Category / Research communication

British Academy Early Career Researcher Network event brings together researchers from across medical and health humanities

BU hosted the British Academy’s Early Career Researcher Network for an event exploring medical and health humanities, addressing some of the challenges and opportunities of working within this varied and interdisciplinary field.

Early career researchers from across the South West came together to network and discuss topics including publishing, funding opportunities, and finding their research identity.

The event took place on BU’s Talbot Campus and was opened by Interim Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor Research and Knowledge Exchange Professor Sarah Bate, who spoke about the importance of supporting the next generation of researchers to grow and develop.

A panel of Professors in front of an audience sat at tables

BU Professors shared their experiences and advice

Professor Sam Goodman (Professor of English & Communication), Professor Ann Hemingway (Professor of Public Health), Professor Chris Chapleo (Professor of Societal Marketing), Professor Ann Luce (Professor of Journalism and Health Communication) and Professor Edwin van Teijlingen (Professor of Reproductive Health Research) took part in a panel discussion, sharing their experiences of working across medical and health humanities and taking questions from the audience.

Advice included how to manage multiple stakeholders who may have different interests, publishing widely across different disciplines, how to deal with rejection, and the importance of building networks and contacts.

While the panel were honest about some of the difficulties and challenges of being an interdisciplinary researcher, they also spoke about the opportunities for applied interdisciplinary research and exploring different passions and interests. As Prof. Goodman put it: ‘Where’s the fun in colouring between the lines?’

Groups of early career researchers sat at tables

Roundtable discussions took place as part of the event

Following a networking lunch, attendees moved into breakout groups to discuss opportunities and challenges around publishing, grant capture and bidding, and developing a research identity as an interdisciplinary researcher.

The event was organised by the British Academy Early Career Researcher Network (BA ECRN) and Joelle Fallows and Katerina Kakaounaki of RDS, supported by Professor Sam Goodman and Professor Ann Hemingway who lead the ECR Network at BU.

The BA ECRN brings together ECRs across the humanities and social sciences disciplines, supporting their development through events and workshops. BU is a member of the BA ECRN’s South West Hub.

Find out more about the BA Early Career Researcher Network  

Conversation article: Why bans on smartphones for teenagers could do more harm than good

Professor Andy Phippen writes for The Conversation about growing calls to stop young people having access to smartphones or social media…

Why bans on smartphones or social media for teenagers could do more harm than good

Jacob Lund/Shutterstock

Andy Phippen, Bournemouth University

There are growing calls for young people under the age of 16 to be banned from having smartphones or access to social media. The Smartphone Free Childhood WhatsApp group aims to normalise young people not having smartphones until “at least” 14 years old. Esther Ghey, mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey, is campaigning for a ban on social media apps for under-16s.

The concerns centre on the sort of content that young people can access (which can be harmful and illegal) and how interactions on these devices could lead to upsetting experiences.

However, as an expert in young people’s use of digital media, I am not convinced that bans at an arbitrary age will make young people safer or happier – or that they are supported by evidence around young people’s use of digital technology.

In general, most young people have a positive relationship with digital technology. I worked with South West Grid for Learning, a charity specialising in education around online harm, to produce a report in 2018 based upon a survey of over 8,000 young people. The results showed that just over two thirds of the respondents had never experienced anything upsetting online.

Large-scale research on the relationship between social media and emotional wellbeing concluded there is little evidence that social media leads to psychological harm.

Sadly, there are times when young people do experience upsetting digital content or harm as a result of interactions online. However, they may also experience upsetting or harmful experiences on the football pitch, at a birthday party or playing Pokémon card games with their peers.

It would be more unusual (although not entirely unheard of) for adults to be making calls to ban children from activities like these. Instead, our default position is “if you are upset by something that has happened, talk to an adult”. Yet when it comes to digital technology, there seems to be a constant return to calls for bans.

