 Welcome to the Drones and Research webinar series. My name is Narsimha Garlapati. I am your host today. My colleague Karen Visir is behind the scenes co-hosting the webinar with me. Today's webinar topic is on and I own Legal Ethics, Safety and Privacy. This one-hour webinar is the first in the webinar series and today's webinar will look into the consideration of special licensing requirements, privacy implications of drone usage under the current Australian law and legal or other ethical issues surrounding drones and geospatial data. Now I would also like to acknowledge the Commonwealth Government for their support of the ANTS under increased program. Now I would like to introduce our speakers, Melanie Oslin, she's the team leader for Australian Institute of Marine Science, Professor Des Batla from Queensland University of Technology, Associate Professor Leanne Wiseman from Griffith University. Now I would like to hand over to Melanie for a topic on consideration of marine research drone operation on the Great Barrier Drift. Thank you. So I work at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, where our marine science agency I'm based in Townsville, Queensland and on the screen now you can see we have three sites, so Perth, Darwin and Townsville and the tracks that you can see refer to where our main areas of operations are which is off the coast with our main research vessels. So we deploy our drones off our research vessels to support our marine scientists in understanding the impacts and pressures on the Great Barrier Reef and other marine parks around tropical Australia. So I lead the engineering team for technology development and we're in the process of collaborating to deploy a layered observation framework. So that encompasses drones, but there's actually a lot more to it, which makes our job a little bit a little bit tougher in that we can't just consider drones independently. We have a small operations team. We have to comply with a variety of regulators such as CASA, AMSA, for Inwater and also Marine Park Authority. So it doesn't make sense for us to adopt one framework just to reflect CASA regulations. We have to make sure we're scalable across all the different domains. So I've got on the screen here just to give you an example of some of the technologies we are exploring to deploy from our research vessels or land sites around Australia. So we have to try and cover a huge range of areas, remote harsh areas all the way up to Cape York, across to Ningalee Reef, Darwin, Gulf of Carpentaria. It's a huge ground to cover. So we're working with Boeing, for example, to look at their fixed wing scanning of drones, deploying those at different sites across Australia for routine marine observations, as well as multi copters, variety of multi copters. So your standard commercial DJI Phantom series drones, as well as Matrice series or Inspire 2. It's a variety of different scientific payloads on there, but typically imagery, hyperspectral or red, green, blue traditional imagery for communications, as well as scientific research. Drones under the water. So we're looking at remotely operated vehicles that we can throw over the side of one of our tenders where we generally have divers in the water to do underwater surveys. We've we've now got crocs in areas that they usually wouldn't have been in WH&S standards are continually to get more stringent. So we have to make sure we've got things in place so we can put a drone in the water instead of a diver and not compromise our scientific routine data sets. So we've got the ROVs as well as moving into autonomous underwater vehicles and they come in and with all sorts of different requirements in the future. We think for licensing, but Cass has definitely got the lead for that. So we're trying to adopt similar standards across the underwater and air domains. I've also got a couple of pictures there of we're looking at automated surface vessels, too, which again have different safety issues for deploying in our area of operation, particularly shipping channels and other things that we tow behind our own boats, such as in the bottom right hand corner there. You'll see that's one of our towed video systems. They come in with their own safety issues that we have to consider. So as I mentioned just before, we're adopting a layered approach for regulatory compliance, but generally just focusing on the principle. So the whole point of having a regulator there is to make sure that we're safe for both people, equipment and the environment. So we're focused on managing risk in everything we do and streamlining our overheads both within our own team, our own agency, but also for our regulators. So as our unmanned fleet continues to grow, we have to make sure that it's scalable and we can maintain the overheads. As I'm sure you guys are all aware, there's a lot of paperwork overheads of setting up licenses and making sure that we're consistent internally to the requirements of those licenses. But we're making sure that as much as possible, we're consistent across the air, sea and subsurface domains. So three main facets there. You've got to make sure that our operators are competent and authorised. So on our licensing, so we've got an unmanned aerial vehicle, a UAV operations license with CASA, and stipulated under there, we've got some constraints. So we make sure that we have an induction process for our pilots, for our drones. They have to have a standard remotely operated NARPAS license. We generally go up to 25 kilograms in our fleet for our licensing. Internally, we're a little bit more stringent in that we have to land on moving vessels, which has its own complications for drones. So you can't just say go home because home's no longer home and it will be hovering over the ocean. So we've got to make sure our pilots are aware of that. And when things go wrong, you have to think a little bit outside of the box and you normally would if you were operating drones on a fixed land site. So we make sure our pilots go through an induction program and they have a number of hours that they have to log. It's 10 hours for a standard major ship deployment. And then we track our hours