Good morning everybody. Welcome to copyright and online teaching in a time of crisis webinar number 35. It's the 35th webinar. Yes, very good to have you all back again. I'm James Hecker. Yeah, I'm Chris Morrison. So we've got another, I think, good session coming up. Shall we have a look at what's coming up today? Let's do that. Yeah. So we've got quite a few things in the copyright news that always seems to be things to talk about. So we're looking forward to going through a number of things. Well, there's a letter, there's a court case, there's an interview, there's some events coming up. So we are looking forward to that. But then today we have an excellent guest, a regular on the podcast Claire Kidwell from Trinity Love and Conservatise going to be talking to us about notated music. So we're looking forward to that. We are very much. Yes, yes, yes. And we've got our sort of future webinars, all the kind of usual stuff. So let's, without further ado, get cracking, Chris. Let's do it. What are we starting with? Yeah, this week that we've got some. We turned into a cartoon. We've been cartoonised, haven't we? We have. We have. I would recognise myself anywhere, actually. I think it's so obviously me and you with your fabulous hair. Thank you very much. Yeah. It's been immortalised, your lockdown hair. They have, yes, absolutely. So we'll come back to where these come from later on. It's one part of the news item. We thought we would share this with you this week. We quite like these, don't we? We do. We do. We're thinking maybe of a whole cartoon series, aren't we, where we can get them animated so they move around and they do things. Maybe they sing. Maybe they sing. Maybe. Maybe one of them could sing really well in the casting. Perhaps we'll get actually somebody who could sing to do the voice for me. So yes, that's that's how exciting. And of course it's been Easter. Many people have been off. Quite a lot of people are probably still on leave. And so we hope you've all had a lovely break, had a bit of down time. I spent a lot of time in the garden. I've been doing a lot of baking. So everything in the house is coated with a thin layer of bread dough. So yeah, no, it's been good. Right. So a reminder that we have all of the previous webinars on our archive. So we can share the link, can't we? Whoever it is that's putting the links, it's me. I've got the link. I'm going to copy paste it. You love it when I narrate what I'm doing technically, don't you? If you do that and I'll move on to the next thing, which I think is something for you to do anyway. So yeah, 35 webinars, it's quite an achievement. OK. Right then. OK.  And I don't know if you can pop the link into the chat to this, Chris. This is from a US University. And I'm just trying to remember both BYU stands. Brigham Young University. That's it, yes. And they are clearly having some quite similar discussions in US universities on the streaming of films for educational use. So I spotted this tweet about a petition that they have set up. And there's a letter where you can sort of put your name on it to support it. Now obviously completely aware that the situation, the law in the US is different. But what I just thought was worth highlighting here was that this is pretty much the exact same issue. So it's kind of whether you can circumvent a TPM such as DRM technology that's on DVDs and whether you should be allowed to use DVDs and films for remote learning, as they call it, sort of online learning. So exactly the same kind of issues being discussed. And it will just be really interesting, I think, to see what the outcome of this is in the US. It is because what they're specifically focusing on here is the circumvention of technical protection measures and the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is what is in place in the US. So we have something similar here that we've spoken about in relation to UK law and EU law. So these things are all their separate legal systems, but they are clearly linked and there are some principles that they will be looking at across the different countries and thinking, how do we get teaching material? I've also spotted Bart's joined us this morning, so I don't know if it's something he picked up on and had followed it at all, but I think it's just something for us to keep an eye on about what's going on there. So if you've got anything to add Bart, we can come back to it as we go through the rest of the news. So the next news item is also coming from the United States and here's a link to a BBC news article about it, but many of you would have seen this, I think in various different media outlets. So clearly it's something that's of, have I got there before you don't? There we go, there's a link. Google versus Oracle, which is a copyright lawsuit that's been going on for 10 years. It's been going on for a very, very long time with some really important questions being decided over the use of APIs application programming interfaces. It's about Google's use of Oracle's APIs in the creation of the Android operating system. And there's a number of different aspects of this case, but the one that this judgment has clarified is that it's fair use. So it's been seen that Google's use of Oracle's code was fair use. Now there are other arguments there about whether the code itself should be subject to copyright protection at all, because these we're talking about application programming interfaces. There's an argument, a very strong argument, I would say that they are equivalent to languages that we speak, that there shouldn't be any one company that's in control of a language that allows different technologies to interface with each other. So I don't think it's worth trying to summarise it any more than that, because I think this is a subject, clearly it's worthy of a lot of discussion about what its implications are. So I think something we'd like to come back to and thinking about how this specifically relates to learning technologies and interfacing and code and ownership and proprietary versus open. I think this is something that we've touched on in these webinars. I think that's the angle that we'd like to explore more. But just to say this is an extremely important ruling, even if we're