We know from attempts at prevention of other areas of social harms, such as underage sex or access to drugs or alcohol, that bans do not eliminate these behaviours. However, we do know that bans will mean young people will not trust adults’ reactions if they are upset by something and want to seek help.

Mother and daughter looking at phone
Teenagers need to know they can talk to adults about their lives online.
Studio Romantic/Shutterstock

I recall delivering an assembly to a group of year six children (aged ten and 11) one Safer Internet Day a few years ago. A boy in the audience told me he had a YouTube channel where he shared video game walkthroughs with his friends.

I asked if he’d ever received nasty comments on his platform and if he’d talked to any staff about it at his school. He said he had, but he would never tell a teacher because “they’ll tell me off for having a YouTube channel”.

This was confirmed after the assembly by the headteacher, who said they told young people not to do things on YouTube because it was dangerous. I suggested that empowering what was generally a positive experience might result in the young man being more confident to talk about negative comments – but was met with confusion and repetition of “they shouldn’t be on there”.

Need for trust

Young people tell us that two particularly important things they need in tackling upsetting experiences online are effective education and adults they can trust to talk to and be confident of receiving support from. A 15 year old experiencing abuse as a result of social media interactions would likely not be confident to disclose if they knew the first response would be, “You shouldn’t be on there, it’s your own fault.”

There is sufficient research to suggest that banning under-16s having mobile phones and using social media would not be successful. Research into widespread youth access to pornography from the Children’s Commissioner for England, for instance, illustrates the failures of years of attempts to stop children accessing this content, despite the legal age to view pornography being 18.

The prevalence of hand-me-down phones and the second hand market makes it extremely difficult to be confident that every mobile phone contract accurately reflects the age of the user. It is a significant enough challenge for retailers selling alcohol to verify age face to face.

The Online Safety Act is bringing in online age verification systems for access to adult content. But it would seem, from the guidance by communications regulator Ofcom, that the goal is to show that platforms have demonstrated a duty of care, rather than being a perfect solution. And we know that age assurance (using algorithms to estimate someone’s age) is less accurate for under-13s than older ages.

By putting up barriers and bans, we erode trust between those who could be harmed and those who can help them. While these suggestions come with the best of intentions, sadly they are doomed to fail. What we should be calling for is better understanding from adults, and better education for young people instead.The Conversation

Andy Phippen, Professor of IT Ethics and Digital Rights, Bournemouth University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Recruiting : FST and BUBS Research Staff Association Representatives

The BU Research Staff Association (RSA) is a forum to promote research culture at BU. Research staff from across BU are encouraged to attend, to network with others researchers, disseminate their work, discuss career opportunities, hear updates on how BU is implementing the Research Concordat, and give feedback or raise concerns that will help to develop and support the research community at BU.

Recruiting FST and BUBS Faculty RSA Representatives

The Faculty RSA reps role is to support the Institutional reps with the running of the BU RSA, attending the Research Concordat Steering Group, and Faculty Research and Professional Practice Committee Meetings, to provide an update on the BU RSA and feedback any comments or concerns.

Eligible research staff are those on research-only contracts – fixed-term or open-ended employment (not PTHP/casual contracts) who have at least one year remaining on their contract at the time of recruitment.

If you are interested in the FST RSA rep or BUBS  RSA rep role, please supply a few words to demonstrate your interest and availability in relation to the position. These should be submitted to the RDS Researchdev@bournemouth.ac.uk  by 5pm on Thursday 14 March 2024.

Please contact your RSA reps to chat about it if you have any queries.

Sign up to BU’s Policy Influence Digest

If you’re looking to have an impact on local, national and international policy with your research, you may find the BU policy influence digest email useful.

The policy influence digest highlights policy influencing opportunities and tips. The digests are usually circulated weekly and contain information on expert calls, specialist or committee advisor opportunities, areas of research interest issued by the Government departments, fellowship opportunities, the notable sector reports and Government announcements from the week, events and training as well as a range of other opportunities to share your expertise (including responding to consultations or select committee inquiries).

