 The recording started now. Good morning everyone. I'm not quite sure what's going on. I'm just waiting for Chris. So I'm hoping that he's just getting the theme tune queued up. I am getting the slide up. I am getting everything. Yeah, just bear with us a moment and we will be ready to go. Any second now. Good morning everybody. Morning everyone. Welcome to webinar number 36. Copyright and online teaching at a time of crisis. Hopefully not as much crisis as it was for those of you who were joining us today. I'm Chris Morrison. And I'm James Echo. And this is copyright and online teaching in a time of crisis. And we have a very exciting session for you today. We have three guest speakers who will be joining us shortly. Come in tuning in all the way from Australia. So it's good morning for us, but it's good evening for them. It's a little bit like Eurovision. I was saying when they first got on the call. Hello Australia. Can you hear us? I think we can probably say it's good day for everybody. All right, on that note, let's move on to what we've got in today's webinar. Some news as we usually do some good stuff there. As we said, an update of an Australian library copyright reforms from Ben Trish and Jessica who are joining us today. And then a bit on future webinars and what we're planning to do in the coming weeks. Shall we get started with what we've been doing this week? Yes, let's say that. Yeah. So in addition to our webinars or kind of prior to starting our webinars, Chris and I have run this podcast copyright waffle, which is actually where the theme tune comes from. And we've been getting back in the podcast saddle, haven't we Chris? We've been getting into the swing of things. We have been talking to our copyright heroes, people that we're interested in. This example, this latest episode from Caroline Boll from the University of Derby is a really good one. We've had a lot of people listening to it already and giving us some nice comments. Caroline is heavily involved in copyright. She talks about her history in fan fiction. That was the subject of her dissertation a number of years ago. But she's also heavily involved in Wikipedia. She was Wicked Media of the Year and also involved in the academic ebook investigation campaign. So we talk about all of those things. It's a really good one, isn't it? It is. It is. And as we said, we're back in the recording zone for these podcasts. And we recorded another one, didn't we, that is really exciting. It's not out yet. It's not out yet. It was definitely one of our copyright heroes we got to speak to. It's in the can. So I think we should, I think we should still be teasing it. We should wait. We will let you know when the next one's coming up. But they are, we're definitely back in the zone and looking to share a lot more of these. So, excellent stuff. What else we've been doing recently? We've been doing a lot of presentations, haven't we? We have. We did a presentation earlier this week at the IPO's Copyright Education Advisory Group, giving them a bit of a rundown on this webinar series and the sort of issues that are coming up in higher education. We also hopped over to Canada, didn't we, briefly? The jet lag's killing me. Yes, we spoke at the ABC conference about the community of practice in the UK and how we've been talking about the copyright issues. About 180 people joining us there. So that was a good session. So, yeah, it's all happening and we will be talking at the SILIP Copyright Conference on Monday as well on the same topic. So we hope to see some people there. Yeah. Okay. Time, well, we will remind everyone that we have the archive of all the webinars and recordings there. So if you want to go there, that's the URL. Do you want to pop that in, Jay? I don't know if you've got the URL ready to go, but I think everyone at this stage knows where to find that. So let's move on to... Copyright news, copyright news, copyright news, copyright news, copyright news, copyright news, copyright news. Copyright news, copyright news. Copyright news. The first item here. Yeah, I think this is me. I'll do this one, Chris. It is. You can try, I mean... This is actually a special preview of... there's a series that's been developed by Dina... Oh no, now I've got to pronounce it. Mark Tuchu? Mark Tuchu, yes, who is, she's one of the lecturers in the Department of Library and Information Science at Robert Gordon University. I've known Dina for a really long time, for a lot of the work she does about information literacy. She's made a sort of cartoon series, it's aimed at a kid basically teaching them about different aspects of information literacy. Her series three is about copyright and she's having a launch event next week, which she was delighted that we would advertise here, so it's a kind of special preview event for the copyright geeks, if you want to go along to the session. The event bright tickets are available and Chris has put the link in the chat. So next week on the 12th of May. So another event that's coming up. UCL are putting on and copyright for knowledge, putting on a session on Brexit and beyond. So what does copyright mean, particularly for researchers? So some excellent speakers. Don't say the B word, I've said it unfortunately. And Emily Hudson, who is with us today, will be speaking. So always worth tuning in for, as well as Ben White will be speaking. So this is really looking at copyright in the research space and what's happening now that we were clearly subject and we are still subject to EU directives in this country, but clearly there's going to be a divergence of what happens next. So that should be a good, good session. The next one that we've highlighted is this round table discussion. Yeah, do you want to say something about this one, Chris? Or do you want me to? I think this is an AHRC funded project, actually, isn't it, towards the National Collection. It's primarily aimed at people, I'd say, in the cultural heritage sector, but it's going to be around table discussion on the 26th of May on copyright and open access. And I don't think the list of speakers has yet to be announced, actually, but it is up on November, right, if people are interested in that event. And I was certainly having a quick look into that project, because to say it seems to be a new funded project funded by the AHRC, called Towards a National Collection and about demonstrating a practice in the field of digital cultural heritage. So the next item we've got is we've been talking to the Educational Recording Agency era about and learning on screen. We'll come