not based in the US, because of the fact that this is technology that's used throughout the world and it's Google, it's Oracle, it's these big tech companies working out the basis on which code can be used and its legality. Yeah, I studied some of it actually when I did the Harvard Copyright X course, so they were where it had got to because it was even before this latest judgment, there was a lot of backwards and forwards in, wasn't there for many years, and we studied it there. So yeah. I think it would be interesting and not to put people up to it, but I think to hear Coyote Courtney's take on it because he's been commenting about it and also Emily Hudson will have views on this about how it relates to the stuff from her research as well. OK, so shall we look to the next news item, which is where those cartoons came from. Yes. So about a month or so ago, Chris and I had a really good chat with Matt East who works for TALIS, sort of a bit on the back of some of the interest there's been about the TALIS Elevate product. So this for people who don't know is, so it's not the reading this tool from TALIS, it's where you can put readings into it and it's primarily aimed at academic staff to use with students to get students to do more active reading so they can kind of have discussions, they can add annotations to the readings and obviously some of the issues that people have flagged up is kind of all what about copyright with a product like that. I mean, actually there are quite a lot of other tools that are out there that do similar things and, you know, I think we kind of go into some of some of those issues towards the end of the interview, but actually it was just a really great chance for us to just waffle on about copyright a bit more, wasn't it Christmas really, and to get some cartoons made. It was, yeah, absolutely. So in the way that when you see people on social media talking about whether they have been paid for promotion or anything just to say that there was none of that going on, we were given the opportunity by TALIS to talk about the things that were important to us, copyright literacy, how about the new copyright and online learning special interest group, you get the word out there. So clearly it's worth saying other products are available. There are other notation bits of software. Sounds a little bit like you're trying to justify that they didn't give you a pair of trainers or something like that. Well, they gave us some cartoons, which is nice. They did give us some cartoons, yes. But we also took it as an opportunity to promote the alt special interest group as well, didn't we? So we chatted a bit about that to Matt as well and what the kind of community that we were building was doing and continuing to do. So something to listen to on those cold and chilly and wet spring evenings. So the next thing as well, events now we've got there. I mentioned Emily, Dr Emily Hudson put the link to this on the list. It's actually later today. So if you've missed Emily talking about her book driving copyright exceptions, there's another opportunity this afternoon at six o'clock and she's on a double bill with Martin St. Flaban, who is talking about his work in patents as well. So they are or trademark, I think it is the copyright trademark interface. Excuse me. So there's good opportunity there to catch up with more about how copyright exceptions are used in practice. And then the next event. Sorry, I just to let you know, I beat you there. I got the link in to that one. Well done. I'm very proud of myself. That's kind of made my weekend. Yeah. Yeah, next one is me. So the OER X Domains Conference is coming up later this month, 21st to the 22nd of April, run by or supported by the Association for Learning Technology, organised by the Association for Learning Technology. And it's a great conference. We've spoken to it. We've spoken at it before and we chat a bit about it when we interviewed Martin from Alts in our Copyright Waffle podcast. But the event is going to be for two days online, but we've also got a presentation or a sort of workshop session, haven't we, for the Special Interest Group on Copyright and Online Learning. We absolutely do. I've got another presentation as well, actually, based on my own July teach, which is also happening. I think that was happening in the morning of the 22nd. Our one is the evening, I think of the 21st, isn't it? Yes, I was trying to find the link to the program. And I think the program seems to be the link I found seems to be taking to the pre-conference workshop. But if you follow that link, you should be able to get access to it. I think that's on it again. That's the list of the program. I'll beat you. Very good. Well done. But I also wanted to draw people's attention to there are other copyright-related presentations. And one of them is from the American team who worked on the code's best practice for open educational resources. So that is on the same day that we're doing our cool SIG presentation at 20 past four. So that will be good as well to see what they've been doing in the U.S. Yeah. And it is always an excellent conference. I mean, just having a sort of quick squeeze through the program. I mean, always they have international speakers and you know, I can see people coming from all around the world, obviously because it's online as well. It's in some ways made it more accessible as well. So yeah, we're looking forward to that. So talking of excellent international conferences. Yes. We have an announcement that the core for contributions. Believe it's not ice pops. We need a jingle. I can't believe it's not ice pops. Okay. We do need a jingle. Yes, yes. And it is now live. So we've this is just to remind people or let you know if you weren't aware ice pops. We have run two very successful sessions of the international copyright literacy event with playful opportunities for practitioners and scholars in 2018, 2019, the 2020 edition was postponed to this year, but then we made the decision to postpone it another year, but it's getting together face to face in June really wasn't going to be possible. But this is the free online event. We've already got confirmation that a number of speakers who were due to speak at the face to face event