 Thank you for attending today's workshop. My name is Hena and I work as a senior research data officer in the research data management team at UK Data Archive. And thank you for attending today's session. Introductory part of today's session will focus on a brief intro to the intellectual property rights and what are the types of IP rights, but mainly I'll be focusing on copyright as you all know that. And the main session will be run by my colleague Hena who will talk you through to the copyright issues in the context of publishing and teaching. As you can see that the cornerstones of modern copyright law have their roots in ancient Greece, but formerly world's first copyright law was the Statute of AIN enacted in England in 1710. And this act introduced for the first time the concept of the author of work being the owner of its copyright and laid out fixed terms of protection. So I'm not going into details, just to give you an idea that it's not something new. So intellectual property is something that you create using your mind. For example, a story and invention and artistic work or a symbol and the types of different IP rights include trademarks, patents, registered designs and copyright. And of course we are focusing on copyright in today's workshop, which is the protection offered for creative works such as books, music, literary works. And you get some type of protection automatically and for others you have to apply for. Just to, before I hand over to Hannah, just to give you a heads up that we are running a second session on copyright next Thursday at 10 a.m. And this session involves copyright issues in secondary data use. I add a link to the event in the chat box and over to you Hannah, thank you. Thanks, Hina. Okay, hi everyone, I'm just going to share my screen. Okay, so as Hina has already said today, I'm going to be talking about kind of an introduction to copyright really. So first of all to introduce myself, I'm Hannah Craigo and I'm the Open Research Development Librarian at the University of Essex. So I work a lot with our researchers on publishing and getting their work out to a wider audience but also give advice around copyright. So in today's session, I'm going to be giving an introduction to copyright with publishing in mind. So thinking about the different things you need to consider when you're publishing your work in different ways. And then I'm going to be talking about copyright when it comes to teaching. So thinking about copyright considerations for developing course materials potentially presentation slides and all of those kind of things. So that's going to be the first half of the session today of me talking through some information with you. And then in the second part, we're going to do a kind of bit more interactive activity where I'm going to be asking you some of the common copyright questions that I get asked and seeing what you think are the answers to those. And then we're going to have a bit of a discussion between us on how we kind of navigate those copyright decisions. Okay, so if anyone has any questions as we go through as well, please do feel free to use the Q and A and we'll probably get to them at the end, but you can also use the chat function too if you would like to. So I'm going to start out by talking about copyright in publishing. So when you're publishing your work, it's important to consider copyright right from the beginning of writing your manuscript. So when you're preparing your manuscript, regardless of how you're going to be publishing it, you want to be thinking about the copyright behind any materials that you might be reusing. And that's because the journal or the publisher will expect you as the author to sort out any clearance for any third-party materials and to give the appropriate attributions where they're needed. So I'm thinking here about reuse of substantial materials. So materials such as images, figures, tables, graphs, those kind of things. So it's where you're reusing a substantial amount of another person's work that you need to be thinking about copyright clearance. I'm not talking here about just short direct quotations because for just direct quotations in this way, it would just follow the usual referencing format for those kind of resources. So when it comes to copyright reuse, we're thinking about more substantial reuse than just a line or two that you're quoting and then using the usual referencing format that your publication requires. So when it comes to the considerations you need to make around copyright when you're publishing, it kind of depends a bit around how you're publishing your work. So while you will need to go through the copyright clearance for any substantial reuse, as I've just mentioned, regardless of how you're publishing, some of these things will change depending on how you're publishing your work. So I'm going to go through some of the different considerations when you're publishing work in these different ways as we go through the next few slides. So we're going to look first of all at subscription-based journals, then open access journals, hybrid journals, books, and then open access monographs. So some of the ways that your work will be able to be reused, some of the licensing decisions you need to make, and some of the ways that you reuse other people's materials will alter slightly depending on how you're publishing your work. So first of all, thinking about subscription-based journals, so this is kind of the traditional route of publishing a journal article. And this would be where you publish your paper with an academic journal that then is made available behind a paywall. So people would need to either pay to access the full text of your journal article, or they'd need to be affiliated with a university that subscribes to that journal to be able to access it, and then log in with their username and password. So this is probably the most common way that we're used to accessing journal articles. When you're publishing in a subscription-based journal, usually through the terms and conditions you sign when your paper is accepted. As an author, you're often signing over the copyright to the publisher. So usually you're giving that publisher the permission or the ownership of your paper. If you're signing over the paper, then it means that you won't own the rights to that paper anymore. So if you want to reuse that journal article in the future, then you would need to ask the publisher's permission to be able to reuse that paper. You almost lose your rights as the author to a certain extent. However, when you're publishing in a subscription-based journal, usually as the author, you do keep the copyright to the author's accepted manuscript. So when I say you're signing over the rights to the paper, I'm really talking about the final published version, which is also known as the version of record. And this is the version that you would usually lose your rights to as the author when you publish it in a subscription-based journal. However, as the author, often you keep the rights to the author's accepted manuscript, which is the version of the publication after peer review. So it's still the final peer review text, but it will be before all the journal formatting, type setting, the headers, all of those kind of things are added on. So while you do usually keep the copyright to the author's accepted manuscript, which allows you to circulate and reuse that author's accepted manuscript version going forward, often the standard