on to that in a moment about what is available. Under the ERA license. So Helena is here on the call today, the Chief Executive of ERA, making us aware that the BBC Shakespeare TV archive is now available on the ERA website. So it supports university teaching and it has a lot of resources, the historical information. So that link, I think, Helena is saying it will be live from next week, but that's just to let you know that that is there. And it's all part of ERA strive to try to make as much content available. So if there are any questions about that, get in touch with with ERA TV and radio goes live at some time next week. Thank you very much for that, Helena. So we just want to make you aware of that. And the other update here, we also I think have Marquida from Learning on Screen, who were the providers of Boxing Broadcasts to say that the BBC Parliament channel is now available globally via Boxing Broadcast. Any UK registered student with the B subscription can get access to that. So again, there's the link through to the Learning on Screen. Bob on demand page there for those of you, I think most of us are familiar with that. So any questions about that, Marquida's on hand, if you want to drop something in the chat and a Helen as well, and just pop something in the chat there. So, yeah, if anyone wants to ask anything about those two services, let us know. It's also something we could pick up at the end of the session as well. So, yeah. And the final thing we wanted to have in the new section is just a reminder that I can't believe it's not ice pops contributions for the world's only international copyright literacy event with playful opportunities for practitioners and scholars happening at the end of June, Friday, the 25th of June. We've got some really great submissions already. We will be running it as an online event, but we very much looking forward to your contribution if you've got something to share. Yeah, and the call for contributions closes, I think of the 24th of May. So a couple of weeks. But for those of you who have enjoyed coming along to the webinars on Friday, the 25th of June, you can spend the day with us. So lots of fun, possibly the evening, even. We are. We do have something planned. We do, yes. OK. So I think it's time to introduce our three speakers. We have already mentioned that we're very, very excited to have not just a double act, but a triple act from three of the kind of Australian experts in the field of copyright. So we have Ben Rice, who's the Copyright Law and Policy Advisor at the Australian Library's Copyright Committee joining us. We have Trish Hepworth, who's the Director of Policy and Education at the Australian Library and Information Association. And we have Jessica Coates, who's the Senior Rights Advisor at the National Library of Australia. We're going to stop sharing our slides and we're going to hand over to them. I think you're going to talk the three of you in succession. So I'm not sure I think I'm handing over, is it to Ben first? But I'll let you take the mic. And we're just so excited that you've joined us and, you know, looking forward to what you have to tell us about what's been going on, you know, in your world around copyright online learning and the kind of whole, you know, shift that we've had in the last year or so. I was on music. I think Trish is right. I think the plan is for me to start off. So as Jane said, I, this is Jessica. I am the Senior Rights Advisor at the National Library of Australia. But in fact, my background is that I used to have Ben's job before he did and Trish used to have that job before I did. So what you're seeing is a series of three people who've been around the copyright policy area in Australia for quite an advocacy for quite a very long time. A good we cover about the last decade. But what we were focusing on today is what happened last year in Australia. So we're going to do a slightly sequential thing again every once again. I'm starting again because I have because I was the person in at the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee and the Australian Digital Alliance, which is the advocacy group, the sister group of the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee. I was working for them when COVID hit and I kind of initiated what we did. And then Ben's and then Trish is going to take over to talk about a bit about what the rest of the sector did. She's now working for Alia, the Australian Libraries Information Online. They took a very key role in some of the early initiatives and Ben's going to talk about what's happening now and into the future. But we're going to try to keep it short and casual, as you can tell. No slides or a nice. So essentially, Australia is doing very well with COVID now. We cannot complain. We recognise that we have we we're in a much different situation than much of the world, though. I think everybody's slowly moving to a really good spot now. But, you know, back a year and a bit ago, Australia went into full lockdown in March 2020, just along with everybody else. And that included shutting all the physical facilities of all the libraries across Australia. So, for example, the National Library, where I work now, was shut close to the public on 16 March. And it would have been one of the last ones. So the most immediate concern across the whole sector was how much how could we continue to supply material? And initially, of course, the big focus of that was on how can we do that under the current law? So this is where I came in as the at the time, the senior adviser for the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee. What that organisation does is it acts as both an advocate and an educational group. So it does a lot of fact sheets, training, etc. that for Australia's library community and copyright. So it was a very logical first place for everybody to turn for information. And we felt, you know, very clearly that we had an important role that we needed, you know, we needed to step up, basically. So what we did straight away is we had we got a blog post out. Our blog post was out by 24th March, so, you know, eight days later. And it basically set out the basic rules under Australian Copyright Law of what you could do now to provide materials in an electronic environment if you closed physically. We circulated it through our networks. And then after that, we followed it up with webinars, which were some of our most popular ever. It was really a very big, you know, an excellent introduction to webinars for everybody. And we collaborated with groups