This is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
>> ANNIE LAU: All right. Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for coming to the workshop. My name is Annie Lau (phonetic). I look after the media industry community at the World Economic Forum based out of New York. First of all I wanted to thank everyone for being here and I want to thank our colleague and partner, Paolo Lanteri for cohosting this workshop. And also to thank Ignasi Guardens who is as passionate about the industry as anybody I know. Maybe a few words before we start the session. For the past few years we have been looking at the emergent consumer norms, behaviors and values on the Internet really around the world and looking at the impact and implications for issues such as privacy, intellectual property and freedom of expression. So more specifically for the past year we really looked at the future of digital copyright and try to frame the conversations about creativity. So this year we are expanding the conversation a little bit and we are really looking at the innovative business models in the business ecosystem, the opportunities the Internet presents to them and the challenges. And those challenges could be linked to copyright but also very well be linked to technology and social norms so that is the topic that brings us here today and with our panel as well we are hoping to explore some solutions at the very least some ideas to spark further conversation. With that you'd like to give the floor to Paolo, from the world intellectual property organisation who will also say a few words.
>> PAOLO LANTERI: Thank you very much Annie and welcome everybody to the workshop on the business of increase creativity and focus on user generated content and IP. A few days ago we read that Amazon acquired live streaming video games platform. Every single day up to four you know million pictures are posted on FACEBOOK. All those are remarkable and impressive figures and at the same time are also very good reasons to discuss today. I think we can all appreciate the differences between a video of my five year old cousin where he tried to sing happy birthday to you in seven different languages from another recording of another birthday, 111 birthday and retirement of (?) In the Lord of the Rings trilogy. That clear difference is one is good and one is bad although it's still good fun to watch it. One is being improvised and done with homemade systems.
Workers investments. Yet possibly the most is that, one, was the purpose of making profits and the other one hundreds of dollars of profits. We know that from an economic perspective we also understand from consumer perspective many differences.
It means that anyone involved needs to ask several ‑‑ first, who owns what? How does a platform to develop.
Very, very simple, certainty is crucial.
Platforms between the developing and the developer and any other issue currently discussed. Thank you very much.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Thank you. Everybody, let me start by thanking organisation hosts for organising this and inviting me. So my name is Ignasi Guardens, I've been involved in the area for 20 years. Both on the parliamentary side I was in the parliament working many years in Spain and in Europe governmental side in charge of the Spanish film audio visual agency. And now other international fora. So I'm delighted to be here to be able to discuss this very important element of the business of creativity which is a perfect title. A few months ago the European commission in Brussels in the context of renovation and renewal, copyright in the Internet era, that was the sort of general title of that. Well that was a historical process because never in the European Union history, never, for any other topic and you can't imagine how many topics has the European Union been involved with; never did the European receive as many replies as it did here. 11,000 replies, each one of them grounded with arguments and a position. That could never have happened ‑‑ of course a bunch of civil servants had to go through all those replies process them all. The result of all those materials is online, you can find it at the European commission website but it just shows the interest, how important this topic is.
And of course reading of this document which summarizes the different replies received from users, from rights owners, from broadcasters, from of course Internet service providers and from others from governmental agencies and so on shows how different the positions are and even the basics are not taken from granted so it's very difficult to have a discussion when even certain things cannot be agreed upon. I think at least we can agree about some basics, we can agree that Internet as a structure and the structural part of Internet is essential but we can also agree those pipelines are nothing without the content to travel through it.
So the importance of content is very clear. Then we must agree or can agree about the importance of creativity behind that content. That's one of the points here with user generated content because the border is blurred but it is certainly an industry. Some of you may be surprised to learn that in Europe those are the figures I know but it applies everywhere but in Europe the creativity industry is larger than the chemical industry. So there are more jobs in the creative industry than in the whole chemical industry in Europe. More than in the construction industry in Europe. Of course not all of that includes online creativity. Performance, culture, media. But it gives you an idea that we are not talking about something which is funny, we are talking about jobs and about businesses and a lot of businesses we have.
So that's the first thing we have a panel here to discuss about how do we deal with that in the Internet era. How do we monetize that content? How can we really have legal certainty as Paolo was mentioning the basics to have a business is legal certainty, the basics is to have a secure legal framework otherwise it's no possibility at all to make a business to make an investment. And very specifically, and that's the topic, the sub topic in our panel, what happens with this new sort of content which appears online which is the user generated content. The information is blurred but there is a border. It's a reality that that user generated content may have a border. So there is a certain conflict of interest there between those who create professionally, those who create non‑professional but may become professional creators, those who are benefitting from non‑professional content who should ‑‑ so there is a whole area there which is of course very, very important now and it's the topic we are going to discuss. And for that we have a very interesting panel and I'm just jumping into presentation I want to introduce to you one of the speakers when he or she takes the floor so let's start with Nuri Colakoglu. I don't know if I pronounce it properly. Nuri Colakoglu, he's a chairman of Dogan media international. He has a very long experience as a journalist, broadcaster, media executive. And he will start the conversation with us. The floor is yours.