will be joining us online. And we've now put out the call to ask others to see if they want to do either a lightning talk or take part in the World Cafe sessions where they get to demo their ideas or their projects and talk to people about how they work and get feedback or just spread the word really. So it's there if you want if you have an idea. Yeah, and it's on a Friday, so starting at 11 o'clock. So many of you will be tuning into our webinars. So we decided to run it at a similar time, but it's basically like a webinar that runs all day. So no, you have to have a lunch break and but we are going to have an evening social aren't we, Chris? Yes, there might be some singing. Right. Well, we will provide more information closer to the time, but it should be will be a lot of fun. It will be. Oh, I've got a cat on the desk now. Speaking of music, I think this is the opportune moment to introduce our guest speaker. Isn't it? I think we're at the end of copyright news. Yes, I think so. So one of the most fabulous music librarians that there is is we're very grateful is joining us if I can. Shall I control the slides? I'm trying to control the cat on the slides at the moment. So the very fabulous Claire Kidwell who is the head librarian at Trinity Larvin Conservatoire of Music and Dance is about to join us on this webinar. Claire, unfortunately, I think isn't going to sing at the moment and she's not going to do stand-ups. I think we're trying to work out whether this was shortly before or shortly after she did her one and only copyright stand-up stint at the Icebox conference, which but for those of us who are there have never forgotten, Claire. But you're actually going to talk to us about a fairly serious subject about the document supply of notated music by libraries, aren't you? Claire. Correct, Jane. I'm afraid there are no rude jokes in this presentation at all. Perhaps we stop the recording. Unless anyone picks one up that I've not noticed in writing it, but in which case do tell me. Okay. So let's get your slides up, Claire. Chris, are you doing that? Am I doing that? Okay. Right. Take it away, Claire. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. So very pleased to be joining everyone today. I will start by saying that I know that not everyone listening in will necessarily be coming with a musical background. So I'm going to try to avoid any esoteric terminology as far as possible. But if anyone wants anything clarified, stick it in the chat and perhaps Chris can either type an answer in if he feels he can or jump in to ask me to explain. So to start with a bit of context. So YAML is the International Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Documentation Centers, which is made up of a number of national branches, including the UK and Ireland branch. And the branch has a number of committees tasked with particular aspects of the profession, and I chair the Trade and Copyright Committee. So our remit is to advise the branch on issues relating to intellectual property, particularly copyright and licensing as they affect music library profession and to deal with issues relating to the profession's relationship with publishers and suppliers of music material. We have eight members who currently come from a national library to Conservatoire's University, a public library, a resource centre supporting new music and a music publisher as well. So we've got broad representation across a variety of sectors, including rights-holder input. And this study was planted by our public library representative at the time who said that her library sometimes received requests from users for reproductions of printed music, but that wasn't a service that they had previously offered and she wondered what libraries did. So we discussed this in one of our meetings and thought there would be merit in circulating a survey to find out what current practices were in place, identify the obstacles to utilisation and consider whether there was any guidance that we could usefully produce to support libraries offering such a service. So we circulated the survey link to the YAML UK and Ireland list copy seek list ILL, that's into library loan, and the Library Association of Ireland Academic and Special Libraries email lists. So although the survey itself was framed within the context of UK copyright legislation, Irish copyright law is substantively the same in this specific area, hence we welcomed responses from Irish libraries too. And we received responses from 21 libraries altogether. So obviously that's not by any means comprehensive but nevertheless we were satisfied that the sample size was large enough for us to be able to draw some broad conclusions. In terms of the breakdown of respondents by sector 43% were academic libraries, 33% public libraries, 10% national libraries, and 14% other types. And of those respondents, only 38% offered library privilege copying for published music scores. Claire, can I just jump in here and ask you what the number of respondents was, maybe you'd said that, but just to put those graphs into context. 21. Okay, thank you. And then of the 62% that didn't offer library privilege copying for published music scores, a number of reasons were quoted, which broadly fell into three categories. A lack of time or staff resource, a lack of expertise or confidence in that area which included difficulties in making judgments, and in some cases perceived lack of demand. We asked what criteria libraries use when deciding what institutes a reasonable proportion of a published music score. The most common responses were 5% of the work and one work from an anthology. And other responses were a page or so, a single movement, one area from an opera or oratorio and a practice orchestral part. Moving on to unpublished works, 24% of respondents offered library privilege copying for unpublished scores, 33% didn't offer that service and the remaining 43% didn't actually hold any unpublished scores in their collection. All those who did offer the service were aware that the legislation permits copying of entire works from published scores subject to some other restrictions that exist. The reasons quoted by those not offering the service broadly fell into four categories. So, similarly