like the Council of Australian University Libraries and Smart Copping, who work for the schools, do copyright for the schools. And we basically tried to get that out as far as possible and do webinars for them and provide information directly to as many people as we possibly could. We also, of course, got a lot of emails looking for advice, which we did not provide. We provided general information because we didn't provide legal advice. But we did our best to answer people's questions and to really help them with particular situations that they brought up. So on one level, the message that we were sending out was actually pretty good. Australia has a very long tradition of having quite good laws for remote access to copyright material, particularly where we're talking about document delivery, so where it's actually in response to a request for research. And that's because right back, even when we were being written in 1968, people, there was kind of a bit of recognition in our law that if you're going to get material out to the other side of the country, you know, to very remote areas and stuff like that, you do need a bit more flexibility than countries where you can genuinely drive between cities and things like that. So, and that was all updated for the digital environment. So in fact, it was not too hard for libraries to keep providing research material in response to requests for research. So that was fairly covered. Unfortunately, everything else was not quite as clear. We did have, so that was the story for research libraries like the National Library was very good, but for other libraries, it was not quite as clear how well they could work. There was, we do have a flexible dealing exception that we call section 200AB. It's essentially acts like a fair use for libraries, non-commercial fair use for libraries. So you can do a lot of things under this exception as long as it's for the purpose of maintaining and operating a library or an educational institution. It covers both. So under that exception, a lot of our national and state institutions, these same big research libraries did already have a fair amount of material online. And we saw an immediate increase in access to them. Same with everybody else. I'm sure all countries found this where we, you know, it's particularly really popular resources. Some of our most popular at the National Library got more than a 40% increase in April alone. So that was from March to April, like a really big jump. So, and one really fun piece of data that we have coming out of that time was the fact that the materials, some of the materials that had the biggest jumps were materials that we had that focused on, that were things you could do at home. So we have the archive version of Ravelry, which is a knitting social media site, and that had a massive jump and also our music sheet music website. 56% in April, increase in April, June. So that was really cool. So there's some good stories there. However, providing materials beyond these kind of existing collect online collections or in response to a direct request for research material was much trickier. So where it really became very challenging was for groups like the universities and the schools who were trying to provide information for students in particular or, you know, on other ongoing contacts. So the Unis are the ones that I know the most about and have the most contact with. And I do know that they did, of course, have a lot of electronic resources like every other university in the world. I think it was up to 80% even of materials were now online in an electronic form. But of course they were all under license and we don't have a contractual override clause like you guys have in the UK. So the licenses could exclude any exceptions that would let them supply this material more broadly. And of course a lot of those licenses also restricted off-site access. So they were restricted to only on-site access. The good news is that as you guys know, a lot of the publishers really stepped up to the mark during COVID and expanded licenses to let you go further. So that worked well. But there were of course a lot of gaps where there were some publishers that did not do that and there were places where universities were paying very large fees for resources that they essentially could not use anymore because nobody could come on campus and they couldn't provide it off-campus. So that was one disadvantage. People basically started looking at things like control digital lending or talking about them, the kind of activities that were done in the US. There's an argument depending on who you are is that this could be permitted under this flexible dealing. As we said, it's a flexible exception. It's quite broad. But the library sector as a whole did not choose, chose not to go down that path for many reasons and not the least of that because of relationships that we have of course and wanting to make sure that we were really being fair. And we wanted to see if there was some way that we could come up with other solutions. The public libraries also started to look to see how they could support their communities more directly and things like story times. We all know that story time became a very hot topic for people at home and can we keep providing story times to our communities? And they were looking for a solution to that. Once again, possibly allowed on a section 200 AB but were they willing to go there? Like did they want to do it unilaterally? And this is where I thought that I might hand over to Trish about some of the solutions that people started to look at to see how they could possibly, you know, solve some of these gaps in our law through alternative answers. There you go. Thank you, Jessica. Yes, I will absolutely pick up with online story time. So as Jessica mentioned, Australia like most places in the world went into a beautiful lockdown in March. And one of the biggest issues obviously around a lockdown where people could not come physically into the library, which may have a particular impact on programs. So, and one of the biggest programs, the most beloved programs within the public library service obviously being story time. And at the same time, we had a million frantic parents at home who were suddenly juggling a shift to working at home with apparently keeping their children safe and amused and happy at home. And the library services had a lot of people who really wanted to be doing something. So online story time seemed like the logical step. As Jessica said, you could argue that potentially this was allowed