>> NURI COLAKOGLU: Thank you very much. And being the Turkish panelist here I would like to welcome you to Istanbul and sorry to see you are sitting in this dark room instead of enjoying the beautiful weather outside and strolling around the city or walking but there you are. That comes with the package. Well, I think the problem we are trying to address arises from the fact that we are living in a world where technology moves far faster than the legal regulations and the arrangements. And every time somebody tries to set up a legal framework for anything that's happening in this world, then technology finds a way to beat around it and jump the cue. Actually when we are talking about Internet I think it will be one of the main mile stones of the civilization if we see civilization and accrue meant of all the past experiences because the first milestone was probably the creation of writing which managed to lead people their ideas when they go. The second was the printing which able to spread these ideas on a larger scale. And Internet made everybody a contributor to the civilization because anything you say or think or write on the web is there to stay and it's open to the benefit of anyone who cares to look at it.
And this is so much so in a country like Turkey which is not technologically so much advanced as the other western countries but we see that Internet is picking up very quickly. Right now we have about 53% of the population have access to Internet. And 91% of those use Google. FACEBOOK users are about 78% of all those who access the Internet and they spend about 12 hours 48 minutes weekly per month with the FACEBOOK. The numbers are staggering and social media, of course, is bursting. You probably heard about the Gizi (phonetic) incidents last year and last year on 19, 20, and 21st of May 17,000, tweets were sent every minute. And in Turkey we have about 13 million Twitter users. And loads of tweets are coming back and forth. This is becoming a major instrument. But unfortunately Internet right now is contributing nor democracy than to the economy because so far nobody has really created a major formula to convert this incredible numbers into money, how to monetize this. And the only thing I see on the money side moving is the increase of advertisement. I'm a conventional media person, ended up as an executive of media. We try to see bucks somewhere but Internet advertisement about 7 or 8 years ago was 1%. Today it's gone over to 12%. And it is the second largest source where the adverse ties meant is heading to after the television. Television is number one. Every day we see Internet stealing away from the traditional media like the print media or the open air or the cinema, et cetera. So the way to create funding for these Internet content is the biggest problem right now. And so in Turkey we don't have so much trouble with the copyrights as far as its concerned.
We do not go into major legal battles. From time to time, for example, initially the newspapers tried to gag the Internet producers from refraining using newspaper material other than their own newspaper sites but that has been sold in a rather amicable way. But creating unique content which nobody else with replicate or converting that into money is becoming a big game. Takes attention span of the Internet users because we see more and more young people moving into the realm of the Internet, the material has to be reformatted to suit the needs of these younger people hose attention span is about two minutes to three minutes. That's the great interest in YouTube because nothing lasts more than six minutes on YouTube. Of course increase creation of YouTube channels and getting paid on those YouTube channels is going to be the thing. But I'm afraid we have some more time to go to convert that into money and legalize the ownership of the term. As Ignasi indicated who owns what. In Turkey or the United States if you wants to show a film there are lots of institution whose have already established the ownership of the films or the series, et cetera. The moment you step over the red line you'll immediately see a legal action promoted. But with the smaller stuff that come in from the Internet users are not that easy to track and to find. I think whoever finds a great way of monetizing this content in an intelligent way and I see YouTube channels as a way out on that road, is going to be one of the leading figures in the media in the coming days. I'll stop here and continue in the second round.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Perfect. Thank you. I leave the question floating to you but you don't answer that, you answer that afterwards. Do you receive user generated content and do you pay for it? That's the question I'm putting for you.
>> NURI COLAKOGLU: No, you don't pay for the ‑‑
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Think about how much you receive from the public and what are you doing with that? You keep that question for later. Okay? So we move to the other side of the table, Glenn, Glenn Deen is director of Networking and Distributing Technology for NBCUniversal. He has a long career. He holds himself several (?) networking and he's been working with organisations related to Internet and he has all these experience about what can be done, what should be done, what cannot be done, which is also interesting because sometimes we hear proposals which are totally impossible and invisible and that's also interesting to hear about. So the floor is yours, Glenn.
