Written by Copyright is an important and very difficult issue and problem, especially in our digital age. Even working out what actually infringes copyright is fraught with problems. These are problems for everyone who shares material online, and certainly for the Classics Library, which shares resources written by many hundreds of teachers. The Classics Library is a one-man show, turning five in March, and has been successful, but it shouldn’t be successful at the cost of other people’s livelihood and efforts, however much it seeks to help the lives and save the efforts of teachers. It’s impossible for me to make checks on every uploaded resource to ensure that there is definitively no copyright infringement. I can do my best in the time I have with the very best of intentions and awareness, and I can trust all members, but it’s down to me to do all I can and to help all members understand how to think about resources they upload. Many of you will know that I have turned away your resources because of my fear that they might infringe copyright, and I have tried my best to understand copyright and do the right thing, morally and legally. I can’t afford legal action against me, and the site was born and lives on a moral, generous, and kind basis. On Friday I was likened to a shoplifter who divvies out his plunder to others in the street. I try to support all Classics, from the classroom teacher to the higher education institution and the publishing bodies which give us vital material.
CSCP/CUP asked on Friday that a number of resources relating to their publications be removed from the site, and I readily obeyed this. I have regularly been in touch with CSCP about this issue and have tried to conform, but certainly I was now surprised by some of the things which infringed copyright, but which hadn’t been declared problematic previously. Some of the removed files included text from their work, sometimes extensive, sometimes minimal, though the amount quoted does not matter. Some of these included images from their work, like CLC line-drawings. Some of these included members’ own translations of CSCP/CUP Latin. Some were comprehension activities based on CSCP/CUP passages, but quoting no CSCP/CUP text. Some were vocabulary lists and tests. Some were Latin sentences, which, although entirely composed by the teacher who uploaded, featured CSCP/CUP fictional, and therefore copyright, characters. I’m spelling all this out so that you can see the level to which we must be careful. Indeed, you can view a list of the removed resources and the reasons why they were unsuitable here. To help you further, the descriptions of the files remain in the Resources pages, even though they can no longer be downloaded.
I am advised, by Will Griffiths of CSCP, to whom I’m grateful for his help in all of this, that you must ask yourself, before you share any resource of yours: ‘Who did some or all of the work that’s behind this end product?‘. The resource itself might be your own work alone, but is it based on, does it use or rely on the work of others? To clarify,
Translations are |copyright| because they are based on the original work of others. (Ask yourself whether you think it would be legal to publish a translation of a novel without getting the permission of the publisher.) It also does indeed include publishing vocabulary lists – you need to think who put in the work to compile those lists, choose the words, choose the definitions for context, etc. A great deal of time goes in to creating those lists and that time needs to be paid for: if others try to give the work away for free, there’s clearly going to be a problem. Rights also extend, therefore, to the use of characters who have been created by others (regardless of the course). |CSCP/CUP’s| rights may well not extend to Caecilius or Quintus, because they are historical characters, but they may do so if they are being used in contexts which are clearly derivative of our work. It also covers the editorial arrangement and organisation of the original material, because that also takes work.
Any resources uploaded for any course must conform to copyright law, and although it is down to me to try to ensure that the law is upheld, I must please ask you to think of this too. However, please don’t let it put you off uploading new resources!
As for CSCP/CUP-related resources, please be aware that CSCP has its own resource-sharing area to its site, and that the Classics Library is not the only place to share your CSCP/CUP-related material.
Please do continue to share your resources! It’s wonderful that you do this so generously!
Thank you to everyone who uses the site, creates and shares resources, loves and shares their love of Classics.
Stephen
For the sake of clarity and completeness, pasted below is the entire email communication on this issue, which I had assumed was private. As a general rule it can be useful to remember that publishing something online is just that: publishing. It’s no different from publishing it in a book. Therefore a good rule of thumb is to ask oneself if you have the necessary rights to publish the material in a book.
Best wishes,
Will
Dear Stephen,
I understand what you’re saying. If you do write to users, you’ll need to make it clear that this doesn’t just apply to CUP and CSCP materials – it applies to anything that includes anyone else’s material. You always need to ask the following question: “Who did some or all of the work that’s behind this end product?” Translations are covered because they are based on the original work of others. (Ask yourself whether you think it would be legal to publish a translation of a novel without getting the permission of the publisher.) It also does indeed include publishing vocabulary lists – you need to think who put in the work to compile those lists, choose the words, choose the definitions for context, etc. A great deal of time goes in to creating those lists and that time needs to be paid for: if others try to give the work away for free, there’s clearly going to be a problem. Rights also extend, therefore, to the use of characters who have been created by others (regardless of the course). In our own case, my guess is that our rights may well not extend to Caecilius or Quintus, because they are historical characters, but they may do so if they are being used in contexts which are clearly derivative of our work. It also covers the editorial arrangement and organisation of the original material, because that also takes work.
My views are pretty much entirely aligned with the University’s. For us, this isn’t about web traffic: we get 100,000s visitors to our websites every week and the odd person sharing files on one site rather than another isn’t going to make a difference. This is about drawing to a close the idea that others can give away, and in many situations profit from, our work. As you know we are a charitable, not-for-profit organisation that invests all its money in helping schools to develop their teaching of Classics. Everything we do is geared towards sustainable long-term support for Classics in schools and we make huge quantities of our own material freely available. We take great care to track down the owners of, for example, images that we’d like to use and to ensure that they are properly rewarded for the use of their material that we make. Therefore I have little sympathy for those who reproduce our content without our permission (and I’m thinking here primarily of major, monetised software sites). As we are not funded, we need to protect our assets carefully, although I am sure we would take the same approach if we were a business. If we were to allow one website to publish our vocabulary lists, another our texts, another our language activities, etc., then in a digital age all of our work would soon be freely available. We have put in place our own system to allow colleagues to continue to share derivative materials without putting themselves at risk, so there is no loss of function to teachers.
