 Today's webinar is the second webinar of our newly launched series on law and ethics in the digital environment, following on from our first webinar series on data for decision making. The videos for previous posts are online on our website. In this series, drawing on wider experiences and expertise, internationally renowned speakers will provide insights and perspectives on a range of legal and ethical issues, which can be relevant to the digital environment. This will include challenges and potential solutions to issues relating to cybersecurity, intellectual property, privacy, human rights, competition, and digital ethics. This series on other topics going into next year. Today's webinar topic is on just because you can, balancing the rights and regimes relevant to the digital environment. And it's my great pleasure to introduce you to Professor Abidran, my colleague from the University of Aberdeen. I'm a professor in intellectual property law, research and teaching focus on intellectual property rights and their intersection with other legal fields to address key societal challenges, such as health information and education and responded to climate change. The research has been funded by the Welcome Trust and by the AHRC. Before returning to academia, Abid practiced as an intellectual property litigator for almost 10 years in London, Melbourne, and Edinburgh. She is the head of the Technology Committee of the Law Society of Scotland, and of the Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care of NHS Scotland. And she's actively involved in public engagement. I hand over to Abid, a few housekeeping matters. The talk will last about 35 minutes, followed by 20 minutes of questions and discussions. During the, during and after the talk, please type your questions and comments into the Q&A. I will collate the questions and put them to the speaker for response. The invitation will be recorded and later made available on our website for future reading. Abid, thanks very much again for accepting our invitation to speak to us today. We are very much looking forward to your talk and the floor is yours. Thank you. Welcome everyone to my talk. It's a pleasure to be here. Very honored to have this invitation. I'm going to try first of all to share my screen. Okay, so I think I shared my screen. Yes. Yeah. And we thank you and the title has introduced just because you can balancing the rights and regimes relevant to the digital environment, and then hopefully I'm going to click on and you are seeing a second slide, because I've been caught out on this before. Thank you. So today I'm going to explore some starting points from the data world. I'm going to introduce my world, which from discussions before is maybe quite similar to a lot of the view, the world views of you here, but from a slightly different angle, then I will present the legal regimes which form part of the world. So they're very contested. But from that starting point, how might we might want to build up that new world together and how we may test it, and how we may be looking at moving forward together. And from from your project's point of view, to see how that can construct the digital environment. Now I'm just going to see also if I can move. There we go. I just moved Virginia and Charlotte off my screen. So, first of all, from December 2020, the UK launched the data strategy consultation. And this makes a very interesting statements, perhaps a very encouraging statement for those of us interested in data. I just highlighted some key points on the slide. This has to begin with data. The data is a driving force of the world's modern economies. The UK should be a global champion of data use, encouraging the international flow of information across borders. The data is a non-depletable resource in theory, but its use is limited by barriers to its access, such as when it's hoarded, when access right to unclear, when organizations do not make good use of the data they already have. I can hear you all identifying with that one. And looking to ensure that data can be leveraged to deliver new and innovative services. So I think that's such an interesting debate to be starting. I think it's also very interesting to note the open rights group response, which is very broadly a previously activist group, who have a lot of dealings. And its response is a fundamental problem with the national data strategy is that it is a political strategy about data, which works from the position that data is not political. So data sterile and factual strings, which exist in a vacuum, which are used in a purely technical manner. And it goes on to challenge that the data might seem to be neutral, but over the years, the use which has been made of it. And for our purposes, the use which we might want to make for the highly important goal of environmental progress are not neutral. And what we will also see across my talk and I hope in our discussion, so many, many varied views of the approaches once you take to data. And they might be very much informed by by one's worldview ones professional expertise or indeed within law, as you have not lawyers, there are many, many fights within law, which I will be touching on. And building on that relation to human rights and the digital age, which I think we are seeing increasing connections between human rights and the digital environment. We have the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In 2019, you've all appeared on my screen again in 2019 at its best, the digital revolution will empower connect inform and save lives. And I think that this is highly highly relevant here. At its worst, it will disempower, disconnect, misinform and cost lives. And I think that with the open rights group is a very important reminder when we're looking at how we can make data work as effectively as we can to the invaluable goal we're all pursuing. This brings me to my first, just because you can, when maybe able to do all sorts of things with data, but should one necessarily do that. What questions is it valuable to ask. So from that, which forms part of my world in my just because you can questions. I'm really interested in rights and regimes. So as an example, intellectual property rights and a human rights regime. For about 20 years now, I've been obsessed with the fact that each of these rights and regimes is conflicted internally, and it's conflicted externally. And often there's no place to take that fight. I'm also quite obsessed with violence. My world is