>> Glenn Deen: Thank you for having me today and talking about my corner of the world. There's a border between professional content and user generated content. I don't see a firm border. What I see is a change that the Internet has brought upon us as a society where we are moving away from one directional model where professional creators create and everybody consumes to a new model where we all create and not everyone consumes. I posted photos on FACEBOOK. I'm not a very good photographer but I'm a creator and I created on the Internet. Some people are even getting revenue for it. They may have uploaded a video on the Internet. I watched several of them before I came to Istanbul to discover a little bit about the town. They monetized it. And they range from very good quality to very good quality. On the other end we have big production movies from studios like mine, NBCUniversal where you have productions that cost millions of dollars; they employ easily many cases hundreds of people from all walks of life from actors to writers to caterers to people who paint sets.
When you look at the whole thing it's a spectrum of content that gets created and shared on the Internet. It isn't user generated versus professional content. It's an end to end spectrum of stuff that all matters. I'll talk in a minute about technology but it's interesting that changes the dynamic we look at the concept of ownership and the concept of creation and the concept of consumption because it used to be easy to say I don't create, I just view. Those guys are the ones that are creating, those are the guys who have to worry about all these issues of managing content and how do I do that properly? Because I don't do that, I'm just a consumer. I'm no longer just a consumer, I'm a creator and so are all of you. I saw as we get ready to go iPhones popped up and several photos were taken of us. Congratulations, you all have a copyright. The world has evolved. One of the ways I'd like the talk since I'm a technologist, not a policy maker or an attorney or lawyer, is technology is changing, too. If we went back in the past when we looked at the tools that people used to create content, there is a clear border, there were professional cameras which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. There were editing suites and systems they used in the professional world to create content and there was the stuff we all carried around in our back pockets, 35 millimeter cameras in the old day and pocket cameras on 110 film if you go back that far. That changed too. Just like I talked a few minutes ago about my iPhone taking photographs and movies. We have cameras out there in the hands of consumers creating 4K content. It's the next generation above HD. And the industry spent a lot of time and money revamping IT sets and cameras to be HD cameras. We are now on the new frontier, we are over in to 4K, this is four times the amount of information per screen and the number of pixels per screen that HD has. Already people creating 4K consent and publishing it to YouTube before the studios are publishing that content in places like television channels. The line has blurred between professional and non‑professional. We have non‑professionals creating content in advance from the studios themselves.
We see this in other areas, too, we see the line blurring between the technology used to edit and compile stuff and that involves multiple cameras and actors. They are writing scripts ahead of time and starting to produce what would look like a film production. Sometimes even to have pay for catering themselves, if lines are blurry. One of the things I like to draw attention to is we need some support in the standard world to enable this to be better and build technical frameworks to allow us to manage con at the present time on the Internet that allow policy people that eventually decide policies making this world thrive and grow, and allowing each of us to get our content seen. As a creator your number one goal is to let people see what you've created. In my business as professional studio, the more eyeballs, the better.
The more people I get to share my experience, the better. We like to share what we have done. Video is unique if you look at it from a technical standards perspective. Every other technology we use today is dependent on the groups creating it. There are protocols for moving the data and making sure it arrives there securely and reliably. When I look at video, however, it's a lot more complex. We have the ITF, the very, very important. We have W 3(c), incredibly important. We have the society of motion picture and television engineers that worry about specifications for things like what does HD look like and how do you transmit it? We have groups that create the codex. We have many more groups that create other encoding and codex standards. We recently took a count in our studio and realize we code into 40 different formats. We heard down here that people when you publish on the Internet also have to worry about transcoding. In addition to new policies I think we also need new technical work done to build fundamental frameworks to allow content to be richer and better found and better accessed. Simple things like methods for uniquely identifying content. Today if I want to watch a video of Paolo on the beach, I have no way of naming that, I have no way of searching for it. And if he's in a different language when he posted his video I as an English language speaker have a problem I don't speak other languages. If we had simple things like universal naming conventions to build things to offer better search and discovery and for better ways of associating other pieces of the content with works that have been created and shared I think we would have some fundamental building blocks that would be wonderful for people to build around.
One of the efforts I would like to draw attention is to the glass to glass Internet ecosystem which is the idea of bringing together technical experts from around the Internet to sit down and talk about how they would like the see content created and from a technical perspective, created, managed, edited and flowing all the way through the Internet ecosystem until consumption and worry about what things we can do around making standards‑based technology that allows you to build new models and new delivery platforms on top of that. If anybody would like to hear more about that, please see me after the session. But there's apply little sales pitch and I'll turn the floor over.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Thank you. Thank you. That was you said you were not going to be provocative but you are provocative because there's nothing like ‑‑ I'm going to be provocative with you now but there's no frontier no border between professional and non‑professional creation. We are all sharing. Why should somebody less in a company instead of investing in the platforms to put all those things together. Since you have time let's still use your time.