Sign up in two clicks or scan the QR code below.

Conversation article: Children’s high-impact sports can be abuse – experts explain why

Dr Keith Parry co-authors this article about new research which questions whether it is right for children to be involved in high impact sports that risk injury to the brain…

Children’s high-impact sports can be abuse – experts explain why

ANDRE DIAS NOBRE/AFP via Getty Images

Eric Anderson, University of Winchester; Gary Turner, University of Winchester, and Keith Parry, Bournemouth University

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a brain disorder likely caused by repeated head injuries. It was first described as dementia pugilistica and punch drunk syndrome almost 100 years ago. CTE continues to be a serious risk associated with high impact sports, such as boxing, American football and rugby.

Although the risks of traumatic brain injuries, such as concussion, and longer-term brain degeneration from repetitive hits in impact sports have been known for decades, some sport governing bodies continue to try and cast doubt onto the relationship between impact sports and CTE. However, media attention has begun to change people’s minds.

This growing awareness is accelerated by the many lawsuits against organising bodies in relation to brain trauma. Former professional and amateur players in sports such as American football, Australian rules football and rugby say their governing bodies failed to prevent harm during their playing careers.

The NFL has paid out almost a million pounds to former players suffering the effects of sport-induced brain trauma. High-profile rugby players are now also taking legal action over brain injuries.

These are not only issues for elite players. Studies into the brains of former players have found CTE in those who only played as amateurs. CTE has also been found in the brains of players under the age of 30 and even those as young as 17.

Each additional year of playing impact sports raises the risk of CTE, by as much as 30% in American football.

The dangers of high-impact sport aren’t contentious. Academic evidence and medical professionals now agree that sport-induced brain trauma leads to degenerative brain disease.

Not suitable for under-18s

Given this context, our recent paper written with Jack Hardwicke, a senior lecturer in the sociology of sport at Nottingham Trent University, has questioned whether it is right for children to participate in sports that intentionally feature impact, particularly involving the head. We argue that allowing under-18s to take part in high impact sports should be viewed as a form of child abuse – we use the term “child brain abuse” – and that these impact sports should be legally prohibited.

We are not calling for adult versions of impact sports to be banned and our argument does not apply to sports or activities where brain trauma might occur by accident. But in sports where impact is a structured part of the game, like boxing – or sports that create rapid brain movements, as in rugby tackling – collisions are not accidents, they are an inherent part of the sport.

Despite claims that sport is safer, there has been rightful concern over childhood concussions in these impact sports – and brain injury can occur at very low levels of impact. For example, heading a football can result in immediate and measurable alterations to brain functioning and longer-term brain diseases, such as CTE.

The risk of CTE is far higher in sports such as American football and rugby. The odds of developing degenerative brain diseases are increased in former players of impact sports than are found in sports without deliberate impacts or the general population.

What is CTE?

Staying healthy

Some sports bodies defend high-impact sports by arguing that sport and physical activity are important for overall health. Teams sports can reduce isolation and help players to develop a range of social skills.

But these benefits can still be gained from non-impact versions of sports, such as touch rugby, which can help teach discipline and teamwork without the harm from brain trauma.

There are no health benefits of tackling – and there are no health benefits of being struck in the head. The health benefits of impact rugby or boxing are instead gained from the body’s overall movement.

Tag rugby tends to be faster moving than the sport’s full contact version so is better for improving cardiovascular health. Research has shown that incidents of contact during children’s rugby are the cause of cause of 87% of known injuries. Tackling, in particular, is responsible for 52% of all injuries – with concussion being the most common injury type. Tagging, rather than tackling, saves children’s brains from harm.

Inability to consent

Our research shows that impact sports should be treated equally with other prohibited activities for children, such as smoking. Children are unable to make informed decisions about the long-term risks of these activities. Parental provision for these activities is also socially stigmatised or criminalised.

Our research draws on a number of legal positions that support our argument that neither children nor parents on their behalf can consent to sports that require brain trauma as a necessary component of the sport.

