 Thank you very much. Can you understand me? So I'd like to welcome you this morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's my first time in Vilnius, and I'm very happy to be here. I will have some time in the afternoon to have a bit of a look at this beautiful city. But in the morning and after lunch we have to work a bit. And this morning I would like to give you a short introduction on the basis of our legal studies, the basic schemes of protection copyright and the zoo agendas database right. And Thomas will then elaborate a bit on the licensing issues that are connected, of course. Both are interrelated. First you have to look at the protection and on the basis of this, then you can decide what's the questions in licensing are, and which licensing are the most appropriate ones. Let me start with our approach to this legal part of the study. As lawyers of course we are always eager to define things, define the scope, what we are talking about. And we also looked at research data, what is research data. It's very difficult to really define research data. Of course if you see it you know what it is, but to have a clear delineation is not easy. So we took a very broad approach to research data. So everything that can be the result of some kind of research should be covered within this also the legal part of the study. So you have raw data that are extracted somewhere or in the nature or wherever. And you also have data which have been worked upon already. Tables, graphic pictures, etc. will all be included in the legal part, what we looked at. Of course data is, you always have to keep in mind there's a difference between data and information. Information is more about the content and data is more like the state of storage for example. So talking about data doesn't mean that these data don't have a contents but they are on a different level of semantics so to speak. So we also have to keep it in mind when we talk about legal protection. So in Open App Plus of course the databases comprise most important kind of research data. In some fields there's a lot of data to be collected. I always think about weather forecast and weather forecast you need a lot of data. It takes a lot of money to collect all the information you need to make at least the forecast for the next three days. Although sometimes I'm feeling that it's even not possible today to make a proper forecast for the next day if you have a storm or something around. So let's have a look at legal protection. This is the very basic of our research. There are different levels to be distinguished. Law is always about national schemes. That's the big difference between law and other science. Law always looks at national law. So there's no international law such that is immediately valid in all countries but especially these schemes we're looking at today copyright is basically national law. So there's Italian copyright, there's Polish copyright, there's German copyright, there's Dutch copyright, British copyright. And above that of course there's a level of EU rights and EU directors but mostly EU directors means it's not valid as such but has to be implemented in the national states. So we're still talking about national law. And the level of harmonization on the EU level is still very different with respect to different legal schemes. So what we're talking about is copyright on the one hand and another legal protection scheme which is the zooi generous database right. Copyright may be familiar to you from different contexts. Of course if you write an article it should be copyright protected. So as an author you will have the right to control who can use it, to which publisher you give it. This second scheme, the zooi generous database right, it's not so well known and even among lawyers if you ask them many will not know about it. The reason may be that it's quite new. It was introduced in 1996 by an EU directive. So in legal terms it's quite new, almost 17 years. And it has not much been used in practice. So case law on this is just developing. As lawyers it's quite new scheme but still the specificities of this protection scheme are not very well developed. And of course this was one of the problems we faced also in our study of course to get more into deep into the scheme and to apply it to the infrastructure open air and to cope with the legal issues that were involved in this as well. So let me just compare both schemes so you get an idea what the main topics were in our legal study. Of course copyright is well known, it's about the author, it's about creativity. Creation of an author, if you write an article, compose a piece of music you will be the author because you put creativity into this type of music or type of writing. The database right is completely different concept. It's not about creativity, it's about investment protection. So basically the idea of the legislator was we want to protect investment into the collection of data into a database or the updating of database etc. So it's the first time that really the legislator explicitly said we want to protect investment in an intellectual property scheme. And this makes it special and shows that it has a completely different character. So the problem now is that copyright in our context of open air is not so important because databases are not about creativity. Databases are about collecting almost all data relevant in the field. So if you have this criteria of completeness of a database, it's not a criteria that is somehow creative for individuals. So it has been around like this, this concept who have scientific databases mostly completeness has been around for a long time. So copyright is, as far as databases are concerned, not so important. Of course as far as the data is such as concerned, copyright can still play a role if like legal articles or scientific articles will be protected by copyright. In other cases copyright may protect some parts of information. We just had a discussion yesterday about some technical experiments. If you have a new idea for a technical experiment is protected by copyright or not then you already get into a kind of grey area because copyright is about expression and not the idea. The idea is protected by patent law, technical functioning of procedures or machines is protected by patent law and copyright is more about expression, about description of technical inventions. So it's kind of grey area but