>> I think you would still invest in studios because there are some things you can only get from a studio. If you look at a great Disney film, the guardians of the galaxy, I don't know if it's opened everywhere. I work for NBC, not Disney so I'm giving a plug to them. Great movie. You cannot produce that all of us in that room together could not produce that because that is the combining of a set of skills and ability that are truly artistic in nature and very high end skills that are unique and you cannot do that unless you had a studio that can invest the time and bring together the artists to make that happen. It's downright good entertainment. I think that's going to stick with us forever because story telling is part of our foundation as a people. But on the other end you are still going to have people like me going to Istanbul to talk on a panel and taking pictures of the (?) And posting it on FACEBOOK saying I'm here, look at the cool stuff I found today. It's not this or that. It's both that exist.
>> SARAH WYNN‑WILLIAMS: Thank you. So I think there's no argument that the Internet has triggered a boom in availability, quantity, diversity, of content that is creative and consumed. I don't hear much argument that it's a bad thing. Often in debate is content creators versus platforms versus other interest. I think what is positive about the panel so far is we really brought out the areas of complimentary. It not necessarily a tradeoff or a choice between a studio produced movie and user generated content. This is both content. One doesn't necessarily mean the demise of the other. In fact we are seeing an increasing amount of complimentary across platforms. So there was a study released earlier this year that said one in six TV viewers or viewing television in prime time are using social media while watching television. I think what is interesting is that platforms like Twitter and FACEBOOK are lowering the barriers between creators and consumers. So some of the things that these tools give you is the ability to have continuous feedback on content. So and this is allowing a channel when the creators of content and the consumers of content. On our platform it's through likes and shares. You're also content creators are also and to get analytics, data. They're able to understand what demographics. So if you're watching I'm about to embarrass myself because I'm ‑‑ if you're watching the bachelor, you can see is it mainly women who are interacting on discussing this content on social media, is it men, what age group? So the way we look at it is we are sort of expanding the type of content but also the data and analytics behind it.
Hopefully allow them to sort of fine tune and improve the content that's out there. We are also creating tools that we hope are sort of bringing the distance between professionals and amateurs we are hoping to reduce that distance basically and reduce the distance between industry‑generated content and user‑generated content. To give you an example last week Instagram released High Collapse. I'm not sure if anyone had the opportunity to use it. If you haven't I encourage you. It's incredibly fun. You'll be able to get a lot of great High Collapse videos while out and a about in Turkey. It was described as having a $15,000 video in your hand. And that's an app that's for free, anyone can use it and you've been given a tool that previously was only possible for people who had a steady cam or $15,000 tracking rig. Now anyone who has an iPhone can have it for free. Innovations like this are lowering the barriers to entry for amateurs and increasing the amount of content and the quality of that content that's out there.
I mean our view is that's great for creators and consumers. Lowering the barrier for entry to creators it gives these marketing and production tools to amateurs and means a greater number and more diverse set of creators can reach audiences. We have over a billion people on FACEBOOK. Not only are you given the tool, you are given the distribution to this billion wide audience. The second reason is that lowering these barriers between creators and consumers means there are higher quality and more relevant content; more finally targeted audiences because creators are incorporating this feedback and combining with it the powerful analytics that I mentioned earlier. And I think the blurring of distinction between user and industry content it makes consent richer because it's giving professionals access to information aggregated by amateurs and amateurs have the ability of reaching audiences reserved for professionals. You hear a lot of stories about how people post a YouTube video get discovered, it's the pathway to building up a large fan base. And given this is all relatively new, the role of companies like ours and platforms like ours it's undergoing a significant transformation and that's part of the work that the world economic forum is trying to do. We don't view ourselves as a gate keeper. Platforms like ours try to minimize our role in editorial, marketing, financing, production, decisions. What we are trying to do is provide the tools so that creators manage those decisions and those responsibilities themselves and they reach out directly to the audience. We try and have creators as limited friction in that interaction as possible.
