 Roedd hynny'n gallu cwestiynau wrth i ddweud y byddai? Dyna, ddwy'n ddwych yn gallu bod yn dyfu gyd. Ddych chi'n fwy o ddweud y rhan o gyllid channel 4 yfnwch yn fwy o'r bobl? Rhaid yna mae o'n meddwl chi'n bwysig yng nghymru o'r effeithio'r project? Dyna dda nhw wedi cael arbennig unrhyw unedol ar hwn ar ei ddechrau. Mae'r ffordd o'r bwysig o'r cwlad chyfnodig. Felly, rhes i chi'n gweithio o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r bwysig o'r gweithio yma yng ngyfodol o'r pethau o'r bywysig o'r bwysig o ddiweddol i gweithio'r ddau i drwg. I mean it wasn't sort of heavily, it wasn't tied to curriculum or it wasn't sort of heavily I guess motivated by the education but it was certainly of real interest to look at you know how those topics might be engaged in through a direct dialogue with the audience. Obviously Channel 4 are really interested in sex education and so I think that was definitely an outcome that we were looking at. I think you know just the sort of level of engagement to what extent the participants would respond and engage with it. And also demographic data, what sort of demographic or audience this type of project could appeal to, feedback in terms of not only the sort of technology but the sort of context and the content. We tested things like sending messages at 11.30 at night and we got quite a few responses saying my mum's crossing at me because you sent me a message at midnight and so I guess we sort of tested the boundaries a little bit of when we could sort of interact with the audience. So yeah I think there's the sort of educational, the creative and the sort of demographic really. Okay, thank you. Any other immediate questions? I'm going to ask some things. Go on then. Two down here. Thank you. Hold on I know you can't because the mic won't put you up for the filming sorry. I'm sure you can shout lightly with that. Thanks. Well it was really through the relationship with Matlock and Matlock is someone who sort of comes from a media art background so he knows the work of Blast Theory and is really I guess supportive and interested in the way that sort of artists and creative people are interacting with sort of digital media. So Mat Adams who's one of the Blast Theory artists has known Matlock for quite a few years you know sort of professionally and socially and Mat Adams has actually been a facilitator now on these labs called crossover labs that happen sort of once or twice a year that are sort of hot residential, hot houses for sort of cross-platform development. So Mat and I actually both were on a crossover that was facilitated for Channel 4 so it was sort of like, I don't know it was, it was sort of like cherry picking off the Channel 4 commissioners because they were all like you know all together in a room like this and it was a and Mat was a facilitator at that particular crossover and I was, my role was real this is just a little aside I was sort of like playing a ghost in a sort of pervasive media game because it was in an old house so that was sort of quite weird. But I guess it's sort of access to those Channel 4 commissioners and developing relationships with them but I think obviously what we're looking at doing now is how we develop our pitching skills, how we actually take a project to a Channel 4 commissioner that we don't have a relationship with. But I think it is being in the places that the commissioners are like you know something like Sheffield Dockfest or you know get on their mailing list and you know get to events that Channel 4 run and they have actually, I mean they are sort of really broadening their scope at the moment and are inviting new projects and they have actually just in the last week launched a sort of call for new projects. So they are definitely sort of sniffing around for new ideas but I think also you can just email them and they are pretty responsive actually. Okay, John here, microphone coming. Who are you? Sorry I know who you are but others may not. I mean digital media organisation talk about metadata and control of the cabinet which many people here might be, might be new terms to them. It's very interesting in this week where hashtags have joined us up on Twitter. We probably all realise the power of certain words and that's what you're talking about. It's how you bring audiences to digital content using particular terms. I just wondered if you've worked with any other or traditional cultural organisations using your expertise in control of the cabinet areas of metadata. I mean to be perfectly honest, no. It's been a sort of organic process as we've developed but also looking at how Amazon, how Google, how these other search engines work and some of them are very, very simple. In terms of our business and to monetise our assets you've got to make the purchase path and the search mechanism as simple as possible, not multiple clicks. So I think it's a marriage between the metadata and the purchase path but as I say seeing what's out there and what works for your average Joe who might not be in the B2B