I do think you need to consider very carefully the implications of the file-sharing activity you are engaged in. You may feel that you are trying to help others, but those whose work you are republishing without permission may see things very differently. Imagine, for a moment, if another organisation or individual were to make a copy of your website and customer list. Then image if they were to replace your name and logo with theirs, then publish the site up online, start promoting it to those customers and, say, run job advertisements for free. You might well feel that you had put a lot of time, effort and energy into developing something that someone else had simply taken from you. Not only that, they would have taken away your only form of income. I hope that gives you some sense of the fact that while file-sharing may help some, it hurts others. A colleague commented that it’s little different from stealing products from a shop and giving them to someone outside in the street: it might help the person in the street, but it also harms the shop keeper and all those who depend on her. There may be many owners of images which you are republishing for free who depend on the sale of those images to make a living. If their work is given away, they are out of a job. Just as in music and video, the job security of everyone in the publishing industry rests on the assumption that those who work in it will be able to sell their work, not have it given away for nothing or, even worse, have others profit from giving it away. These are not nameless corporations, they are real people with real families to support.
All the best,
Will
From: Stephen Jenkin [mailto:]
Sent: 15 February 2013 09:53
To:
Cc: ‘Jeannie Cohen’; ‘Peter Jones’
Subject: RE: Publication of University of Cambridge copyright material
Importance: High
Dear Will,
I’ll take those down today. I’m sorry for wasting the time of a member of your team. I have in fact refused many resources because of copyright issues, and I do all I can, but I have no team. The money I receive from schools is to pay for job advertisements, and is a pretty poor wage given the hours I put in, and have done for very close to five years now. However the funds I receive from Friends of Classics do help to keep the site running, and I would not want their charitable work to be tainted with any wrongdoing of mine. So, I do not have the funds to pay your costs, for which I am sorry, and also grateful that you will take it no further. The simplest thing, and possibly best too, is that I write to all members today and explain the situation, and in the future receive no resources relating to CUP/CSCP materials, and indeed encourage them to share these resources on your site. It matters little if the CL receives fewer visitors if your site receives more by virtue of resources inspired by its publications.
I have to say I’m surprised that things like an independent translation of a CLC story, or a vocabulary test with CLC words in it are such a problem, or that even some entirely made-up sentences which happen to feature CLC characters, or a helpful list of all the videos in the DVD-Roms are all copyright (if I posted a list of all CSCP publications on the site for people to peruse and make use of would this infringe copyright?). And all these make up the majority of the files I’m about to take down! But if it’s copyrighted it’s copyrighted. One might say that all of this material is a great advertisement for what CUP/CSCP does and encourages more and more schools to invest in your publications. This might also be your opinion, perhaps, but I appreciate that it appears not to be the sentiment of the University.
I still have in my Inbox (which I keep pretty clean) your email from September 2011 with how you handle copyright and with your wording. I’ll think on what I do next. What is worrying is that if you follow all this to logical conclusions, then hardly a file might ever appear in the Classics Library. I am, as you know, only one man in a room, trying to help people from afar, and it would be great if the world was less complicated. But it is complicated, and if I want to help people, I’ll have to deal with it.
My apologies again to you and your team-member. I’ll work through those files now, and compose something to members in due course, hopefully today.
All best,
Stephen
From: Will Griffiths [mailto:]
Sent: 15 February 2013 08:53
To:
Subject: Publication of University of Cambridge copyright material
Dear Stephen,
We have reviewed the posting on your website of material containing infringements of the University’s copyright, publishing rights and moral rights and found over 130 violations. A full list is attached. Please ensure these are taken down immediately. I’d be grateful if you could update me on your procedures for checking the material you publish. Some of the violations were even titled ‘Typed out from the CLC DVD’ (vel sim.). This rather gives the impression that you have few, if any, systems in place to prevent infringement of other’s rights.
Now that you are monetising your website and therefore taking money on the basis, in part, of the availability of material in which the University owns rights, I think it is fair to request that you pay our time in checking for your publishing of that material. This latest trawl has taken a member of my team 3 days. At £250 per day that’s a total of £750. If you have the funds to pick up the cost, a cheque should be made payable to the University of Cambridge and sent to us at CSCP, 11 West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DP. If you are not able to pay our costs, so be it: we will not take it any further.
Given the extent of the violations, I do hope, for your own sake, that you will take more seriously this issue in future. The issue of illegal file sharing is only going to grow and those operating sites which permit it are likely to be increasingly at risk. I need to make you aware that our management committee within the University has asked me to take the issue of copyright, publishing right and moral right violations very seriously from now on and that as a result we will soon start to implement a charge, in the region of £75 to £150, for each item of material published in which we own full or part rights. This charge is in line with the fee we ourselves pay when purchasing republication rights from rights holders. This is an approach we are taking with all third party sites, not just yours. Were we to apply those charges in the current situation, the cost to you would likely exceed £10,000. Given the nature of your site we are not taking that approach on this occasion, but should violations continue we may do so in future. Others who own rights to material you are republishing (such as images and texts) may take a much more aggressive route. In 2000 we had to pay The Times newspaper £800 for reproducing an article they had written about our work. We were not given any opportunity to remove it before being charged. To help alleviate the issue of teacher file-sharing of material to which we own rights we have implemented file-sharing areas on our own website, so that teachers may post materials without risk to themselves or others.
All best wishes,
Will
Ouch. I can see their view on stuff like line images, certainly, and *maybe* even cloze-exercise translations of stories that they made up in the 70s, but I find it hard to feel much sympathy for a demand that lists of words from vocab checklists, sentences featuring characters from the Cambridge course, and lists of dvds are removed. It seems a rather overly-proprietorial attitude to the Latin language, and perhaps unpleasantly reflective of the lion’s share of the tiny market that the CLC holds. However, so be it.
I would like to offer congratulations and thanks to Stephen on a brilliant website which has offered so much help and advice for teachers, and filled a huge gap in the market in a friendly and accessible way. Long may it continue!
Edda
We’re not stopping anyone sharing such resources, Edda. What we are doing is moving to stop 3rd party websites hosting them and, in many cases, profiting from their appearance, either directly by charging for access or indirectly through advertising associated with their sites. Either way, they all need to be treated in very much the same way. And like it or not, publishing derivative content without permission is not legal. Any teacher can publish his or her derivative resources on our site, it doesn’t cost a penny, each Stage has its own area so the files are neatly organised and no-one runs the risk of breaking the law. I really can’t see how that isn’t a much better approach all round.