Basically what we want to do is empower individuals and then get out of the way. But let them reach their audiences. And I think I mean IP look at this through the public policy lens because that's my interest and my passion but I think the public policy framework has been key to making this happen. The way that I mean we can get maybe in the discussion we will get more into sort of the process of intellectual property framework but I think the balance that is there has facilitated this sort of boom and increase in accessibility for people. I think one of the things that we get concerned about is a sort of challenges to the idea of more restrictive policies that are out there. So legislation that makes it hard to display snippets of news content or that creates liability from linking to external content or limits ‑‑ I mean there are a number ever ‑‑ we should try to limit the ability for this free flow of information. And to my mind throwing up these new road blocks against this open flow of content counteracts these positive effects. So we have lowered all these barriers and risked the set up. We are throwing up more. I think part of the games that we have managed to secure it been made possible because we have this freedom to experiment. We have this evolving and constantly changing models creating, conveying and cataloging content. And that can change so quickly. Something like High Collapse can be a game changer. These things are constantly evolving and it's important that we keep the space for this innovation to continue. The public policy should be geared towards allowing continued experimentation and innovation and through that space that that public policy creates we will hopefully be able to continue to build and create an ecosystem which includes creators, consumers.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Thank you. You did open several areas for discussion later. I have a question which you can reply now or later. Are we mixing or confusing a little bit the concept of lowering the barrier, there is a barrier. You lower the barrier so you make it easier than it was before, the access to professional content, to being a professional carrier. One is to lower the barrier. The other is no difference at all between being someone who lives out of creation and somebody who doesn't live out of creation because when do you that, I'm saying it's a moral problem. How do you invest in creation if there's no return for that, if there's no legal security for that, if there's no way to have the money back? So it's not exactly the same to lower the barrier which is the democratic principle, to stop this idea that only elite let people can have access the publishing or creating or making movies, but once you decide from bottom that you want to make your leaving out of that, you want to make your living. And for that you need some legal security return monetization fee. It's confused between who is living out of that and who is just making that up for fun; well we might have a problem in terms of having a business model and having creation there. I will put that on the table for debate. But we move to the other speakers ton table to the most intellectual part of our speakers ‑‑ (laughing) Andres Guadamuz who spend a lot of time analyzing and thinking about these things. So we want to hear from you. So you are the right man at the right place. The floor is yours.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Thanks. A little responsibility for me to be introduced as an intellectual part of the conversation and I think I'm going to disappoint you right away so maybe if we can have the other back? Yes. I'll disappoint you right away with the famous monkey selfie, who I've been told Glenn pointed out that it's not a monkey, it's an ape, and it's a she. I am a story teller. Besides doing intellectual discourse I like telling stories and it's one of the reasons why is I get invited to these things. I want to tell the story of the monkey. It exemplifies a lot of the things that we need to look at, revisit in the digital age. Now, I'm not sure if everyone familiar with the story of the ape. It was a picture taken in Indonesia by a professional photographer that travels to different places and takes nature pictures called David Slater. He is English and he took this picture of crested black monkey or ape.
And the story of this is he was taking pictures of a group of apes and he noticed a couple of them were very interested in his photographic equipment so he set it up in a way they would come and start playing with it. And they like the fact that they could see their image in the lens and then start playing with it. And this particular one took about 300 pictures of which there are others but this is I think everyone's favorite, I'm sorry, I'm going to keep calling it monkey even though it's not scientifically accurate.
Starting talking about 300 pictures. And this was ‑‑ these and two others were selected by the photographer. They were first published in the daily mail which is perhaps I shouldn't say this on record but it's a horrible newspaper in the UK. But it went viral, everyone started sharing the pictures. Et cetera. People started putting it as their avatar, FACEBOOK picture, it was quite a phenomena. Now the actual picture was posted in Wikipedia as part of a comment and there was very interesting discussion on copyright following within the community. And they looked at some US case law and UA articles on Wikipedia because that's how you make legal decisions nowadays by looking at the Wikipedia article and they decided that picture is in the public domain. Now the photographer started seeing this and wanted ‑‑ you can imagine the possibilities to monetize on something like this, it's very popular. You can turn it into posters. T‑shirt's, all sorts of things. And all power to him. Actually, don't begrudge him at all for that.
But the claim to be able to monetize this is this picture should have copyright, right? Now, I want to have a show of hands, who thinks that there's copyright in this picture? Very small minority. Yeah. I think ‑‑ yeah. So it's still a minority. The debate has been framed recently a lot in news websites and news sources by the fact that the US copyright office made a statement when a journalist was asked apparently because they cannot declare the ownership of the copyright, they made a statement this was taken by an animal, animals do not have rights in that respect so you cannot have copyright. But it was interesting because it shows I think a lot of the problems that we are having in the Internet age. This was taken as I was saying in Indonesia. It was ‑‑ he's a UK citizen so European copyright law which is highly harmonized because European directives would apply but also UK case law.
If you look at the US case law and law probably you would be right that the threshold of originality is very high in the United States because of all the case law that has taken place there. But I think in Europe and specifically in the UK, there would be a very strong case for this to have copyright because when we are thinking about digital photography it's less important nowadays who actually pulls the trigger, pushes the button, presses the screen, that creates the work. Selfies are a good example of this, putting your handout and pressing the screen, is that enough work what used to be skill and labor enough to grant someone copyright? What if I gave my camera to someone to ask to take a picture of the panel? You're taking the picture but it's my equipment. There are all sorts of very interesting questions that I think this asks that we are not answering completely. You would have to go to court now. So far the photographer would like to have copyright in this picture eventually and he sent not cease and desist letters but he sent letters to wiki media and other forum to ask to take down the picture and they have not complied so far. I think if he sued at least in a court in the UK he would be successful. I think there's a very strong case particularly because of the circumstances he set up the camera in a way that would lure the monkey to taking the picture so there was an action. And UK and European legislation say the act of creation is parts of what happens before and after is the preparation but also the selection and there's a case law in that respect that the act of selecting works and in this case out of 300 pictures the ones that were iconic and that we love and we love them so much we keep sharing them and people laugh every time you show the monkey.