market, might be a B2C business to consumer or just an ordinary person. I think there's a lot that we can learn and that we are learning from. The whole area of cloud sourcing is quite interesting. There's something called, I don't know, Tegasaurus or something out there that I think Magnum were using to add metadata to their film stills. And it seems great, that seems wonderful but the first time you get it wrong and even though 19 people out there might agree that that picture is that date and those people and you think, oh great, that validates that. It's a bit like Wiki and then you put it up and then it goes in a book, someone discredits that and then someone has to pulp 500,000 books, then you've got a problem. So certainly in the factual world, in the editorial world, we need to be absolutely spot on and from an archival sense you can't possibly be that because you're looking at captions that were written 150 years ago sometimes. So they might have notated it down incorrectly or used the wrong word and even just semantics is a big, big deal. I have been banned from Turkey by the embassy because we use the word genocide instead of massacre for the Turkish issue in 1915. But just us using that word genocide instead of massacre or slaughter or whatever on our website cause all sorts of problems. So as I say, you need to be very careful. Okay, really interesting. Any other questions from the floor? I'm going to ask one in that case about intellectual property because George, you flagged, you had to deal with things you hadn't dealt with before in dealing with Channel 4. I've done an awful lot of broadcast related work including with Channel 4 over the years. Issues, what should people be aware of? Are there any enabling things you come across as a good stuff in the intellectual property debate? Was it just a lot of hard yards you've got to do? You have to do the hard yards, definitely. I mean there are a couple of issues around intellectual property. There's the IP and copyright in the story itself and there's also the IP in the software development. Some of you probably know you can't actually patent or copyright an idea or a concept but you can sort of patent software and you can sort of exert IP rights on software. So I guess a really key issue for us in this was ensuring that we own the IP in the software so that we can use that later because business models is something we're really looking at at the moment and it's really important for us as a group of artists to be rewarded for the innovation and R&D that we've undertaken over the last 15 years in this area. So it's a lot of legal work to really work out what we own and what IP we own and we are actually doing IP audits at the moment. In terms of the relationship with Channel 4, the first contract they gave to us, they wanted us to assign all of our rights to them, which was a real problem. And because organisations like PACT, which is a sort of producers support organisation, has worked with Channel 4 and broadcasters for many years to ensure that producers and independents maintain the rights to their work. So it was a bit of a shock to us to get this contract that wanted us to assign all the rights. So we had to go through a very protracted stage of negotiation with our lawyers and Channel 4 lawyers just to make sure that we kept the rights to the work and that we could give them a licence. So it just seems sort of money needlessly spent on working out this sort of rights negotiation with Channel 4, which many independents before us have spent a lot of money on and gone through. But we sort of came to an agreement in the end, but I think the key learning for us is the sort of processes of maintaining your IP and identifying what your intellectual property is, which I'm sure you've... Oh yeah, well I'm a former vice-chair of PACT so I was responsible for negotiating the deal they were supposed to use instead of the one that they did with you or tried to. So we come to this, Matt. We come to this question of IP. You're helping people leverage the value of their IP. I mean you own a lot and you have lots of different relationship models. It's sort of what interested me most about the kind of range of models you presented was quite a lot of them are applicable in the context of arts organisations partnering together etc. It's not just in a big commercial context. People got to get over a boundary, they've got to get over a sort of hurdle about hanging on to their IP and being in charge of it to make the most of a relationship. With somebody like you? Yeah, I mean sometimes contributors and image partners look at our contracts and they don't necessarily like the terms because there's a certain amount of comfort we have to give ourselves so you're not going to be sued further down the line. So for example a contributor has given you what they say is their copyright. Is it actually their copyright? Exactly. They have to sign contracts saying that. So if we are sued further down the road for whatever reason then we're clear. So sometimes, and