Elsevier et al. sue Meta over AI training: what’s at stake for researchers?

By Christina Daouti, on 28 May 2026

In a class action filed on 5 May, Elsevier, Hachette, MacMillan and others are suing Meta for using millions of their publications without permission to train their LlaMa AI model. The plaintiffs claim that Meta infringed copyright by:

• Downloading unlawful copies of their works from archives of web-crawled content and from known pirate sites.
• Creating and storing further copies of these works for model training.
• Systematically removing copyright and authorship information from those copies.
• Flooding the market with substitutes of the original works including verbatim and near-verbatim reproductions, paraphrased material, knockoffs and imitations.
• In many cases, producing generated outputs that include inaccuracies and hallucinations, distorting the original works.

The outcome of this case will have several implications for academic authors – not to mention its impact on copyright and AI more broadly. To understand how, we need to go back to basics and ask the question: why do we publish?

AI-generated image, Microsoft Co-Pilot, 22 May 2026.

When I run copyright sessions, I often encourage researchers to share what is most important to them when they think about their research: is it their economic rights or their moral rights (crudely put, ‘their ‘money’ or their ‘life’?). Is it the ability to earn from the work and to control whether and how others may profit from it? Or is it even more crucial to them that they be credited accurately for the work and that their work will not be treated in a ‘derogatory’ way, for example altered in a way that distorts its meaning? Of course, this is not an either/or question; but overall it appears that instinctively, authors will react most strongly to scenarios where their moral rights are breached.

Economic rights certainly take a back seat in conversations with authors when it comes to journal articles (as opposed to, say, textbooks, patents and other outputs that may be commercialised). No surprises here, since academic authors do not receive royalties from the journal articles they publish. Their incentives to publish (which may well have indirect economic benefits via career progression) are very much linked to author attribution and reputation. These incentives are also intertwined with the desire to make their research open access.

In return for making ‘a name in the field’, authors traditionally have been assigning their copyright (or an exclusive licence) to journal publishers. This means that publishers not only profit from providing access via journal subscriptions but also benefit from licensing their content for further reuse, for example for reproductions in books or for course packs. More recently, several publishers have started licensing their content to Generative AI providers.

Of course when research is published open access (usually under a Creative Commons licence), others may reuse it without asking for permission, under the terms of the open licence. Again, in terms of AI this means openly licensed publications may be used in GenAI training, too, subject to the terms of the Creative Commons licence, which require attribution. See a Creative Commons article on the implications of this and how they are being addressed.

So when academic publishers including Elsevier sue for copyright infringement, their core of their complaint will be that Meta is depriving them, the publishers, of ‘revenues they would normally receive and of opportunities to negotiate licensing terms’ – something the US courts will also focus on. In contrast, when academic authors discuss AI, what I usually hear is concerns around attribution and integrity. But beyond authors’ moral rights, there are also concerns around AI providers developing proprietary products from research that is meant to be open and remain open.

If publishers’ and authors’ interests diverge, is Elsevier vs Meta likely to benefit authors? From an academic author’s perspective, what would be the best and worst possible outcomes of this case? Naturally, opinions on this will vary; but there are certain points on which we may all agree.

• First, if it is confirmed that Meta accessed the works unlawfully (similarly to the Bartz vs Anthropic case), this may result at least in a partial win for Elsevier. Further, if it is shown that Meta’s activities have indeed created market substitutes and damaged licensing markets (unlike Kadrey vs Meta where such evidence was not presented), US courts are more likely to rule against ‘fair use’ and find Meta’s activities unlawful. These victories for Elsevier would result in compensation to the rights holders – likely to be the publishers, not the authors. If the case leads to a licensing arrangement, again who would benefit the most from the terms of the agreement: the publishers or the authors? If such an agreement included terms around attribution and source linking, this might address some of the authors’ concerns, too.  For example, Cambridge University Press have been very clear that attribution is a ‘red line’ for them when they consider deals with AI providers.
• Alternatively (and particularly if it is found that Meta did not create market substitutes) the court may decide that Meta’s use of any lawfully obtained works to train its models is ‘fair use’ – in line with the Anthropic decision. In other words, when AI training does not result in reproductions and substitutes of the original works but instead extracts information to create something transformative that serves a new purpose, the Anthropic case tells us that this may well be found to be lawful (also contrast this decision with Thomson vs Ross Intelligence, where AI training did result in competing products).

