 Okay. To get you in the mood for the first keynote, I thought I might attempt, given so many of us here, the world's largest library joke, if you'll help me out. It's slightly related, as I'll introduce in a few seconds. I need a bit of audience help. If I say knock-knock, you're going to say... ...but probably a bit louder and all together. If I say knock-knock... Excellent. We're ready. Knock-knock... ...interrupting librarian. I did have a joke about copyright, but I couldn't get it cleared in time. So... ...on to our first keynote. On to our first keynote. James Secker is one of the country's foremost experts in copyright and digital literacy. She works at LAC, but is also founder of the LILAC conference, chair of the SILIP Information Literacy Group, and was recently voted Information Literacy Practitioner of the Year. I'm sure many of you around the room have either worked with her or know of her, or read some of her literature or advice. She's been around in the sector providing digital literacy information and advice for many, many years. But the thing that best sums Jane up, I think, is if you're to imagine somebody who works in digital literacy and copyright and libraries, and then think of exactly the opposite, then that's James Secker. So please put your hands together for James Secker. Thank you very much, Alex. That was a lovely introduction. Good morning, everybody. I'm absolutely delighted to be a keynote at ALT this year. I'm also delighted to see so many of you actually made it this morning after the conference dinner. I mean, seriously, whose idea was it to put on a keynote about copyright this morning? I was a little bit worried I would be talking to an empty room, and I certainly would have been at 9 o'clock this morning. Anyway, thank you for coming this morning. I'm actually going to start on a quite serious and fairly somber and reflective note. I've been thinking back to the first time that I attended the ALT C conference, and it was very memorable. It was memorable for a number of reasons. I think I was probably talking about copyright back then, but my first ALT was in Edinburgh in 2001. I remember ALT C on the face of it for reasons completely unrelated to learning technology and copyright. It was the second day of the conference, and it was the day that two planes were flown into the World Trade Centre. In fact, I came out of a session and I witnessed this event happening in real time on a large screen, and I still go cold at that thought. And you might ask yourself why I'm recounting this now at the start of my keynote. What has terrorism got to do with learning technology and copyright? Well, this picture for me is some refugee children, there's some Syrian children, and they're learning in a school in the Lebanon. For me, this symbolises hope, because it is my belief that education has everything to do with combat in fear and hate in the world, and that technology has the power to allow us to teach people in new ways. Yes, technology lets us witness events in real time as they're happening, but it also means that we can participate in learning from wherever we are around the world. And used in the right way, I think that technology offers the world of education so much. Because the more people learn in my experience, the more tolerant they become. The more we can work together to solve some of the really big, scary problems in the world like poverty and disease, and I hope that maybe one day there might be peace on Earth, because for me, learning is fundamentally about questioning. It's not about accepting information that's presented to you, and it's not about copying other people blindly. But it's using other people's ideas critically and thoughtfully to create something new that builds on what exists already. It's about finding solutions to problems, not about fear and hate. And it's about recognising the privileges and freedoms that we have and using them to help other people. Technology is a really powerful enabler that gives people choices. At this point, I thought we'd have a bit of a pause, so we've got big pause on the screen. For anyone who knows me, I quite often have a cat in my slides, so I thought I'd get the cat out of the way now. Because in the whole scheme of things, I now want to talk about something that I hope will seem a lot less scary and unpleasant, and I promise you there is a connection. You may ask yourself why I've raised some genuinely big, scary problems like terrorism, and why does copyright then even matter? However, I would argue it really does matter. From some recent research that I've been doing with Chris Morrison, we've found that copyright can cause people anxiety. It certainly is a worry, it's something that they don't like, they want to avoid. And for me, I find that that will limit what people think that they can do with information. In higher education, in the digital environment, I find people are quite nervous about what they can and can't do relating to copyright. And this is what I want to tackle, to understand where it's coming from, but also to change the way that we view copyright to help us put it in perspective when we think about risk. So copyright is fundamentally about giving people credit and respect for their ideas, because copyright doesn't protect ideas, it specifically protects the way they're expressed. And that's surely a good thing. It's not something to be scared or worried about, or think that it will limit what we can do as a teacher. However, how many times do I hear that copyright is limiting and how many times over the years do I personally get viewed with suspicion? Academics, colleagues, even friends and family hiding their copy and activities from me. Gilt he looks from my dad over his pirate video collection from the 1980s. For fear of what, I'm going to come along and make a citizen's