not about ownership, save, save owning a patent, but I must confess to getting deeply upset when people talk about owning data. I've done a lot of work with engineering and petroleum scientists. I know they own data. I know lots of policy work says I'd really prefer not to love to discuss it. I'm not really interested in products or services. I'm more interested in the fact that the regimes and rights will be exploring underpin these products and services and perhaps if one is overly focused on the outcome of the product say, measure emissions, it may help plotting a landscape. One might lose the other rights and regimes which may be relevant. Perhaps not surprisingly, I'm really obsessed with getting out of silos, which is why I think the project working on here is so very, very important, and I'm also very excited about creating something new. I really hope through my work in general, and my contribution today to help to avoid fights. I must confess to quite like you fight, but trying to avoid a fight avoid an unnecessary fight really find a way when different regimes can work constructively and cohesively together. So my target goal is to find this golden thread, which is going to come out the slightly squashed photo but I have acknowledged its origins. There's so many different fields which can be relevant. First of all, I think it's important to draw them together. And then it's important to work out how one can try and move forward. So from that, I'm very excited to be here. I was less excited when the March in March 21 the UK locked the consultation, identifying environmental principles to inform all government policymaking. I was less excited that it did not refer to data. It did not refer to technology, and it's still only applying to the environment. And I think to move towards a wider set of principles would perhaps might inform wider policymaking would be invaluable. So from that starting point, the cards we have to play if we like in my world, which I will be introducing today, intellectual property, privacy, human rights and competition. I can only in the time available provide the briefest of overview love to take more detailed questions in the discussion or to follow up in more detail afterwards. And that you have Martin Sloan, who I know from Brodies, he's going to be coming to speak to this group in coming weeks. So I'm really excited that you have that opportunity to develop that further. What I think we will see is that across all of these four rights and regimes, we see public and private conflicts. Some give you private rights, some have a more public focus. Some provide opportunities, but they also provide barriers, whether they are an opportunity or barrier may depend where you start and how one might frame the problem. And as we will see, intellectual property often wins, because you can go to court and get an order. Now it's costly, it's expensive, it's not necessarily good idea, but that path is there. It's a different path that one has to pursue from the environmental or human rights angle, perhaps the recent Heathrow litigation is one example of that. So, intellectual property, up to point intellectual property is quite easy. People have an inherent understanding of it, we might be that the Coca Cola brand name, it might be the idea you've done something really clever, like the wheel. So up to points, there's a general understanding of that. Intellectual property rights are private rights. They are national rights. So we were talking earlier about how addressing environmental challenges is such a global point. Innovation is also very global, but the intellectual property rights you have you will have one for the UK, one for France, one for China, one for Nigeria. You will only get one if you've met particular thresholds, which we will touch on. Some rights are registered, long expensive, but eventually you get a bit of paper, some are not really easy to get, but hard to prove. Now, since the 1990s, the countries are members of the World Trade Organization, which is most countries but not all have to have intellectual property rights. They can have some exceptions, and we will touch on those, but they have to create these rights. There was quite a revolution. Instrumental treaties have said that countries months have intellectual property rights since about the 19th century, but that's tended to be when countries say, yeah, we want to be part of that gang. And before broadly countries had developed their innovation to a particular level. They didn't tend to have intellectual property rights, they would just kind of look at what other countries were doing. There are many theoretical justifications for intellectual property. There are also many challenges. Perhaps why would anyone invest if the competitor could just rip them off? Why would anyone invest their time and energy and their personal dignity in being clever if someone could just copy it? But there's the other view that innovation builds on the activities of others. It develops solutions to global problems and everyone should be able to share in it. And in work relating to the environment, I think we can really identify that. There is a private right to enforce, and that I think is one of the most important things in this space. Also, intellectual property rights, as we'll see in more detail, they give you the right to control the use of innovation. If you have been very clever, you get that right and you can stop anyone else doing it. And in some situations you can stop other people using information. At intellectual property, although it does have lots of flexibilities around the edges and lots of nice bits and treaties, but basically you go to court, they act, don't say, oh, but in the public interest for someone else to be able to use it. So it's a very pro property environment at its most practical level. And if you work in this area, I'd love to discuss. Lots of my work has been to ensure how we can actually modify that. So under that umbrella, firstly, we look at copyright. Copyright exists probably through an intellectual creation, you probably have to have done something a little bit clever, rather than just mapping, say, what a street looks like, all the students in the University of Aberdeen, for example. But there's some varying views on that used to be just as long as you worked really hard in mapping something out and that can be highly relevant from the environmental space. So by we used to think that related to employers and commissioning