to published scores, a lack of resource or expertise. Also, in some cases, a lack of access to materials and I think that was genuinely the case where document supply is dealt with through a centralized service, but unpublished materials are perhaps kept within special collections departments which are separately managed, conservation reasons and a perceived lack of demand. So, to pull that all together the majority of libraries who responded did not exercise these library privilege exceptions in relation to music scores and those that did offer such a service didn't actively promote it. The primary obstacle for published material appears to be the lack of confidence in how to apply the reasonable proportion stipulation of section 42A to printed music. And indeed, respondents from libraries that did offer the service also commented that they felt uncomfortable making those decisions. And I think this is further exacerbated by the fact that many libraries operate an autonomous document supply department which is unlikely to include music specialists. In the case of unpublished material, a wider range of obstacles exist, not all of which are likely to apply exclusively to music. So, for example, conservation considerations. The fact that complete works can be copied removes the difficulty of making those quantitative judgments. However, research is still involved in ascertaining that a work is definitely unpublished and within the field of music that wouldn't just be limited to the publication of the notated score. As a musical work also counts as being published if it's been manifested in a sound recording or a film that has been issued to the public. So, from the results of this survey, it became clear to us that there would be some benefit in interrogating the legislation and providing some guidance to help libraries in interpreting it. So, we started off looking at the history of the library privilege exceptions that allowed for copying on behalf of users. And the provision was first introduced in section 7 of the 1956 Copyright Act which allowed libraries to provide a searcher with a single copy of an article from one issue of a periodical as is still the case today. And librarians could also supply a reasonable proportion of a literary, dramatic or musical work but only where the librarian didn't know or couldn't ascertain the name and address of the rights holder. The phrase reasonable proportion wasn't defined anywhere in the act and didn't appear anywhere else in the text and in fact the same has remained true in all successive iterations of the legislation. In the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patents Act the library privilege exceptions were spread over a greater number of sections and copying of periodical articles and other types of work were split over sections 38 and 39 respectively. So, for library, dramatic and musical works, again the copying was limited to a reasonable proportion but there was no longer the caveat of the exception only applying when it wasn't possible to contact the rights holder. And then following the 2014 revisions they were brought back together again under section 42a and extended to cover all types of copyright work not just the literary, dramatic and musical ones. So, we spent a little bit of time considering whether we could attach any significance to the fact that the title of that section changed from parts of published works in 1988 to single copies of published works in 2014 and whether that might have been pointing potentially towards a whole work being considered a reasonable proportion. But we concluded that actually the change in title was simply down to the fact that the periodicals and other types of works were being brought back together into a single section and because it allowed copying of whole articles that's why the word parts was then omitted. So, next we turned to the secondary literature to see what copyright scholars had written about this exception. And in many instances authors made reference to the reasonable proportion requirement but remained silent on the question of how you actually interpret that. Additionally, some sources completely omit any reference to musical works in the discussion of section 42a which I think might contribute to library's reluctance to offer this service. As we've said there's no definition of reasonable proportion yet. Lacquer's Gardens on copyright declaration forms state a reasonable proportion generally means that only a limited part that is necessary for the research or study purpose can be copied. Graham Cornish says a general view from the publishing industry has been that 10% or a chapter might be reasonable. Although this is not a legal definition, it's a helpful guideline. Tim Padfield says that in the absence of any definition in the legislation the best advice is to restrict copying to the same quantities as for fair dealing. And in relation to fair dealing he states in general for any kind of work 5% should always be fair. For musical works what is copied should not be performable. Now obviously any quantity of a musical work could theoretically be performable but I followed up with Tim who confirmed that what he's referring to here is either a whole work an identifiable part of a work or a specific section. And then the UK Music Publishers Association has a code of fair practice in which they set out their own interpretation of the law as well as additional specific circumstances under which their publisher members agree not to take action. For example copying a page to avoid an awkward page turn or making an emergency copy when someone loses their music in the immediate run up to a performance. Speaking from a conservatoire I can tell you that is a fairly common occurrence. In terms of section 42a they simply say that librarians may make or supply for musical work and they don't go into any further detail on that. However in their section on research and private study they say students or teachers may make copies as short excerpts of musical works provided that they are for study only and not performance. Copying whole movements or whole works is expressly forbidden under this permission. Now of course copying whole movements or works is not expressly forbidden