arrest. There seems to be a lot of guilt around and a feeling of injustice that it's the law that's wrong, it's not them, because it's so easy to copy. So it must be okay. So this morning I want to talk about what copyright is, what it isn't, and where it came from, and what it's trying to achieve. To encourage you to use the exceptions that are in the law that are designed for educators, because of course you can use other people's ideas, and doing that with an understanding of copyright means that you're not going to end up on the wrong side of the law. In fact, it's not going to be prism where you'll end up. It's most likely you're going to end up in court paying a fine if you break copyright laws. But that, for me, is not why it matters. This is not an anti-infringement talk, and there is actually very little evidence from the Intellectual Property Office that punishments and threat work in changing people's behaviour, but maybe helpful technologies do. In my view, copyright matters because it is about respect for other people's ideas, because it's about your reputation as a teacher, as a learning technologist, as a librarian, a lecturer, and as an institution that has values. Ultimately, it's about fairness and it's about getting credit for something that you've invested in, but also about being clear when you want to share your knowledge and your ideas with others, and being open about doing that. Okay, so we're going to have a little bit of audience participation here. So has anybody here, put your hand up, been a victim of theft? Anybody like to tell me about it? Oh, we've got loads of hands. I'm going to go to Josie at the front. Okay, Josie, tell me about it. What was stolen? Your iPhone, okay. And how did that make you feel? It made you feel sad. It felt like you'd lost something, did you? You felt like you'd lost your iPhone. It's not very nice, is it, if you lose something? Probably something you cared about. I'm sure you're quite passionate about your iPhone, but there would be lots of things on there, very personal to you. So someone took your property and you didn't have it. Because our intellectual efforts, as they're set down into creative works, whether they're books, journal articles, photos that we take, videos that we might be sharing last night on Twitter during the conference dinner, they're our intellectual property. A little bit like my laptop, my watch is my property, and if you take it without permission, then that's called stealing, and that's not a good thing. But I'm going to return to this notion about whether we should think about our intellectual endeavours as property in a moment, like a house or a piece of land, because I don't think it's always a very helpful or accurate analogy. Because viewing copyright as property can lock up knowledge and mean that only those who have privileges can get access to it. It can put paywalls in place, meaning that a doctor in Africa can't read a medical journal that might help them treat someone with a disease. And that's a bad thing, and I don't think that is what copyright is to do. So copyright in the digital age has been said to be broken, and it certainly is a real challenge. You are talking about laws that, despite numerous updates, most recently in 2014 with the Hargreaves reviews, laws that struggle with what technology has made so easy. What do you mean I can't rip my CDs and put them on my phone? Why can't I lend my friend a Kindle version of a book on paperbacks? If I right click on an image and take it off the internet and put it in a PowerPoint, why would that be copyright infringement? Copyright laws don't make sense, I'm frequently told. They get in the way of innovation, stifled creativity. They stop teachers doing what they should be doing, which is spreading knowledge and ideas. So if we return to this idea of why copyright matters, we have to look at people like Aaron Schwartz, the internet freedom fighter. He found himself facing not just criminal charges but a long prison sentence and a large fine for downloading large portions of the JSTOR database using a university subscription because he believed that knowledge should be free and fear here led to tragedy when he took his own life in 2013. Recently we have the case of Syhub, the online search engine that now has over 51 million academic papers bypassing the publisher Paywalls and it's founder from Kazakhstan, Alexandra Elbakan is facing a large lawsuit from Elsevier. The domain has been blocked but Syhub are currently playing Captain Mouse with the law setting up their servers elsewhere as soon as they're shut down. Because the founders believe that knowledge should be free and open and who knows where it will end but certainly copyright continues to matter and continues to be a battleground but arguably it doesn't have to be like this which is why in 2001 Lawrence Lessig invented Creative Commons a concept and a legal solution through licensing to be more open when we share content and I'm sure you're all familiar with it but how many of you know that the idea came from the cultural commons it's based on this, Nick Poole who is the chief executive of Sillip the librarian's professional body wrote about his passion for the cultural commons a few weeks ago on his blog the idea uses a property analogy to highlight the differences between private and common land so private land is owned by a landlord, we might be able to walk on it but we would have to have permission to do that and it would never be ours to own meanwhile common land is land we all have access to but it's also land that we have a shared responsibility to protect and to preserve the cultural commons is our shared cultural heritage it's our art it's our music, it's our literary works and we should own this collectively so it's safe from enclosure for future generations this is what