it varies, you've got big institutions who have whole teams of lawyers who will pick through our contracts in one way and then you'll have someone that doesn't really understand IP rights. He's just a photographer, a jobbing photographer. Did he work for someone? Was he employed? Has he got moral rights? And it can become a real minefield. So absolutely. Some people are quite blasé about it. Certain photographers will quite happy for us to sell to anyone, anywhere, any price point. Other photographers are very, very choosy about their work. They don't want it cropped. They don't want it rotated or flipped. They don't want it sold into the States. They don't want it sold on less than $500 and so on and so forth. So there's lots of restrictions that you need to apply to each asset. The trouble is you just put more and more barriers in the way. And it is a volume driven business now. There's the odd image that we'll sell as an exclusive for a silly amount of money. But most of the time the price per image is being driven down because of market forces. The digital world, even in our 15, 16 years of business, has changed enormously. Certainly since the advent of what we call microstock sites like iStock. And there's new ones coming out. People are giving stuff away now. Literally it's free. So how can you compete with that? And the point is you don't. You try and compete on quality and a good search system and having the assurance that you've got the rights to sell that. So there is an integrity in those rights. And there's a lot of guys that don't care about that that leads to all sorts of problems. But do you think a lot of people get themselves tangled up trying to worry about how they're going to protect against the risk and worry about piracy and all that stuff first and foremost? And in fact in the digital space it's kind of make it available, manage the process sensibly but don't sit there thinking you can handle it. And there's this thing about all, if it's digital and it's all out there and it's easily pirateable and this and that. And I thought well our industry has always been based on trust. In the sense you're going to give a picture whether it's a photograph, a transparency or whatever. And the customer is going to use it in the way that they say they're going to use it. And it's no different in the digital age. Yes it's broader and it's quicker to get worldwide but it's no different at all. There's a license involved that the customers say they're going to do what they've signed up to do. And if they don't do that or they do more then we will come after them. We have a nice piece of software, well we bought the company, called Picscout. And Picscout is basically a web crawler. We embed all our images with certain secret data so this web crawler can go out and find our imagery, checks against our sales system. If it's been licensed great, if it hasn't been licensed we will go after the end user and charge them for that. That's caused a lot of anguish out there in the marketplace because you'll find that some guy just downloaded something to use on his website, minuscule, and then he gets a £1,600 bill and he gets very, very upset. And I thought, but why did you feel that you could use that and basically steal that image and not pay anyone, anything, or the photographer, whether it's ours or someone we represent. And some people get very, very upset. And then you get into the whole Google discussion and the Hargreaves report and Clause 43 and making stuff available that really worried us considerably. Cos we're trying to protect people's rights, not just make stuff just generally available for every Tom Dick and Harry. OK, brilliant. It seems to me that you're sort of both to some degree talking about finding audiences that are engaging with your work in ways which are meaningful for them. In your terms it may be commercial, in yours it may be the very specific sort of creative and participatory experience. I was once advising the chief executive of the UK Film Council at a meeting of film heads around Europe in Paris. And I remember to this day a rather brilliant guy who was the equivalent in Belgium. And there was this great conversation going on about piracy and how digital was threatening traditional model. And he was absolutely adamant that you had to really, you didn't have one size fits all solutions in digital. You had to think it through according to your circumstances. Great line was when they were talking about piracy. He said, look, I dream about the day when anybody cares enough about a Belgian film to want to pirate it. And I thought actually that's quite a pragmatic response and a quite a pragmatic sort of approach to what to do with digital media and digital technology and art sort of work. Look, thank you very much for two really compelling and interesting case studies. And we're going to break for lunch. We're going to come back at 1.45 for a presentation or at least a conversation about the Brighton Digital Festival. But thanks again and we'll see you back at 1.45.