in the law even if they as the industry body might wish it were and that's their own interpretation of fairness. And I think that leads us on nicely to one of the particular difficulties in relation to music which is defining what constitutes a work. A term also not defined in CDPA. Large scale musical works are often subdivided into constituent parts, songs or movements which may stand up entirely by themselves and be performed autonomously. Although it's not a term that appears in the UK or indeed US copyright legislation there's a voluntary set of guidelines agreed by a variety of stakeholders for the educational use of music in the USA which makes to the concept of a performable unit providing examples of a section movement or aria and I think this is quite a helpful concept in the consideration of issues such as extent limits and fairness within the context of musical works. So I've picked a particular example from stock in my library to demonstrate this issue and I know this is one that Jane was quite excited about so a song from a musical I wasn't about to sing but you know I could be persuaded, I'll let you carry on click. Jane's favourite musical and favourite animal combined in one. So a song from a musical could be considered a performable unit and may appear in a variety of different publications. So here we've got a song memory that's the front cover of it there by itself as a stand alone publication of 15 pages. If I move on here we've got the singer's musical theatre anthology which includes memory as one of 39 songs from lots of different musicals in one big publication and finally we've got the complete vocal score for the whole cat's musical of which memory is just one constituent part so we've got exactly the same music appearing in three different publications but the nature of those publications I'd suggest affects our perception of what constitutes the work so in the case of the score of the complete musical which has got a narrative running all the way through it I think we could feel on firm ground saying that cat's is the musical work and memory is just a part of that then going to the other extreme if we've got only our five page stand alone publication of memory within that context it's hard to consider memory as anything other than a work in its own right and then in terms of the anthology I think it's difficult to recognize the complete anthology as being a work itself rather it's a publication comprising a collection of works however a single song from that anthology probably still only constitutes a small proportion of the overall publication and copying one song from it probably isn't unduly damaging the market for the entire anthology so imagine ourselves in the position of the librarian receiving a request for the song whose view on whether they can fulfill that request may be fundamentally affected by the source publication it's requested from a further complexity particular to musical works is that they have both a horizontal and a vertical aspect so on the slide the horizontal line represents linear time whereas vertically we have all the instrumental parts that are playing concurrently and for an orchestral work there may be some 20 or more separate performing parts so on the left here we have the first page of what's called the full score which includes all of the instruments and on the right we have a page of the double bass part so if you are playing the double bass that performing part is all you'd be given and it corresponds with the bottom line on the save on this left hand page here so the perspective of what constitutes the work and the proportion of it would likely vary according to who placed the request and for what purpose so considered vertically this bass part is one of 16 and if a conductor was seeking a library privilege copy for the context of private study deciding whether this was something that conductor would like to program and was provided with only the double bass part rather than the full score with all the instruments they would take the view that they had only been provided with a very small proportion of that work however providing the double bass player with the exact same material from that performance perspective would be providing them with the complete work so that's a further example of the difficulties of defining a work where actually the context of the user and the use affects the perception of what constitutes the work but if you're the librarian being asked to make a copy that's a level of nuance that in the vast majority of service it's just not going to be pragmatic to interrogate so we then went on to look at the wording of section 42a and consider it within the context of other exceptions in the act many of the exceptions are subject to a defence affair dealing including section 29 the research and private study exception so of course this exception is very closely related to section 42a in that the outcome of the copying is for the same purpose namely to get the copy into the hands of someone for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study so it's perhaps puzzling that the language of the two sections isn't more closely aligned in particular that the library privilege exception uses this term reasonable proportion which appears nowhere else in the act rather than framing the exception within the requirement for fair dealing which would be more consistent with other exceptions indeed whilst section 29 does allow for the possibility of copying being undertaken by a person other than the researcher the subsection 3a clarifies that where that person is a librarian it's not fair dealing to do anything that isn't permitted under section 42a so in a nutshell the library privilege exception trumps section 29 what's not clear is whether that's supposed to indicate some interpretative difference between the terms reasonable proportion and fair dealing or whether the matter purely relates to stopping librarians getting around the other requirements of section 42a such as not providing users with substantially the same material for substantially the same purpose and I think overall the latter is more likely particularly when considered within the context of the legislative changes in 2014 so as many of