museums libraries archives are there to preserve but it's not just about preserving it we must be free to access and use our cultural heritage so this morning I'm going to talk about why copyright is seen as scary, complex, avoided and hopefully offer some solutions on how to view it as empowering how to see it in a holistic way and how open practices are the answer technology can be used to educate people to make the world a less scary place where people don't want to go around killing each other but also by understanding copyright laws and understanding what they're trying to do and who they currently serve we can be empowered as educators and seek to change things for the better we can't just ignore copyright and allow our cultural heritage to be locked up and only accessible to those with privilege so let's have a think today about how copyright is really critical to almost everything we do so recently I've been watching the crash course videos has anybody seen any of those? Anyone? Well have a look at them, check them out there are some fantastic videos on philosophy, on economics, on history but there are some great videos on copyright and intellectual property and I would highly recommend the first video which is an introduction to intellectual property how it explains it's not a binary argument between IP being a bad thing and technology being good but how it's all about balance the series explains how copyright impacts on almost everything we do today so from getting a tattoo I'm afraid mine's gone washed off listening to music sharing our photos online we often encounter copyright as a user but when we do this it's when somebody's saying no or even threatening to find us and in fact the ideas from the video come from a book called infringement nation by John Toranian so in his book Toranian who's a US professor of law gives us an overview of the evolution of copyright and he considers the implications of future where there are harsh sanctions and overbroad infringement claims which increasingly diverge from societal norms so more and more of what you and I are doing with digital content on a daily basis that seems acceptable could become criminalised another book here worthy of mention is Kevin Ashton's How to Fly a Horse is a fantastic book for anyone who's interested in innovation and creativity and Ashton shows us how in the US copyright registrations from the year 1870 to 1991 have increased enormously in the same period there was a massive growth in scientific papers but he points out that in the last few centuries with this more and more people getting credit as creators there's no real evidence that we're actually becoming more creative and he questions the link that copyright is actually there to promote creativity so if we think about teaching so what is teaching it's based on sharing knowledge and ideas with so much information in the world today how could anyone ever have an original thought we all build on people's ideas systems for dealing with this in academia we reference them we reference people through citations however all the issues seem to get a lot more complicated when we teach online because in addition to referencing other people's work it's really easy to share their work and put their work in a digital space which will involve copying the work and yet teacher education focuses very little on copyright it's viewed as an afterthought and it's hard to get academics to care about it we need to make it personal to them we also need to view it like any other form of digital literacy it has to be taught in context it has to be embedded into the part of learning to teach and learning to use other people's work so let's have a think about what we do at the moment in higher education and I'm going to call this the old way so we've got our senior managers who are trying to meet the increasing needs of students who tackle the failing NSS scores they want to digitise readings they want to put lots of resources in the VLE to support learning 24-7 and along the way somebody realises there might be a copyright issue so at this point the traditional view and what a lot of institutions have done is to appoint a special person so we might call them a copyright officer we could even call them a compliance officer and then they can sort it all out what they can do is they can go around getting permission for things that people want to use they can do some training they can remove some content from the VLE they can get some licences they can remove lots more content from the VLE they can have a look at the recorded lectures and start worrying about all the photos that are in there and think about taking those down that's a really good approach that's really really going to work having this special person there to sort it all out is really the way to go because what is the result well the result is that copyright becomes somebody else's problem it becomes my problem in many cases and it certainly isn't an issue that the teachers or the lecturers think about it will always be an afterthought they'll have this special person who can sort it out and it won't be something they'll factor into their teaching or pass on to their students what do you mean where did I get this image from I just took it off the internet of course and the result is copyright continues to be seen as something out of step with the digital age it's not worth learning about and the end result is that over time the respect for other people's ideas and their work will decrease as everything just becomes some giant unattributed mush and this is not what we want, surely okay, right so at this point I feel it's time for a history lesson my first degree was in history and some of my PhD, I love history but the reason I got so excited about history when I was at school when I was young was when I realised that history