For example, Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to which 195 countries are signatories, covers protection from violence, abuse and neglect. It states that:

Governments must do all they can to ensure that children are protected from all forms of violence, abuse, neglect and bad treatment by their parents or anyone else who looks after them.

Some commentators have agreed that while high-impact sports are dangerous, using the term child abuse is a step too far.

However, the NSPCC, the UK’s leading children’s charity, say that physical neglect is a form of abuse that occurs if a child is not kept safe. Allowing children to participate in impact sports while being aware of the harm they can cause is, our research shows, a failure keep children safe.

Opponents of prohibiting children from playing high-impact sports argue that boys are naturally aggressive and heavy contact sport helps them to learn how to control their feelings.

Boys, some argue, need physical activities – they need space and learn through activity. But there is no research showing that boys need to endure brain trauma in order to grow up to be responsible men.

There is no justifiable health reason for a child to play impact sport over non-impact versions. We are asking that ministers privilege children’s brains over corporate sporting bodies. The Conversation

Eric Anderson, Professor of Masculinities, Sexualities and Sport, University of Winchester; Gary Turner, Doctoral researcher in Policy Analysis of Traumatic Brain Injury in UK Combat Sports, University of Winchester, and Keith Parry, Head Of Department in Department of Sport & Event Management, Bournemouth University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Month in Research: January 2024

A cartoon image of black and white hands clapping on a yellow background

The Month in Research

The Month in Research is our monthly round-up sharing research and knowledge exchange successes from across the previous month, showcasing the amazing work taking place across BU.

Your achievements

Thank you to everyone who has used the online form to put forward their achievements, or those of colleagues, this month.

  • A research article by Dr Theophilus Akudjedu (Faculty of Health and Social Sciences) exploring the impact of artificial intelligence technology on radiography professionals has been chosen for the Editor’s Choice Award by the Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences.
  • With an international team of researchers from Manchester Metropolitan University, the University of Illinois, and Juntendo University, Dr Daniel Lock (Business School) co-authored a new study in Social Science and Medicine. The research demonstrated that the well-being benefits of physical activity were activated when the activity was internalised as a meaningful feature of participants self-concept. Shared by Dr Daniel Lock on behalf of Dr Yuhei Inoue, Dr Daniel Lock, and Dr Miki Satoro
  • Fred McClintock (Faculty of Health and Social Sciences) has completed the first publication of his PhD: Assessing the Impact of Sensor Orientation on Accelerometer-Derived Angles: A Systematic Analysis and Proposed Error Reduction.

Funding

 Congratulations to all those who have had funding for research and knowledge exchange projects and activities awarded in January. Highlights include:

  • Dr Szilvia Ruszev (Faculty of Media and Communication) has been awarded c.£172,000 by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) for their project Shared Post-Human Imagination: Human-AI Collaboration in Media Creation
  • Professor Marcin Budka (Faculty of Science and Technology) has been awarded c.£225,000 by Innovate UK for their KTP (Virtual): This is Crowd Ltd – Generative AI driven marketing campaign customisation tool
  • Professor Marios Angelopoulos (Faculty of Science and Technology) has been awarded c.£28,000 by Ofgem for their project Affordable carbon monoxide and heat verbal warning alarm

Publications

Congratulations to all those who have had work published across the last month. Below is a selection of publications from throughout January:

Content for The Month in Research has been collected using the research and knowledge exchange database (RED), the Bournemouth University Research Online (BURO) repository, and submissions via The Month in Research online form. It is by no means intended to be an exhaustive list. All information is correct as of 30.1.24.

Please use The Month in Research online form to share your highlights and achievements, or those of colleagues, for the next monthly round-up.

*Update* Future Leader Fellows briefing

 

 

 

Please note a change in the briefing date, now:  7th Feb 2024- following the original post of the 15th January.

A briefing on this call will be held on  7th February 2024 at 12 noon, including an overview of the scheme and a Q&A session. For those who cannot attend on the day, the briefing will be recorded and shared on Brightspace. Please contact us to receive the link.