already but what we preferred to do was go down the route of negotiating in good faith with everybody. And so Jessica might have mentioned that the NLA closed down on the 17th of March. It was the last, but on the 18th of March, the day after, we announced the agreement for online story time. And so that was Alia, the Australian Booksellers Association, the Australia Publishers Association, the Australian Society of Authors, or the ABA, the APA and the ASA. It was like our acronyms to be all very confusingly the same. And that agreement basically said that libraries could film one of their stuff, reading the story, they could put it up online and that people would be able to view it. And it was done, the agreement was actually made by the publishers on behalf of the whole cohort with the support of the booksellers and the Australian Society of Authors. And that went really well. And originally when we launched it, we said for the duration of the pandemic, which as everyone would know, we're still going on. But as Australia opened up and we lost restrictions through basically the entire countries, and overall now our public library back open and foot traffic's about 70%. So it's still below, but it is definitely rising quickly. So towards the end of last year, when the libraries were opening up, the publishers and the ASA and the ABA began to get a bit thinking about the sort of agreement that we'd come to. But at the same time, the libraries had found this new audience and this new product they liked. And one of the things that I'm sure it wasn't just us that found during COVID was in doing online storytime, initial thought had been, well, these are the people who can't come into the library. And then the audience they found were people sometimes who couldn't come into the library ever. So it was people who had, who lived regionally and remote too far away to make it ever into online storytime. It was people who had a disability that prevented them. It was people who lived with people with limited mobility. So from all of this, we had the idea that yes, something should happen, but it needed to change. And I will say I'm taking all the credit for this because Ben was the one who actually helped negotiate the agreement. But we managed to reach an agreement with them that we would basically run trial run of this to expand this program. So currently the RAM, and I'll drop a link in the chat in a second, the program is administered by Alia. And what happens is a library branch pays $165, which includes GST. And for that amount of money for the next 12 months, they can film themselves doing online storytime, put a recording up online, try and geographically limit it to Australia because that's where the publishers obviously have the rights. And it can only stay up for six months. And importantly, it has to come from a list of that we had. And so we were all a little bit worried about how it was all going to go. Would people be interested? How would it go? I can tell you some heads on my phone. Oh! Now I'm going, have I lost people? Am I still talking? Yeah. We can hear you. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, you just cut out. That's OK. We've got about a third of the public libraries in Australia who have signed up. We've got almost 250 different titles from some of the biggest publishers. We should be returning somewhere between $40,000 to $60,000 back to the publishers and the publishers then through their agreements back to the authors. So it's been an absolute resounding success. And one thing I did just want to note too is when we negotiated this, we both because it was definitely allowed under some of our provisions but also because we're good faith, we've made it really clear that accessibility provisions such as providing Auslan are allowed to go along with this. So that's online story time. It was a lovely little bit of negotiation that just basically played on our very good relationships. But it would be interesting to see where it goes. It's a 12-month trial and we'll see what happens. The other thing I just wanted to very quickly mention now is segueing into, well, then what does the future hold? One of the other big things that turned up was our issue around lending rights. So Australia has a system of lending rights that is not dissimilar to some others in the world but is definitely one just for us. It is we have two different schemes for lending rights. We have a public lending right and an educational lending right. So a public lending right for books within the public library system, educational for schools, tastes, and universities. It's funded by the government that you have about $22 million every year and it's done on holding. So what happens is every year we do a survey of the library services. Any book that has more than 50 copies in a library gets put on the list and then we distribute money depending on how many books they've got. One of the things about it is it only pertains to physical books and when COVID hit, obviously people were no longer borrowing physical books and we saw upticks somewhere between 100% to 400% upticks in digital loans which are not currently covered by a lending right. So the Australian Society of Authors in particular is very keen to see our lending rights scheme expanded to include eBooks and audiobooks and so that is one thing that the libraries have swung in support. We have been hesitant I will say up until now mainly because of the different way in which libraries are sold eBooks which means that they do have that limit often to the number of times that they can be borrowed or the number of people who can read them. However, with the increasing move towards digital we think there are now ways that we can look at what the sort of bulk of books is and do something similar on holdings rather than doing it alone and that the inclusion of, without the inclusion of eBooks and audiobooks we actually risk a weird distribution of the lending rights money out towards our Australian authors and publishers. And I will just mention that is the final most important bit of our lending rights scheme which is because it's not copyright based it's just a payment done on holdings in libraries. We can restrict it to only Australian authors and Australian publishers. So in some ways it's the single biggest bit of funding that our government gives to Australian literature. So that's one thing we are pushing to get on the agenda this year and I'm going to hand over to Ben to do the actual copyright and more fun things that we're pushing for. Thanks, Trish. Yes, yeah, on