wasn't just about facts and dates it was about opinions it was about bias, it was about evidence and it was about debate because nobody could say with any certainty what actually happened and why when I was younger I wanted to be a detective and history to me was a bit like being a detective and when I became a librarian I realised that history is actually what the library and information world call information literacy is all about evaluating our sources and don't just take my word for the fact that information literacy is important UNESCO recognised that information literacy empowers people in all walks of life to seek, evaluate, use and create information effectively to achieve their personal, social, occupational and educational goals and it is a basic human right in the digital world that promotes social inclusion for all nations this I can get very passionate about in addition to copyright as well and cats of course so okay, so history matters but for the next part of my talk I am reliant on the work of another Professor Ronan Deasley and I discovered his book I was thinking copyright while I was doing some research for this keynote I'm going to call him Ronan because he is a friend of mine he asks us to be mindful of the language of copyright in the intellectual property rights and of intellectual property rights as a human rights because it's a powerful rhetoric with little historical or theoretical credibility which nevertheless threatens to dominate the current copyright discourse and drive the policy and the government at the moment so we need to understand where copyright comes from but also to question whether it is a human right surely that's access to information and information literacy okay, history lesson continues so where did copyright come from? the Statute of Anne anyone heard of it? 1709 we've got one, two, three a couple of hands in the room okay, the world's first copyright law and most copyright laws in the world emanate from this so in late 17th century England the state actually had a monopoly on printing however, in 1694 Parliament refused to renew what was called the Licensing Act which basically ended the station as monopoly and the press restrictions so booksellers were flourishing but it was incredibly competitive and they were looking to protect their investment so they started lobbying for there to be a new law the Statute of Anne was actually called an Act for the Encouragement of Learning but to get the Act passed the booksellers hit on a great idea that they would say that copyright in a work would lie with the author and whoever they chose to licence their work port too so it was originally just meant to last for 14 years, not life plus 70 as we have now returning to Ronan's book so he highlights some of the myths and the language that's used to convince us that copyright is a property right and that it existed before 1709 as part of common law he looks back to the founding of the modern state the modern British state so John Lock here said that every man has a property in his person the labour of his body, the work of his hands it's his labour theory and the natural right of an author to their work is argued to be part of labour theory and cited in many many books on the history of copyright however Ronan urges us to be mindful of this notion that copyright is like other forms of property particularly in the digital age so I think viewing copyright as property becomes problematic when we think about the idea of sharing and sharing is a very loaded term so if we think about sharing something like a cake okay I have a cake and Sam you and I are going to share this cake so we're going to get half each okay actually don't share a cake with me because I'll probably have way more than half of the cake but in my cake I will lose something if I share that cake with you you will have some of my cake but if we look at the work of writers such as Nicholas John who examines the concept of sharing in the digital age sharing gives us this kind of warm fuzzy feeling it embodies lots of positive values empathy, communication, fairness, openness, equality sharing is also really important in an emotional sense so we share emotions but we share cultural heritage and it's really important to build communities sharing is good but potentially sharing file sharing for example could lead to copyright infringement and it could get me in trouble but really if we think back to the cake analogy and then think to sharing a digital file who does lose when we share a digital file it's not like the cake we do both get the whole file okay so we need to have a think at this point to the notion of what Ronan calls the public domain in his book Rethinking Copyright so this is often confused with the idea of works that are made publicly available but as you can see in this diagram the public domain here is actually quite a large portion of works it's works where they've fallen out of copyright due to their age but it's also because works don't necessarily qualify for copyright protection because they might be being used under a statutory exception such as for private study or research or because in substantial parts of the work are being used however the point here is that the notion of the public domain can be curtailed because of people's perception of what copyright is actually covering and here I think this is where a little bit of knowledge about copyright can actually make people very risk averse copyright is so full of grey areas that actually arguably the more you know about it the kind of less likely you are to give somebody a definitive answer to something so you'll usually get from me it kind of depends really so if we think about this idea of the public domain there are also other moves to curtail the public domain in several ways firstly there are licenses and contracts