That creative commons feeling…
by Visual Thinkery is licensed under CC-BY-ND.

This raises a key question. If an AI model uses research publications to train its models for a new purpose, extracting information that leads to novel applications and without overlapping markets; and if in doing so it does not reproduce expressive content or if it does, this is justified and properly attributed…isn’t this how authors expect their research to be used anyway? And isn’t this what has been happening even before GenAI, under text and data mining exceptions and open licensing?

Of course I cannot speak for every author, but my view is that we should not shy away from AI, if what it is doing is provide the tools to enhance and accelerate research; and it is more likely to do so if trained on scholarly material. Yes, we should expect attribution; and there are issues of transparency, integrity and reciprocity that must still be addressed. But the open principles that have been framing research in the last decades can, and should, still apply in the GenAI era. For a much more extended and eloquent discussion of these points, see the latest Technollama post by Dr Andres Guatamuz.

This post was informed by the following articles:

• Gibney, E. (2026) ‘Elsevier vs Meta: first science publisher sues over scraped research papers’, Nature, 11 May. Available at: Nature article (Accessed: 28 May 2026).
• Hansen, D. (2026) ‘Surprise: Elsevier is suing Meta for you?’, Authors Alliance, 5 May. Available at: https://www.authorsalliance.org/2026/05/05/surprise-elsevier-is-suing-meta-for-you/ (Accessed: 28 May 2026).
• Matthews, D. (2026) ‘Open season on scholars’ rights if Elsevier loses Meta fight’, Times Higher Education, 15 May. (Accessed: 28 May 2026).

Continue the discussion

If you are a member of staff or a student at UCL, you are welcome to join the UCL Copyright Literacy Community Teams channel for more material and further discussion.

w

UK government publishes progress statement on AI and copyright consultation

By Christina Daouti, on 23 December 2025

The UK government has published a progress report on its copyright and AI consultation, which ran earlier this year. The final report will be available on 18 March 2026.

The 50-question consultation sought views on accesssing and using copyrighted-protected works to train AI models. It also invited views on transparency measures,  enforcement, and copyright protection of AI-generated works. The consultation received over 11,500 responsers which, remarkably, were analysed manually by a team of around 80 humans – no AI was involved in the analysis.

Views on copyright and AI are polarised. The debate is often perceived – and this is reflected in the consultation itself – as a split of views and interests between the creative industries and AI developers. This picture is reinforced by high-profile court cases, including Getty images vs Stability AI, Bartz vs Anthropic, Authors Guild vs OpenAI, and Disney/Universal vs Midjourney. Questions – and diverse opinions – arise around what is lawful, what may be covered by a copyright exception (or, in the US, ‘fair use’), whether licensing should always be required and to what extent AI developers shoud be transparent aroubd their sources. Overall the creative industries strongly favour a licensing approach, claiming that using images, works of fiction, music and other works to train AI models must always require a licence. AI developers mostly favour broad exceptions, claiming that such uses are covered by fair use or similar principles.

The interim report broadly supports this picture:

• Responses were from across all sectors. There were responses from the creative industries, the tech industries (including AI developers), academic and research organisations and cultural heritage organisations – although exact representation from different sectors is yet to be published. In addition to institutional responses there were also many individual ones.
• The overwhelming majority of the responses (88%) supported licensing in all cases. Unsurprisingly, it seems that most of those supporting a licensing approach in all cases are from the creative industries.
• On the other end of this debate lies a preference for a broad exception – similar to ones applied in Japan and Singapore – under which use of copyright-protected works to train AI may be permitted. Only 0.5% of respondents supported this option. Further, only 3% of respondents supported the government’s preferred approach: a broad exception allowing use of copyright-protected works for AI training unless the copyright owner has explicitly reserved their rights, opting out of the exception. This approach is similar to existing EU exceptions. AI developers appeared to support one of these options.
• Importantly, the report mentions that many respondents put forward proposals for new or modified exceptions to support activities such as research.