now probably released AI, so that's a really interesting question to come. Copyright does just exist. If you have met those criteria, which is great, proving you didn't copy it from someone else is a bit harder. For present purposes, copyright can apply to software, it can apply to manuals, and it can apply to plans. It's important because we tend to think, notably with copyright started with Victor Hugo in particular, that it's about songs and cleverness, it's really not it's about some really practical things. If copyright exists, you can prevent the reproduction of all or substantial part of the work. We don't really have to discuss the internet we can of course it's really really messy on one level the internet is a massive copyright infringement. It can be very important from the environmental perspective. No one really needs maps anymore everyone relies on Google Street View for example so if Google have copyright and respect of that and they suddenly start to refuse to share it with anyone they have a tremendous amount of power. Some of the exceptions which we're starting to see in relation to copyright I think are relevant here. There's a fairly recent one in relation to data mining to say that it's not copyright infringement in the UK for there to be computation analysis of anything recorded in the work for the sole purpose of research or non commercial purpose. We also see some exceptions in relation to education. Importantly copyright lasts in the main for the life of the author plus 70 years if it's software it's 50 and you may be aware from your personal life every so often someone's catalogue comes out of copyright and they lobby to get the term extended Disney and Cliff Richard have a strong track record for that. But the important point for now is copyright lasts for a long, long time. These are databases now these go beyond what's in the WTO the WTO requires there to be copyright it doesn't require them to be database protection, but the WTO sets a minimum standard and the EU 20 years ago now created a special database right. Because, very broadly in the EU, you have to do something quite clever to get copyright. And if you'd been doing a careful mapping monitoring data gathering exercise, you may not be considered to have copyright. So protection was created for a collection of independent works or materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way individually accessible by electronic or other means. That means not all databases right there. For example, I'm sure we all in the days we could fly have been on their website, and you can go on other websites which compare all the different costs. You find those the information underpins those are not relevant databases so there are some exceptions to what can be covered in the first place. If you have met that criteria, then if you have invested a lot. Sorry, you need to have invested a lot qualitatively or quantitatively in obtaining verifying or presenting contents. This is another unregistered right only lasts for 15 years now depending on the field you're in of course 15 years might be 15 very important years. So obtaining verifying presenting contents raises some really important points have been many cases involving racing results have proved very important, I suspect was going to be the case on share prices, and particularly relevant here could be see where is the oil where are the wind farms. Perhaps surprising to everyone, the courts have made very clear that you need to gather existing materials, rather than create new information. But if you created new information without being clever from a copyright angle, you're not going to have any protection at all. The courts have then clarified at the EU level that it will cover collections of existing scientific or geographical facts so databases can be a really important point in the environmental space. So if we have a database, then you can stop extracting or reutilizing the whole or substantial part of the database. So not just sort of the one off going in and out, but extraction or utilization. There are some exceptions for dealing scientific research and teaching, and particularly record information, say, scientific databases. I think that's a really important one to be aware of. It's not very glamorous in the way that a new book or will come on to patents might be seen as being glamorous but it really does it does exist. And as we're looking more and more at identifying information, having it protected and ensure we can disseminate it as widely as we can, the fact that someone might actually be able to control who can access that information is really something to be born in mind. There's a lot of internal angst within databases in particular, and EU has done two reviews on it. It has decided to stick with it. Now interesting to note, for example, the US does not have a database right nor do many, many other countries. But the EU has noted the database right doesn't apply to databases generated in the means of machines, sensors and other new technologies such as the Internet of Things or artificial intelligence. So it really notes that in many situations they're not that helpful, but they've both declined to get rid of it or to expand it. So it'll be fascinating to see where that runs in the future. So moving on to patents. Patents are registered right. If say 10 years and hundreds of thousands of pounds you have to spend, then you can get patent. And this is a really important point in the environmental space we were talking earlier saying you win technologies, for example, patents are very effective tool. The government loves the concept of them. They're a great idea to be seen to be encouraging innovation, but actually depending on the sector you're in you might spend all your money on trying to get a patent and then you've no money left to bring it to market. To get a patent to innovation has to be new. That's a really big threshold as no one has ever done it before. An inventive step which I think of as an intellectual springboard capable of industrial application. And here again we're seeing that AI possible angle. Some forms of innovation are excluded from getting a patent. And the important one here is that a program for a computer or presentation of information as such, you can't get a patent for it. And people make lives about fighting over what as such actually means. But important to take away from this if you can still get a software patent, despite those those two magic words. It's easier