journal policies have restrictions in place in terms of what you're allowed to actually do with that author's accepted manuscript, even though you still own the copyright on it. So very often, subscription journals will say that, yes, you retain the copyright on the author's accepted manuscript, but by signing the author's agreement, you're saying that you won't share that author's accepted manuscript for a certain amount of time after publication. So this is known as an embargo period. So very often you'll see when you publish with the journal, they'll have policies that say, for example, you can share your author's accepted manuscript in an institutional repository or your personal website within six months of publication or sometimes 12 months or sometimes 24 months. So this is a way that journals and publishers keep a kind of monopoly on your work through the version that they're asking people to pay to access. So it's really important to be aware of all of these terms and conditions when you're signing to publish your paper with these journals because you don't want to be in breach of your agreements with the journals. But also some journals do allow you to request to change their standard copyright agreements. And in these cases, it means that you would then keep all rights to the author's accepted manuscript version rather than just retaining copyright but having those situations in place where you can't share it in the way that you would like to. And these kind of changes to the standard copyright agreements used to be quite uncommon, but actually now it's becoming a more common practice to make these kind of amendments. And this is through something called rights for attention, which I'm going to come on to talking a bit more about in some more detail a bit later on. But do be aware that you don't always have to just say, yes, to everything that your journal is requesting of you. You are the author. Without authors, journals don't have any material to publish. So keep that in mind. And I'm going to talk a bit more about that when I talk about rights for attention a little bit later on. Okay, but the second way that you can publish your journal articles would be via an open access journal. So an open access journal just in case you aren't aware is a journal where everything within that journal will be made free to read on publication. So open access means that it's free for anyone to read the full text of a publication. And it's free of most reuse restrictions as well. I'm going to come on to talk about different open access licenses in a moment. But the thing to remember is with open access it's free to read and free of most reuse restrictions. So in terms of authors' rights over publications in open access journals, when you're publishing a work in an open access journal, you as the author will keep all rights to your work, including that final published version to that version of record. In doing that, when you're signing to publish your work in an open access journal, what you're signing is you're giving that journal a license to publish your work. So you're allowing the journal to publish your work on your behalf, but you still retain the copyright over that version of the paper or over all versions of the paper when you're publishing it in an open access journal. So publishing with an open access journal gives you as the author a lot more control over the way that your publication and your work can be used going forward. A different kind of type of open access is a hybrid journal. So a hybrid journal, as the name suggests is kind of a mixture between the two types of journal I've mentioned so far. So it's almost a cross between a subscription journal and an open access journal. What I mean by that is that a hybrid journal is a subscription based journal, but it has options for authors to make their individual papers available open access. So in order to do that, the journal will ask you to pay an article processing charge and then your paper will be made available in an open access within that journal. If you're publishing open access within a hybrid journal, then you'll get a Creative Commons license attached to your work and all the rights remain with the author. So basically if you pay to publish open access within a hybrid journal, you basically get the same situation copyright wise as you would publishing a journal article in a fully open access journal. So you would retain the copyright on your publication and you would be able to license that in the way that you wish to openly. So you'd be able to choose how people are able to reuse your publication just as you would if you were publishing an a fully open access journal. If you publish in a hybrid journal and you don't make it open access, then it would just be the same as the traditional publishing of journal articles which I spoke about first, where the copyright would usually be transferred to the journal, but you would like to retain copyright on the author's accepted manuscript that be subject to those standard journal policies. So what we're going to talk about now is the different open access licenses that you can use when you're publishing in open access journals. And this is the case if you're publishing open access within a hybrid journal as well. So when you're publishing in open access journals or hybrid journals, open access, you will be able to decide which license you would like to make your publication available under. So these licenses are called Creative Commons licenses. And the way that they work is that the four different elements you can see here in the table on the slide can be combined together to set the reuse terms of your work in the way that best matches how you want your work to be reused in the future. So there is one type of Creative Commons license I haven't got here on the slide because it's not one that's usually used in academic publishing, but the least restrictive Creative Commons license that exists is a CC0 license. And that means that anything licensed under that license is termed in the public domain and it can be reused in any way with no attribution needed. As I say, this is not really used at all within academia. So really the least restrictive license that is used for academic publishing is CCBY or Creative Commons attribution license. This is the top one you can see on the slide. And what this means is that reuse is allowed and reuse can be in any way but the author or the copyright owner must get credit for the work. So this is the most common Creative Commons license used in academia. And basically what it means is that your work can be reused however people choose to. They can write their own publications based on it. They can reuse substantial parts of your work within their work. They could translate it. They could create a play based on it. They can reuse it however they like but whichever way they're reusing it knew as the author or the copyright holder will get full attribution. And this makes sense within academia. It's what we do for referencing really for those short quotations that I mentioned earlier. It's giving correct attribution to the copyright owner. So this is the most common Creative Commons license used within academic publishing and increasingly research funders such as UKRI do ask for Creative Commons attribution licenses on any work that acknowledges their funding to use this Creative Commons attribution license. So if you're doing any funded research do be aware of your funders policies