Implications for research and education

At this stage, it is not clear to what extent academic-research sector has contributed to the consultation; nor have the concerns and interests of research and education sectors been voiced as broadly as those in the creative industries. What is certain is that our sector needs clarity to continue using AI (which is not always generative AI) in education and research.

The current UK exception permitting text and data mining of lawfully accessed materials for non-commercial research purposes can only support research activities to some extent: in practice uncertainties and barriers often arise around the use of AI, lawful access and the sharing of copies among project partners. While the exception would benefit from further clarity, there is also a case for expanding it to ensure that AI can be used in broader contexts, including educational uses and collaborations with commercial partners. There are also concerns that licensing and rights reservation would add to the existing barriers, leading to re-licensing resources that research institutions already pay to have access to.

In this debate, the views and concerns of UCL researchers are important. The Copyright and TDM workshop we ran in November was an opportunity for UCL researchers to discuss examples where use of resources for computational analysis is essential. We are following up with a Copyright and AI session on the 4th of March. We will share further details and a registration link in January.

Copyright considerations in Text and Data Mining (TDM): in-person event, 12 November 2025

By Christina Daouti, on 24 October 2025

Image by storyset on Freepik.

Text and Data Mining (TDM) is defined by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) as ‘the use of automated analytical techniques to analyse text and data for patterns, trends and other useful information’. TDM has wide applications across various disciplines, from biomedical research to computer science to the humanities.

TDM involves accessing and processing large amounts of data from various sources. The outcomes of the TDM analysis are also disseminated; this may involve reproducing extracts from the original works. What is technically possible and what is lawful in TDM projects is framed by the TDM tools used, the setup of publisher platforms, publisher licences and copyright exceptions. Depending on the nature of the analysis, the sources used and the aims of the research project, various questions arise around accessing and processing the materials and around sharing the outcomes of the analysis. UCL has guidance in place to support access to materials and explain copyright exceptions. However, many scenarios emerge that must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Questions include:

• What constitutes lawful access.
• How copyright exceptions across different jurisdictions (UK, EU, US) apply in collaborative projects.
•  How the terms and conditions of publisher licences and websites enable or restrict access and use of their content for TDM.
• Whether, and to what extent, the current TDM exceptions cover the use of AI.
• Considerations around developing and sharing the outcomes of TDM, including publications and the development of tools that support further research.

Copyright and TDM workshop

Join us for an in-person workshop on Wednesday 12 November from 9.30 am to 12 pm, at the IoE Library Teaching Room.  Our invited speaker, Alex Fenlon (Head of Copyright and Licensing at the University of Birmingham) will provide an overview of issues arising in TDM and copyright, drawing from his extensive experience of developing a TDM support service, now extending to the responsible use of AI tools. You will also have the opportunity to discuss copyright issues arising in specific TDM scenarios, ask questions, and share your own experiences and insights and discover how we support you with copyright more broadly.

Register for this event.

UCL Copyright Literacy Community

The UCL Copyright Literacy Community aims to share and develop best practice in copyright across UCL . To learn more and contribute to the conversations, join the community channel on Microsoft Teams.

This workshop is the first in a series of events that seek to support understanding of copyright as it applies to research, teaching and learning.  Future events will address the use of GenAI and the use and creation of open educational resources in higher education. The series is developed in collaboration with Irene Barranco Garcia, Copyright and Scholarly Communications Librarian at Imperial College, London, with the same events running in parallel in both institutions. A broader aim of the series is to address copyright support in research-intensive institutions, with a view to develop a copyright literacy toolkit that can be adapted and used by different Universities.

For more information, contact copyright@ucl.ac.uk.

Five ways to engage with copyright at UCL

By Christina Daouti, on 18 June 2025

This post brings together five key resources and activities you can engage with to learn more about copyright and share your copyright questions and knowledge with others.

Photo by Otto Rascon, Pexels.

Online tutorials. Is copyright the Father of creativity? The UCL Copyright Essentials online tutorial  covers the basics of copyright protection, permissions, exceptions and open access materials. It is suitable for students and staff who are new to copyright or want to refresh their knowledge (and hear a little bit about Star Wars).  The Copyright and your Teaching tutorial offers practical advice on using  materials in teaching and explores exceptions using a work of art as an example. A third tutorial aimed at researchers will be available in the new term.