The rest of the timeline remains the same.

Process for selecting applications timeline:

Date Action
15th January 2024  Internal Launch of Call
 7th February 2024 Future Leaders Briefing and Q&A for Fellows and mentors – at the Funding Development Briefing.
 29th February 2024 Call opens 
1st March 2024 Noon EoI deadline
4th March 2024  Applications sent to reviewers
w/c 1st April 2024 Panel Meeting
8th April 2024 Notify successful FLF/s

Please contact Eva Papadopoulou or Kate Percival with any queries on the above.

Health Promotion article is being read

Our article ‘Understanding health education, health promotion & public health’ [1] is getting read according to ResearchGate.  This conceptual/ theoretical paper was published open access in late 2021 in the Journal of Health Promotion and it reached 4,500 reads yesterday. Whilst the web side of the journal suggests today that the PDF of the paper has been downloaded 8,511 times.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH)

 

 

Reference:

  1. van Teijlingen, K. R., Devkota, B., Douglas, F., Simkhada, P.,  van Teijlingen, E. R. (2021). Understanding health education, health promotion and public health. Journal of Health Promotion, 9(1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3126/jhp.v9i01.40957

New paper by FHSS PhD student Abier Hamidi

This morning the journal Discover Social Science & Health informed us that Abier Hamidi’s latest paper ‘Islamic Perspectives on HIV: A Scoping Review’ has been accepted for publication [1]Discover Social Science & Health is an Open Access journal publishing research across the full range of disciplines at the intersection of health, social and biomedical sciences.  This latest review is part of Abier’s PhD research project and it follows several earlier related publications [2-7].

Abier is supervised by Dr. Pramod Regmi, Principal Academic-International Health  and the Global Engagement Lead in the Department of Nursing Sciences, and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen in the Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH).

Congratulations!

References:

  1. Hamidi, A., Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2024) Islamic Perspectives on HIV: A Scoping Review,  Discover Social Science & Health 4:6  https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44155-024-00063-7.pdf
  2. Hamidi, A. (2023) Social media now trumps traditional family networks in Libya – my Facebook survey reached 446,000 womenThe Conversation published: April 24.
  3. Hamidi, A., Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2023) Facilitators and barriers to condom use in Middle East and North Africa: a systematic review, Journal of Public Health, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-023-01923-3 
  4. Hamidi, A. (2023) Book Review: Fatma Müge Göçek and Gamze Evcimen, The I.B. Tauris Handbook of Sociology and The Middle EastSociologial Research Online 28(4)
  5. Hamidi A. (2022) HIV prevention – Challenges in reaching Libyan women: A narrative review. Women’s Health. 18: doi:10.1177/17455057221080832
  6. Hamidi, A., van Teijlingen, E., Regmi, P. (2021) Facilitators and barriers to condom use in Middle East and North Africa: a systematic review. PROSPERO CRD42021297160
  7. Hamidi, A., Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2021) HIV epidemic in Libya: Identifying gaps, Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, 20 :1-5 https://doi.org/10.1177/23259582211053964 .

 

Media coverage in Nepal

Last week Mr. Yogesh Dhakal, who is Deputy Editor at Shilapatra, an online newspaper in Nepal, interviewed three UK professors: Julie Balen (Canterbury Christ Church University), Simon Rushton (the University of Sheffield) and Edwin van Teijlingen (Bournemouth University).  The focus of the interview (see interview online here) was our recently completed interdisciplinary study ‘The impact of federalisation on Nepal’s health system: a longitudinal analysis’.

In this Nepal Federal Health System Project we studied the consequences for the health system of Nepal’s move from a centralised political system to a more federal structure of government.  This three-year project is UK-funded by the MRC, Wellcome Trust and FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office; formerly DFID) under the Health Systems Research Initiative.  This joint project is led by the University of Sheffield in collaboration with Bournemouth University, the University of Huddersfield, Canterbury Christ Church University and two  institutions in Nepal, namely MMIHS (Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences) and PHASE Nepal. 