in the US than at the European Patent Convention. Take away from that is that's got nothing to do with EU. If you have got a patent, then it means that you can prevent the use of your innovation without your consent with some exceptions which can exclude some forms of research, often called a monopoly. Whether you meant to do it whether you knew about the patents. Absolutely irrelevant, a very strong right, particularly compared with the copyright and database rights. There's a lot of them, as we say, and you can secure them you can merge them. They last for 20 years. Again in some sectors that's a lot in some sectors that's not long enough. Secrecy in some way very much compliments patents, you have to keep it secret until you apply. So that means that it can be new. If you might, if you're armed for us in Scotland or for everyone else, you may say no, I'm not getting a patent because if I have to share it with everyone. Eventually I get all this power, but I have to share with everyone. I don't want to share mine with everyone. I want to keep it really really secret. And most countries have a form of law which enables you to do that. The real magic. And later, who wants to get their most benefit is to patent bits and keep the really clever bit secret from the environmental development point of view. That's a really bad thing. You're wanting to encourage everything to be made freely available. There are some forms of exceptions. If someone does say find out that there's many emissions coming from a particular factory and they haven't been disclosed. But that's only if the information is disclosed in the first place that it and there can be some real contrast between that and say they are whose convention, which is very much about sharing information. It's pretty unwise to rely on trade secrets though if you're looking at advising or you are an innovator because you just need one stray post on Facebook perhaps one disgruntled employee and the information is out there. And keep it secret and you've lots of agreements and confidentiality stamps and passwords. It can last forever. Coca Cola is again the classic example. Same move on to privacy in some ways highly aligned with trade secrets of keeping it secret, but very contested in theory is it about information privacy is it about personal privacy. Should there be the right of one's own dignity to keep information secret. Should there be some information which has to be shared and we can see that some issues there in relation to the environment for example smart meters. Is it appropriate for people to know that I always leave my lights on or should people know that that's that I have that I do or that I don't so I can be encouraged to behave differently and also I believe city council can monitor their energy. It's also interesting to bear in mind that very, very, very broadly and I will contradict myself shortly there isn't really a rights privacy, those rights or trade secrets and intellectual property rights privacy is a lot messier. Many countries do have a rights privacy in their constitution. In the UK we have a combination of article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is nothing to do with EU, combined with the Human Rights Act, we still have at least for now. As the established trade secrets action has created an action for misuse of private information, which we're largely seeing for use by celebrities so it's probably not so directly relevant in the space we're exploring today. And who knows what's going to happen to human rights act. More directly relevant is data protection. And that's where we are seeing the myth, more myths prone by data protection than anything anything else in the world the GDPR is an EU thing. So post Brexit on one level it doesn't apply to us. However, we have the data protection act, which is substantially the same. And also as we'll see it actually has to continue our law has to continue to be very similar to the EU one for particular reasons. It's not, it's not the same as privacy. It's about respecting personal information, it's dealing with it fairly is dealing with it in a legitimate manner, or with consent you don't always have to have consent despite all those privacy policies we keep seeing. It gives individuals the power to find out what information is heard about them. And if that goes say to my my energy usage then that can be highly relevant. Important goals are data protection by design and by default. But as I'm sure you'll be exploring elsewhere in your session. Who says, who says what are those values, which are to be encoded can be very controversial and similar points on automated decision making going to get the computer to decide whether I use too much energy well that's fine but does that take into account but I might have a very large household or not. Data protection in the UK has an information commissioner they can choose to intervene. And if they do there can be a very large financial penalty which is imposed. There can be a private action but it's really really messy. And this tends to be developed much more from the regulator choosing to act against someone for not acting in an appropriate way, there can be reputational implications, but most importantly, there can be a huge fine. So that backdrop what we often tend to see our policies. I'm not going to ask, but I bet you never read the privacy policies. I never read the privacy policies. But we're also seeing more and more data protection impact assessments and I think this is likely to be a continuing activity in the environmental space, the more that activities being planned which is working for now with personal information useful to know the EU is talking about more work on non personal data. But if anything which is related to the human, which is also going to be such an important point in relation to the environment. A data protection impact assessment is really important. Other countries have very different approaches, notably the US has a very different approach to privacy and data protection with the GDPR says that basically if any information is going out of the EU. It can't go to that country unless it has an adequate data protection principle. And that has led to arrangements with the US in relation to passenger records for example being struck down to makes the cloud really really messy. At the moment that you has indicated that things that present UK approaches are adequate. Some people think that's surprising in relation to surveillance and