Website. The UCL copyright website includes introductory and specialised guidance for students and staff, including information related to theses, research publications, research data, and a guide on AI.

Live sessions. Copyright sessions are held online (over Teams) or in person. Topics include copyright for postgraduate research, copyright for publications and research data, the use of images, and publishing agreements. Sessions on specific topics can also be arranged on demand. View the current programme (with new sessions to be available from September) or contact copyright@ucl.ac.uk to arrange a bespoke session.

Image designed by Christine Daoutis using icons from Open Clipart.

Copyright games. Learn and engage with tricky copyright questions by playing a game. The Copyright for Humans card game (developed at UCL) encourages discussion of various copyright scenarios, allowing for some very absurd and human responses. You can arrange a session for you and your friends or colleagues – the game is best played in a small group of up to 12 people. Please contact copyright@ucl.ac.uk to arrange a session.

Colin was AI-generated in Microsoft Copilot on 25 February 2025, using prompts by Christine Daoutis.

UCL Copyright Literacy Community. There is something for everyone in this growing community. Join the community on Microsoft Teams for opportunities to talk to people with similar copyright questions, compare notes, learn from each other (with guidance from the copyright team) and take part in  professional development projects. The face of the community is Colin the Copyright Literacy Nerd, an AI-generated copyright cartoon character; but we can assure you that all members are human.

New copyright game to mark International Museums Day 2025

By Christina Daouti, on 14 May 2025

The great thing about copyright games is that you can learn new concepts, consolidate your existing knowledge and, importantly, understand the grey areas in IP debates without noticing that some serious learning is happening: you are too busy trying to solve the codes in online escape rooms, outwit other players in face-to-face board games or get full marks in quirky quizzes.

To mark International Museums Day 2025 on the 18th of May, Erica Levi (a copyright specialist at Coventry University), Christine Daoutis (that’s me, in an equivalent role here at UCL) and Victoria Rendell (doing her MA in Library and Information Studies here at UCL) decided to create a virtual museum like no other. Imagine the Greek marbles, Eddie Van Halen’s guitar, Frida Kahlo’s self-portrait, a rowing machine, the Vitruvian Man and other works in the same room, and you get the picture, as it were.

Our purpose was to address issues that arise in art contexts. What is infringement and what is inspiration? Can you really claim new copyright to a digital reproduction of an old painting that is out of copyright? Can you photobomb the Mona Lisa, or rather, can the Mona Lisa photobomb you?

Image created by Erica Levi. See copyright information on the individual third-party images included here.

Whether you are interested in art or not, this resource will hopefully encourage you to think about copyright in new ways.

Click on the image or on this game link to play.

Explore more copyright resources.

• If you like escape rooms and other interactive resources, explore Erica Levi’s website.
• If you like Star Wars, complete the UCL Copyright Essentials online tutorial and may the Force be with you.
• If you are a UCL member of staff or student and prefer traditional face-to-face board games, get your friends together and attend the Copyright for Humans game session on the 11 th of June at 2 pm at the Science library, UCL. Register for this session.

UCL students and staff, rate your copyright confidence (and enter a £25 voucher prize draw).

How confident are you around copyright? And what support do you need to get (even) more confident?

Answer 4 questions in this short anonymous survey. If you are happy to provide your name and email, you can enter a draw to win a £25 love2shop voucher. Your personal details will not be shared with anyone else.

Contact copyright@ucl.ac.uk if you have any questions.

Introducing Colin, UCL’s Copyright Literacy Nerd.

By Christina Daouti, on 1 May 2025

Colin was AI-generated in Microsoft Copilot on 25 February 2025, using prompts by Christine Daoutis.
Colin is wearing shoes, gloves and a graduation cap from Microsoft Copilot.

Exclusive Interview 

Colin the Copyright Literacy Nerd has a dream. He wants everyone to understand copyright better, so that we can all be even more creative, open and collaborative in whatever we do: research, studying, teaching, art, communications, you name it. He also thinks the best way to develop copyright literacy is to come together as a community.  I was delighted that he agreed to an exclusive interview to find out more about him and his mission.

Interviewer: Colin, it’s such a pleasure to speak to you.