now that we all sign and we all agree to when we use digital content despite changes to the law back in 2014 which said that contracts could not override statutory exceptions there are some clauses there in these contracts and if people don't understand copyright exceptions then they think that they can't do certain things that they are entitled to but secondly content is actually locked up through technical means digital locks technical protection measures DRM the more and more we use digital content the more you realise it is bound by these terms and conditions and it's bound by these physical locks that stop you doing things so we see this in libraries all the time with ebook platforms that restrict how many pages you can print or files that self combust when they've been on your computer for so many days and we're also seeing an increasing move to what they call enclose the commons so we have the digitisation of public domain works that lead to the claim by some organisations that they have created through their investment in the digitisation process a new copyright work so recently a few weeks ago on Twitter there was an outrage when it was discovered that a publisher had quite a lot of the work of Charles Darwin firmly in the public domain obviously but behind a paywall is this ethical we have to ask ourselves has that publisher invested substantially in the digitisation process to justify this another subject of fascination to me is the work of William Morris the wallpaper and textile designer and I'm currently on a quest to track down how the work of this man who died in 1896 is licensed currently to a wallpaper company called Morris & Co his firm went into liquidation in the 1940s and he has quite clearly been dead for more than 70 years it is like being a detective all over again and this idea of enclosing the commons and our cultural heritage is something that we need to be really alert to we need to use the copyright exceptions that we have in UK law so we have exceptions that allow text and data mining for non-commercial purposes we have exceptions that allow illustration for instruction exceptions that allow quotation for criticism and review and we need to use those but as we have more and more resources in digital form we have to be alert to the technical barriers that are in place that might prevent you from using the exceptions so you can't download the data and text mine it or worse still we have publishers saying they will offer a premium charge for something that is actually allowed under the law and they can get away with it because it is their intellectual property and you are the copyright user and you have to make the case and argue and defend your right to use your exceptions so my main point here is that I think we do need to be less cautious and copyright education is really important so we understand about the copyright exceptions that we have and we understand about the contracts that we are learning when we are challenging some of the assumptions and supposed foundations that copyright law is based on we want to be able to purchase digital content that can be used in a way that is suitable for teaching and learning that we do today and we need informed and enlightened academics and teachers who recognise their role as an educator first and foremost and want to share their knowledge with others only then should they start considering what they want to protect and monitorise and hopefully we can all start to embrace open practices by being knowledgeable about the risks but also knowing about our rights so how do we do this so let's have a think about the journey that a child is taking as they progress through the education system today what do they learn when they join school about finding, sharing, managing information appropriately or information literacy as I've discussed earlier embedding these literacies in the curriculum from the earlier stage is essential in my view the world doesn't need kids growing up who are really good at just remembering stuff and copying other people's ideas it needs young people who can solve problems and invent new things but there is a paradox here because we all copy people new ideas and interpretations are key to creativity in learning but nobody invents anything from scratch and I think now with the importance of the remix culture we must be able to copy other people but the old and the kind of traditional model in education in schools is to get kids together they will work on some kind of project probably actually on their own they'll take images and content from the internet and they won't be challenged by teachers or asked to cite their sources from a young age to become expert at copying and they will be rewarded for reproducing the ideas of others through the exam system so much so that when they get to university they are expert at knowing how to faithfully copy the work of others we have all seen Bloom's taxonomy and we know that reproduction and repetition are the lower order thinking skills we need to be challenging our learners from a young age to critique other people's work to create something new and in my view you can't start this too early but reproduction and remembering are the foundation of learning so again here there is a paradox because we do all need to be expert at copying but let's have a think about new ways of learning and I've been delighted for the past few years to be involved in an initiative in schools called Teen Tech which is to inspire a love of science and technology in young people there is an annual competition and it's open to all 13 to 18 year olds in schools around the UK and kids here work in small teams to come up with innovative solutions to help solve big problems in the world they have original ideas and they're rewarded for the way that they use those ideas and how they use previous