Teachers are often surprised that things like our vocab checklists and characters are protected. But a bit of experience working on authoring the materials soon shows why. Currently, for example, we are working on a slightly different edition of Book I of the CLC for North America. The amount of work necessary is vast. Even though only about 5% of the book will change, it will take us about 18 months. Every detail of every element needs to be researched and checked, from the question of whether Eumachia really was a ‘business woman’ (rather than a wealthy woman whose family was involved in business), to the selection of an appropriate name for new character, to the work to build up the feel of the new character, to detailed analysis of the loading levels and positioning of new items of vocabulary. Once it is drafted, it then needs to go out for trial, the trial needs to be evaluated, the changes need to be adjusted and then the process repeated again. The reason why the CLC works well is that it is extremely carefully researched. But that careful research takes a great deal of time and money. It would be great if we could just give the whole Course away. But we don’t get any funding, so that’s not an option if it is to survive in the long term. In order to keep our costs down, some of us having been taking voluntary pay cuts for years. I’ve personally reduced my income by £10K per annum for 8 years. That’s £80,000 that, rather than coming to me personally, has been able to go into supporting teachers and students.
The idea that we can just allow anyone to give away our content and derivatives of that content is simply not feasible. As I’ve said above, you can still publish your content on our site, so there is absolutely no loss of sharing of content. And it should help Steve, too, by reducing his workload.
I would like to echo Edda’s comment about the website and all Stephen’s efforts. It is a great pity that he should have been exposed to comments of this nature and tone, although CSCP are no doubt within their rights. I am pleased but surprised that he is willing to continue to run the website in the circumstances; to enable it to continue it is up to all us contributors to ensure that our own hands are clean when contributing material, so that the onus is not entirely on Steve to check it.
I don’t make any apologies for taking a tough stance on this, Catharine. We’ve made Steve aware of this issue a number of times in the past and I must say I was really shocked when I saw the scale of problem this time. Clearly any site hosting activities titled ‘Copied out from the CLC DVD’ has got some serious questions to answer about the efficiency of its copyright protection. With all sites that publish such content, we try the softly, softly approach first, but there comes, but if it doesn’t work, we can’t exactly continue ignoring the issue. It may be that Steve didn’t know that his site had over 100 documents based on the CLC and that some of them were even titled ‘Copied out from the DVD’.
As we already have a file sharing area with about 500 resources for the CLC in it, and as we can pay the costs of running that site so that it’s freely available, I really can’t see how there’s any problem. It’s much better for all if all the teacher-produced resources are in one place: we can keep an overview of exactly what level of content is being produced and where the gaps are, teachers can find everything in one place, Steve doesn’t have to bear the cost of hosting it and no-one runs the risk of inadvertently breaking the law. How is that not a better solution?
What a strange attitude from CSCP! Do they not realise that the people providing the material to the Classics Library are the very same teachers who order large numbers of Cambridge Latin Course books? And that teachers are more likely to choose their course if there are a large range of resources to match, and to make up for some of the deficiencies in the course? Perhaps, rather than paying staff £250 a day (a lot more than most teachers earn) to trawl the internet, they should invest in customer relations.
As Edda says, CSCP seem to assume that the learning of Latin is solely their responsibility, in a rather hostile manner, rather than trying to support the hard work and effort of many others.
Keep up the good work, Stephen, it is fully appreciated by the many members of the site!
I don’t think you’re aware of the way things are moving in education, Simon. We now work with large numbers of teachers and students who don’t use textbooks at all – all their learning materials are accessed digitally. So the times when authors could cover their costs from print textbooks are coming to an end. In the US it is particularly common – many schools are moving to tablet based teaching, with no textbooks in any subject: a student has all his/her learning materials on one tablet. In this new environment there is a growing number of individuals, organisations and companies who seek to make money not by providing any content themselves, but by facilitating access to third party content. The days when we can turn a blind eye to the issue are coming to a close.
We’d love to earn £250 a day. When I moved from full-time teaching in the state-sector to working for the Project, my salary dropped by £12,000 a year. It was a drop I was prepared to take because I believe so strongly in CSCP’s not-for-profit approach of ploughing all income back into supporting teachers and students. A researcher with 10 years’ experience is paid £28,500. The FEC of such a salary is roughly double that: £57,000. A researcher works for 46 weeks a year, so the daily employment cost is roughly £250, while the pay to the individual is about £125. I would much rather spend our money creating more free new digital learning materials or paying for a non-specialist teacher to have a free distance learning A level course, rather than having to pick up the cost of checking third party sites for them. We’re definitely not going to waste money on customer relations staff.
It’s true that most teachers and students now use the CLC. That means that we’ve got a particular responsibility to ensure that the Course is safe for the next 40 years. That, in turn, means that we have to be extremely careful about the proliferation of the Course in digital format.
As the majority of comments on here suggest, no Classics teachers are seeking to take away what rightfully belongs to CSCP. It is the heavy-handed, almost threatening approach to what is a supportive and sharing community that has caused the upset. A quick look at English Lit resource sharing sites shows numerous questions and worksheets based on modern novels, whose authors/publishers presumably don’t mind the added attention and support to their work. I appreciate that due to the lower volumes involved in Latin courses and resources, CSCP needs to be more protective of its rights. However, insulting (I am fully aware of the use of tablets in education, Will) the very people who willingly and freely produce extra support for fellow teachers and students doesn’t feel the right way to go about this, and perhaps won’t inspire them to change habits and share via the CSCP page, but return to keeping things to themselves, which would be a sad day.
We are very fortunate as Classicists that Vergil,Horace or Euripides can’t chase us for using their material! Perhaps it’s the very reuse of their work that means they could still boast of a ‘monumentum perennius’…
While I can understand the view that any resource based on CLC infringes on copyright law, it also occurs to me that none of the resources available on this site offer alternatives to what CUP and CSCP publish. Perhaps they should consider the gaps in provision of support material that these resources highlight. Their own file-sharing area is a start.
I have to disagree with the suggestion (in Will’s email attached as a comment) that the whole idea of file-sharing in this way borders on the illegal. TES resources seem to cope with it well. I wonder if Will’s colleague has trawled their site in search of copyright infringements? It is true he is unlikely to find anything, but less because of copyright and more because Classics is such a minority subject. Luckily for CUP and CSCP, they have found a niche in the teaching market.
Lastly to support Stephen against accusations of disregard towards copyright, I spent months creating a resource, a revision booklet that ran to 30+ pages and discussed whether to upload it with Stephen. I had not been particularly selective in my use of images and Stephen would not let me upload without my having checked the ownership of all the images. I haven’t checked and so it won’t be uploaded.