to the fun part the copyright reform that everyone loves so much. Yeah, so we are currently going through a copyright reform process. So Paul Fletcher who is the Minister for Communications, the Arts, Cities, Infrastructure and Urban Development now. It's quite a wordy title. I announced the reforms back in August last year and at the time COVID was used as one of the reasons for the reforms why they were being brought about at this time. But actually there are sort of a continuation of the almost endless series of copyright reforms that we've been going through. I just want to make sure everyone can see me. Ivory has got me great. Sorry, Emily. Yeah, so the reforms now are sort of the continuation of a long process that's been going on back even before 2012 when we had the Australian Law Reform Commission conduct a really extensive review of our copyright framework for which there was no formal response by the government to. The problem was sort of kicked along down the line to a further inquiry by the Productivity Commission which again made a long series of recommendations that included Australia adopting a system of fair use. And in 2018 and 2019 again we had another suite of copyright reforms and a copyright modernization review that again looked at all of the issues that were touched on including again whether Australia should introduce fair use as well as a suite of other questions that came up. So this current set of reforms is designed to so, so many reviews. And so this current set of reforms is really designed to mark the government's response to those, to the many reviews that we've had leading up to this. So what we have rather than a broad wholesale review of the Copyright Act that includes all the wonderful things that we've been pushing for for a very long time here in Australia including fair use. What we have is a set of fairly narrowly drafted purpose-based reforms and changes to the Act that are designed to better increase online access to content. So a couple of things that are included in the reforms, a limited liability scheme for the use of orphan works. And that will apply to schools and libraries as well as interestingly sort of some commercial uses. So for example, documentary filmmakers, other uses along those lines as well. The ADA had been pushing and the ALCC for a long time had been pushing and the ALCC for a long time had been pushing for a broader exception for the use of orphan works. Instead what we have in these reforms is a limited liability scheme that obviously shields institutions and users from liability for using works where an owner might later come forward to claim ownership provided that the institution or the user ceases to use that material. Raises a whole bunch of questions about how that would work in practice. For example, a documentary film that's put together based on that incorporates a series of orphan works could be quite difficult to remove some of that material. So it'll be interesting to see how factors like that work through regarding the orphan works scheme. Some of the interesting parts that are specifically designed for libraries and archives are around providing online access to parts of the collection that libraries hold and extending the exceptions that allow libraries to provide access to not just literary works, but audio visual material as well. This again comes back to Trisha's point around one of the benefits from story time, I guess, that while the move to online story time was designed to address the COVID issue of libraries being shut down, in practice what you see is a whole range of communities being able to get access to material that they otherwise weren't able to get access to. So people who live really and in remote communities especially, it's a big issue that we have in Australia, obviously it's a fairly large place, often really difficult to get into a local library to get physical access to material. And so what these exceptions are designed to do is to provide libraries the ability to digitize some of that content and make it available with appropriate protections in place for rights owners as well. One of the other interesting parts of the reform is a fair dealing exception for non-commercial quotation which is designed to apply for library users and education users. It doesn't apply very widely and from what we understand, it appears like it'll be drafted fairly narrowly as well. So some more information yet there still to come out. I should say as well, we're waiting to see an exposure draft of the bill to find the, I guess, the devil will be in the detail and a lot of parts of the reforms is currently out thinking. I might stop there and see if there are any questions from anyone. Thanks very much, Ben. Yeah, so if there are any questions that would be useful to ask them. I have got a question myself as well. I see that we've got a question that's come up. My question actually is in relation to specific education and use of material, copyright material for education purposes. So you've mentioned the quotation exception there which you said may be quite narrowly drawn but there are some proposed provisions for something equivalent to our illustration for instruction in the UK. But I believe those are quite narrowly drawn as well. Is that correct? Could you talk to us a bit about that? Yeah, look, most of the exceptions do seem to be quite narrowly drafted at the moment. Again, compared to where we were originally trying to push the government to land in terms of fair use or even fair dealing for education as a second best option. The reforms that are being presented now across the board do seem to be fairly narrowly drafted well, will be fairly narrowly drafted. At this point it's pretty hard to say until we actually see how the provisions are worded on paper. But we're hoping that at least in the next month or so we'll be able to see some draft legislation. Ben, correct me if I'm wrong but is it accurate to say that the education ones that have been proposed even though they're quite narrow? One of the reasons why they're narrow is they're aimed at very specific issues that were, we already knew existed but they were highlighted during COVID and gaps in the system. So the idea is that they should work in concert with exceptions we already have. So even if we don't have the broad fair dealing for education, hopefully some of these will, they'll work like a jigsaw to kind of give us a better outcome than we have at currently. Does that sound about right? Yeah, definitely. I think the certainly the outcome of