research copyright and respect for IP is taught alongside other information literacy skills and if you'd like to see some of the resources that we have available to support that I've got some flyers about it at the front but if we go return thinking about this future academic doing their degree and what they learn at the moment about copyright and information literacy so not the bolt-on approach of giving the undergrads a lecture on plagiarism and why it's wrong at the start of the year but if we start with the idea about being inducted into the ways of a discipline scholarship is first about copying other people's ideas using their research and then using those to develop our thinking and that we are all creators we need this to happen far more than it does and we need it to start happening much before undergraduate level so we're going to think about our student here who's actually decided now that they want to be an academic they're going to go on and do a PhD and they're going to be new and enlightened and understand how to share and protect their ideas and use other people's work it's now relatively common if you're a PhD student to share your thesis on open access but before you do this it's really important that you understand copyright you need to understand how to consider the third party content that you put in your thesis you need to understand how you might want to licence your work and whether you want to put a creative commons licence on it which increasingly we're seeing PhD students doing so in higher education understanding copyright and other aspects of intellectual property becomes crucial if you will work for universities and organisations you need to read the contract to find out who is it that owns your teaching materials who owns the research that you do have you read your universities IP policy should you be assigning your copyright to a publisher to get a journal article or a book published if your lectures are being recorded what rights do you have over those recordings copyright is a minefield and there's a lot of questions that you need to ask yourself today but I want to embed that understanding in everyone not just a few specialist experts I think here that Ian talked about this and many people have talked about games as a big theme of play at the conference I think games are particularly helpful here and a few years ago I worked with Chris Morrison to produce a game called copyright the card game which is to teach librarians and other university staff about copyright principles about licences and exceptions and it's proved hugely popular I mean seriously who would think that people want to play copyright games or make up jokes about it but they do we're currently working on a game at the moment for early career researchers it's called the publishing trap and this game is going to help PhD students and new researchers understand the scholarly communication process to work out what it is that they want to retain and what it is they're happy to share when it comes to their intellectual endeavours when teaching a difficult and complex subject I think games offer a lot of potential here so I'm going to just sum up with three ideas that underpin my thinking about the relationship between technology, education and copyright firstly I think attribution is key so it's about giving people credit for their ideas and their work and it's a fundamental academic convention but I also think it is about good manners and it's about asking people if you can use their work before you do it because invariably I found that is met by it with a really positive reaction you're flattering people you're saying what they have done has got value secondly I think this is about empathy this is about walking in someone else's shoes to really understand their perspective you want to work out the value of the content that you want to use and the value is not always about money here empathy is really important and Brené Brown is fantastic on empathy saying that it is very different to sympathy it drives connection think about who the owner of the work is and what the implications would be if you use their work talk to them might they be trying to sell their photos there is no easy answer and these types of questions will inevitably be down to a judgement call as I said earlier but I really find that putting myself into the shoes of a creator when deciding if I am going to upload an entire book to Moodle for 500 students is quite a good way to approach things and then thirdly I think the key is about developing a collaborative approach to solving problems like copyright communities of practice have been discussed and used in educational technology for many years and approaching copyright as a community is the way to go here and I would really recommend that you have a read about how this is working at the University of Kent and LSE on the UK Copyright Literacy Blog at some point so in summary for me many copyright issues can be tackled if not solved through education empowerment and a community approach and all wrapped up in a layer of understanding about how to use information respect for other people and empathy it's rather like the force isn't it I had to get a star wars quote in there copyright literacy should surround us and bind us together not drive us apart and create fear and I've now got cats and star wars in my slides so to use an age old quote and arguably one that doesn't actually come from Isaac Newton because I believe he was copy in the words of somebody else it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants that we've made advances in the world of knowledge we are all increasingly creators of content and we should be thinking about what we want to share and where possible adding open licenses to our content I don't believe one person can change the world whether