 Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Andreas, for the nice introduction. Thanks to all of you for attending this very early morning session. I was in consideration of the great variety of ails that this city offers. It's really appreciated. Yesterday have been said already, flowers are nice, but I don't really see my slides. So what we do at the Institute for Information Law that is so relevant for our project. In the first presentation, Nils very effectively identified what the problems are in connection with the use and reuse, especially of data. I have under this point of view a much nicer task. The one to tell you that there is still hope. We can overcome many of the legal hurdles that copyright and especially the sweet generous right in the case of databases imposes on the use and reuse of data. So we have seen that we have a variety of IP rights that could impede us as researchers or as practitioners to use the information that is available. This great variety, as said, can be based on many different IP rights. We are focusing mostly on two of them, copyright and even more on the sweet generous right, as said. We have a problem. Can we know beforehand if we can reuse those data? Because that's the point, right? I mean, we, as Andreas introduced at the beginning, what would be nice is to achieve a structure where we know beforehand, not a structure where the technical part does the job and then the lawyers arrive and says, sorry, you can't do that. You just wasted the last six months and that's not because you're bad, the loss that's willing or not give conditions to our use of data. Nils clarified how speculative can be in certain situations to establish beforehand whether a given type of use of data is allowed or not, since the exceptions and limitation to the sweet generous right are very narrow. If we take the directive, we can see that there are only just a handful of them and none of it, none of them is actually mandatory. So it's up to the national states to decide whether to implement them and if he has to which extent. And we have seen a couple of examples of how Germany and the UK implement those type of exceptions. We see that they are very narrow and hardly they can offer as a framework that allows reuse without any type of concerns. Is there a solution? Yes, it's not the solution to all of our problems. It's not the ultimate great definitive one, but it's something that probably allows us to do the job. There are call licenses which are we can define for our purposes as authorizations, usually in the form of contractual agreements that the right holder gives to a specific or an indeterminate amount of people to do certain activities with protected material. Of course, it would be much easier if the exceptions that were mentioned were, for example, mandatory in the whole European Union and were much more harmonized or even better uniformized in a way that there wouldn't be different treatment depending on the European country where we are. But this is another story. It's very long. There are a lot of effort to moving into this direction, but there are also a lot of hurdles to get there because of course the interests that stake are many. So let's remain on the topic of that we believe can offer as a good solution for the time being, again, licenses. Why they are so good? Well, basically because they allow us to do what we want. Probably most of you are familiar with the usual licenses employed in software development called Free Libre Opens of Software. So if you use any Linux-based solution, Apache-based web servers or any other development tool that usually is identified with being Free or Opens of Software, you are using 80% of the cases a license called general public license developed by the GNU project. This license allows you to reuse the software to modify it and to redistribute it. That's why, differently from other development tools, you don't have to acquire licenses paying royalties for them, so thanks to a license. So the licenses can allow us to do basically what we want. The legal system grants to the right holder a very strong amount and numerous amount of rights. And building on that, the license says, well, since you have all these rights, you are also in the position to license them to grant people the authorization, the permission to use and reuse your software, your data, your literature under the following conditions. That's the pros, what's the cons? Well, do we know what we want? Not always, it's very hard. There are technical and also legal problems connected with that. As in any technical field, what a person that develops the software or application or database infrastructure know about his needs and how to translate these needs into legal terms. So taking care of a whole bunch of different rules that might apply or not is a completely different type of analysis. That's why very successful are a type of licenses called standard form contract or standard form licenses. So licenses that are basically pre-packed, they are prepared. You don't have to write yourself your own agreement, but you can use somebody else's licenses that are already prepared. They should be written down in very sound and robust manner under, of course, a legal point of view. You don't have to waste your time in negotiating these licenses. Often, especially among departments, you have to negotiate the conditions at which a given software or a given cell line or some biological material can be sent to another laboratory for what type of uses. This type of transaction costs sometimes are, in terms of negotiations, in terms of money, are very high. They can take up a month before the agreement is achieved. And this, of course, again stops innovation research because it requires time and money and legal competencies. So standard form contracts are a solution to that. Again, the GPL, Creative Commons licenses, open database license, all these licenses that you can identify by name, they are standard form licenses. They are some sort of defective standard that people use. There is some trust created around them by the use of basically all of