because often they might ask that those publications are made available under this Creative Commons attribution license. But if you're not needing to comply with any funder policies you can choose to restrict your work a bit further if you're publishing open access by adding any of the extra elements to your Creative Commons license. So the second one in the table is the CC Buy, Share and Like license. And what this means is that if you put a CC Buy essay license on your work people can reuse your work however they wish to but any work that they're creating that is based on your work must be shared under the same or not more restrictive license as your work. So if you put a CC Buy essay license on your work and someone wanted to create a new work that was a modified version of yours they wouldn't be able to share it under an all rights reserved copyright license because that would be more restrictive and it therefore somewhat restricts your original work. And using a Share and Like license kind of just helps to ensure other people aren't locking down future modified versions of your work. The third layer that you could add is a CC Buy MC license which is non-commercial and that means that people can reuse your work however they wish to and give you attribution but it must only be for non-commercial purposes so someone can't make money from the reuse of your work. Lots of people automatically are quite drawn to this license because they think they don't want people to be making money from their own work if they're not making money from it but I think it's important just to be aware what the implications of this could be. For example, if you put a CC Buy MC license on your work and someone wanted to then go and present at a conference where they were being paid as the presenter to be there they wouldn't then be able to reuse your work in that situation because that would be a commercial purpose and that then might actually restrict the ways that people are using your work and it might prevent you from getting your work out to as wide an audience as you might previously have done so do just keep that in mind but there are situations where an MC license can be quite helpful. And then the final layer that you can add to a Creative Commons license is the ND aspect which stands for no derivatives and what that means is no modifications can be made to your work when it's being reused and this is really the most restrictive of the Creative Commons licenses and I would say that this one especially should be used with caution. Again, there are situations where a non-derivative license might be really important but it does mean that for example people couldn't make a translated version of your work because that would be a modification so again, it can unnecessarily restrict the reuse of your work in some ways so just again keep that in mind if you are choosing to add to these different elements of license onto your publications but just to kind of summarize on here as I say the Creative Commons Attribution license is the one that is the most widely used and then these other elements can be added in different ways so you could have a CC by NC ND license or a CC by SA NC license you can add them in different variations but the CC by is the bit that always remains as the root of the Creative Commons license. Okay, so I mentioned earlier about rights retention as a way that authors are asserting their rights over their own publications and I just wanted to talk a bit more about this because this is one of the major changes that has happened in copyright within the past couple of years. So rights retention has come about because as I already mentioned research funders are increasingly asking for open access when it comes to publications that acknowledge their research funding. Planet S for example, which is a set of principles set by a group of international research funders known as Coalition S. So this group of research funders, Coalition S includes UKRI, it includes Welcome, it includes the EU Commission. There's lots of different funders that are part of this consortium of funders that came together to put about this set of principles that is really trying to encourage full and immediate access to all publicly funded research. They came up with rights retention as a way for authors to be able to publish their work open access with a zero month embargo period. So one of the ways that you can comply with your funders policy if your funder requires full and immediate access to your research is to publish via the green route to open access which means to deposit your paper within a repository but it must have a zero month embargo period and that's because funders are asking for immediate access to publicly funded research. So we spoke earlier about publications having to have embargo periods where they're published in a subscription journal and then that journal saying you must wait six or 12 months after publication to make that authors accepted manuscript available via a repository. Rights retention helps to overcome that situation. So basically your funder might be asking that you have a zero month embargo period if you're making your work available open access via a repository. So if you're not publishing in an open access journal then you would need to be making your work available open access via a repository and by your funders terms you'd need to have a zero month embargo period. The problem with this comes then with these two situations I've described. So your journal that you're publishing with is saying that you must have a six month embargo period on making your authors accepted manuscript available via a repository. At the same time your funder is saying you must have a zero month embargo period while making your authors accepted manuscript available via a repository. So you can see here that we've got a mismatch between the journals policy and the funders policy. And this could put authors in quite a difficult situation in that they need to comply with both of those policies to not be in breach of either of those contracts. So with that situation in mind this is why this group of research funders Coalition S came up with rights retention. So rights retention is a statement that you as authors add to your publication on submission to a journal. So this statement that you can see on the slide here this is the example wording that research funders are giving to encourage their authors to put on their manuscripts when they are submitting to subscription journals. And what this statement does as you can see it says that for the purpose of open access the author, so I'm the author, I've applied a CC by public copyright license so that Creative Commons attribution license on the authors accepted manuscript version arising from the submission. And you're saying that to the journal when you submit to that journal so you're giving them prior notice what's known as a prior license that when that authors accepted manuscript exists because at this stage when you're submitting to the journal it doesn't exist yet because your paper hasn't been through peer review. But you're telling the journal before they've put any work into reviewing your paper that you as the author are going to retain copyright when all this accepted manuscript and not only that, you're putting your Creative Commons attribution license on that authors accepted manuscript. Now this is really important because what that does is that it stops that situation I just described where