they're a teacher, a learning technologist a copyright officer or a librarian they can't fight disease poverty and stop wars however we do have to keep trying to fight battles that we can't win and as Lauren Smith told the Sillip conference this year we must speak out when we see injustice we mustn't let copyright be used to create more information privileges we must believe that if people come together with a common goal then we can change the world and make it a better place so I'm going to end by thanking all the people who are part of my community and how I got to be here today thank you all I shamelessly copy your ideas and I hope that I bring something new to it and if you don't see your photo there then come up to the front and I'll take a selfie with you because I love selfies thank you thank you Jane so have we got any questions thanks Jane that's a really inspiring keynote and also very moving who would have thought copyright could be so emotional I think one of the points I'm really interested in this idea of the enclosure of the commons and what we can do about it because I think you're right we do need to have access to our cultural heritage not only that if it gets locked up but skews a historical record because we simply just cannot access that information but what can we do when we have these big commercial companies who are digitising our cultural heritage archives and putting them behind paywalls what's the best way to fight back against that do you think I think it's really difficult but I think this is where we need our national institutions to take a stand so the national library of Wales for example are putting creative commons on the digitised images that they release we're seeing this more and more where the British library are doing this with a lot of their collection so I think it's really important here that our large cultural institutions lead the way and show us what can be done and when they do it that we really shout about it as well I think they need to be very mindful of commercial companies who come in saying we can digitise this material for you and this is why I feel that librarians need to be really they need to be bold they need to be freedom fighters here and be mindful of the future it's not just about preserving things and having them there for posterity we want them preserved but openly shareable so yeah I love the idea of librarians as freedom fighters OK any other questions OK got one in the middle there no so I mean they gosh you'll put me on the spot with a copyright question there it would depend but potentially it could last for 70 years from when it's created so without a named author then the organisation would own it for 70 years from that point onwards so publishers have a special privilege that allows them to claim 25 years copyright for typography and the way they lay out a work but I think it would probably qualify for 70 years so it's a long time and I think there that's where when a publisher says they want to do this having conversations about open licences and creative commons is really important time for a couple more thanks for the presentation actually my question is kind of it's more of a comment linked to the previous two questions what we see, I mean like academics they don't get anything for writing the journals and these companies they charge 30, 40, 50 pounds per article that is really scary what we see and often what we see is right and wrong is usually illegal and illegal like for example what Gandhi did in India was right but illegal at that time and he was put into jail so we are so hung up with legal and illegal we are forgetting this right and wrong and when we talk about the society or the world peace and everything I think sharing is the key and unless we do that and we focus on that and these corporates are actually doing the opposite and in practice what we see is opposite and any thoughts on that what do you envisage? I think this is where it's very easy to look at things in black and white and I think there is a whole load of things in the middle and I think sometimes people will for example ask a lawyer what their opinion is on an aspect of copyright law and they will tell you what the law actually says and this is where it's really important to maybe take a step back and say yes that is what the law says but what is practical and sometimes that is about weighing up risks as well and maybe just having a way of making those decisions of what is it I'm going to do what is the risk but also I think this is where as an education community need to be quite strong together here and say well actually we are going to come up with some guidance that this is acceptable but we're going to raise this also at the highest level with our academics so they do understand many of the times when you have a conversation with an academic it will be often about their own work and they're not aware of what they've signed so I think that's why for me it's kind of just starting I'm not saying three and four year olds need to understand terms and conditions but if we are going to use more and more content in digital ways we do need to be mindful of what our rights are and what we've signed up to and maybe think less about just always being a kind of black and white case as well Thank you any final questions, comments? Okay, I think we're done Wonderful so thank you very much Jane another round of applause please for our connects I have to put my credits up I do have slide image credits as well for every photo I've used they seem to have disappeared up there they are, of course I've cited all my work Of course Thank you Jane So you've got a nice break now to go and refresh yourselves get ready for the next session at 10.50 We're back in here towards the end of the day for our final keynote with Dave White and Donna Lacrosse, see you then