us will remember those statutory instruments sought to implement the Hargreaves recommendations and the initial drafts were subject to a public consultation and the government's response to that consultation stated that some respondents suggested that reasonable proportion be replaced with fair dealing which I think many of us would think would be a very sensible suggestion which brings things much more consistently aligned with other exceptions and I've quoted on the slide what the government said in their response to that suggestion which is that they said that they'd used the existing CDPA language that the current terminology hasn't been problematic and therefore the current drafting is retained now they could have said something along the lines of that they weren't seeking to change the extent of what could be copied because the point of this and the Hargreaves review was recommending was that the exception is of a greater scope to include all types of copyright works where it was limited to only some before but I think the fact that they didn't say anything about not wanting to change the extent suggests to me that we can conclude they consider reasonable proportion and fair dealing to be pretty much synonymous and if that's the case that should possibly give us more confidence in having the flexibility to apply the more qualitative concepts of fairness on a case-by-case basis as part of an assessment of what might constitute a reasonable proportion even though that phrase outwardly appears to have a more explicitly quantitative focus so for example we know that case law exists in relation to other exceptions such as quotation where judgments have stated that the reproduction of a whole work can be said to meet the requirement of fairness of course fair dealing is yet another term that's not defined in the CDPA and copyright commentators have put forward a range of factors for consideration and there's a general consensus that a key precept of fairness is the impact of the dealing on the rights holder and article five section five of the 2001 infosock directive which itself is derived from the burn three-step test qualifies the circumstances under which specific acts of reproduction made by publicly accessible libraries which are not for direct or indirect commercial advantage can apply and it states the exceptions and limitations provided for shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interest of the rights holder however I'd suggest that this stipulation sits slightly at odds with section 42a if we consider that as a whole as we've already established the provision for a library to supply a researcher with one article from a periodical was first introduced in the 1956 act and at that time the only way of reading a single article would have been to purchase a periodical issue so that at that time an article was much more embedded as a constituent part of the whole obviously with the advent of e-journals and new purchasing models in many instances it's now possible to purchase a single article from a periodical but nevertheless the provision in section 42a remains and this arguably conflicts with a normal exploitation of the work and prejudices the legitimate interest of the rights holder though again it's a matter of judgement whether this could be said to be to an unreasonable extent so I guess the question is if the existence of subsection 1a may result in the rights holders being disadvantaged is there any reason to need to give that consideration within the context of subsection 1b so to return to our earlier example our song from a musical a periodical issue is perhaps the closest equivalent to our musical anthology being a collection of individual works generally by different authors compiled into a single edited edition and if a periodical article can't be copies for a researcher despite there being an option for them to purchase it themselves I think one might argue this librarian can copy a whole work from a musical anthology even if that work is available to purchase individually so bearing all those things in mind we've plotted some of the activity that we know libraries already undertake on a risk continuum all of these we believe could arguably be said to meet the reasonable proportion criteria but those further to the right hand side are at the riskier end so if we start at the left the most conservative approach would be to take the most restrictive view of what constituted the complete work and limit copying to 5% of that which obviously in many instances would be of very little use to the user less cautious would be to not get caught up with this business of percentages but nevertheless limit oneself to copying an amount that's less than what could be considered a performable unit or going further you might allow yourself to copy a performable unit but only where the publication that's extracted from comprises the entire work so thinking back to our earlier example that would allow copying of the song memory from the complete cat's vocal score again more liberally you might take the view that an anthology publication should be considered in its entirety and it would therefore be reasonable to copy 5% or 10% or an individual work from that complete publication and definitely at the riskier end would be to copy an entire performing part from an ensemble work so in conclusion library privileges exceptions apply to all types of copyright work and in our view excluding printed music from document supply services unfairly disadvantages researchers practitioners in the field of music ultimately it's for individual libraries to establish their own parameters based on their institution's risk profile involving senior managers in those policy discussions and documenting them clearly so that frontline staff are empowered to apply them one aspect that's challenging is that at least a basic level of musical literacy is likely to be required in all but the most clear cut examples and that may not always exist within the library's document supply team and if that's the case mechanisms should be established in order to secure input from music subject specialists within the library or wider organization so that's it in a nutshell I've put the URL on the screen which is