But I think this shows the very act of creation. It doesn't matter the photographer wasn't the one who pressed the button. I do have a point and the point is I think all of this exemplifies that we have to revisit user‑generated content. We have to revisit the very basic of creation of what we consider to be originality, for example, because if something as basic as this, whether or not a monkey pressing a button in a camera considered copyright, if that is not harmonized then you can analyze many different aspects of copyright in the digital age that are not harmonized. Well, I consider it fabulous, some people don't like it. But things like that that are very basic to idea of what constitutes copyright protection. Things that would allow third use in the United States would not be considered use in most jurisdictions. Things like the UK just passed a set of exceptions and limitations that are quite wide ranging, for example in things like data mining that are very interesting that is only in one jurisdiction and are things that are very relevant to researchers around the world. And only one country has legislature on this. This is how harmonization happens. This is a time we to have examine all of this. And the poster boy of harmonization I guess our friend the ape. Thank you.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Really you opened an area about the detailed issue about harmonizing copyright in the field which in fact the debate is whether it needs to be changed or re-interrupted with the same laws as they are. Before we open the floor, I would like some sort of short interaction here. I have one question. From what we have seen and what you have already said yourself, that's the policy and laws need to be changed. Is there anything specific that needs to be changed to be adapted to this situation, user generated content, the new concept of what is creation, what is not creation. Does it need to be changed or the framework we need to approach in a different way? Or you think that laws and structures need to be changed? You can reply to that and go a little bit Ford and then we open the floor.
>> In my mind I think the most important thing you would need registry for any rights and for books we have for cinemas we have, for music we have, we have registry showing the ownership. Unless you cannot very verifiably prove the ownership no right can be asked about it. So I think the next big thing in the Internet would be a registry of the intellectual property. And if you come in with this monkey ape picture and register it as yours and legitimately you can proof it's yours then you can claim your rights over it. And I think the next big FACEBOOK or Google will be the person who will be registering all these and put up an army of lawyers behind it to follow the rights over it.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Just one comment in between. You're encouraged to tweet so you wouldn't be blamed if we see yourself playing with your computers or your phones here and you tweet about the session. I should have said that at the start. It being not only recorded but broadcast live. There is remote participation so we will receive input from outside this room, which we will help in a second. So let's just finish this short final panel.
>> You're also welcome to post on FACEBOOK as well as Twitter.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Touché.
>> The innovation has been able to happen because the space in the current framework there is. I think issues around monetization and how you're going to remunerate people with the content that is going to happen through legal framework. I'm not concerned it needs to rise towards the legislative level because part of what makes the Internet succeed is the ability to pivot and identify gaps and address those so I think the existing framework is sufficient but I think practices and monetization will evolve.
>> It's an interesting question. I think one change that is going to happen because we started seeing little bits and pieces of it, and that is the community of people that includes all of us are starting to wake up to the fact that it's not a discussion about professionals being on one side and the rest of us being on another side of the concept of copyright. We are all copyright holders. And this is becoming an issue that is relevant to all of us. If I take a photograph just me and I put it up on a FACEBOOK page or on my own personal web page, what happens to that after that? And what can other people do with it? I think it becomes a very relevant question as a community of Internet users become a community of Internet creators we all have a stake in it. I don't know if that means we need to change anything but I think it means that we need to view the dialogue in a different way. It's not all of us consumers against the creators, it's all of us creators and what do we want?
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Very shortly.
