there we go, some Beatles nerdery if you want to follow up on that over the weekend. Yeah. So thank you very much to everybody again. And let's have a bit of the old