there's the mismatch between the journal policy and the funder policy because while the journal policy would still be that you need to put a six month embargo period on your authors accepted manuscript for example where you've put a Creative Commons attribution license on that version of the paper that license over rules the journals policy because by that version of the paper having a CC by license on it as we've just discussed when we were looking at the licenses CC by license means reuse is permitted in any form as long as there's attribution which includes you being able to deposit the full text of that version of the manuscript into a repository as long as you have a link there to the final published version that will be behind a paywall as well. So this statement is really very powerful for authors it allows authors to be able to maintain control on their publications and it allows authors to still be complying with their funders policies while still being able to publish in the journal that they wish to publish in. So it allows authors to keep that academic freedom of choosing where they want to publish their work while still following their funders policy and most importantly by still keeping full control over their publication ultimately it's the authors work and having that ability to keep control over a version of that paper is really important and really powerful and this segment is going a long way to helping to kind of shift the way that academic publishing is working and giving some power back to the authors where it had previously been taken away somewhat by the journals and the publishers with those terms and conditions that they were imposing. So while we're at retention was initially developed as a way to comply with funders policies increasingly we're seeing that authors are putting a statement onto their publications regardless of whether they're funded or not because it's not just funded research that can use this, any author can use this when they're submitting to a journal to ensure that they're keeping rights on a version of their publication and actually what we're saying increasingly as well is that institutions across the UK are bringing in institutional policies that state that their authors should be adding this on submission to all of their publications and it's a way for universities to really support their authors to maintain rights over their publications. I'm just going to pause before I go on to talk about books, so I can see a question in the chat. So what are the reasons why researchers might not want to use share like part of the CC by license? I guess because it can limit how someone would be reusing your work so if someone for example was going if you'd published an article under a CC by SA license and then someone wanted to reuse a substantial part of that within a book for example, books still are quite far behind on open access so it's quite likely that a book would be published under a more restrictive license than that it's quite likely that a book would be published under a all rights reserved license so in that situation that author then wouldn't be able to use your work that you'd shared under a CC by SA license and that would then restrict how people were using your work so it wouldn't be shared with as wide an audience or it wouldn't be being reused in as broad a way as it would otherwise have been able to so I guess it's just thinking that it still might restrict the way that your work can be reused which could hinder your research visibility for example so that might be one of the reasons not to use a CC by SA license hopefully that's the answer to your question there can one share the author's accepted manuscript privately for paid access slash restricted publication just thinking what you mean by that can you for paid access can you share the author's accepted manuscript privately? I'm not sure entirely what you mean by that Janet are you able to just expand on that in the chat or me and I'll come back to it should also be encouraged to put right attention statement on there like even if the institution doesn't have a right to tension policy in place it's a really good question and it's quite a personally I would always encourage people to put the right attention statement onto their submissions because I think that it's a really good way for authors to maintain their rights over their publication and to gain back that power as I've mentioned we do here at the University of Essex we don't have any institutional policy as of yet on rights for tension but we do encourage authors to put that statement on their submission wherever they feel comfortable to so I would say yes but it can vary between institutions but it is a personal choice at the end of the day so yeah it can be a really good thing to do and there were some concerns at the start that journals would reject papers if they saw this statement when they were accepting them but actually what we've seen across the past couple of years since this was brought in is that journals haven't been rejecting papers and I mean that across UK higher education not just across my university because Coalition S have been monitoring this and there haven't been occasions where that's been happening what does sometimes happen is that publishers might try to redirect people's publications to or people's submissions rather from hybrid open access journals to the fully gold open access journals because effectively what they're doing then is that authors are trying to get their paper published in a hybrid journal behind a paywall and then make the version open access via a repository and therefore it's a free way to make your paper available open access but the publisher will still want the payment so instead they might try to redirect their submission to a fully gold open access journal whereby the author has no choice but to pay to make the paper available open access if they want it to be published in that journal and so that's one of the reasons against one of the reasons some people are against using rights retention because they think it might mean that their paper gets redirected to a fully gold open access journal where they potentially don't want to publish their paper just seen the follow-up with Janet in the chat to share the authors except to manage it privately e.g via research gate if it is paid access oh okay yes that's what you mean so this depends whether authors can share their authors except to manuscript via research gate for example if their paper is published behind a paywall and the best thing I would advise you to do is to use a tool called Sherpa Romeo if you google that you'll see that on that website you can put in the journal name the journal title and it will tell you what its policy is for sharing on all these different kind of platforms so if you're sharing it will tell you how long after publication you can share the work via academic social media platforms for example and mostly there will be quite a long period between when a paper is published and when it can be shared on sites like research gate but again if you've used rights retention and you've retained the copyright and have got a CC by license on that authors accepted manuscript you would then be able to put the authors accepted manuscript on research gate or any of those other kind of sites and because you would have control over that version of the paper I've just seen another question I'll just take this last question for now and then I'll move on so