>> I think I mentioned this. I think even if it's not a legislative solution or even a harmonization process we need to have a discussion at the basic level of what are the basics of what constitutes a creation because it's becoming very easy for everyone to create and I think the panel has given a lot of examples much how easy it is to create things now a day. It's becoming so easy we are in danger of not meeting what used to be the requirement for copyright protection and I think if we have the discussions we have to look at licenses, the change of the licensing environment, the act of sharing, how the economy now is economy of sharing, all sorts of these decisions need not be legislators but we need to have them.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Thank you. We open the floor. It opens with one question which I know the person was here wanted to put it so David from 21st century fox, you open the floor with a question there and we go for the rest.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you, if I can make a few remarks and pose the question based on those remarks. I think Sarah mentioned the fact that FACEBOOK has democratized content. How do you monetize it? Because if your passion is content creation and you want to plaque a career out of that, simply distributing it without any sort of ability to monetize it is going to be a barrier for your ability to move to the next stage from amateur to professional. I think if you as a company that is a content producer there are two policies that are critically important to us. One is the freedom of expression because without that freedom of expression we can't tell a difficult story ‑‑ if the government is going to censor that we want be able to develop that. And the other is copyright. And you have to build both of those into the legal framework and you need to have both of those being enforceable. So I wonder how we go ‑‑ if we don't need to change the legal frameworks how do we go about facilitating the monetization and to Nuri's point what are the barriers to monetization on the Internet from amateur and moving to professional. One other thing I would like to flag I think there has been a lot of talk on the panel regarding technical standards. And I'm not sure if any of you are aware of the copyright husband that is being created in the UK which would actually make an interoperable system of metadata to identify who the owners of the copyright are so you might be able to build on that a licensing framework, it's all voluntary. But I wonder how that would fit into the questions and challenges that Glenn has raised and that Andres has raised.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: If you can keep noting what affects each of you has interventions, there's a gentlemen there raising a hand. Who is managing the microphone? Yeah, that gentleman. You can introduce yourself briefly, please.
>> AUDIENCE: My name is sunny Abraham, the first thing I would like to make two comments and one question. The first comment is it's interesting what is not being said on this panel, nobody on the panel thinks that the current IP regime interferes with the production of user generated content on the Internet. And that is quite spectacular is that is the consensus opinion of this panel. Second, I really like the conflating of the myth of the individual creator, the individual innovator, the individual genius with the large mega cooperation that is interested in holding more and more intellectual property and the individual creator is being used to expand the IP regime and this is a myth that has always be used from the very beginning of copyright and patent law and it's interesting thee we are having a Redux of that on this panel. My question is, A, are you a believer in the multistakeholder model and if your answer to that question is yes, do you propose and revoke all international IP treaties and build all those treaties up from scratch using a multistakeholder model? Thank you, very much. (Applause)
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Challenging opening, that was the whole point. You might not be the only one in this direction so... here in front. Yes?
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. It has to do with the previous question. My name is Juan Carlos, I'm from Ecuador, I'm a lawyer. We went through a democratization process to telecommunications to hardware and tools because the industry has done a great job to lowering costs, to applications; many applications are now for free. So this organisation process demands besides the monetization issue that has to do with business models demands an adjustment of the intellectual property regime. So what you think is going to be the starting point to adjust besides the business models, I know the film and music industry has done great efforts trying to adjust to the new reality but this democratization process as you may say the line between professional content and user generated content has blurred so how the intellectual property is adjusting and reacting to this new reality.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: One more and we give the floor to the panel. Who else?
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm from the power party of Luxembourg and don't be scared I will not demand dismantlement of the (?) At least not today. Yet you spoke a lot about dismantling copyrights. Now we could discuss that statement and the differing views on that but I believe we can have a more constructive debate if I be a little bit more straight to the point. Knowing that European countries don't know the concept of the fair use as it exists in the US and knowing that there are a lot of big media organisations, TV stations, newspapers, infringing regularly on copyrights of user generated content distributed on Twitter, FACEBOOK, Instagram and so on, by including that content into their own publications without clear attribute to the creator and then again also not respecting creative comments licensing that is in place to actually combat such abuse, how do you think that we can actually combat the hypocrisy of media organisations on the one hand using that content from small, the unprofessional creators and also on the other hand going after the small guys when they are infringing on their copyrights by creating videos or doing screen shots of websites. So my question is actually straight to the points, how can that hypocrisy be explained and what are possible ways to enable users to actually enforce their rights instead of them being bullied by the big boys?
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Okay. We will return to the panel. I may say to the gentleman that was not exactly part of this panel. So you need reform, rethinking, whatever, that's exactly what we are discussing but totally destroying the idea of that copyright has a role it's not exactly the agenda of the panel but anyway I will open the floor.
>> (Off mic.)
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: We are going to answer but let's start the dialogue. You had your opportunity but we will go. You start answering that and we go forward.
>> No. I don't believe in multistakeholder model at least the one that is presented in ICANN, in the IGF. I think that it's being used as a fig leaf, as a front to create a system, that thinks or offers the idea of openness and is completely obscure and all the decisions are made in back channels and back panels somewhere by people and then get passed down and they get labeled as participation. I'm sorry, but I ‑‑ I can imagine a better system multistakeholder actually working but not this. It's an important question. It's the most important question anybody has asked on this panel.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Updating. If you want to comment on the idea of that, that's the copyright regime updating the challenge about eventual hypocrisies but perhaps double standard about some media using other people's content, that's a fair claim to have in terms of debate.