You are doing a grand job, Stephen. Most users of this site want to help promote Classics and enthuse those studying it. That’s why we share our resources so freely.
Hi Gemma,
You talk about the possible gap in the market for ancillary materials. One of the issues we’ve been looking at for a while is whether it is feasible or necessary to publish ancillary materials. We lose money on all the ancillary materials we create for the CLC. Now that it is easier for teachers to publish their own resources, there’s a very real question of whether we should spend money on highly authored ancillary materials (for Books 4 and 5, for example) or leave it to teachers to publish for each other and direct our resources instead to supporting Latin start-up schemes, new Classical Civilisation materials, and so on. My own view is that in the current climate, highly authored loss-making ancillary materials may not be the top priority (our income is probably best spent on helping new schools start up Latin and trying to embed it in those which have recently started), but I know that some would like them.
Re. the question of whether this sort of activity borders on the illegal, I should say it really does not appear to be a question: the legal advice we have received is that it does. The issue is rather whether anyone is doing anything about it. I think that many publishers do see it as a way to drive sales of their books, so turn a blind eye, and that many rights owners just haven’t addressed it. But as schools are rapidly turning to digital texts only, I think you may see that change.
We’re taking the approach that we want teachers to be able to share and publish content, but we want to keep it under control. Clearly we can’t permit a situation where all of our resources are freely available on third party sites. So in order to allow teachers to continue to share and help each other, we have set up a sharing facility which links to each individual Stage of the CLC. This has been extremely popular with teachers and already has about 500 resources on it.
I have to say, too, that we don’t see it as lucky that most schools use the CLC. That situation has come about for a number of reasons, but not least is the fact that we reinvest every single penny of our income back into support the Course, teachers and schools. It’s not luck. It’s years of hard work and investment.
Surely everything CLC-related in the Classics Library was offered freely by teachers to help other teachers continue to use already purchased CLC textbooks and other products, rather than to bypass CSCP/CUP and deprive them of income? There is no monetary or commercial gain here. This has no bearing on whether any individual file is violating copyright, but it is unfortunate that the tone of the correspondence from CSCP comes across as being so heavy-handed.
I would like to raise two questions in particular about files which have been selected to be removed from the site.
Firstly, why is the list of civilisation video clips from the two DVDs considered to be an infringement of copyright? This was compiled (taking a lot of time) because no list of contents was included with either DVD. The intention was to help fellow teachers with licenced DVDs to find the video clips more quickly, without having to sift through everything, so the Stage/Session was given in addition to the name of the clip. This would be of no use whatsoever to anyone who had not already bought the DVDs, though it might potentially increase the number of teachers deciding to buy it for their school. Perhaps this is an area which highlights a gap in the original provision, as suggested by Gemma Ball in an earlier post. (CSCP/CUP are welcome to have the list, should it be of use to them.)
Secondly, what about the use of characters from CLC? I absolutely understand that CLC images should not be reproduced. Similarly, I understand that Latin sentences straight from CLC should not be reproduced, whether or not they refer to a character such as Grumio, Caecilius or Metella. What I find harder to understand is how the use of these characters’ names in made up sentences not deriving directly from the CLC text is a violation of copyright. Currently there is no trademark sign for the characters, and it might appear ludicrous if there were ever to be. Why is it an infringement if a teacher makes up his/her own sentence in Latin or English about Grumio and wishes to share this with other teachers? Could this be likened to Fan Fiction (which, I understand, includes stories based on J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books and the ‘Twilight’ series, among many others)? May we not write about Grumio’s day in the kitchen, if it doesn’t follow the exact pattern of a CLC story? If we wish to write a spin-off sentence or story, are we obliged to refer to ‘iste coquus pompeianus’? Where is the line to be drawn, and to what purpose?
Hi Melinda,
I think most of what you’re asking is covered in my replies above. You’re right, of course, that there’s no monetary gain for teachers who are posting materials, but there often is for those who run file-sharing sites. Some charge for access to materials, others build up ‘customer’ databases and then sell advertising to those databases.
By the way, you can get a list of all the videos in the DVDs by using the ‘Search’ function within the Playlist facility on the DVDs. You can also cross reference for particular content within those videos (e.g. Bay of Naples, Theatre, Gladiators, etc.) or search for particular media type by Stage.
May I too add my dismay, even anger, at the stance that Will Griffiths has taken on this issue. I do wonder wther he has any idea how the body of classics teachers work, often on their own, trying to keep these fantastic subjects alive. Such posturing from the CSCP does a total disservice to classics, classics teachers, the University of Cambridge and others who are simply trying to help each other – including the CLC! We are not thieves and brigands, and I am bitterly disappointed by Will’s posturing. He needs to be quietly reminded of what his ‘true’ proirity should be. Is this what the originators of the CLC envisaged, when they started the project? We should all join in our support of what Stephen does, and Will needs it to be made clear to him that his stance does him and his organisation no favours at all.
Thanks for this David. In the non-selective state school in which I teach part-time as the only teacher of Latin, I have to work pretty hard to maintain the subject. I’m well aware that others do too. I’m sure that my annual department budget of £150 is not unusual. As someone who has given over £80,000 of his own money to promoting Classics in schools, I really don’t think I need reminding about priorities.
It’s exactly for that reason that CSCP cannot continue allowing its content to proliferate over the web. Probably uniquely for textbook authors, we commit to ensuring that all our royalties are routed back in to supporting Classics teaching and learning. As I’ve said above, we already work with schools that don’t use physical textbooks at all and where every student has a tablet computer. That may well become the norm in the years ahead – Apple, for example, is very keen to do to education what it has done to music. If we were to allow one site to make our vocabulary available, another our Ab Lang content, a third derivations of our cultural material, you and I both know that it would not be long before all of the content of the CLC was available digitally on third party sites. We already know that there are many schools which follow the Course without getting the books. A future where CLC content is allowed to proliferate across the web is a future which will bring an end to all the funding we are able to put into providing, for example, a free website, to support teachers and students and free distance learning courses for non-specialist teachers. I can’t see how that’s good for Classics teaching and learning.
I was, I confess, a little shocked when all this kicked off, and even more so when I checked the site and found some of my – I use the pronoun reservedly, and in the knowledge that for reasons I do not yet fully understand, they are not now ‘my’ – resources had been withdrawn.