accordingly into the future. All of our activities have to be pre-planned and approved internally by our chief pilot or chief drone cell. So with that, we've got standard operating procedures, mission planning requirements. So if it's waypoint-driven, then we've got different keep-out zones we have to look at, for example, around the ship, particularly with a ship, a ship has to know what's going on or if we're operating in, for example, the Ames Cape Cleveland site. It's in a PRD zone. So we have to notify the aviation regiment if we're flying so we don't hit a ship by accident or vice versa. So we have to make sure that activities are approved and authorized in advance. Likewise, from the engineering cell, we're really worried about people's safety, but also want our equipment to come back intact. So we always make sure our hardware and configurations track of each of our different drones. And just making sure it's certified is correct and operational. So we can guarantee as much as we can that the performance of the drone will be in, well, at least consistent with what we think it's going to do. And things go wrong, whether it gets in the way. But if we've got all our checks and balances in place and we haven't lost a drone today, so we're sure it'll happen in the future. But we're doing everything we can to make sure that it won't happen. We've also got the different regulators. So Cassar is always the most stringent. And Anser is catching up, and I believe, as autonomous surface vessels become more common. Or if you have a look at the hobbyist space at the moment going underwater with open ROV and a few of those other initiatives, that they'll catch up pretty quick. And so if we're ahead of the curve, we can both implement some of these standards and requirements, as well as making sure we comply with them instead of having to redo all of our paperwork again when they come in place. Interesting is the Great Barrier Reef. We have to have a separate permit for operation. So AMS is a certified, not certified. We've got a status as a research organization, which means we can fly drones for research up to five kilos, I believe it is, without a special permit. However, as we go bigger than that, which we are in the future, or even now we're testing drones in that space, we need to make sure that we get permits to fly in the appropriate marine park zones. So it's equivalent at Ningaloo, Browth Island, a few of those other places. Or traditional owners, too. We've got to make sure that we comply with all their requirements and make sure we get permits in advance before we commence drone operations. So there's a whole lot of things to think of there. If we adopt a later approach, which we're trying to do, we can streamline it as best that we can for our team and also our collaborators. Other things for flying at sea to consider with mission planning is generally we don't have as accurate weather forecasts out at sea. AMS does have a whole series of in-situ weather stations where we stream live data back to base. But the ships typically don't stay right beside the weather stations. So things change in the field and we have to have procedures in place to determine what's our threshold for taking off an aircraft and making sure we don't fly in a potentially unsafe configuration with that. So we have a chief pilot on board and they'll make the call as to whether we can operate or not. And really rough oceans is also an issue because we're trying to land on a ship. So we do have a platform that the drawings land on. But it is quite a task to try and get that drone to land accurately on that platform. And with our smaller vessels that we do hop in a tender sometimes and go close to a, particularly with a multi-copter, short range multi-copter, you go close to where you want to get your aerial footage from. And we have to make sure that we can safely land that multi-copter back on the vessel in close proximity of the pilot. So actually launching from a tender and recovery is quite an art sometimes. And from our major ships we've got interference problems is all things you have to try and consider when you're operating in the marine domain. Offshore communications is another one. So if we're doing a fixed wing aircraft deployment such as the Scan Eagle product, we've got to make sure that we can actually get proper command and control signals back to base and have redundant backalls there. So something goes wrong, we can maintain CASA certification, not certification CASA compliance but make sure we're safe for both the vehicle and other aircraft operating in the area. So we do that through contingency plans and planning in advance and making sure that we're able or we enable the chief operator on board to be able to make a decision to make sure that we can plan when we're operating safely within the vehicle's limits. So we also make sure we get redundancy as best we can so spare drones on board or spare parts and making sure our payloads, which are generally quite expensive are robust enough to handle a dip if we have to in the water. But we haven't had to do that today. My final slide, I just wanted to show that there's a stage process here, so drones get expensive and the payloads get expensive. So at AIMS we're quite fortunate we have a controlled zone here. We do our technology development testing at different technology readiness levels before we go out at sea. So if you have a look here, we'll go out further out to the ocean to our Davies Reef site when we've got a pilot technology being tested or if we're going with more operational transitions so beforehand over to our operational scientific fleet, we'll go out to Merman and Reef, which is more remote and more reflective of how our research vessels all operate. But the whole trick is we're trying to make sure we do things safely. We don't compromise our equipment. We don't compromise our regulators. And we can operate at sea now and into the future and move up with technology as it gets used to evolve. Okay, thanks Melanie. Now it's time for our second presentation. I would like to hand over to our second presenter, Professor Des Butler, on the topic privacy implications of using drones