Today (23rd January) the article appeared online in Nepali.  We have seen the transcript in English of the actual interviews with the three of us, but I have no idea how the journalist has edited, selected and translated the relevant text.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMWH (Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health)

Conversation article: How a New York Times copyright lawsuit against OpenAI could potentially transform how AI and copyright work

Professor Dinusha Mendis writes for The Conversation about the potential copyright implications of AI as a lawsuit is lodged by the New York Times against the creator of ChatGPT…

How a New York Times copyright lawsuit against OpenAI could potentially transform how AI and copyright work

Stas Malyarevsky / Shutterstock

Dinusha Mendis, Bournemouth University

On December 27, 2023, the New York Times (NYT) filed a lawsuit in the Federal
District Court in Manhattan against Microsoft and OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT,
alleging that OpenAI had unlawfully used its articles to create artificial intelligence (AI) products.

Citing copyright infringement and the importance of independent journalism to democracy, the newspaper further alleged that even though the defendant, OpenAI, may have “engaged in wide scale copying from many sources, they gave Times content particular emphasis” in training generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as Generative Pre-Trained Transformers (GPT). This is the kind of technology that underlies products such as the AI chatbot ChatGPT.

The complaint by the New York Times states that OpenAI took millions of copyrighted news articles, in-depth investigations, opinion pieces, reviews, how-to guides and more in an attempt to “free ride on the Times’s massive investment in its journalism”.

In a blog post published by OpenAI on January 8, 2024, the tech company responded to the allegations by emphasising its support of journalism and partnerships with news organisations. It went on to say that the “NYT lawsuit is without merit”.

In the months prior to the complaint being lodged by the New York Times, OpenAI had entered into agreements with large media companies such as Axel-Springer and the Associated Press, although notably, the Times failed to reach an agreement with the tech company.

The NYT case is important because it is different to other cases involving AI and copyright, such as the case brought by the online photo library Getty Images against the tech company Stability AI earlier in 2023. In this case, Getty Images alleged that Stability AI processed millions of copyrighted images using a tool called Stable Diffusion, which generates images from text prompts using AI.

The main difference between this case and the New York Times one is that the newspaper’s complaint highlighted actual outputs used by OpenAI to train its AI tools. The Times provided examples of articles that were reproduced almost verbatim.

Use of material

The defence available to OpenAI is “fair use” under the US Copyright Act 1976, section 107. This is because the unlicensed use of copyright material to train generative AI models can serve as a “transformative use” which changes the original material. However, the complaint from the New York Times also says that their chatbots bypassed the newspaper’s paywalls to create summaries of articles.

Even though summaries do not infringe copyright, their use could be used by the New York Times to try to demonstrate a negative commercial impact on the newspaper – challenging the fair use defence.

ChatGPT
Giulio Benzin / Shutterstock

This case could ultimately be settled out of court. It is also possible that the Times’ lawsuit was more a negotiating tactic than a real attempt to go all the way to trial. Whichever way the case proceeds, it could have important implications for both traditional media and AI development.

It also raises the question of the suitability of current copyright laws to deal with AI. In a submission to the House of Lords communications and digital select committee on December 5, 2023, OpenAI claimed that “it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without copyrighted materials”.

It went on to say that “limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens”.

Looking for answers

The EU’s AI Act –- the world’s first AI Act –- might give us insights into some future directions. Among its many articles, there are two provisions particularly relevant to copyright.

The first provision titled, “Obligations for providers of general-purpose AI
models” includes two distinct requirements related to copyright. Section 1(C)
requires providers of general-purpose AI models to put in place a policy to respect EU copyright law.

Section 1(d) requires providers of general purpose AI systems to draw up and make publicly available a detailed summary about content used for training AI systems.