Colin: Thank you! It’s a pleasure to be interviewed. I must say, it’s not every day a copyright symbol gets to be in the spotlight. Usually, we’re just hanging out on the bottom of pages, you know?

The AI-generated face of copyright literacy

Interviewer: This is true! Although you are not just a copyright symbol, are you? You are a copyright literacy icon. Tell me, how did you come into existence?

Colin: My journey began with the help of Microsoft Copilot, who used the magic of AI to bring me to life. I believe it took quite a few attempts to get me right.

…And then I had to go through a gruesome selection process, along with a few other copyright literacy characters (some very shady, in my opinion).

An iffy candidate for the Colin role. Created in Microsoft Copilot.

Luckily, my lovely colleagues at UCL chose me and here I am, the new face of copyright literacy! 

Interviewer: And what a face! I believe you were designed to look as cute and friendly as possible, and you haven’t disappointed us.

Colin: No, hopefully I haven’t disappointed. I ‘m basically the copyright symbol you’d want to have a coffee with. I have to say, it felt strange to see my face on balloons, lollipops and posters at the Student Centre last month. Students stopping by to ask about me and about copyright; it was great!

The what and why of copyright literacy

Interviewer: Tell me, Colin, what is copyright literacy and why is it your dream to help develop it at UCL?

Colin: Copyright literacy is about having and applying the knowledge, understanding, skills and behaviours that help you create and use materials ethically (I am paraphrasing my good friends Jane Secker and Chris Morrison here). Copyright literacy is not just about respecting the works created by others, but also using materials creatively and confidently, so that we can build on each other’s work and learn and create new things.

You know, we copyright symbols are often associated with stopping people from using a work without permission. It’s true that copyright exists to protect the rights of creators, but copyright has also developed (and should develop even more) to allow people to study, access other’s works, teach, do research, discover new things, analyse data, create art, make existing works more accessible, communicate…What would the world be like if ‘all rights reserved’ applied strictly to everything, all the time, without exceptions and without a desire to make things more open?

And so copyright literacy is understanding all these aspects, understanding what really matters to different people involved (authors, publishers, AI developers, artists, students, the public) and making decisions based on this understanding. To give you just one example, to use a photo or a drawing you normally need permission. It may affect someone else’s income if you don’t. But at the same time, what does ‘use’ mean? If it means showing a diagram to students to explain something, discuss a painting in a dissertation or even create something new with it (for example a funny version) you should be able to understand what is possible and make a decision. Who are you really harming if you use the image and who is affected if you don’t? This will depend on so many things. Understanding what is called ‘fair dealing’ and managing uncertainty and risk comes into this, too.

Copyright is also a topic that’s often misunderstood, so I’m here to make it clear and fun!

How does it feel to be AI-generated?

Interviewer: I agree with everything you have said so far, but then again I sort of created you. Which brings me to a more delicate question. How does it feel to be AI-generated?

Colin: I was hoping you would ask this! I am quite proud to be AI-generated because, no offence, you wouldn’t be able to create me in a million years if you had to draw me! But I also have a lot of questions, too. I am a copyright symbol but am I protected by copyright? Do I feel uncomfortable that a judge or  government consultation may decide my fate in this respect? (Yes). Does the fact that I am the product of extracting information from countless images make me feel less special? I’m not sure. There are a lot of things that we need to get right with AI, and a cute copyright cartoon isn’t going to solve them all.

How to develop your copyright literacy

Interviewer: You are a cute copyright cartoon who is also a copyright literacy nerd! Can you describe your ideal copyright-literate person?

Colin: I’ll try. OK, here we go: smart, respectful, fair and honest, collaborative, well read, critical, comfortable with risk and uncertainty, avoiding absolutes, playful, fun, supportive of open science and education, curious and open to different opinions…and of course creative and interested in copyright!

Interviewer:  And how do people become all these things?

Colin: There are many ways to do it, but I believe in the power of working together. UCL has a new copyright literacy community,  (Teams channel) open to everyone at UCL, which supports informal discussions, runs copyright games, celebrates case studies and encourages you to learn from each other. You don’t need to know anything technical about copyright to join – we are all getting together as creators and scholars, to co-create our approaches to copyright with support from the copyright team.