terrorism and intelligence. But the indication are that is that there will be able to be movement of information between the UK and the EU for a lot of the research projects and a lot of the businesses would be looking at the environmental space that can be important. Important to bear in mind this is again very very very contested. Individuals who will raise cases to challenge what they consider is activity by public sector stakeholders, particularly say shrooms, we've seen that. And cases just been raised against in relation to the Department of Health in England, sharing information with Palantir in relation to COVID health information without an appropriate data protection impact assessment. It's different teeth from the intellectual property right, but if we're working in the public space it is important to remember that the law can really step in. Competition law is incredibly contested. It doesn't have a treaty. It might be about the market, but maybe also about the incentive to innovate so I can competition fight a little bit, but not as much as they did probably not about human rights or ethics. The only development from 2021 is that the UK regulators in deciding if there is activity and breach of competition law they will have regard to sustainability so that's a really important point here. In competition we do see private enforcement and public enforcement that can work not many people want to sue, but sometimes they do, but it's also good to know that the regulator might choose to get involved themselves. The question can arise for basically a cartel and anti competitive agreement from one person or two people abusing a dominant position. You shouldn't be too successful or if you are that's, it's not wrong to be too successful but you will be judged by different standards, and this can be really relevant. If either say the sector has agreed that a particular form of wind farm technology might be used or everyone just tends to and have been cases involving the German group and trademark from this angle. And we can also see mergers being blocked from the competition angle. We can also see that can be huge, huge fines Microsoft were told to unbundle its browsers from the rest of its operating software, your agreement can be found to be invalid and competition can, in theory, be a complete defense to an IP action. I mean lots of high level numbers there. So European competition law, if you can get them interested is really, really scary. The Commission did approve the WhatsApp Facebook merger. And if you are on WhatsApp, they have just changed the privacy conditions and probably if you're like me no one's really bothered to opt out of it so we are now governed by the Facebook conditions. We have human rights, lots and lots of international treaties, which I'm not going to go through although quite exciting that Scotland has incorporated some and says it's going to incorporate most really important points bear in mind, which I'm sure you know. International treaties aren't part of national law, certainly in the UK until they are made so so Kyoto, Paris, UNFCCC so very very important, but actually in itself that's not not directly relevant. We're also starting to see more digital human rights instruments they are more informal nature, but they're definitely growing, including for avatars and rights of Mother Earth. So from from the network from the influence and change angle human rights is definitely a factor. You can and the path will depend on the country, but certainly in the UK. If you do raise an IP action. There are ways by which you can try to say, for example, you can't use your copyright to stop me saying that the emissions are far too big. I have a right to freedom of expression. You can make that argument. The courts will balance it. Often human rights doesn't win. So it's a good arguments act of this angle, but it's not necessarily going to win practically. So as I said, who tends to win IP owners tend to win we're seeing COVID, they're tending to win. In the early days of COVID, there was views that there was such a strong focus on the whole world being in this together. There was a lot of public funding, lots of sharing information from scientists, but in the last few weeks we're seeing a lot more discussion about people are having patents and they're not wanting to share it and they're not wanting to share the data. And so there again we're seeing a because we can IP owners information controllers they do have this power. They can also say, well if we didn't have this right so we wouldn't have developed it in the first place. So to show that's not true, but we're seeing many fights at the World Trade Organization to try to formalize that flexibility. An IP often wins because as we saw it's much harder to bring an environmental based action or human rights based action directly against the person you are fighting with. So starting to wrap up. With COVID and the examples I've seen already, I think the links between the regimes and rights I've been noticing they can come into measuring climate change, online education, digital museums, which I think we're very much part of your work, also health information, virtual PA such as Alexa exam decisions, tracking energy use scientific and use spatial data, measuring emissions in relation to it or transport the view that perhaps I'm sure you will all know. But maybe we'll work from home we don't use any energy, perhaps we simply use different energy and smart cars or all areas where we are starting to see fights and we can see battles regarding links between IP and secrecy privacy data protection, competition and power. Human rights again I think that underpin them all. But they all have different drivers they have different starting points they've different penalties they've different philosophies, they have different terms. So, having created a mass of confusion. Welcome to my world. The debate continues but how we can find this magic thread. I think the first phase is to really try to engage with that landscape to explore some of the piecemeal intersections I've been able to touch on. And please, please, please, don't be involved any more technology consultations, which don't refer to IP. We still have fights from all of those areas, they all depending where you start with all pose barriers to the other angle and all of these fields are legitimate to each of those fields being able to develop most effectively for the environment. So where might we go next. These are my very