In all the years I have used this site, monetary gain for me or for anyone involved was so completely absent from my thought processes as to be meaningless. That somebody, or some other organisation, might seek to benefit financially from the site, and anything we (I) posted on it, also never occured to me. If that’s naive, then frankly it’s a naivety I am happy to have had, and rather sad to have lost. The whole beauty of the site was (is) the generous and positive attitude of all who post on it.
I can begin to see, after some reflection, and reading Will’s posts, the dilemma he and the university face, but it still leaves me with the vague feeling that I’ve contributed to something slightly improper, if not downright illegal. Not pleasant.
Dominic
Hi, Dominic.
Just to say that I’m glad you always thought and I hope you continue to think that this site is not about monetary gain. I have always run the site much less as not-for-profit, but very much and always at great loss. In terms of both overheads and the time invested, for almost five years I contributed it all, more than willingly, and would still now. I’ve been happy to do it, set it up knowing I’d be doing it, and only ever worried about it when it looked like I couldn’t cope.
Now, the wonderful Friends of Classics (http://www.friends-classics.demon.co.uk/) covers, more or less, the unavoidable costs imposed on me by my hosting companies. There was a time, around eighteen months ago, when I had concerns about the cost of running the site on my own, that CSCP suggested I hand the site over to JACT, possibly with me managing it as part of their site. I think JACT is an excellent and generous institution, and I’m proud to be a member of its Council. But, this move would likely have secreted the site behind a paywall, for JACT members only, and JACT’s Chairman at the time was determined that the Classics Library should remain free and independent as long as it could, and I agreed. Indeed I wondered what future the site would have if it required a membership fee. Still CSCP thought it was a good idea. Now, I would always recommend membership of JACT (https://www.theclassicslibrary.com/2012/10/24/its-time-to-join-jact/), and I want both to help JACT members and to encourage Classicists to join JACT, but I have always thought that any (mandatory) charge to use the Classics Library would fly in the face of why the Classics Library was conceived and how it works. Many colleagues have encouraged me to charge for membership, and that, in my opinion, would be wrong.
I have always been happy to advertise Classics teaching positions, and until recently always did this completely freely. It was only again a few months ago when I was concerned about my ability to financially keep the site alive that I offered the option of a voluntary contribution (from centralised school budgets, already set aside for such advertisements), and then eventually established a small fee for advertisements. This decision was at the encouragement of members, though I take responsibility of course, but was also to ensure some appreciable credibility in each advertisement. Each advertisement reaches out to the majority of UK Classics teachers, and beyond, and each fee demands a professional service from me to advertise in the best way possible to help each school. My ‘customers’ however are the UK’s (or beyond) schools, not Classics Library members, and if I can help schools recruit, I want to. However, the existence and future of the Classics Library and a charge for advertising teaching positions are entirely independent. The experiment is recent, and I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point I return to simply advertising for free.
It’s very interesting to hear people’s points of view on all this business. And everyone continue to be positive and generous! And again, thank you for your emails and the many uploads which have come in the last few days and I really MUST get onto the site!
All best,
Stephen
Hi Dominic,
The issue of ownership of such ancillary materials is an interesting one.
It may be useful to think in terms of a collection of rights (intellectual property rights, copyright, moral rights and publishing rights) to the material, rather than outright ‘ownership’. Assuming that there is at least some novel content or arrangement (i.e. you haven’t just copied someone else’s material), you, your employer (depending on the terms of the contract you have with your employer), the author of the original work and the publisher of the original work may all have rights to the new content/arrangement. So, for example, because of the contract I have with my employer, I have some of the IPR and moral rights to some CLC materials I have created or helped to create, but I don’t own the copyright, because that rests with CSCP. And as a result of the agreements that CSCP (as copyright holder) has with CUP, CUP owns most print publishing rights and CSCP owns most digital publishing rights to CLC materials. Although the various rights may sound a little complicated, in fact they’re there to ensure that all those involved in the creative process are treated fairly. When it comes to ancillary or derivative materials for a particular publication, the various rights reflect the fact that new materials are not created in a vacuum: they are created in a specific context already developed by others.
The publishing right is of course very important in the context of a resource sharing/publishing site. It recognises that there needs to be a distinction between material being created and that same material being made available to others. (It’s one thing to create something for oneself; it’s another thing to distribute it to the world.) In education, allowance is usually given for a reasonable level of reuse, adaptation and derivation of content within a particular school. That provision does not usually extend beyond the teacher’s school. It is a very useful arrangement that allows a teacher to create a reasonable degree of personalisation around materials, while at the same time protecting the original rights holders and publisher by preventing a second publisher producing ancillary materials for the original publisher’s content.
By placing content on a website, one becomes a publisher of that content and must therefore have the publishing right to the content. Publishing rights are often assigned via a detailed contract that may extend to many pages and cover issues such as IPR, the responsibilities of the parties involved, warranties and indemnities, digitalisation, volume and subsidiary rights, governing law, termination of contract and so on. They are extensive documents for a good reason – a lot of consequences flow from the decision to publish. I spend a great deal of my time negotiating such contracts. There are detailed legal agreements between CSCP, CUP and others covering the publishing rights to CLC and CLA content and derivative content. When CSCP itself wishes to create ancillary materials for the CLC, then we would normally reach an agreement with CUP before starting work, even if we publish the ancillary materials ourselves. This recognises that CUP, as the publisher of the main body of the course, has done a considerable amount of work designing, developing and promoting the course. If you feel a little bemused that you can’t just publish your own derivative work as you wish (which I can understand), it may help to realise that often CSCP can’t do so either without first putting in place the necessary signed, legal agreements.
Publishing agreements also vary by part of the world. Because there are different editions of the CLC in different parts of the world, there exist publishing contracts which are designed to restrict or prevent the distribution of content for one edition in the area where another edition is used. Such contracts make good sense, partly because it would be very confusing for users of the materials if they had to wade through various publications to find the one suitable for them and partly because third party rights (for example, where we may buy in the right to use someone else’s image, artwork or text) are often themselves restricted to certain regions, either in order to keep costs down or because such restrictions are stipulated by the owner of those rights. We have systems in place to help ensure that our own digital publishing systems take account of the different rights clearances for different areas of the world. However, third party file-sharing sites often make no geographical distinctions and so further infringe publishing rights.