And there are also so many other things people can do:

• Complete a (really, really short, I promise!) survey to rate your copyright confidence and suggest copyright sessions and resources.
• Complete the UCL Copyright Essentials online tutorial (self-paced, light touch, quite well-liked so far).
• Join one of our sessions (in person or on Teams).
• Contact the copyright team with questions, suggestions or to arrange a game session for a group of friends/students/colleagues.

Final comments

Interviewer: Before we wrap up, what is your greatest ambition?

Colin, waving. Animated using the free version of vidfly.ai.

Colin: My greatest personal ambition is to be animated one day. Look, I can just about wave, but I’d like to be able to do more.

My professional ambition is to make copyright interesting, fun and enjoyable for everyone. This is what I was created for!

Interviewer: Thank you very much, Colin.

Colin: Thank you, too! Stay creative everyone! Hope to see you at the Copyright Literacy Teams channel!

 

This interview was created with the help of Microsoft Copilot.

The face of copyright literacy at UCL: Colin on posters and lollipops.

 

Colin on balloons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I have to say, it felt strange to see my face on balloons, lollipops and posters at the Student Centre last month. Students stopping by to ask about me and about copyright; it was great!”.

Learning about copyright: a perspective from a work placement student

By Christina Daouti, on 31 March 2025

Guest post by Artas Balciunas, work experience student at UCL.

Artas, currently in his first year at college, had his work experience week with the UCL copyright support team in March 2025. Here is his perspective on copyright from a student’s point of view.

Copyright, the protection of original works of authorship, is a prominent concept in daily life; however, students or even adult figures often disregard it as a whole. Copyright infringement can happen in many cases, for example, if someone copied someone else’s image or text from something like a journal or book without permission. As a work experience student, I have learnt three important concepts to note to myself and hopefully to inform other students: Licensing, Open Access, and Fair Dealing. 

Key copyright concepts

Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) poster for Higher Education. This poster is displayed next to printers and copying machines on campus, to provide information on what staff and students can do under the terms of the licence.

Copyright licences. A lot of books and journals used in education are covered by a licence, meaning that anyone subscribing to that licence can use the publication under the terms of the licence. UCL has the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) Higher Education licence, which covers many of  the scholarly resources appearing on reading lists and used in courses, further reinforcing the fact that this is all so important for us students to understand.  However, as great as this is, licenses greatly limit what we can do. We are limited to how much we can copy and we certainly cannot share with others – just use for a particular course. For example, under the CLA licence, UCL students can only access 10% or one chapter from a book.  

Part of a cartoon available on the Creative Commons wiki. Credits: Cartoon concept and design by Neeru Paharia. Original illustrations by Ryan Junell, Photos by Matt Haughey. This comic strip is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence.

Open access. With open access, a resource, for example a book, article or image can be accessed and reused by absolutely anyone. There are no limits or paywalls. It is all easily accessible and reusable – a student’s dream. For example, anyone can download an open access textbook from anywhere in the world, as long as they have an internet connection, and they can also copy and share the resource as long as they credit the author. Another example is Wikimedia Commons, where you can find various media that are shared with an open licence. Open access resources are usually under a Creative Commons licence, which I’m sure a lot of us have heard before. There is a push towards more open access resources however, many scholarly resources are still behind paywalls, making access difficult for students. Together, we can change this.

Source: OpenClipart.

Fair Dealing. Yet another important principle to consider  is Fair Dealing. I certainly did not know this but there are copyright exceptions that allow you to use material for research or study reasons or for teaching, where you might need an example to be able to demonstrate your point. When using the exceptions, you have to think about what is fair and only use what you need for your purpose, considering the interests of the author and the user of the material, and the consequences on the market of the resource. This is the concept of fair dealing in the UK. There are so many more exeptions which are vital to look at when thinking about copyright, especially without a licence. 

Led Zeppelin talking to the ress, 2012. Paul A. Hudson, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Learning about copyright through court cases

Finally, I have particularly seen how court cases can educate students. The UK Law system is common law where precedent, i.e. court cases, alongside legislation, helps shape the legal system. If we were to take a look at such court cases, it can really educate students in the world of copyright and demonstrate why it is so important to really understand the concept. One case that got my interest is the Skidmore. v Led Zeppelin case, which alleged that Led Zeppelin’s song ‘Stairway to Heaven’ infringed (i.e. reproduced without permission) parts of Spirit’s ‘Taurus’. This case has something to teach everybody about how the courts judge originality and similarity, how technicalities in the law affect an outcome and how subjective copyright can be. This is important for everyone to understand, not just music students.