under current Australian law. Yes, well, hello everyone. I'm talking today about the privacy implications of using drones in Australia. Now Australia is a signatory of an international covenant on civil and political rights, which provides that as a signatory, we are to provide in our domestic system adequate protection against interference with privacy, which sounds all very grained, but in actual fact, it hasn't worked out quite to be so comprehensive. Privacy in Australia can be reflected in three respects, the first of which is privacy of information. And that in fact is, as far as we go, from a government point of view, in response to those obligations, it's manifest in the Privacy Act, again, very grand sounding, but all it does is prescribe a system, which is called the APPs, the Australian Privacy Principles, which govern the collection of personal information and the use and disclosure of that information, storage and so forth. Personal information has been defined as including images of someone, information from which you can identify a person that includes there, the video or photographs of them. And so those laws apply to Commonwealth agencies. So if you're a researcher working for a Commonwealth agency, you'll be caught by those laws or a private organisation with a turnover of $3 million or more. So there's going to be a lot of small private organisations where those laws have no application at all. If you're working as a researcher for a state agency, then you'll be governed by the state laws and they mostly apply something called the IPPs, the Information Privacy Principles, which also govern the use, disclosure and storage of information similar to the APPs, but not exactly the same. So some minor and technical differences there that perhaps may have some significance in practice. So when it comes to the other areas of law, privacy of communications or something we might otherwise call privacy from surveillance and lastly, personal privacy. So they are the areas of privacy that we are concerning ourselves when we talk about the types of laws that govern privacy in Australia. Now, if we look at personal privacy, Australia is the only major common law country and the common law countries tend to be the Commonwealth countries that doesn't have a cause of action that protects privacy. Instead, what happens in Australia is that we have to rely, that is anyone that has the privacy invaded, would need to rely on the old common law causes of action. So things like trespass to land or something called private nuisance. Now, trespass to land is an unlawful interference with the land in the possession of another. So that has its limitations. A drone that has flown outside the boundary line but which is still filming something happening on the property does not commit a trespass. If someone is only a visitor to the property, maybe sunbathing in the backyard, they would not have a cause of action for trespass because they're not in possession of the land. That notion of possession of land, the land extends only to the height of what's known as a reasonable user. So if the drone is flown at a height that is above that, no trespass is committed. What is the height of a reasonable user? How long is a piece of string? It really depends on the circumstances. It would be certainly above roof level and some height beyond that. When it comes to disclosure, there are these two types of intrusion when it comes to or invasion, when it comes to the common law. We might think of it in terms of an unreasonable intrusion on someone's privacy and then a disclosure of any information that's gained as a result of that intrusion. And those types of invasions may be intentional or unintentional. So it would be possible, for example, for a drone to unintentionally capture the image of someone but then for that information for some reason to be uploaded to YouTube, which would be an intentional disclosure. It would be possible if we're looking at someone that's just bought a drone from a JB Hi-Fi to film the neighbor, that would be an intentional intrusion and then to upload it to YouTube would be an intentional disclosure. So when it comes to disclosures, the only action really in Australia is something called a breach of confidence. Our breach of confidence needs information with a quality of confidence. So that information to be obtained in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence and a use either actual or threatened. Now, any sort of intimate activity might be regarded as having a quality of confidence. And the fact that it can only be recorded using some sort of surreptitious means which might include flying a drone overhead would satisfy the second element but once that information gets into the public domain, so by being uploaded to YouTube then really the confidence is lost. So very limited circumstances that someone can bring in action for breach of privacy under our common law. So trespass to land, private nuisance and the breach of confidence being the actions that someone may have available to them. When it comes to privacy from surveillance, there are eight jurisdictions in Australia. Five of those, Northern Territory with Australia, South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, they have now passed laws that govern optical surveillance devices that would cover cameras that amounted on drones. Whereas the other three, Queensland, ACT, Tasmania really haven't stepped into the 21st century. They've still got laws that only apply to audio devices. And so flying a drone in any of those three jurisdictions is not going to be caught by the surveillance laws. And then when we look at the other five places, the laws there unfortunately are not uniform. And so to illustrate the differences, I've just got some examples there for you. The top one there, back in May this year, May 2017 at Sydney, a lady stepped out of the shower in her fifth floor apartment, looked out the window and saw that she was being watched by a drone. Now, the building I've got in the image there is only four stories tall, but you can appreciate that in the old days then you might have an expectation that you would have privacy unless