>> Copyright in my mind is the price of a brain product. Like anything if you steal somebody's car or if you steal somebody's watch, intellectual property rights should be recognized as such. But the thing is how do you establish that intellectual property is the big thing. We can work around that and establish who owns what and answer to our friend's question, we know that you go to music shop and buy a CD. The price you pay there is distributed with certain percentages to the distributed to the main distributor, to the musicians who played, et cetera. You don't have to sit down and write everything from scratch. But there are very good practices of distributing and sharing revenues. That type of revenue sharing models can be created and from that point on user‑generated content can turn into a money‑making process. You just post them up, anybody who just picks it and uses that and thinks it's worth the money their asking for then the system is clear. That's the simple way of doing it. And that's what actually Google channels are doing really in fact. Thank you.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: We move forward in the floor. Let me recall the figure of 11,000 replies so indeed in 10 or 20 minutes we wouldn't solve the issue here. It is a hot topic. Copyright reform is not on the agenda, it is. It is a totally open question. Whether changing dismantling, updating the laws, updating the treaties, just reinterpreting them, changing exceptions all that is what needs to be discussed and here we are dealing with the tip of the iceberg. I would open the floor for remote participants if they have contribution for those who are not here.
>> REMOTE MODERATOR: We have a question for Sarah from FACEBOOK. The question is related to how FACEBOOK (off mic) ‑‑ (lost audio) ‑‑ centralized open right registries or do we think all we need is a simple way to express metadata on the web on a mechanism like Google that already exist and index stuff. Do we need a centralized mechanism or can we please move past that?
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: That's an important one. One question there and we will return the microphone to the panel.
>> AUDIENCE: My name is pillar from Colombia. I have a concern about copyright, about the problems with limitation and the use that we don't have in our country and many others. I think that to create we need access to knowledge and access to information is like the only way that we need to pay for it. And I think that there are many other needs that are not covered for this particular provision of copyright. For example, education, for example, access to knowledge in the libraries. About this, the agenda, the positive agenda, at some times it looks like it is the (?) And there's a lot of discussion that needs to happen here also. And I don't see it. So my question is it is possible civilization to copyright and think in these other models?
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Okay. We are closing now. You can bring it to here, will reply shortly.
>> I need to intervene. You would allow me that. So very briefly I think there is one important consideration we need to take into account there is a difference between dismantling the IP framework current administered by WIPO and dismantling WIPO itself. You will lose a lot of resources devoted to the development of essential services of developing countries and at the same time you would dismantle the only international forum where we are currently discussing a copyright reform and we could dismantle the only forum that adopted a treaty establishing a mandatory exception last year. So WIPO is changing at a fast pace. Want to refer you to last year IGF, putting at risk my work I accepted an invitation focused on (?) And result of that workshop I can refer to is that multishareholder are not alternatives, but are actually parallel and complimentary. With that I would like to stop because I know we are running late. Thank you.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Thank you. I would comment myself on the metadata thing. The machinery, I like the word just to let you know there's a lot of work going on on that. I think independent I think standardization is not being done. So there should be a standards on standard. In any case I fully agree that any improvement in the metadata management of online creative content would make a huge difference in the management of micro licensing, rights for user generated content creator answer so on. We shall go into that direction before we even think of the changes. In terms of copyright registry it was a proposal. Copyright is not born by registration. It pre-exists registration. Different from patent or trademark. Anyway, those would be my comments abusing my position as moderator. If you want anything else on FACEBOOK? No? Everyone is exhausted and jet lagged here and so on. You must surely have something to say?
>> Having a very interesting conversation on Twitter, actually, right now. Everyone jumped at me immediately. I just told that multistakeholder doesn't work at IGF, wow. I'm getting lots of reactions on that. (Laughter)
But, it's a topic I think I'll repeat something to go to safe territory these are conversations that we are supposed to be having and I think that even though this is a forum where we should be having those conversations there's a scope for change whichever way you think about copyright whether you think there's too much of it or there's not enough and the tools are not working, I think that this is the perfect time for reform, we really need to start thinking about deeper, deeper questions about copyright. Thanks.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: And Glenn, the final words?
>> Glenn: So it found it interesting in here in a forum we use words like metadata. That's encouraging. Metadata is what drives search and discovery, ultimately drives things like monetization. One of the things we are missing around content is a great way of identifying it. If I can put a plug a universal content would be great. I would like to see that created if I can ask for one thing, that would be it.
>> IGNASI GUARDENS: Everybody would agree on that. Then what we do once you find it, that's another issue but on that I think it's a point everybody will agree, WIPO agrees, to reinforce the investment and development of metadata online. And, yes?
>> So if I may, a big thanks to everyone. I think you can agree that it was a fairly energetic conversation. So just sort of last words. This is an ongoing project that we have at the world economic forum and we will be running workshops and conversations in person and virtually throughout the year. If you're interesting in getting in touch get in touch with me. So thanks very much.