Although all these rights can sound rather nebulous, they are very real. My own view, having spent 13 years in education publishing and authoring, is that although they may be a bit of a minefield, they are there for the very good reasons of protecting and valuing the work that various people do during the creative and publishing process. When I say that taking someone else’s rights and giving them away is akin to taking a tin of beans from a shop and giving that away, I don’t say it to be emotive. I say it to make us all aware that individuals and organisations own rights in exactly the same concrete way as they might own physical objects. These rights are real and they can mean a great deal to the people who own them.
Some rights can be extremely valuable. We have recently produced iPad Textbook editions of Stages 1-20 of the CLC for the US and Canada. The cost of the image rights alone for that particular edition of our work was £30,000. If we now want to produce similar digital textbooks for Microsoft tablets, because that entails a slightly different publication, it will cost us another £30,000. And if we were to also make them web-based, that would likely cost us another £30,000. While I might prefer not to have to spend that sort of money again and again, I recognise that it’s a result of the fact that photographers need to be able to earn a living from their work, that the museums or institutions which own the items in the image need to be able to carry on their good works and that we do like to use a lot of images in our work. And when the cost is beyond us (as it might well be in this case), our reaction has to be not to publish, rather than to publish without paying for the necessary rights.
I don’t think the reaction to the issue of rights in publications can be to say that it’s all too complicated, expensive, difficult or time-consuming to deal with, so we’re just going to go ahead regardless. It seems to me much more sensible that where the capacity to professionally address these issues exists it should be exploited in order to help teachers share and thus reduce workload, but where such capacity does not exist, one should not proceed.
It was with these issues in mind that we established the CLC and CLA resource sharing/publishing areas many years ago. We need a mechanism which facilitates resource sharing for teachers using our materials, yet remains within the law. In the CLC and CLA sharing areas, we permit, within reason, our copyright material to be reproduced and published. And by keeping everything in one place, we can take a call on whether redistribution of particular elements of the original materials has gone too far, check that third party rights aren’t being infringed and see where there are gaps in support materials.
So for users of the CLC and CLA, we have a solution to all of this in place on our website. However, these are not issues which are restricted to our publications and that is why I say that there are very real, and very serious questions to ask and to answer. It may not be convenient, but it is, I think, necessary. It takes a bit of care and effort, but it can all be done properly.
Well, what are people to use instead? CLC publishes nothing to differentiate for the weaker student, and Will’s comments hint that nothing is likely to be in future either. I’m lazy and haven’t made use of the Library’s resources for KS3, but every single other Latin teacher I’ve ever talked to – without exception – feels major surgery is needed to make Latin constructive and bearable for the ones who won’t take it for GCSE. It’s just inadequate, basically, for mixed-ability classes. There are areas of grammar it doesn’t attempt to explain, and the positioning of grammar explanations several pages after the initial picture-stories is bizzare and confusing for students. So what are we to use instead? Precisely what resources could we pay for instead? I’ve had a good look at their website, but what am I missing? I cope because I work in a very selective school and the kids can manage, but someone starting out in the profession with weaker students faces a rather bleak situation if we can’t help each other…
Hi Peter,
If you want to share and publish resources for the CLC, you can do so via the CLC resource sharing area. It houses about 500 resources which span the ability range.
Much of the key to getting the best out of the course, however, comes not through worksheets and resources, but through training. The CLC is a highly engineered course and demands a great deal from the teacher – I fully accept it’s not an easy course to pick up and teach if one is not familiar with an inductive approach. Many classical organisations run training at cost (often about £50 per day). I’d encourage anyone uncertain about how to make best use, for example, of the model sentences, to take some time to attend such events. Alternatively, the Teacher’s Guides can provide an invaluable source of support and the introduction to the Book I TG is particularly good on the overall approach of the CLC.
Will
Thank you for the clarification. I do appreciate that you have a difficult and winding path to tread.
The net outcome of all these ‘nebulous’ restrictions is, however, to narrow access to any ancilliary or derivative materials based on the CLC through one, and ultimately only one, provider: namely you.
While I also appreciate the need for professional regard in these matters, and the importance placed upon such regard by organisations like CUP et al. in complying with various copyright laws around the world (and ensuring that others do too), it seems to me that it cannot be a good thing to allow this level of centralisation.
Teachers do share. It is central to our professionalism, and a fundamentally good thing, that we do. You know that. The mechanisms by which we share have undergone a massive revolution even in the relatively short time that I have been teaching. Copyright law is failing to keep up, in this as in many other areas – music being the most obvious example.
I don’t know what the way forward is, (be assured, however, that I will be most careful in the production and sharing of any materials I use in future), but the model you describe cannot be sustainable in the long term.
Regards
Dominic
Hi Dominic,
I guess there are two options, aren’t there. One is that we allow third party file sharing sites to host our content, there other is that we don’t. The former leads to the proliferation of our content all over the net and thus to the end of the CLC, the latter keeps it all in one place where we can take a sensible view on it.
I really can’t see that there’s an issue housing CLC material on our website. I have heard from dozens and dozens and dozens of teachers who’ve said it makes perfect sense. We can guarantee that it remains freely available, always. And because it is in one place, there are huge amounts available – there are about 500 resources for the CLC in the sharing area. Anyone who shares a resource of their own can access it.
I know there will be some who will try to portray it as an overbearing, centralist, controlling CSCP trying to control everything. Frankly, that’s nonsense. In a world where everyone is a publisher, we’re simply ensuring that they’re not publishing our content.
Copyright law keeps up fine in these situations. Really, nothing has changed: the act of putting a file online is the same act of publishing as was printing it out and putting it in a shop to sell or giving it away. The medium may have changed but the underlying principles are still the same.
All the best,
Will
A reply to Will Griffiths. I find your responses highly defensive and despite (or perhaps because of) your passionate rebuttals I suspect you feel at heart that the position of CSCP on this is overly harsh.
I find it disingenuous at best that you claim to be “someone who has given over £80,000 of his own money to promoting Classics in schools” – taking a pay freeze is not the same as donating money – that money was never yours in the first place, since you volunteered not to be paid it.
In general I find some of the claims ridiculous – why are vocabulary lists of Latin words which may happen to occur in CLC copyright to CUP? They are just lists of Latin words.
Why are new sentences with characters from CLC copyright? These are just Latin names and in the case of Caecilius, the name of a historical character who surely cannot be copyrighted.