you were surrounded by buildings of a similar height and that you kept curtains open. The image to the right there of the backyard, you might see in the top right side of that image, they've got a six foot four, six foot tall fence. In the old days that might have been expected to give you some expectation of privacy, not so today if you fly a drone overhead. And the last image there is, and I should mention in April, this year, 2017 in Darwin, there was a lady that came home from the gym, went skinny dipping, looked up and saw that she was being filmed by a drone. The last image at the bottom there is Bushland. It's possible to have an expectation of privacy, even in a public place like that. Back in June, 2012, there was an Austrian politician who stopped his car and ventured into the deep woodlands with his partner and they're engaged in what was described as an explicit sexual encounter. Unfortunately, he was doing that in front of a camera trap. The things that are set up to monitor the activities of little fairy animals and the researchers there got a little bit more than what they expected. While that wasn't a drone case, you could imagine that a research drone could just as equally as caught similarly images. So let's set up something of a scorecard on how the surveillance laws in Australia might handle those various situations. Well, we can put up there straight away the fact that in Queensland Tasmania, the ACT, with their laws only applying to listening devices, that they would provide no prohibition on filming. We can add to that New South Wales surveillance laws. Even though they apply to video devices, their laws only prohibit the use of a surveillance device on premises or in a vehicle where they've been placed there without the consent of the owner or the occupier. By contrast, WA and the Northern Territory prohibit the recording in each of those situations. So the lady that went skinny dipping in her backyard pool in the Northern Territory would have been able to invite the law there if she had known who the operator of the drone was. And that's another issue besides all of these things is that unless you know the owner or the operator of the drones might be very difficult to see any sort of records. And finally, for the other two states, Victoria would only apply to the situation of the person stepping out of the shower in the apartment because their laws do not apply to anything occurring outside of a building. And in South Australia, their laws don't apply to anything happening in public. So they would not apply to video filmed of the bushland. The other difficulty for persons who have had their privacy invaded in all of these situations is that it's only a prohibition, a criminal offense if the authorities take action. There's no civil remedy for anyone who's had their privacy invaded. There's no way that they can get a remedy in the form of compensation or something of that nature. Okay, so because of those limitations in each of those places, we have had five law reform commissions that have recommended that there should be, at some time in the future, a statutory cause of action enacted which provides a civil remedy for someone who's had their privacy invaded, either in the form of an invasion an unreasonable invasion or a disclosure of their public facts, their private facts. To this day, no government has acted on those recommendations. We've had a House of Representatives inquiry into drones, which has made a similar recommendation. Again, nothing has come of that. We currently have a Senate inquiry that's looking into the question of drones. One of the issues they're going to be looking at is privacy, so we will see what comes of that with their recommendations and what action government may or may not take. So this is then a summary of the situation with Australia's privacy laws that we do have this international obligation. The most we've done is under the Privacy Act to provide laws governing the collection, use disclosure of private information which applies to images, but they only apply to Commonwealth agencies, private agencies with a turnover of $3 million or more. State laws apply to state agencies. Common law doesn't provide much help in the case of images that might be taken by drones. There are surveillance devices, laws in five Australian jurisdictions, but they're inconsistent. Three Australian jurisdictions don't have any at all. There have been these recommendations. So it's a case of watch this space with those, but to this day, nothing's come of them and maybe nothing ever will. And I've added there an article that I've written that says examine this whole area. So I've got it there with the reference in case you'd like to look at the detail a little bit closer. So there you have it. That's the law of privacy as it applies to drones. Thank you. So I'll mute myself now. Nasmr, if you can unmute yourself and then pass over to our final speaker. As you'll see, I'm Leanne Wiseman. I'm at Griffith University and I'm involved in the Australian and Centre for Intellectual Property and Agriculture. So I've been looking at drones from the legal perspective, largely in a large range of uses agriculturally. I've been particularly asked to speak today about geospatial data, but essentially the legal position around the use of drones really from a copyright perspective, which is when we look at the issue of the law and how it interacts with drones, essentially we're talking about the law of essentially, as we heard from Melanie and Dez, we've got the CASA regulations. Dez has spoken about privacy and what I thought was most useful is today to focus on copyright law because essentially when you're talking about using drones to capture imagery, whether it be photographs or aerial photography, essentially the subject matter that is collected on the surveillance technology on the drone will be the subject matter of copyright essentially. So I thought it best to just go through some principles around copyright and I'm then happy to open up, obviously, and take questions from you as well, depending on your particular areas of interest. Just a couple of basic kind of guiding principles about copyright