where you can find the full report and we'll add that into the chat shortly as well and yeah very happy to take any questions that anyone has on this. Claire thank you so much that was absolutely brilliant it was as you've pointed out or as you've shown us in your presentation there's so much to think about when you're looking at what the law actually says I've got a whole load of things I wanted to pick up on I do notice that Nora's got a question in there so I think if we go to Nora's question first which I think may actually start moving into the area of licenses that are available as well so you've been looking at proper exceptions, library privilege which is in the exceptions but Nora's question there is about a library copying a part of a musical score for academic can this be uploaded to the VLE for students to view so is that something which is just covered under the the PNLL license clearly or is there some element where this could be using library privilege? I think a lot of this will spend will depend on the extent of the score I mean obviously a first thing to think about is a obviously be sure that the score is in copyright so if it's not in copyright then you can do whatever you want with it but if it is in copyright I think it will depend on the context of what the score is being used for how much of it is being used we mustn't forget that we've got our quotation exceptions we've got our illustration for instruction exception so if it's a short section of a score which is as much as is required to make a particular point or if the students are being asked to do an exercise on it you know do some harmonic analysis or something like that I would think that in many instances you could use illustration for instruction if it's you know as I say a small percentage of a work now if it's it obviously depends on the subject and the context in which it's being taught but if it were for example a whole movement or a whole song or something like that then I think at that point we're then into the territory of the higher education printed music license and it is a licensing route at that point if we can go back to your scale here it's obviously case specific what you're saying depending on exactly what it is that's being copied but we're towards the more liberal end if you're starting to rely on exceptions for that purpose given that you have a license there that potentially is available to an institution to take out that would clearly cover that type of activity exactly and I think it's tricky because there's all these different nuances depending on what exception we're talking about because obviously my presentation was basically within the whole context of section 42a and library privilege but yeah I think we should always I would say always start with the act and the exceptions that we have and it's only when we kind of think actually I don't think our use is covered by that but then kind of go down the licensing route afterwards absolutely so I think and that follow-up so Nora saying if you don't have the license I mean that's not necessarily about getting into trouble it's the point that you just made there Claire is that the legislation is there to allow libraries to make content in their collections available in specific terms so it's not necessarily a clear case that it's there's a license there that would allow you to use it but there's also potentially exceptions that could also be relied on so I wanted to go back to your conclusions and recommendations here because I think this is the really important part of it is that this needs to be understood within an institution I think that's what your survey has pointed to these things need to be considered particularly for libraries that have large music collections or important music collections and need to be serving their users appropriately yeah absolutely because you know all libraries have some kind of established document supply service and it does seem kind of perverse that there are users who want access to this material the law enables us to provide them with access to this material but because of the complexities the lack of confidence that that opportunity is kind of being withheld from a lot of people so we're really very kind of keen to try and support libraries and help them with these you know having set out some of these parameters and some issues for them to think about so that they can make their own decisions and be confident that they are able to provide this service on whichever terms they are willing to do based on their risk appetite basically and so the thing that I've also picked up in your presentation talking about this musical literacy point the subject specialism because what you've done in going through all the legislation is pointing out all the inconsistencies that there are in the drafting of the law the fact that the law is not actually clearly written you've got all the versions of the legislation you've got different sections which have a reasonable proportion of fair dealing in my view in my view they're not synonymous from having looked at I think that reasonable proportion is talking about the quantity the amount of the work whereas fair dealing has that broader thought about those other tests that you go through to see whether something's fair but I think that's where we are and actually when the laws that would be legislation was being drafted these things really not thought through fully at the time music publishers certainly made their representations the libraries did as well but it's only after the fact that you're trying to work out what the right thing to do is but it's that understanding what you're actually being asked for is it seems to be a clearly important part because your example of memories from cats well that is you can see how the publisher and the composers and the people that represent it say well that is clearly a work in its own right I mean it's a pop song so it's a well known song in its own right so presumably there may be that might be looked on differently to something which technically might be seen as a whole work but because it has a different life if you like it's not necessarily seen as a song in its own right I mean is that something for librarians to consider