preliminary magic threads, because if you should have one overarching regulator who will intervene who will make things happen. Now, I haven't seen that happen quite yet but as virtually said I'm involved in the public benefit and privacy panel, and they're because we have the data with data controllers who are responsible for data. So that means a process has been able to be created that have researchers want to get that data for viable public interest related research. Then that can be obtained, but we, those of us who sit on the panel are obliged to have regard to a wide range of factors. Perhaps there isn't such a person because perhaps the information doesn't belong to anyone at all. I've also the privilege of being involved through work with IUCN of negotiating the new UN Ocean Treaty for areas beyond national jurisdiction. And maybe maybe maybe I'm the really annoying person who sits in the room and say please can we talk about IP. So to say open access what do you really really mean please can we say that if it is in a database subject to database right or copyright that countries have to require it to be fully shared. We will see. In oil and gas, we have seen some very interesting developments in relation to the national data repository which is an Aberdeen that if you have a license, you are required to share lots of things about what you find in your patch of oil patch of land where the oil is and you have to share it very widely with the market. And certainly up to a point that seems to be done irrespective of the fact that that information might otherwise be secret or it might be the subject of intellectual property rights. And if you don't do it well you don't need to but you will get your license to drill taken away so it's been a very interesting proactive view from one regulator. It has been done in Canada, they try to challenge it from a copyright angle, and they lost, but and this is a final area of law I just like to leave hanging there with you. And that has led to a challenge under a trade investment agreement so a challenge by the private sector IP owner against state. So, even if we can arrange a balance at a horizontal level, there's still that other level of dispute to bear in mind. And perhaps much more effective is to have a focus very much on standards post models ISO sustainable timber, having a very inclusive approach towards the environment to try to bring everyone together to try to get agreement. I'd love that to happen. And too much my nasty private sector litigator at heart to really think that can be the best way, but hopefully that is an important way to build our new community. I'd love to have questions. Thank you. Thanks very much. It was really fascinating and very interesting talk to see, you know how these different fields can intersect each other in this digital environment and have different perspectives they can bring in different different interests at state. It was very, very interesting. Thanks very much. I would like to now open the Q&A session and one of the questions we have got is, whether you could discuss maybe citizen science IP and privacy implications. Sorry. There was something before there was IP and privacy and the first thing is citizen citizen science IP and privacy implications. Citizen science. Citizen science. Yeah, great. Yes, so that kind of depends what what is being done. We have, we have a group and ICN work I've been doing I know that you know people are going out to see and they are catching things and they're analyzing that and they're wanting to share that fully. So if we take that angle, then they they have done that work, and they will have copyright or database rights in what they in what they do. And then choose to publish it really important to say that IP is a right to exclude. You don't have to exclude. And many people say to me I'm you worry about nothing this is totally fine people want to share. And that's perhaps much more likely what will happen in the citizen science scenario. So they will make that available. And they may just not play this IP game. They may make it available and see a Creative Commons license and I had some of those on my pictures. And there's a variety of mixes of Creative Commons license you can have you could say for everyone for any use, or maybe for only non commercial purposes. So that may not lead to an IP fight at all. But perhaps is if we have someone who has gathered a lot of information about, I don't know, and people who leave the lights on in the streets and that number six are really bad and the emissions are are really really high, and they get that information. And they want, and they want to publish it. So if that information says, you know, the people at Happy Brown lives at number 79, then from an IP point of view, I can only fight with someone about IP. So, if you publish that information about IP, I can't stop you from IP because I don't own the IP. I could maybe try and complain and say, but that's information about me is private. That's when we have to go back to that celebrity based action. And then you might say, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy of this would be really interesting one of being able to leave my lights on online to know I'm being able to complain. Not quite so sure about that. That's a different thing from walking your kid down the street in a buggy, which is what happened to shaking rolling from Harry Potter. So that's in some ways actually a really interesting example of just the real clashes that sometimes we have laws which don't speak to each other. We have seen IP and IP and privacy we have we have seen clashing a little bit say in people's diaries most recently and Meghan Markle and the letters from her father. That's probably the most pronounced example of seeing IP and privacy clashing. So I hope that's that's helpful. And if that wasn't helpful or you're meaning something different please do let me know. Yes, thanks very much. I was wondering whether you would like to follow up on on the legal enforcement point of view. Okay. So, so two things really to go back to the citizen science one of the thanks for your answer is it's a very it's increasingly common in the environmental science sector to use citizens as part of how we gather information around the environment. Right. And there's usually two goals for it one is is a an exercise and gathering information the other exercise is in educating citizens on the importance of environmental aspects and two are often