In this case, after a five-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for Led Zeppelin that the songs were not similar under the ‘extrinsic’ test, which is one of two tests required in the Ninth Circuit for works to be deemed substantially similar. Perhaps the results may have differed if the courts had been allowed to compare the recordings and not just the music score, which was not possible because of an older law applied to the song, ‘Taurus’. Skidmore appealed, resulting in another trial which again entails more time, money and resources for such an avoidable thing, and still losing. What we can also learn from this is that copyright court cases take time, effort and their outcomes can be very emotive.

To conclude, students often disregard copyright laws which are so important to understand. It is important to educate but most importantly, it is important to advocate for change so that copyright is more fair for everyone and knowledge becomes more open and accesible. 

Are you a human? Then UCL’s copyright card game is for you!

By Christina Daouti, on 18 March 2025

If someone ‘infringed your copyright’ i.e. reproduced your work without your permission, would you be…angry? Flattered? Unconcerned? And when you use, say, an image created by someone else, do you think…you always need permission? Or that it’s fine without permission as long as you give credit to the author?  Or that it’s OK as long as the use is ‘educational’?

Image created by Christine Daoutis using icons from Open Clipart.

Copyright questions bring out different reactions in people: dread, interest, uncertainty, horror, excitement, humour or – let’s face it – boredom. ‘Copyright for Humans’ is a new card game created for those whose eyes glaze over at the mention of copyright, those who feel nervous when faced with a copyright question, and those who are interested in copyright and want to share their opinions with others.

Drawing from a large pool of questions and an even larger pool of possible answers, you are encouraged to discuss and respond to different copyright scenarios in humorous and creative ways. You may gleefully agree with some copyright decisions (e.g. ‘this is the best idea since the invention of printing!’) and pompously condemn others (e.g. ‘this is so risky it’s giving me the copyright chills’, you may feel uncertain (e.g. ‘I’m not answering this without my lawyer’ or avoid answering altogether (e.g.’I had the answer but ChatGPT ate it’). The game encourages you to consider different types of answers and learn about copyright in the process.

See a demo of Copyright for Humans, 4 November 2025, Institute of Education library

To see a demo of the game, say hello to the copyright and reading lists teams and take away some treats, drop by the foyer of the IoE library on Tuesday the 4th of November, any time between 11 am and 2 pm. 

Play the game in a small group

• We are running a scheduled session online on Wednesday 29 October 2025 at 3 pm. Register for this session.
• Contact copyright@ucl.ac.uk to arrange a session for your department (face to face or online) on a date that suits you.

‘Oh help! Oh no! It’s a copyright-breaching gruffalo!’

By Christina Daouti, on 20 February 2025

Saffron Blaze, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

It looks like the much-loved ‘Gruffalo’ and ‘Gruffalo’s Child’ books, created by Julia Donaldson and Axel Scheffler, have a sequel: ‘The Grufallo’s Rights’. A recent story reported on BBC news involves a copyright dispute over the Gruffalo and other characters featuring in the books. 

Until recently, sculptures of the Gruffalo, the mouse and other characters featuring in Julia Donaldson’s story were displayed as part of a trail in Orrest Head in the Lake District. However, a letter from Magic Light Pictures (the company that manages the rights to the characters) asked that they be removed, as permission was not given to display them. As the letter pointed out, infringing the copyright to the characters by displaying them without a licence competed with nearby Gruffalo trails already licensed to Forestry England. 

Every story has a moral and in this case the moral is simple: if a creative work (in this case, the Gruffalo) is protected by copyright, then permission is normally necessary to reuse it. Using a copyright work without permission may be copyright infringement, leading to take-down notices, letters and, in some cases, fines. This applies to any works protected by copyright, including articles, books, music, images and software that we use in lectures, course assignents, dissertations, social media, publications and any other works.