and if so how do they actually do that yeah I mean I think that this is what makes it all so difficult and why it's hard for someone to make those judgments in it frankly even if you are a music specialist let alone if you're not the way that things are set out in scores sometimes doesn't help sometimes things are very clearly delineated other times they're not and as I say it's kind of this paradox that you could have the same thing appearing in various different formats which would kind of give you a different impression of what is the work and the status of 8th subsection of a larger work yeah I think you're right that from a rights holder point of view they would probably take the view that anything which could essentially have a life by itself be performed autonomously without needing all the contextual stuff that happens before or after of it to make sense that as it were they would probably take the view that that is a work and therefore that one ought not to it's not reasonable to copy the whole of it so it's a broad spectrum I think people just need to kind of decide where they're going to stick their marker in the sand on it and I think you've made it very clear from this this findings that even if you're thinking about things from a percentage perspective that sounds like clear cut in fact it's not because there's so many things that even go percentage of what so you've pointed out whatever way you look at it you need to spend some time thinking about it and make your own each institution to have its own policy and a clear approach to it and to support their staff in doing that but we would absolutely support recommendations are really interesting clear actually and I I just wondered if you know YAML are sort of planning to take things forward because I'm sort of struck by thinking that they used to be that code of fair practice before the sort of license came in do you think that something similar to what we're trying to do with audio visual works a community based sort of developed code not one developed by the music industry but developed by our community could that be something that's helpful or do you think you know that it would need to be done in collaboration I mean it's interesting because the code that exists from the Music Publishers Association it is theoretically have we got the example of it here it's there we go I'm going to open it up there so you can actually see what it says on the front so what it says is the code of fair practice agreed between composers publishers and users of printed music now in practice what it is is that the Music Publishers Association writes it and then there are a lot there are a number of organizations who are kind of signed up to it underneath and that includes YAML it will include things like Conservatoire's UK and a lot of other sort of bodies but it's not it's not a collaborative document basically the NPA produces it they say oh we revised it we've updated it are you still happy to have your name under it basically so it's it's a bit different isn't it I think it's not something where all the stakeholders are sort of consulted in putting something together it's a kind of here it is do you like it or do you not like it and if you don't like it it just means that your name won't come under it you know rather than being something that is co-created I think that's fair to say so maybe this is an opportunity to well we have to I suppose we see how it goes I mean we very much saw it the test in the water with audio visual works but actually it might then be something that we could use as a model to extend into other areas but maybe there's a sense that music is kind of more risky and it's not the first place to go not even the second place to go maybe it's one to look at down the line a bit I think it's interesting because I think with audio visual because my understanding with the film stuff is that there isn't an existing coach produced by anyone this is something that you'll think you're starting from scratch and I think it is possibly trickier when there is something which is already in existence but it has very much come from one end of the stage it's come from the rights holder perspective and rather than the starting from the sort of blank sheet as it were I think this is it's really important and I think that the work that you've done on this and the rest of the game on is I think really helpful and you've done it I think a really excellent job of explaining that complexity but also laying out some clear examples so it's not just a load of questions it's actually here are some things that you might do with your interpretation for those institutions to think through so thank you very much for that. Thank you for the presentation Claire and you've been a really valuable sort of adopted member of the UUK Guild HECNAC committee as well with the work we did on the printed music license so thank you. Yes, absolutely. So everyone's saying thank you to you and that's great and I think this may be something that we return to. So let us for the time that we have left which is kind of less time. We've gone very quickly the future webinars we have in two weeks time Judy Nokes the copyright Crown Copyright Specialist from the National Archives joining us to talk through about use of government content and Crown Copyright Open Government Licence so that should be very useful when Judy joined us at a Sherlock when we used to meet face to face in London and the South East to talk about copyright she came along and it was really useful so we're looking forward to that very much. Judy is a legend I believe is what somebody sent us an email saying. She definitely is and other slots we will let you know when we've got them firmed up but we've got a number of people that say that they're interested and in fact we do have the US team don't we the codes of best practice in fair use in OERs have said that they're very happy to join us so watch this space. Watch this space but the webinars next one it will be the 23rd so two weeks time and we're continuing in May with that two week schedule as well and we'll be adding them to the web page when we've got those details so I mean leaves us just with our one last thing Chris really does it does I will stop