conflated. We then, you know, I've also been curious. We, we, when we do this exercise IP and who owns the data is usually not considered in that it's just more seen as a, as generally a good exercise and I was just curious in that space. Likewise, we've tried to do equivalent stuff in farming communities where you do get very people get very very precious about their data. And again, you get into these discussions of how you aggregate data and who owns what in terms of IP. But it's, it's, it's that bit that I'm curious about the citizen science. Really, really interesting. I think a classic example of the clashes of different angles so one of you doesn't matter if the citizen scientist means if you're an employee or not an employee from a pure IP law perspective. So, if, if I employ you, and you do stuff for me then I own the copyright in it. If I ask you to do it. If I ask you to do a website, then you will own the copyright, even if I pay loads of money, even if I don't pay you any money, you will still own the copyright. So that's a really important point to make clear that any rights which exists and maybe copyright maybe database rights to make clear that you will own the intellectual property rights in it. If that information involves someone's private life. Then, I mean on one view they are choosing to share that information with you if it's been entirely clear they don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy because you asked them to share it, but information about them so I don't think actually from a legal point of view, privacy would arise. I think data protection may arise if they lots and then give you a lot of their private information and you then control it you may be pushing them with lots of other people's private information you then have to look after it fairly and lawfully. And if we're looking at people's farms and actually in all countries the attention is normally focused on more developing countries but I think the point is totally fair throughout the world about the land's culture what one's heritage what one does. And that is, that is something I think often we see a real gap between the data protection probably doesn't necessarily apply to that privacy doesn't actually apply to that I think that's probably an example, or even if this data protection does apply. And that's when we're into assessing privacy making it really really clear what you're trying to do which moves into research ethics I suppose really making it very clear to the community, what is going to be done. It can move on perhaps to benefit sharing types of examples depending what might be done with that information. I don't know how much that that might lead to the situation you're talking about some of the work that we see from the intellectual property space is people go go to space and they take re genetic resources they take plant genetic resources and from a community and then they make it into something and they make millions. And on one view that person may still have done some very clever things so they're entitled to the patent, but then we get into see the Convention on Biological Diversity, which and other instruments are very clear that one should be making clear what reward from one to use that language that could be financial it could be building a school it could be educational. So I think there are probably all things that it's really important to make to make clear. One thing I sometimes use an exam questions but I think it does apply here as well is, people might be quite happy to give you their information. So I would say to an island gas multinational as part of their new green program, would people be as comfortable with that. And I think that's probably the best which maybe about my ultimate solution, suggested solution is to, we have a very clear discussion about what it is supposed to be done to try to bring the community with you to explore where you may be trying to go. So I hope that's helpful. And this is the question that Berko wanted me to ask sorry it's a very different question so switch brains for a minute. This is out of a consequence of a conversation I had with someone in a UK government department. And he kind of challenged me and kind of said well you know as we get to a point whereby we can measure everything that occurs in the environment through satellite measurements and so various other things. We get to a point that in essence what we have is will go ubiquitous data on the environment, and there are consequences for that in terms of legal enforcement. And curious what your thoughts are that you know both in in the space that you operate in, but also in the space that we operate in. In essence my what your thoughts are on terms of the enforcement agencies and their credibility as we head into the space that we know more and more and more. But we can do less about it. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that. I'm interested in what they mean about that is harder to enforce. What is harder to enforce. So, so for example you, you find out that there are small breaks of environmental law discharges. You know trees are being cut down that shouldn't be that kind of thing things that before may or may not have happened the community might have known a little bit about it, and the agency I wouldn't say could draw a blind eye but it was without was was outside of their aim of consciousness as we get into this incredibly informed digital age, where information is ubiquitous and we know everything. We end up in a capacity problem of being able to enforce all these various different infringements, which then leads to credibility problem around the agency that enforces that. That's that's that's that's the view from an environmental perspective but I suspect that same view sits in the patent perspective is the IP perspective etc etc is, is that credibility around yes legally, there are these enforcement measurements but in fact, we just don't have the bandwidth to go after every single element around that. So I think that that raises just really interesting points. And for having started out is saying that you know, I'm a fighter, and the answer is not in fighting. I think that the more that it is seen as you gather information to fight. And that's probably not the answer. The IP example is really, really interesting. So this is why, you know, big music companies get so badly criticized because they write teenage kids, because they feel that they have to be seen to be suing everyone, because