Your tone in the emails was excessively threatening – it is clear to all that Stephen/The Classics Library does not have the funds to pay such large sums and threatening him with financial ruin over some shared teaching resources is heavy-handed to say the least.
I am still not clear, despite your many replies detailing all your good works for classics (!) why a list of contents for a DVD is a copyright infringement, when it cannot be used without the DVD and does not replicate any published list by CUP since such a list does not exist.
I think it is absolutely fair to refuse to allow replication of images or text from CLC books online or in other publications; but I would like to see some clear legal justification for your other claims other than your dodgy analogy to ‘stealing a tin of beans to give to someone else’ – because that analogy fails entirely, when you unpick it. This is more like writing a questionaire based on the label of the beans for someone to answer, or listing the ingredients of the beans on a separate sheet for someone to read. That’s not such an easy moral problem, is it?
Hi Sarah,
OK, let’s take the issue of a vocabulary list. Your point is that it is a list of words, and therefore can’t be copyright.
A couple of reasons why our vocabulary lists are copyright are:
1. if they weren’t, no dictionary would be copyright. They are both carefully chosen lists of words with definitions. There is a difference in scale, of course, but not in content.
2. a story is ‘just a list of words’, isn’t it? So, what’s the difference between a list of words that form a story and a list of words that form a vocabulary checklist? I completely accept that if our vocabulary lists were lists of colours, lists of clothes, lists of buildings, etc. then they wouldn’t be our copyright. But they’re not such thoughtless lists of words, they are very carefully designed and constructed.
You’d be wrong to assume I think that we may have been overly harsh on this issue. My sense is that the problem is probably that we’ve let it go one to long.
When Steve first started running a file-sharing site we raised the issue with him then (as did others) and assumed that that would be all that was necessary (as it is with most operators of such sites).
When, in 2011, Steve’s site crashed again, we offered to help get it back up and running, suggesting he talk with JACT so that such a site could be run under the auspices of a charitable organisation with management and financial oversight that could ensure materials could be shared legally and in a not-for-profit manner. We offered to pay all the costs in re-establishing the site and all the running costs for the first year. In the end it wasn’t something that Steve wanted – fair enough.
We have, for 5 years, tried pretty hard to encourage Steve to take copyright infringements seriously, we’ve tried to encourage him to work with others so that file-sharing could take place more safely, but when all those approaches fail, it’s simply not an option for us to sit back and let others give away our work and our rights. Steve has told us that he knows he is reckless (his word) with regard to copyright. There were a number of reasons I made it clear to Steve that we will invoice him for copyright infringements in future. First, we have tried to deal with the issue more gently in the past and that approach was clearly unsuccessful. Second, it seemed fairly clear that Steve wasn’t taking the issue seriously. Third, if and when we do start invoicing for copyright violations, it’s fairer to Steve that that doesn’t come out of the blue. Fourth, you’ll be aware that we actually haven’t, this time, invoiced Steve. However, there are plenty of organisations and individuals whose rights are being infringed who may well not give any warning and simply send a bill which Steve would have to pay. That would be devastating for him. He needs to recognise that such organisations do not play games, will take no account of the fact that he doesn’t have much time to check copyright. They will just bill him. And if he doesn’t pay they’ll just take him to court.
From CSCP’s point of view, we have a file-sharing site of our own where teachers can share files safely, so (although there’s a bit of fuss at the moment), I really don’t see a problem with this issue for us in the long term. I think the question that this site needs to face is how does it go about safely allowing file-sharing in other areas (such as other Latin courses, Greek, Classical Civilisation, Ancient History etc.). It’s up to Steve, of course. He could institute a Terms and Conditions system where all users would legally take personal responsibility for the files they share. That would keep him safe but leave individual teachers at risk of fines. Another option, if he doesn’t have time, would be to buy in support. However this site is presented, it is a privately owned site operated by a private individual. Now that Steve generates £150 from each job advert, he could probably afford insurance and someone to help check files for copyright infringement. A third option would be to see if the site could morph over to one of the Classical organisations, where there might be more management oversight. There would be no need for users to pay if income were generated still from advertisements, as that would more than pay the running costs, and any profit could be returned to the Classics teaching community. But operating based on the hope that no individual or organisation will ever take any financial or legal action against him for copyright infringement is, I think, pretty naive and certainly very risky. As I say, it won’t matter to CSCP directly, as teachers can go on sharing on the CLC and CLA areas, but I know that it will matter to teachers and will have (at least a temporary) a negative impact on Classics teaching. It’s for that reason that I do hope the issue will be taken seriously.
Actually, Will, I invited you to call me reckless. I didn’t say that I knew I was.
I don’t want to anyone to share anything here on the site which would tempt anyone else with the option not to purchase the real and original publications. I don’t think anyone who shares here on the site would want that too, and comments on this post agree. Even at the most extreme, where passages of text are duplicated, the aim is to supplement published titles, to help customers of the published titles with even more resources in addition to what the publishers provide, to broaden the profile and customer base for the titles and their publishers, and ultimately to encourage future investment by current and new customers in these published titles. However, I understand the issues, and I appreciate the nervousness and the reasons for the demands. I may have had/still have some questions on the precise coverage of copyright, as do others, but I am sympathetic to the problems of copyright and want to work within them. And, I am well aware I have exaggerated things in the quotation from my past email above.
I want to help everyone. I do not only want to help Classics Library members, and certainly not at the expense of any other person or body with an enthusiasm and responsibility for anything classical, or otherwise. This is not a set-up where I try to help Classics teachers at the expense of other providers. The aim of the site is at all times to help publishing houses with the promotion of their titles, their staff, their authors, and their own available resources, and to help all establishments which are related or depend on these, from HEIs and related bodies, to examination boards and their staff, to schools and their teaching staff. If I feel bad, if I feel lazy, if I worry that I might have done the wrong thing, if I am concerned that I’ve trespassed beyond the limits of fair use in copyright, it’s still at all times because the aims are as above, for the good of those who publish as much as for the good of the customers who purchase publications. If I haven’t done the right thing, or in fact a good thing, for everyone involved, then, as far as I’m concerned, I’ve failed.
Can I add that I would very much like any other representative from a publishing house, examination board or otherwise to get in touch with me with their concerns? I do want to do this right, but I have had no expressed concerns from any other party.