as far as database are concerned copyright is not so important but the Zoo Adrenaline Protection Scheme of databases will be relevant. Just to show you again these two pillars of protection we are talking about. On the left side you have the copyright, copyright is about originality or creativity it's about the structure of a database, the collection and display of data not the data itself, it's a very important difference not the data itself is protected by copyright in databases but the structure of the database. In the sense that you try to transform the real world into the structure of a database to get a picture of the real world in the database structure. And on the right side you have this really generous protection database producer protection scheme it's about investment. And again just to stress this point, the generous protection does not protect the data as such the data as such remain free but it protects taking data out of this database because you take part of the investment out of the database and as soon as you take a substantial part out of the database you infringe on this database right. This database is basically about comparing the amount of data you take out of the database compared to the whole database, investment into the whole database. So whereas you can say in principle that data as such remain free of course if you take a substantial part of the database it will be protected for the database producer even in the course of use of the data in the further chain of distribution. So let's have a look at the scope of the rights. I already started with this part. The basic rights you have in copyright as well as in this generous scheme is reproduction and making available. Reproduction means to make a copy of the protected data. Copy is a very broad concept. So of course copy on a physical layer is a copy but also copy in a computer memory is a copy in the legal sense. So any time you make a copy in some part of computer memory you infringe on copyright and also probably on the database. So a generous right. And computer memory doesn't mean not only the hard disk storage but also the working memory of a computer is already enough to make an infringement on copyright. So basically it means any time you load a file into a computer it's an act that's relevant to copyright. Downloading of files from the internet or just working on some files in your computer is already enough to infringe this. You can see the copyright is a very broad concept in this respect. It's a reproduction right. The other important right in our context is making publicly available right which refers to putting something on the internet. It was created as separate rights a couple of years ago by International Convention so all over the world you have this separate right of making available today. And it's also of course important in our context because as a database like OpenAir you want to present it to the public and you want to have exchange with other researchers so automatically also this making available right will be touched upon and maybe possibly also infringed. Let's have a look at some of the important operations that are being pursued in the open air context. The infrastructure that is built up by OpenAir for example access to data. It gets more specific and we have to look at these kind of acts, do they infringe on these rights or not. And of course as a lawyer it depends on the specific circumstances of the case to make a final judgment but of course you can make general remarks on these questions. Like access for example if you make a data available through the infrastructure it will be infringing on the making available right to present something to the public through communication technology like the internet, the data networks. So access if it means that you put something on the internet and make available for other people to download then this making available right will be infringed upon. Linking is a special case. Hyperlinks are one of the key features of the internet and something really new that didn't exist before. So for a long time we had a big discussion what is hyperlink. Is it like a footnote where you just have information similar that you have information takes this information go to library, take the book and copy it. But of course hyperlink is different right because it's much easier to get access to the information. So is hyperlinking more like integrating something into your own website, making it part of your own website. So you will be responsible for taking this information, copying it. It's also different because hyperlink doesn't mean that you copy something immediately but it's somewhere in the middle. So lawyers have to really fight with this concept of linking. Is it copying, is it making available and if you look at the European countries you will see very different answers to this question. So this is a question that is still not settled within Europe. In some jurisdictions they say it's infringing and copyright. Others say it's free. For example the German Supreme Court said hyperlinking has to be free because it's a key feature of the internet and we don't want to disturb or this key feature. Otherwise it would mean everybody who puts a link on the internet has to ask for permission from the website owner the link goes to, reads to. So it's still an open question but we put as a base of our research that linking basically should be free or is free. There's still a case pending before the European Court that will also elaborate on this question. Then data mining. Data mining is also an important part of e-infrastructures like open data. Data mining is also means usually if you pursue data mining that data will be copied in the working memory and if this data contained protected copyright of the generous parts then also it will infringe on these IP rights. And last but not least the reuse of information or data. Again the question if a reuse is infringing depends on the circumstance of the case. So again if you copy data in the course of reuse and this data is protected it can infringe on rights. The same applies to linking or adaptation modification of protected data. So for example adaptation is a concept that's also relevant in copyrights. Adaptation is a right that is given to the copyright owner so he has the right to control any modifications adaptations of a protected work and if the reuse is connected to an adaptation or