Springer has some publications where they state that their policy overrides the rights retention statement how would one navigate such a situation with a worried author yes so publishes some publishers have been putting statements out to say that their policy overrules rights retention it doesn't this is just factually incorrect and because this prior license legally cannot be overruled by and journal policies but I completely understand that for authors it would be a worrying situation and especially with publishers such as Springer where people feel quite quite a prestigious publisher potentially and they want to have their paper published with these journals and don't want to risk being rejected what I also with Springer specifically is that currently after the negotiations between Jist and Springer they have got an exception there is going to be an exception in place now for any institutions that are signed up to the new Springer read and publish agreement where any authors that are institutions that are signed up to that agreement will be able to use rights retention without any quibbles from Springer because I hesitate to say they are allowed to use rights retention because authors are always allowed to use rights retention but Springer have said that they won't be questioning seeing rights retention on any submissions from institutions that have got that agreement so that should be one thing that will help authors in that situation but ultimately what we tell our authors if they come across this kind of situation is to get in touch with us, with our research support team so that we could speak to the publisher on their behalf really because it is quite a difficult situation for authors to have to navigate themselves okay I'm going to move on now to talk a bit about books briefly so when it comes to publishing books usually the publisher will ask the author to assign certain rights to them when they're publishing a book so there's three main ways that book publishing tends to work in terms of copyright these specific details do differ quite a lot with books from publisher to publisher more so than they do tend to for journals so what I would say is do make sure that if you're publishing a book that you're reading the copyright agreement closely I mean read the copyright agreement when you're publishing a journal article as well but the books as I say it does vary more so make sure you've got your head around it the three main ways that this tends to work though is the one way is that you assign a copyright so you assign the copyright to the publisher the publisher therefore owns the work but there's usually part of the agreement where the author gets royalties or payment for every sale of the book another way it can work is exclusive rights so the author usually keeps the copyright to the book but they've given the publisher exclusive rights to publish that book which means that the publisher is the only publisher allows to publish or disseminate the work elsewhere so while the author still owns the copyright to the book or to the text they couldn't publish it or disseminate it anywhere else or the third way is non-exclusive rights so again the author would keep the copyright but they would give the publisher an exclusive right to publish but wider dissemination is still allowed so they've got non-exclusive rights over the work, the publisher the publisher has got non-exclusive rights over the work and so the author would still be able to disseminate it in other ways so they're the kind of three most common ways of sharing books increasingly though open access monographs is beginning to grow so it's nowhere near as far ahead as open access journal article publishing but we can expect to see a growth in this to continue to accelerate especially because from January of next year UKRI's open access policy is going to extend to monographs which means that all UKRI funded monographs and chapters will need to be made available open access like their journal articles are currently it is looking likely that there's going to be a few more exceptions when it comes to open access monograph publishing under UKRI's open access policy so it's looking like there will be able to be a 12 month embargo period after monographs are published rather than immediate open access as there are with journal articles but we are still waiting on the final details of that policy but I think what we can be confident in saying is that as these kind of policies are extended to monographs as well monograph open access publishing is likely to accelerate quite quickly so it's something that to keep an eye on especially if you're looking to publish a monograph open access or a chapter in an edited collection OK, so I'm going to move on now to talk about copyright for teaching so when you're teaching copyright affects what can be used in your teaching materials and it also affects what can be included on online reading lists so I'm going to talk a bit about different licences and exceptions that can be used and that are common within UK higher education to help with both of these aspects so the main copyright licence that is important for teaching is the copyright licencing agency licence for higher education or the CLA licence and lots of UK higher education institutions will have a CLA licence and basically this licence makes it easier for teachers and educators to reuse content specifically for teaching so the CLA licence covers copying from books, journals and magazines and as it says on the slide it allows the copying of up to 10% or one chapter of books, whichever is greater or one article from each issue of each journal can also be copied under the terms of the licence it is only for materials that are covered by the licence so not every single material ever published will be covered by the CLA licence but you'll find if you're looking at this kind of area that most of the texts that are being used within standard teaching at undergraduate and master's level will be covered by the licence and under the terms of the licence the important point is that copies made under the terms of the licence can only be shared with students and staff at the institution and only for educational purposes so there are some specific criteria there around how the licence can be used and also all copying made under the terms of the licence have to be reported annually to the CLA so to the Copyright Licensing Agency and because of that most universities that are making use of this licence will require that all digital copies made under the terms of the licence should be hosted in the same place and usually this will be via online reading of systems so for example at the University of Essex we used Hallis Aspire and all copying of materials under our CLA licence have to be hosted via our online reading assistant Hallis Aspire because it allows us to monitor those to check that we have permission to make those scans and then to report them at the end of the year as well. Another licence that is used within teaching is the ERA licence so that Educational Recording Agency licence and again this is a blanket licence that can be purchased within institutions in the UK and basically it allows staff and students to record or make copies of programmes for educational use so television programmes or radio broadcasts. Educational use is the really important point here so you can't just be making copies of programmes for entertainment and certainly not for commercial activity and materials