these reforms is going to be, will be a lot better. I mean, we're currently in a position with the, with the way schools are able to use copyright material here in online teaching where it's currently a gray area whether the use of that material applies or whether the exceptions that allow use of that material in the classroom would apply online. So would apply when being taught outside of the school. And indeed whether they'd even apply when an outside audience is involved in the provision of education. So it makes it really difficult for anything like school and industry collaborations, theoretically some of these exceptions might not apply when someone from outside the school is involved in the teaching of the lesson. Yeah. Okay, that makes sense. And I note as well that Emily's put a comment in the chat to say that the Australian approaches to amend your version of what we have in section 34 in the UK Act and section 34 is very much framed as on the premises of an educational institution to showing playing performing and that it's broadening that out hopefully, but certainly we've had to, even though we have had our laws updated more recently and we're supposed to reflect the digital reality of teaching and access to content, we find ourselves that jigsaw that you've described it never quite, the pieces don't quite fit do they? Some overlap and there are some gaps you have to sort of fill in those bits. I think that's very interesting to hear that even though you're going through that process, there are some things which are still probably not going to be perfect, are they? We have some very clever copyrighted advisors for our education groups. So fingers crossed that once they see the legislation it will align with what they're looking for. This is what we're hoping we'll see. Great, thank you. Okay, thanks. Yeah, thanks. Can I pick up the question that we got in the chat which was from Alison Fullard saying question from South Africa, were academic libraries choosing to scan specific chapters of print titles to send to students? We have had on our webinars quite a bit of chat about what some universities in the UK called Scan and Deliver after a sort of 1980s UK pop star, Adam Ant, they were using the scan. You'll love Adam Ant. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Those of us who are old enough. Yeah, there's some great videos and things doing the rounds about these, but did you have any of these sort of scan and deliver type services in Australia for students? I'm happy to answer that one because I was talking to them quite a lot then. I've been in Trisha R.K. with that, which is I think it changed a little bit from institution to institution. There wasn't a concerted sector-wide approach on that, but as I said, laws for document delivery would allow a library or an archive to do that if it was only one chapter, that you can actually, if it was in response to a request. The problem that our libraries and archives, that our uni libraries had was about putting chapters up online or whole books up online for students who didn't have physical copies for a whole class, for instance. But if it's in response to a specific request, you're actually totally allowed to do that under our existing law and have been for a very long time. My understanding though is that different institutions utilize this in different ways. So I think there were some that were doing, if you ask, we will send you a copy. And there were other ones that came up with broader solutions that were more about putting up whole chapters or whatever as were required. I don't know what is allowed under a statutory licence as well as some other people. So I don't know if Trish or Ben feel more confident talking about this, but it is actually, I think it is quite possible that under statutory licence, you were able to do some copying online for classes on a chapter by chapter basis anyway. So I think that it didn't come up so much as an issue here, and it certainly didn't become a sector-wide issue. I would say that to be honest of all the things that it is going through in our copyright reforms, the changes to document delivery, which means that we will stop the requirement that if you take a digital copy of something to do a document delivery, then the library has to destroy that digital copy. Even if it's particularly prescient, the first time something's ever been digitised or anything else, that is going in our copyright reforms if everything goes according to plan. And I know it's a really little silly thing, but actually that will be the thing that I'm probably happiest about because it annoys me so much. Very good. Okay, there's a question from Emily here about whether you would be able to comment on the litigation between universities, Australia and copyright agency over the terms of the Higher Education Scaling Licence. Does somebody want to pick that up? Ben is the only one who might be authorised to say anything. I'm not sure how much he's allowed to say. Well, I don't know how much I'm authorised to say either, actually, which is never a great position to be in. I mean, what I can say is that the universities are expecting a decision from the copyright tribunal to be handed down. It could be any day now. And I get the feeling that that will have some... Obviously, depending on the result, we'll have some wide-ranging implications for the way that the statutory licence operates for university copying. Okay, thanks for that, Ben, and that's put you on the spot. And I know that we have James Bennett here, who is the head of rights and licensing at the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK. So just for everyone's benefit, the history of this is in many countries around the world, we have representatives of the universities talking to the collective management organisation that represents print book journal publishers. So in the UK, we had litigation back around the year 2000, where there was a copyright tribunal case that kind of set the scene for what happens in the UK. And since then, we've been able to continue negotiating a licence without needing to resort to litigation. But in Australia, there was some points of principle around reporting and around other aspects of the licence, where both parties could not come to an agreement and that has led to this litigation. So, yeah, just I think that. Jane, did you want to come in on that? No, all I was going to just say was that there had been another question from Philippa, but I think Jessica's answered that in the chat, which is about the document delivery