us. And they offer different type of advantages, especially to that they have identified in the second point are enforceability. They are framed in a way that given any legal system, they have a very high degree of enforceability, meaning they work in this legal system. In open air, we are not sure exactly how many countries, but I would say around 30, with 30 different legal systems. Are we sure that specific data released with one specific license operates in Germany, as well as operates in Sweden or France or Portugal? That's another issue that we have to consider. But thanks to this type of licenses, this aspect is also addressed. And also, of course, compatibility. If you combine different type of data, another thing that you want to achieve is compatibility between the licenses. The examples that I'm bringing here is, well, three types, but we will see them of Creative Commons licenses. The reason why I'm using them as an example is mainly because the fact that they are very widely used. There are, of course, others that for mainly time reasons, we cannot address it here, but they are part of our legal analysis. Creative Commons especially have, in my opinion, this type of advantages over other type of licenses. On the first place, of course, they are standard form contracts. They are created through an open and participative process. So if you participate to, for example, the mailing list or the legal task forces, you can actually contribute to develop the legal structure of the license in a way that is very similar to how free software is developed. The idea behind it is that, of course, the more people working on that document make it possible to identify every possible legal bug and fix it. They are also customizable to some extent. So using Creative Commons, you can decide whether or not to, for example, use, well, attribution is given in any case, but share alike. So if you allow the use of your data, in this case, the condition that they reuse needs to be distributed under the same terms. So similar to what the concept of copy left would be in the field of software. You can use non-derivative condition or non-commercial. And you can choose to insert or not disclose this. And they are expressed in three languages. It's debatable whether this is advantage or not, but they are expressed in legal terms. So they're real document in human terms. I don't really agree with this terminology because it suggests that we lawyers are not humans, and I can grant you that we are. But the human language would represent a very short summary of what you're allowed to do and what you're not. And then another one that is usually called the machine language, which is basically metadata information attached to the work that determines how this dataset or any other work is to be distributed under the license point of view. I'm almost about to conclude. The three licenses that I want to point out just briefly are the Creative Commons public license where we can attach or not the conditions that we have seen before. So attribution, share alike, non-derivative, non-commercial. The version three, which is the one currently in use. Version four, which is the one that should be released very soon. And the CC zero and show you how these licenses deal with the sui generis right. Basically, the CC is 3.0 in the unported version, meaning the international one says nothing about the sui generis right, which means that in this case, this right is still reserved to the right holder. What does it mean? It means that even if you have a repository of works or of data released under a Creative Commons 3.0 unported license, this does not mean that you can, for example, datamind that repository because the sui generis right has not been licensed. In the 4.0 to overcome this problem, the sui generis right that we have identified in the previous presentation is included in the scope of the license, meaning that if you choose to employ a condition like pure attribution, which is the most liberal, also the sui generis right is licensed under this pure attribution condition. If you choose share alike, also the sui generis right is released under this condition, the fact that it needs to be share alike. So if you redistribute it under the same terms of the original license. And finally, the CC zero, which is a general waiver of all the possible rights that attach to a work or a data set. In this case, you basically waive the right holder. This is another issue that we cannot address today, but it's another important aspect. You need to be the right holder, which usually doesn't correspond or not necessarily with the author. But anyway, the right holder waives every possible right. And in this case, we would have a situation that in the field of software is more similar to what a BSD license would allow you. So free reuse under almost no condition. I have a couple of more slides just outlining the specific wording of these different licenses. I don't think we have to go that much into detail, but of course license, the slides are available. So you can take a better look at them and see how specific words wording changes and how this reflects the reflexes into the licensing or not of the sui generis right. And of course, if you have any type of question, request, et cetera, you can ask your legal partners. As I say, as Andreas introduced at the beginning, believe it or not, at least our commitment in this specific project is real research. And this means that we have to implement our results, our structure within the project, because this is the only way to create a workflow that reduces to a minimum the risk connected with copyright or sui generis right infringement. If we create a structure and after that, we figure out that, oh, well, we should have paid more attention to this issue that creates a lot of overhead, a lot of cost, a lot of implementation of solution that could have been implemented since the very beginning. So writers, emails, offer us a beer and talk and we will try to address hopefully all or some of the issues connected. Been a bit long, but thank you very much for your attention.