that are copies of programmes that are made under the terms of this licence can't be shared on public platforms so you do need to stick to virtual learning environments and reading lists again so that they are password protected to keep those materials restricted to staff and students at your institution. This licence also allows institutions to subscribe to a box of broadcasts so here at the University of Essex for example we do subscribe to a box of broadcasts which allows access to any TV programmes and films that have been broadcast in the UK and that's the easiest way to share programmes under the terms of the ERA licence. So where the sharing of materials isn't covered by one of the two licences I've just spoken about Educators do need to rely on copyright exceptions in order to make their works available to students and the main copyright exception that is used within teaching is section 32 which is known as illustration for instruction and when we're thinking about using copyright exceptions we really need to think about the specific terms of those exceptions so with section 32 for example the important thing is that materials can be used under the terms of this exception only where the sole purpose is instruction so it must really be just for educational purposes but as with all copyright exceptions it is somewhat open to interpretation so non-commercial is a really important point with copyright exception illustration for instruction and this seems quite straightforward but actually if you think about it in universities we do charge students and they all pay their tuition fees so a few years ago there was quite a lot of debate over whether this truly was a non-commercial use but the consensus now is yes in that universities are not making profit from student tuition fees so it's not seen as a commercial activity in that way and this exception is still able to be used the for instruction aspect of it has also been somewhat debated because previously it had been interpreted as just meaning for in-class materials where a teacher was actually instructing someone but again the general agreement now is that this exception can be used to make copies of materials to be shared in online platforms like online reading lists or virtual learning environments generally though what we say when using copyright exceptions is that you want to think about the ferding and questions that we always apply within copyrights so we're thinking about is the material directly relevant to what is being taught? Are we reproducing an unreasonable proportion of the original? Is our use of that copy really a replacement for purchasing additional copies and that's quite an important point are you damaging the interests of the copyright owner in another way and have we acknowledged the author and the source adequately? And what I always think about all of these things is that we've just been talking about copyright for publishing so in universities our teachers are our authors and our authors are our teachers so pick yourself in the shoes of the copyright owner imagine you're the author of that work would you be happy with the way that it's being reused? If the answer is yes, it's likely that you're abiding by these fair dealing questions and that you are able to use that copyright exception if you feel like you wouldn't maybe be happy with your work being reused in that way potentially you wouldn't be able to use that exception or wouldn't be able to justify the use of that exception so pick yourself in the shoes of the copyright owner is a really good rule of thumb when working with copyright exceptions but if you are in doubt, whichever university you might be from I'm sure that there is a copyright team that would be able to discuss this with you his discussion is a really big part of making copyright decisions and it's something that we do here at Essex within our teams as well so with that aspect of discussion in mind I'm gonna move on to the second part of the session where I'm gonna ask you some questions and get your opinions on what you think about some of the common copyright questions that we get asked because discussing these kind of situations is really the best way I find of getting more confident with making decisions around copyright so hopefully what we've been through already today is gonna help you guys to answer these questions but so the first question and I'm gonna launch a poll for you to answer is just launch the poll so with each question you're gonna have three answers that you can choose from so you're gonna have a yes, no or an it depends so I'm asking do I own the rights to my PhD so imagine you're a PhD student do you own the rights to your PhD and if anyone wants to add anything in the chat around their reasons for answering in the way that they have I'd be more than happy to hear some of your thoughts behind your answer in the poll as well just give you a minute I'm good to do that okay so I'll just give you 10 seconds more on that one PhD if funded may have other rights holders interesting yes so I'm gonna share the results so we've got a bit of a mix we've got lots of yeses, a couple of noes but the most of it depends I would say that the norm is yes so usually as students at universities which PhD students tend to be seen as you usually own the rights to your PhD because you're paying to be there as a student and therefore you do tend to own the rights to your PhD however it can vary by institution and at some institutions the university might hold the rights to their PhD and as Susan has said in the chat sometimes if your PhD is funded your funder may have rights over your PhD thesis as well but usually that you would own the rights to your PhD PhD okay let's do the next one so sorry I've got so many things there okay can I use images I don't own in my PhD thesis so what do you guys think again and again if anyone has any thoughts on why they've chosen the answer that they have please do put them in the chat okay so we've got mostly it depends a couple of noes and a few yeses so people have put in the chat you can use images if you get permission or if published under a CC by license for illustrative purposes it may be possible with attribution and permission for examination it's fine however if they have to deposit in a repository they need permission well I'm very good answers in the chat yes so all of those are really relevant points so you can use within your PhD thesis because it's for education because it's for an assessment there is a copyright exception for education and research so as Christina in the chat has said for examination it's fine and so that's because of that copyright exception for education and research it means that you can reuse a certain like a reasonable amount of another person's work within works that are for education but if you were going to publish it then I've just realized I'm giving you the answer to the next question so we'll skip that one if you were going to publish your PhD thesis as Christina has said then you would need permission so where people have said it may be possible with attribution and permission or with permission acknowledged ownership or to look for Creative Commons licensed images then also then you would if you were publishing it you would need to bear all of those things in mind so while you can reuse images you don't own in your PhD thesis where it's just for assessment if you want to go on to publish that thesis or deposit in a repository you may need to get