law and most of you will be familiar with this is that copyright law essentially only protects expression of the idea and so not an idea itself. So it will subsist in something that's tangible and physically it has to have some materiality. So that's why we look at the subject matter of copyright will attract to either a photograph because that's considered to be an artistic work under the Copyright Act or in terms of film footage that's viewed as subject matter, what's known as subject matter other than works and they're under part four of the Copyright Actors as cinematic graph films essentially. So if we focus on photographs and films probably today as being the tangible products that are being captured by aerial surveillance used on drones, one important factor is the fact that copyright won't protect raw data or raw facts per se. So when we talk about raw data, we're talking about it in a legal sense and I know that you as data scientists will probably have a slightly different take on this but the law takes the approach that raw facts and figures are generally not able to be protected by copyright. They are too low a threshold and there's no originality in the collection of pure pieces of information. So generally raw data, so if we're talking about raw tide times or sunrise sunset times or just geological information by itself, then that wouldn't be able to be protected by copyright but where copyright does step in is where those tables where data is actually created into data sets and becomes what the law recognises as a table or a compilation. So copyright law essentially won't protect what the law recognises as raw data but copyright law does protect the table and compilation of data. So essentially when we're talking about data sets and the collection of data sets from Jones, if it's a collection of data that has a selection and arrangement attached to it, then the law will protect that as a copyright work and essentially a table and compilation of data sets will be viewed as a literary work under copyright law. So a copyright owner then has the right to control the use of that data set and they could, for example, licence that data set to another party for use, whether it's for free or for payment. As Melanie said, there's quite complex licensing arrangements around a lot of the data sets. But as I mentioned, so we can talk about aggregated data sets or the actual photographs and film footage and all of these three broad categories are recognised as copyright works. So if we look at the... Most of the controversy arises in copyright about who actually has ownership of the copyright work. The general approach in copyright law to ownership is that the first owner of certain copyright works will be the copyright owner of those works and that's certainly the case with photographs. So the first owner of the photo will be the person who took the photo. So if you're thinking of a normal situation, that would normally be the photographer. And as Dez mentioned, the person who is actually in the photo, the subject matter of the photo has really no rights with respect to the copyright, the ability to control the use of that resultant photograph. So how copyright works is copyright subsists in the image itself, not in the subject matter of the image. So the copyright owner then has the ability to exploit that image. So it might be to reproduce it or to digitise it and place it online, for example, and that will be the photographer. So in the context of a drone, usually because, say, whether it's an iPhone camera or a different sort of camera that's attached to a drone, then it will be the capturing of the image will occur through the technology itself. So it will really be governed, the ownership of that image or in some cases the film footage will be governed by the terms of use of the particular technology that you're using. So copyright law always requires a human author for there to be copyright that subsists in any work. So you might remember the controversy a couple of years ago about where monkey stole the photographer's camera, took the camera into the cage, and then took a whole range of selfies. And then it was an issue of who could own the images that the monkey took of itself. It actually was litigated in the States and it was reconfirmed that without a human author there would be no copyright subsisting in those photographs because if the monkey was the one who took the photos, a monkey is not a human, therefore it cannot be an author under the Copyright Act. So essentially one of the guiding principles, as I said, this is essentially the same with film. So under copyright law, the first owner of a film will be the actual maker of the film, usually the director or the producer. And again, you need a human author. But under copyright law, what's important to note is that you are allowed to contract out of the provisions of the Copyright Act by virtue of a contract. So regardless of who the Copyright Act says will own the image, whether it's a photographer or the maker of the film, for example, you can vary that legally by entering it to a contract to the contrary. So what we're seeing in the use of most technologies nowadays, and if you think of social media platforms or any digital contracts, it is essentially the contract between the user and the technology provider that will govern the terms of ownership of essentially the copyright works. So it will be very much the terms of use that are entered into between the individual and either the technology provider itself, whether that be the drone manufacturer or whether it be in some cases a third party, for example, you may engage a consultant or a contractor to come onto your property to operate drones and collect imagery and data sets in relation to aerial imagery. If that's the case, it will be your contractual arrangement with that consultant or that contractor. So a lot of the times these arrangements are entered into as social, not social arrangements, but informal verbal arrangements, for example, then it may not be a whole lot of paperwork that's evidencing the discussion around the use or the scope of the works that are being done. But what's very important