modification of the work it will also infringe on copyright. So then the next question we ask in these schemes of protection copyright and also the generous right is a limitation. So copyright for example works like a system with different steps. First we ask is there copyright protection on the work? The next step is what kind of exclusive rights do you have if you have a copyright? And the third question would be what kind of limitations are on these exclusive rights again which limit the scope of protection. The most famous or most important limitation to copyright is the right of private use which you may be aware of. For example, download music for its private purposes. It's exempted from the exclusive right of copying. And the same way we asked in our research what are the limitations to the rights we identified as protective schemes and going back to this very generous protection database right it's very different from traditional copyright. There is no private use exemption for this database right. But the most important exemptions we found is the right to use databases for scientific purposes. But this exemption for scientific purposes is still very unclear. Like many notions in this context of this really generous rights a very vague piece of legislation that European legislators made at that point. It's still not clear what are the limits to this scientific use. Of course it applies only to non-commercial uses but beyond that things are very unclear. There's almost no case law we found on this question. So this is one of our recommendations we can come up with later that it should be more clearly defined what are the limits also of this scientific use. Another point is that of course in the directive that's at the basis of this right these exceptions are not always mandatory so you still find also difference between different European countries which makes things more difficult because you always have to look to the country where you want to act in the country you want to act which limitations apply in this country. How we lawyers think we still think in terms of national territories more or less in this field of IP law which makes things even more complex. So then as I said we have to look at the specific country and this makes things in practice quite complicated because there's a scattered landscape of limitations that vary from country to country and makes also of course makes it more difficult to put up an infrastructure like open air which has to conform to the law in each country so the most strict requirements are determinative in this case if you have an infrastructure that will be marketed or will be used all over Europe you have to apply with all the national rules in each country to make it really work. That was basically my point so most important right in this context is a database protection right it's about investment protection taking substantial parts from databases and using it, reproducing it or making it available on the internet whether you've mentioned this right and on this basis now we can proceed to the question which licensing on this basis of these two schemes copyright and database right will be appropriate open air and Thomas Muggle will continue Thank you very much burning questions Professor Bieber now Kevin Licensing rather than than access but in a European context there are other regulations which grant rights of access that cut across issues of IP and I'm thinking of freedom of information and the environmental information regulations in particular and clearly they don't the latter doesn't apply to all research data but there's a very wide class of research data that's making up like that would it be say a little about that? That's another point that's not so well known that's indeed different European schemes of granting access like public sector information directive the problem with this directive or with these schemes again is that they make big exceptions one exception is for data that's protected by intellectual property so basically everything that's protected just on a general level everything's protected is taken out of this access right again But if we're concerned about access this is not a problem this is the very opposite of the problem it creates access even when things are found out by intellectual property No the point is that this right of access that is granted by this public sector information it's about public sector information you can get access which means they have to give you a copy or something but if the information that you want to have access to is protected by IPU they can deny access to you so it's a kind of exemption again to this access right related to intellectual property so it's not really very effective against the data that is protected by copyright also due to the generous right unfortunately but I think there's some re-evaluation going on in the commission there was supposed to already I think last year to make a new to make a new draft of this public sector information director to give a bit more broader access but I think as the plan was still to make an exemption for IP so it's always as soon as intellectual property comes into play it supersedes this right of access in general do you want to add on? I would like to add that the new version revised version of the PSI director has been adopted in June in June I think okay but scientific field is excluded so scientific research results are excluded from the scope of this director and again as Professor Weaver says the fact remains that intellectual property rights of third parties have precedence over the access credits under the director so this remains always can I ask you something what you say there so scientific results are excluded in the PSI director what about the data in the captain university libraries because libraries are in the purify oh yes well it depends I guess on the status of the library at national level the PSI director indeed has now been awarded the scope to cover public libraries museums the glam entities but then at national level you have to go examine whether your own institution falls under the rules of the public institution well it's very complicated to know whether you fall or not under the scope of the director but in principle well that sounds a very difficult question that would be a nice addition to a research okay the next piece good I'd like to introduce Thomas Marko who is a senior research