permission if they're not Creative Commons licensed images so what we always recommend here at Essex is that people do clear the rights for things within their thesis if they have any intention of publishing it later and it can be good practice just to make sure of that at the very beginning just in case you want to publish on it or share it more widely or to make use of Creative Commons licensed images as well that can be a good way around it too No worries Janet OK, the next question then we're going to skip past because I've just given you the answer to that one but this one then can I reuse content from work I have published before so if you've published something previously and then you want to reuse works aspects from that previously published work in a new work just to answer the question in the chat how do you typically get the permission? Yes, so you would need to contact the copyright owner which often would usually be the publisher or it could potentially be the author so yes, you would need to contact them assuming it's not published openly OK, I'll share these results so we've got lots of it depends so yes, it would depend in this situation and as seasons put in the chat it would depend on whether you whether you still own the copyright to it so when we're thinking earlier that if you're publishing an article behind a payroll and you've signed over the rights to the publisher or if you've published a book and you no longer own the rights to it if you're no longer the rights holder you're going to have to ask the publisher to reuse any work from your previously published work as if you weren't the author anymore because you no longer own the copyright again, we're thinking here about substantial amounts of that work OK, the next one then similar, can you reuse figures from my published work in future works? Again, any thoughts in the chat welcome? Yep, so if you've retained your copyright yes, otherwise you need to request permission yes, so this is a really similar one to the last question the reason I separated this one out is just to give you a tip that if you use a website called FigShare you're able to upload figures that you're creating during your research process to FigShare and license those figures separately so for example, if you created some graphs you could add them to FigShare and give those figures themselves a Creative Commons license and license those openly which would then mean that even if you published your paper behind a payroll and signed over the copyright you would still be able to use the figure in your next work or in conference presentations and things like that because you'd still own the rights to that figure specifically even if you've signed over the rights to the article itself what happens with different illustrations or graphs of the same data you do different colours, line style, etc different illustrations across the same data I guess if there's data that's been published and then you're creating a figure based on that data that's OK, someone else might have created a figure that would look almost identical from the same data as long as you're both creating it based on data that you've cited or that's openly available then that wouldn't be a problem you might end up creating that same kind of thing if it's a small table it's difficult to give specific advice on really specifics like that you need to see the exact situation to know whether it would account for something that you needed to get permission to use I would always say if in doubt try to use something that's openly available or try to get permission definitely make sure you've attributed it properly to the proper source there but it is quite difficult to give good advice on a specific without kind of seeing that situation and where that table might have been published, for example OK, so the next one we're thinking here a little bit more about teaching here so can I put my reading materials on a virtual learning environment? So VLE like Moodle, for example can you put reading materials for your module I'm imagining you're a module leader can you add them all up to Moodle and thinking here, reading materials about kind of scans of chapters or of articles OK, so we've got a bit of a mixture again there but most people saying it depends this can kind of vary by institution so here at S6 the answer would be no because all of our reading materials must be put on an online reading this platform so on Talus Aspire we use here and that's for reporting under the CLA license so this might vary by institution it might be that at your institution the reporting is done via your virtual learning environment and just make sure that you are sharing it on the platform that your reading this team or whatever other team it might be there is using for reporting to the copyright licensing agency because the vast majority of the scans if you have that license at your institution will be being made under that license and will therefore need to be reported OK, the next one then I wrote the chapter so I can do whatever I like with the full text so do you for it in a book chapter and therefore you can share it however you like you can put it on your reading list you can email it to your students you can put it on your website share it on social media all of those kind of things yes again it depends on what you signed with the publisher so you can see that lots of these situations are a similar response so those fundamentals of understanding those agreements that you have with your publishers are really important to so many different scenarios and understanding how you can reuse your work so this is something our regionists team do get asked quite a lot in that if an author wants to use their chapter with their students often they feel like they should be able to use it however they want to because they're the author but unfortunately sometimes that isn't the case depending on what they've signed with the publisher so next one it's freely available online so I can share it with my students so you found a reading resource an article or a chapter or anything like that online and it's freely available so you can share it with your students okay so we've got a lot of it depends again you can see that it depends is quite a common answer when it comes to copyright and we do say within our copyright team this is the answer that we give the most it does depend so not all materials freely available online are legitimate so if it's a legitimate open access resource then of course you can share it with your students but if it's something that's been illegally uploaded we wouldn't want to be directly sharing this with our students or openly directing our students to that resource so for example if it's clear that someone somewhere has scanned a book that they've got on their shelf and just put it on the internet for anyone to use this wouldn't be a legitimate use of a source and while we wouldn't be able to place the internet and get all of these things taken down for example we shouldn't be directing our students to resources like that and yeah it can also depend on what the material is used for as well as we've got in the chat there okay so just a couple more of these to go so I only want to use a few pages so it's fine to scan and share so imagine you've got a book on your shelf and you just want to use a couple of pages to that so it's fine for you to scan it and share it quicker with the answers now getting more confident okay so it depends again so this can