is that if in absence of any discussion around who will own the imagery from the use of drones, then it will be the copyright law who will determine who will own. And in most cases, the copyright law will say whoever operates a drone or whoever has owned the technology will own the resultant footage, data sets, or photographs of what it might be. So there's particular contractual relationships under the Copyright Act for employees and employers. So if an employee is a drone operator and you are employing them to do that, then if that's an employment relationship as opposed to a contractor one-off payment-for-service type arrangement, then as an employer, you may have ownership rights over the imagery in those situations. So basically, to put it simply, essentially it's always the terms of use of the technology that will essentially govern the use, the copyright works that will be generated from the drone technology. So essentially what we're seeing, particularly in the agricultural context, is a very similar line that's happening with the new digital precision agricultural technology, such as the tractors, with all of the embedded technologies. Essentially what we're seeing is farmers who are turning on their tractors. By turning on the vehicle, you agree to the license that's embedded into the technology that drives the tractor and that is extracting the data and perhaps beaming it straight up to a cloud-based service. Those licences are often entered into farmers when they turn the machine on, or if you're thinking of a software service when that software is downloaded as well. So what we're seeing is that where we've got larger drones, basically with really complicated technologies embedded in it, usually the drone operator themselves perhaps will only be owning the physical equipment and not the actual have no rights to the technology that's embedded into the equipment. And so again, it comes back to the license agreements in these cases. So some of the clauses that I've seen in some of the license agreements, I've just given you a sense of some of the types of clauses that you might come across, is often in these types of license agreements with these new technologies, clauses around ownership, and often there'll be statements about you will be the owner of all of your intellectual property rights. What's interesting to note is if you're talking about IP and you're talking about intellectual property, intellectual property basically is the umbrella term that covers copyright, trademarks, designs, patents. So it doesn't... Most definitions of intellectual property will not cover data. So what's really important, if you've agreed that you are the owner of your intellectual property, often that won't address raw data. It may address and incorporate collections or compilations of data that literally works, that would be covered under copyright. So just the language of intellectual property isn't really broad enough to cover data in all instances. So when you see a clause such as the first one, you'll be the owner of all intellectual property rights to the data that you provide to all maps, graphics, and reports. What's really interesting about that is that often these types of claims are made, but that can't be really... That's not necessarily correct because if you are using a third party's map, for example, and you're overlaying data from your drone operations onto another map, then you've got more complicated copyright issues because essentially the map that's been given to you, unless you've had a license or permission to use that map to overlay your information on it, you've got different sets of copyright essentially that you'll have to deal with it. So it's important that you understand what some of these clauses are trying to say. Often there'll be provisions in the contracts about testing provisions as well that they'll be able to use the data that's been collected for the purposes of performing technical services or testing or improving or analytical processing of your equipment. What we often see is that any derived data will actually be owned by the company. So this may be a combination of data that may be from one person's property combined with another person's property and where that's aggregated, then the aggregated product may be owned by the technology provider. The issue of access and who's accessing the information is also one that's caused some concern within different industries, and that is very much a case where there's a lot of cloud-based services being used where that information is being stored from surveillance attached to drone technology that again it will be the license that will determine who can have access to that information and how far. We've seen clauses that say we will share this data with our affiliates and in some cases their affiliates as well. So you can see how broad that third party sharing can go on. So essentially what's really probably the most important message is for those who are operating drones for the purposes of gathering data sets and surveillance and aerial and obviously in the research context that it's very important that you understand the licenses that are being entered into because it'll be the license generally that will govern the ownership. Most times the researchers and these people who are providing the services tend not to have those discussions about up front before the services provided about who can use the information that's been collected whether it's imagery or photographs or data sets for example. And best practice in terms of licensing is that those issues need to be addressed and dealt with at the start of any commercial relationship rather than somewhere down the track. So you'll notice that even though your researchers and you're using some of these technologies for research that unless there's research exemptions in your license agreements with these commercial operators that research per se is not really a ground for claiming permission to use data sets if you don't already own them under the contract. Thanks, Lian. I would like to say thank you. Thank you all our speakers, Melanie, Tess and Lian. And thank you for attending today's webinar.