Also, can we be clearer about the situation in June 2011? I had problems with my host provider for the site and had concerns about the running costs, that I might not manage alone. CSCP was very sympathetic. CSCP said it had already wanted to help JACT with its website, and wanted to put money towards this. Since I had concerns about financing my site at that time, the CSCP idea was that my site could be incorporated into JACT’s, bolster JACT’s site, and the funding for my side of things come from the CSCP funds contributed to JACT. It was a fine idea. It would have possibly helped JACT and would have been a good use of CSCP funds, I think. The thing was that in the end, in the first place, I found a solution to my concerns about funding my site, and in the second place JACT was determined that the Classics Library should remain independent as long as it could. And I agreed. There was no talk of copyright issues whatsoever on this, or of me and my site needing some form of alternative management. In fact, as far as CSCP was concerned the ‘ownership and access’ to the potential JACT-ClassicsLibrary resources was a matter for JACT and me to agree upon. The working assumption was that a teacher would have to be a JACT member to access the new site, and I would have hoped that the merging of the Classics Library and the JACT site would have been a good thing for JACT, and potentially for the Classics Library. Despite this, I have immense respect for JACT that it believed in the importance of the Classics Library remaining free to its members, as long as I could possibly provide this. This stance by JACT was voiced at both the CSCP-JACT-ClassicsLibrary meeting about this and at the subsequent JACT Council meeting.
It’s not fair to suggest that the idea behind CSCP funding for JACT’s website was to ensure that the Classics Library be managed differently, or that any CSCP funds were ever directly earmarked for the Classics Library, any more than it is to suggest that the agreement that the Classics Library remain independent was my choice alone. JACT is keen and ready to provide a new website imminently, and a massive amount of work has been done on this, with JACT funding.
Many of you have queried both publicly here and privately to me some of the issues here. I’m trying not to get involved too much, even if that’s ironic because I’m very much in the middle of things. Certainly, I’m preferring to do anything but aggravate. I hope you all know my aim is not to harm anyone’s livelihood, take advantage, or run legal risks with your material. I’ve always thought, perhaps wrongly or naïvely that I was helping publishing houses with free promotion of their material, by sharing freely material which supplemented their titles. I thought that my original post (above) on this issue (or at least I intended it to be) informative, measured, and conciliatory. The portion of one email I quoted was quoted because it was informative and brief, and, I thought, uncontroversial. Anyway, I think we’re all still learning what is legally correct and incorrect, and questions on this still remain. The last correspondence on the issue of copyright which I had from CSCP, in September 2011, said:
Who knew this would amount to a tin of beans? I’m more than happy to find that balance, work for that advantage for all, and stop teachers from reinventing the wheel. Whether or not the odd line drawing or bit of text is still OK, I’m all for encouraging teachers to invest in titles from publishing houses, and in no way trying to deprive publishers and their staff and authors from any income. Beans or otherwise.
Many of you have questioned the online presence of CLC-related resources. Vocabulary tests, for example. A quick search on a very specific string (“cambridge latin course”+”vocabulary test”: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cambridge+latin+course+vocaulary+test&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=%22cambridge+latin+course%22%2B%22vocabulary+test%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=RZw&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&ei=7CM2UaTSF4WvO_rwgcAB&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43148975,d.ZWU&fp=1ff146335c2fd68a&biw=1540&bih=869) yielded 3,390 results. A less specific string generated many more. Almost all of these are not resources hosted by CSCP or CUP, but instead by unaffiliated sites and companies, which very often seem to be advertising on their sites. I confess to being as confused as others as to why this, for example, is so problematic, and why it is anything less than supportive material which encourages future purchase of CUP titles. Never mind good teaching practice, the likes of which we’re all encouraged to do. Anyway, as I say, it seems the debate is still live and many people still have questions and concerns.
It seems a good moment to promote to everyone some excellent and free resources available online, thanks to CUP and the Cambridge Faculty of Education. I just learned about these yesterday morning (http://casls.uoregon.edu/ often highlights very useful things!). Many of you will know Daniel Morden and Hugh Lupton’s storytelling, and tales of the Trojan War, Odysseus’ wanderings, and Ovid’s Metamorphoses. You can hear their audio versions here (http://classictales.educ.cam.ac.uk/), and you’ll also find teacher’s resources, teaching suggestions, and summaries. Wonderful stuff!
Hi Steve,
Yes, I think that a few files here and there would not have been a problem, but clearly things were allowed to go significantly further than that.
You will find some sites have over 10,000 activities that infringe our copyright. We are addressing all of them. The approach we are taking is to ensure that we have an alternative system in place before removing content from third party sites. This is to ensure there is no loss of functionality to teachers. As we have long had a file-sharing/publishing site of our own, removing content from your site does not pose a problem to teachers. Other sites copy our content (such as vocabulary lists) and digitise it. Where these sites offer no more functionality than we already provide, we are taking our content down. Where they do more than we currently do, we are working to improve the functionality of our own software so that, again, teachers will not lose functionality. The whole process will probably take about 18 months.
In my short experience Classics Teachers are a very passionate bunch, which makes their company brilliant fun and life-affirming. The HOURS of comment here are testament to that passion, no less from Will and Steve than the many other teachers who have taken time to post. Being a little passionate myself I was really p*ssed off with CSCP when I first heard this news. However I’m going to credit Will and CSCP with best intentions for the good of classics, and respect the hours he’s put in to respond to every comment above. I’m also going to put my passion away (for once, and not a euphemism) and see the positives: We can all share CLC resources exactly as before, for free, on the CLC sharing portal if we sign up – good thing. This, I hope, will free Steve from some of the zillions of hours he has to put in to keep this wonderful engine going – good thing. I can still share, by which I mean one-sidedly plunder, all the non-CLC stuff (a LOT of my life) on this wonderful site – good thing. Looking to the future, I shudder to imagine the day when Saint Steve (for it is he) cannot keep this up anymore, and would love to see a funded, resourced institution take up this whole burden – how about it Will? I also think CSCP needs to think more imaginatively about how to capitalise on this passionate, creative and innately collaborative population (us) to enhance its offering and evolve successfully to meet its digital future. I’m off to get a login on CSCP and send beer to Mr Jenkin as a token of my love. x
Steven, you and the other Classics teachers do a terrific job. I am shocked at the tone of these emails attacking you. Thank you so much for your generous and wonderful work.
Yup, remember why this started in our time at Francis Holland… Classics Teachers are a special bunch, this proves it! Danni x