be a legitimate point under the copyright exceptions under the illustration for instruction exception up to 5% of any work can be used as long as the use is deemed fair so if we are talking here about scanning and sharing it with our students for educational purposes and you're going to be using less than 5% of the work you should be fine to do so to mitigate the risks you'd want to be sharing it in a password protected environment where only students are able to access it and sharing it just for the purpose of that module with a clear educational purpose in mind but we would also still have to be able to source that material from a legitimate source so this kind of goes back to the previous slide it wouldn't be it still wouldn't be a case of us just finding something randomly on the internet if you had a print copy that you'd bought then we would be able to do that just seeing the chat is it not 10% so this is where it gets a bit confusing under the terms of the CLA license it's up to 10% but if we're using the copyright exception it's generally accepted that it's 5% so that's one of the reasons why institutions pay for the CLA license because it allows you to scan and share more of a resource so it's up to 10% with the CLA license but if it's something that isn't covered by the CLA license then it would be up to 5% okay this is the second last one that we've got today so something we haven't touched upon yet it's very old so copyright doesn't apply so what do you think anyone with any thoughts in the chat welcome some people might know might know the answer to this one creator of the image may have rights yes so that is a good point with copyright there are often lots of different layers of copyright so just as an example of that recently this year the original text of Winnie the Pooh has become out of copyright but so the original text written by A. A. Milne is now out of copyright but if you were to get the 2010 Penguin edition of Winnie the Pooh that wouldn't be out of copyright so you couldn't then just make a scan of that book because there would be different layers of copyright like the type setting of that resource and all of those kind of things but the original text is still now out of copyright so yes I can see people putting in the chat it depends how old it is if copyright is expired it's in the public domain it can be used but yes if there are multiple layers it might be more difficult and generally yes museums and publishers may hold copyrights to specific versions so exactly yep so within the UK 70 years after an author's death written works are no longer covered by copyright bear in mind that international laws might differ and do differ and also the rules for other materials is different so for example broadcasts are protected within UK copyright law for 50 years from the date the broadcast was made so it does differ depending on the materials and also as people have said so the typographic rights can be renewed and are renewed with new publications and new versions of that text but when materials are out of copyright they are termed to be in the public domain so once something is in the public domain it can be reused however however people wish to but again it's that thing of the original text of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is no longer covered by copyrights in the public domain people can make film versions of it without having to pay anyone or those kind of things but a version of the book that was published last year that copy of the book is still within copyright and so it's thinking about the different layers of copyright there and yes so estates can also sometimes people can leave the copyright to their estate and therefore it kind of yeah becomes almost an immortal copyright there so for example the author of Peter Pan left the copyright to Peter Pan to Great Ormond Street Hospital so that any royalties from Peter Pan go to Great Ormond Street Hospital because that's how he left the rights of that work okay just conscious of the time but the very last one we had today was this so no one will know it will help my students so it's fine to use so a scanning material you're sharing it with your students and no one will know and it's going to help your students so it's absolutely fine to use okay so we've got mostly people saying no here and a couple of it depends I guess you could say there were some situations where it would be fine to use the resource that we're talking about but generally the message I'm sharing here is that no so think about if you had written that work you would want others to respect the work it can affect people's metrics also if you're just downloading a PDF and emailing it round for example they're not getting those stats there on how many downloads or views they might have got on their paper and just as I said earlier you can be a teacher one day and author the next day and vice versa we're all creators of content some way or other these days and you would want people to respect your work and treat it in a way that you would want your work to be treated so think about that aspect of it but also within institutions there is a level of risk management so an individual risk might seem quite low of scanning something and sending it to your students for example but if everyone was doing that there would potentially be some reputational and even financial ramifications for your university if they were to be doing that regularly but copyright isn't intended to be a restriction on reuse copyright is intended to protect the authors and to allow authors to have control over how their work is being used and all these creative commons licenses we spoke about earlier enable you as an author and as a creator of material to really have control over how your work is being reused so understanding those licenses understanding the terms that you're signing when you're publishing your work really empowers you to understand how your work can be used and get your work out to the audiences you want it to be with and used in the way you want it to be used okay so that's everything that I wanted to go through with you today so it's been quite a lot of me talking so thank you all for sticking with me but hopefully you've all learnt something about copyright today if anyone has any questions thoughts or ideas on anything we've been through today please do feel free to add them to the Q&A or add anything in the chat at all I think I did see one other question in the Q&A that hadn't answered yet so do you need to or would you recommend that authors reserve author rights for blog post submissions to public institutions in particular whether blog post relates to a wider research project I think do you mean by this that whether you would retain rights on your blog post because usually blog posts that are just would just be published freely on the internet and therefore you would retain the rights to that and it's just freely available to use online so it's not usually a concern for copyright in that respect over blog posts but if you meant something different to what I've just said please do feel free to clarify with another question or in the chat and thanks everyone for the chat messages I'm glad you found it helpful today I do have our email address here on the slide and obviously I understand that you're not all from the University of Essex and you'll probably have your own copyright advisers at your own institutions but if anyone does have any questions then feel free to email as well