laws. And I think that's really helpful. She's pointed out a resource that might help Philippa out interpreting Australian copyright law. Not quite sure. Are you planning to move to Australia, Philippa? Are you looking into library loans? Not plain English summary, but Trish may be excited by the getting rid of the destroying bit, but I'm excited by the modernisation of document delivery and interlobe loan, because basically the reforms that Ben talked about that happened in 2017 modernised our preservation exceptions and turned them from these old clunky ones that basically said you can make one preservation copy once something has already been lost, stolen or damaged, which is a great time to start preserving things and turned them into this really nice, simple, only a few lines, clear, broad exception. And they're planning on doing the same thing with our document delivery laws. So with our current ones, I agree, are very old and clunky and they go for a page and a half, and they're extremely confusing, but what they basically say is you can copy up to 10% or a chapter of any published work for research and study and send it to anybody just like in any form, any kind of electronic way, or you can copy more than that if it's not commercially available. It's actually, they've got horrible, weird admin things, but they've got quite a lot of power and the modernised version is supposed to extend that also to audio-visual materials and I think to unpublished materials as well and to private use. So it could be a really powerful exception that comes very close to a lot of the things, the exciting things people are doing around the world. If we get it right, we'll have to see. But in the meantime, Lib Copyright Dog Day is definitely your best place for resources on Australian copyright law. On that note, on that note, one thing that Jane and I both reflected on is how well-organised you are in Australia in getting the library community, the work that you all do in upskilling the communities you understand the current existing laws to advocate effectively for reform, even though the process of reform can be quite difficult and ultimately come to compromise outcomes. But can you just tell us a bit actually about how the National Library works with the Library and Information Association and the creation of having a copyright committee and kind of how that came about and how that is sustained. Because I think it's something that we have bodies in the UK, but it doesn't seem that they're quite as coordinated or perhaps sustainably resourced as in Australia. That's exactly what I was going to say. I think it's about what we can learn from you. And I know people will say, oh, well, you're a smaller country than us and it's more complicated in the UK. But I really do think that it is something where we're really keen to learn from the countries that seem to be doing this really well and coordinating things. Because just trying to pull together the kind of copyright community in the UK is really difficult. It's really challenging. I'm going to jump in again because I was in charge of the ALCC during the 20th anniversary. So I know the history. It's actually again on the libcopyright.org.au site. But basically the ALCC is at least 30 years old now, but it started off just as an association. It was just like a volunteer collection of different groups. And it was around 98. And I think in the lead up to that, but 98 is when it started to really solidify when the groups who were already involved with that, which were mainly the university libraries, the national state libraries and Alia, as well as other smaller groups, but they were the three key funders and founders really of the ALCC. They wanted to work more in advocacy and be stronger in advocacy work. And they realized that they need to start dealing with other communities who like them. So the education groups, I mean, they already had good relations with them, but they wanted to really beef the ability for all those organizations to work together education, disability groups and the other glam institutions, so museums, et cetera. And so a group of copyright people, not that large a number, 10 to 15 or so from different institutions and universities and things like that from around Australia who had a strong interest all got together and came up with this idea of setting up the Australian Digital Alliance, which is the sister organization. And the way they set it up was the Australian Digital Alliance and the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee would share and employ, would both be funded organizations. They'd share an employee, which is Ben, Ben. And they, and what made it sustainable is that they were funded entirely on membership fees. So a few different levels of membership fees for different groups, depending on your size and your funding and your commitment and things like that. But essentially both organizations have a very stable membership base and that provides kind of the stability that you needed. And the fact that they shared this one employee, so it really keeps costs down. So I'd say that's the two key things. And the fact, the thing that's really kept them going has been the buy-in from certain sectors, particularly say the university libraries. They are very strong supporters and the university librarians are largest numbers in our communities of both organizations. So it's just about, once the organizations came, we were able to attract enough people to keep us going. I think it's a way to think. But what do you guys think, Trish and Ben? Oh, look, sitting and speaking as one of the organizations that currently is the member organization. Definitely, I think Jessica's spot on. I think one thing from the organizational point of view is that you can see there's an investment because you think about how much money you would have to spend as an organization to do your copyright advocacy and to do your copyright training. And the fact that the ALCC doesn't just do the advocacy but also does the policy work and does the training, they are things that we would have to realize otherwise from ourselves. So it's a very easy calculation, I guess, for the organizations that it's much, a good profit to be long to the organization. Plus, it means we get to put somebody really good whose sole job is to think about copyright all day. And that gives a lot more strength than if we try to split it up across us. Okay, thank you very much for that. I think it's a really good model, I think, to look at. And I think one of the things we reflect on is the