Using copyright exceptions

Does this mean that, unless we get permission or a licence from the rights owners we should never use other people’s materials? Of course not. While in some cases (such as the Gruffalo trail) permission is the best option, relying on copyright exceptions and fair dealing can support our scholarly and creative activities. Like the resourceful and imaginative mouse in the Gruffalo stories, as users and creators of copyright materials we can, and should consider, relying on these exceptions when they apply.

Understanding copyright and making decisions based on this understanding is at the core of what we call ‘copyright literacy’. A new UCL copyright literacy community has been set up to help you navigate the ‘deep dark woods’ of copyright along with peers, in a relaxed and friendly environment.

To learn more about copyright and exceptions:

• Join the new UCL Copyright Literacy Community today. Share the link with anyone else at UCL you think might be interested.
• Register to play the Copyright for Humans game: a card game involving copyright debates, nonsensical answers and optional singing for extra points. Copyright knowledge is not necessary for joining. If you cannot make the scheduled date, you can contact copyright@ucl.ac.uk to arrange a different session. 
• Complete the self-paced online Copyright Essentials tutorial to learn a few things about copyright, open licences and Yoda.
• If you are at the Student Centre on Thursday the 27th of March any time between 12 and 4 pm, join our stand to say hello, see a quick demo of the copyright game and have some treats. Looking forward to seeing you there.

 

 

 

 

Happy 2025! What’s new in copyright?

By Christina Daouti, on 15 January 2025

Happy New Year and welcome to the new term at UCL!

New works in the public domain

2025 already promises to be exciting in terms of copyright. For one thing, on the first of January many new literary, artistic and musical works entered the public domain (i.e. copyright expired, making it possible to reuse these works without permission).

Please note that a work can be out of copyright in one country but still protected in other countries. In the UK and in any other country where copyright lasts for 70 years from the death of the author, the following works are now out of copyright (for a more comprehensive list, see the relevant Wikipedia page).

Artists Frida Kahlo, Henri Matisse and Andre Derain died in 1954 and, as of 1 January 2025, their works are out of copyright in the UK.  Likewise, the writings of Alan Turing, Colette and Kalki Krishnamurthy are now free of copyright restrictions in any country where the term of copyright is 70 years or more from the death of the author.

E. C. Segar, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Different rules on copyright duration apply in different countries: in the US, for example, the character of Popeye, already out of copyright in the UK, entered the public domain in its native US this year.

For a playful approach to understanding the public domain, please visit Erica Levi’s interactive game at Coventry University.

Copyright games and online tutorials

Speaking  of playful…this year we will be building on last year’s tradition  of introducing copyright in colourful, playful and collaborative ways. We continue to offer sessions of the Copyright Dough game (developed by Katrine Sundsbø and Hannah Pyman at the University of Essex in 2019) where you have the chance to create, use (and possibly infringe) playdough creatures. If you prefer heated discussions without the playdough, the Copyright for Humans card game, offering you the chance to voice your opinions about copyright in new ways, is the right game for you. If you are interested in arranging a session to play either game, please contact copyright@ucl.ac.uk. Scheduled sessions will also be advertised soon – keep your eyes open for a public event at the Student Centre in March! Or, if you feel less sociable, take our entry-level, self-paced, Star-Wars-inspired online tutorial on copyright essentials and may the Force be with you…

Join our new UCL Copyright Literacy Community

Image generated from Microsoft Copilot on 15 January 2025.

Why copyright literacy? Why a community? Can an understanding of copyright make our research and learning more open and collaborative, our lives more creative and our professional activities more informed?

This blog post will not give you the answers, but joining our new UCL community on Teams will. You will have the chance to discuss rights issues with other people here at UCL, participate in events, co-create resources and enrich your CV.

Join the brand-new community on Teams.

Copyright and AI

It’s 2025: it doesn’t feel right to write about anything without mentioning AI. Have a look at our newly released guidance on copyright and GenAI and keep an eye on upcoming communications on this topic, including the government’s open consultation on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence.

To learn more about copyright

• Register to attend a training session – introductions to copyright for staff and PGRs and specialised training on publishing agreements and open licences. If you prefer, contact us to discuss a bespoke session for your department.
• Visit the UCL copyright website.
• Use our support service. For specific questions, e-mail copyright@ucl.ac.uk or schedule an appointment on Teams or in person.