if they didn't sue everyone, then they can they can't sue anyone at all. And actually works incredibly badly because the world objects and through social media everyone objects incredibly quickly so I don't think actually one, one needs to just because of the information doesn't necessarily follow that you should have to be suing all the time. Then I think there is often a point that it depends exactly the situation that you are looking at. So there will be some situations when there is a relevant enforcement regime, and the situation is relevant but also many big things like there isn't a relevant enforcement regime, and or they can be very narrow points. And the bigger point saying climate climate change acts a public sector obligation. And the fact that all the little bad things that people might do in the middle, or the non sharing of the patent for example which we enable the wind farms to make much, much more efficiently. There's a link between that and the climate change path. So I think there's that angle to sometimes you might not want to fight. Sometimes there might not be a path. And then probably that fight is no different from the fight that anyone has to go in assessing the use of resources. I suppose I would also think that it's raises really interesting question about what you're doing together the data for is a data about knowing when people have done a bad thing. Is it about education. Is it about informing risk of where you're going to prioritize the resources so I do I do see see the point that if you had, and this is where I think a lot of the, the big on the big online music company saying they do know they get the reports, and they say that they have been have been downloading. And then that that is what they are faced with. And maybe it's actually really interesting question is, is it the right approach to be seen as being totally top down and enforcement based. That's the most helpful way to go to go approach it. And this probably is approach that certain other IP on this tend to do they see a couple of quite big ones. Try and make a point. And they normally then don't do the education angle, but that also also a useful angle in our space. That's a really interesting thought. Thank you know that that was a good answer. I think back to burko now. Is there any other questions or yes, I'm conscious of time but there's one more question of if you're happy to take that one as well in relation to this example. Social media data where an individual invokes their data rights and provides that data to a third party, for example, for research. The question is, could the social media company seek to block through invoking IP rights. So, um, so we've got a person who has put something on social media. And then they are wanting to pass that on to someone else. So then the situation then would be who actually owns the IP rights and in many situations. And that's when you have to go to those policies that none of us bother reading. And but you know, Facebook and YouTube and Twitter, they tend to have conditions which say that you post whatever you post you won the IP rights in, but they tend then to say that they give an exclusive as an exclusive license that anyone can take it and can continue to build on it. They also then tend to have a clause which says that if you actually haven't posted something, but you posted something that infringed someone else's copyright, then someone can complain and then say Facebook or YouTube would take it down. And that's something which gets a lot of criticism because there's there's hope to have an algorithm but we've noticed challenges which can exist with that. So, you know, three years ago in the early days of demon ISP someone put up John Stuart Mill online on liberty and complaints and told them to take it down for breach of copyright and it got taken down the next day. So that thing was it was a real point about having lots of debates that the power should sit with with the tech companies, because they have the the act of power to control the activity which is going on. They because to be fair to them, they're being credibly nervous about being found to be liable for copyright for not taking things down. They're more likely to take things down too quickly. And that's that can lead to freedom of expression type points and on this particular research angle that will so some of that may depend on the terms conditions of the company, whether they have particular exceptions. Some of them may also apply. That's if you're in a situation where there is a relevant exception for research purposes for what you're doing then there may not be an infringement in the first place so IP wouldn't exist, but that comes very nicely actually back to the freedom of expression type example, because you know, say copyright will expire eventually, but a lot of systems can't work. They can just work out for workers protected by copyright, but someone says protected by copyright they can't work out if it's expired or not so relying on exceptions again is probably not not going, not going to work so we see a lot a lot of confusion there. So some of your question, I feel it might not have entirely done from, but but I think, I think the other angle it could be coming from. I don't think exists, not exists practically, but I don't think it would exist from from the present laws of privacy and from IP, which I think is another really interesting point and probably the most important is to be, when you when you're doing your search be really really clear about what you think people to do. And maybe just a big health warning for people that if they are doing anything with other people's information to ensure that they know that they that they are like to do it. Yes, thanks very much. It was very helpful. I think this brings us to the end of the webinar. Thanks very much again for this fascinating talk and thanks very much everyone for joining us today and for all the questions. And we hope to see everyone again for our next webinar on the 8th of April, same time, and we will welcome Martin Swan, who is a partner in the IP and data team at Rodis LLP, and he will speak to us on what we need to think about in the digital context in the context of data protection, price and IP. So I think we will have more opportunity to explore the area further in our next webinar. Thanks very much again. Thanks everyone and hope to see you all by then. Thank you very much, Abby. It was really, really interesting. Thank you everyone.