UK. We have a lot of people working in this space, but we have a lot of the work going on more on a voluntary capacity where people are doing it on top of other jobs. And I think that makes it difficult to actually have that continuity. As you can see, the three of you have all been through working in that same post and that you will bring that knowledge together where you're working across those organizations. So it's good to see. Yeah, really good, really good. We've just got about three or four minutes left if anyone has got any more questions. If anyone wants to come on the mic to ask anything, pop your hand up or just grab the mic. But is there anything else you wanted to ask, Chris? I suppose I do have maybe a fairly technical question about section 200AB. I think you did. And just go back, as Jessica, you said, that was something where people in the library community felt comfortable with using that during the time of the pandemic. But now you're in the next step. I know that there's some ambiguity around that. It does include wording that comes from the Firm Three Step test that could be seen as restrictive. Also referring to Emily Hudson's excellent book drafting copyright exceptions, she talks about this in depth and has information data gathered from practitioners working in Australia. But where do you sit with that now? Is this a helpful thing to you going forward to have the flexibility for a new paradigm of how libraries operate post-COVID? Yes. So mixed views about section 200AB. Emily gave a presentation on it at the ADA's conference only last week. So conveniently, we're all up to a date on it. But Emily is totally right about how badly written section 200AB is to a certain degree and how complex and confusing and how many problems it has caused at times with its application. But having said that, in some sectors, particularly the big national and state libraries, over the 16 years that it's existed, they've become much more comfortable with it and more of the sector is as well. So it is quite widely used now. It just depends on who you are and how confident you are and things like that. And so we would far prefer to have a fair use or even a fair feeling of how it's in our written submission. So I'm not, you know, I'm not feeling anything. But if you are not afraid of section 200AB, it is quite good. It's got quite powerful. Now that it's been around so long, it's been used so much and we've got more evidence of how it might be used. And nobody's been sued for using it. It's become more stronger and better. It's better than nothing. Fair enough. I suppose a bit like my washing machine. It makes a horrible noise. It's not perfect, but it still works. Yeah. Yeah. One of the things I'd add that there's a different part. Yeah, one of the things to add that we think that the current reforms might help with. So one of the subsections of 200AB, subsection six says that you can't rely on section 200AB if you can rely on another section of the act. And what that means is that for practitioners who aren't lawyers, reading that, who think, well, you know, maybe my use fits within one of the preservation exceptions or might just fit within another exception under the act. But I can't quite be 100% sure. They feel really uncertain about then relying on section 200AB as well. So if we get rid of that subsection that would clarify that you can rely on 200AB and potentially another section of the act, it would make it a lot more effective in practice, I think. But I'm nervous saying anything about 200AB with Emily Hudson listening. So she can jump in there if I move. I think on that note, we are now, I think, out of time. So I think if we were to have a discussion about 200AB in detail, maybe we could arrange another session. We're certainly talking with Emily about doing some sessions specifically looking on the insights that we can gain from her research. So I would say we'll come back to this at another time. But I would just like to say at this point, thank you so much for joining us and giving us this overview of where you are in Australia, the things that have happened over the last year or so and how you've established yourself and how things are looking in the future. So thanks again for taking time out of your evening to join us. Yeah, thank you. Thanks for giving up Friday. It's been really fantastic. Thanks, Sarah. Thanks for making a copy of it. It looks so cool. Much more cool. Hang around for the last bit. Don't disappear. We're, it's back to us and you'll think we're even more cool then or maybe not. No, I doubt it. I doubt it very much. Right, so let us jump back into our slides. We just want to say that we do have future sessions planned. So future webinars. The next one is taking place on the 21st of May. We do, we are asking one speaker or center speakers to join us, but we don't want to say until we've confirmed that they will be definitely joining us. If they can't make it, we can always go ahead. It may be an opportunity for a general discussion. I've got this planning for online learning next academic year at the bottom, a future topics list. Is this something people feel that they would like to. So it's certainly something I'm doing a lot of work on at the moment at Kent, but we definitely have on the 11th of June at 2 p.m. British Sabotage, 2 p.m. because we have American colleagues joining us. It's the legend that is Peter Yazi along with his colleagues, Will Cross, Meredith Jacob and Pru Adler, who have worked on the most recent code of best practice in fair use, but this one is in open educational resources. We've mentioned this on the webinar in the past. We're also going to have Bart Milletti joining us with a colleague he's been working with in Europe on a potential code across Europe for documentary film use. So there's a lot of stuff in here about how we can work with communities to make copyright legislation interpretable and use copyright exceptions even if we don't have fair use. So a lot of stuff in there. So definitely date for your diary, that one, isn't it? I think, yeah, but we've got other topics and we're always looking for speakers. So drop us a line if there's something. I know a couple of people have asked if they want to talk a bit about how they're making use of the CLA license. And that might be something we can bring James in for and do a session on if, in light of the fact that extension is ending in July of this year. So, yeah. Okay, we've just got one more thing to leave people with. Do we stop the recording now though? I think we can stop the recording.