While section 1(d) raises some questions, section 1(c) makes it clear that any use of copyright protected content requires the authorisation of the rights holder concerned unless relevant copyright exceptions apply. Where the rights to opt out has been expressly reserved in an appropriate manner, providers of general purpose AI models, such as OpenAI, will need to obtain authorisation from rights holders if they want to carry out text and data mining on their copyrighted works.

Even though the EU AI Act may not be directly relevant to the New York Times complaint against OpenAI, it illustrates the way in which copyright laws will be designed to deal with this fast-moving technology. In future, we are likely to see more media organisations adopting this law to protect journalism and creativity. In fact, even before the EU AI Act was passed, the New York Times blocked OpenAI from trawling its content. The Guardian followed suit in September 2023 – as did many others.

However, the move did not allow material to be removed from existing training
data sets. Therefore, any copyrighted material used by the training models up until then would have been used in OpenAI’s outputs –- which led to negotiations between the New York Times and OpenAI breaking down.

With laws such as those in the EU AI Act now placing legal obligations on general purpose AI models, their future could look more constrained in the way that they use copyrighted works to train and improve their systems. We can expect other jurisdictions to update their copyright laws reflecting similar provisions to that of the EU AI Act in an attempt to protect creativity. As for traditional media, ever since the rise of the internet and social media, news outlets have been challenged in drawing readers to their sites and generative AI has simply exacerbated this issue.

This case will not spell the end of generative AI or copyright. However, it certainly raises questions for the future of AI innovation and the protection of creative content. AI will certainly continue to grow and develop and we will continue to see and experience its many benefits. However, the time has come for policymakers to take serious note of these AI developments and update copyright laws, protecting creators in the process.The Conversation

Dinusha Mendis, Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law; Director Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Managament (CIPPM), Bournemouth University, Bournemouth University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Conversation: one-to-one training sessions available

BU is a partner of The Conversation, a news analysis and opinion website with content written by academics working with professional journalists. 

As a partner organisation, our academics and researchers can write for The Conversation on their areas of expertise. Conversation journalists are offering one-to-one training sessions for BU academics to understand more about The Conversation, or to discuss and pitch an article to them. 

Two training dates are available, on Wednesday 28 February from 2–4pm or Tuesday 19 March from 10:30am – 12:30pm.

You can book a fifteen minute session with a Conversation journalist using the links below: 

Book your place for 28 February 

Book your place for 19 March 

Why write for The Conversation? 

The Conversation is a great way to share research and informed comment on topical issues. Academics work with editors to write pieces, which can then be republished via a Creative Commons licence. Since we first partnered with The Conversation, articles by BU authors have had over 9.5 million reads and been republished by the likes of The iMetro, National Geographic Indonesia and the Washington Post.

You can learn more about working with The Conversation on the Research and Knowledge Exchange Sharepoint site. 

Free research impact training from Fast Track Impact

Free sessions from Fast Track Impact on preparing for REF2029, scoping an ethics of engagement and impact, integrating impact into your next funding bid and influencing policy. Book soon as some of these events only have a few spaces left.


Preparing for REF2029

Date: 5 February, 2024

Time: 10:00 – 13:00

This session will help you monitor, evaluate and evidence your impact.

Key benefits:

  • Learn about evidence-based principles for delivering research impact when you don’t have much time
  • Discover easy and quick-to-use templates you can use immediately to:
    • Prioritise who to engage with first
    • Create a powerful impact plan that will guarantee your research makes a difference without wasting your time
  • Learn how to monitor, evaluate and evidence impact convincingly in your case study
  • Discover easy and quick-to-use tools to fix problems with significance or reach in case studies
  • Find out what makes a 4* impact case study, based on research into high versus low-scoring cases in REF2014 and a worked example showing the anatomy of a 4* claim from REF2021
  • Discuss impact plans that might develop into REF2028 case studies with colleagues

Scoping an ethics of engagement and impact

Date: 26 February, 2024

Time: 13:00 – 14:00

  • As governments and funders around the world invest in the impact of research as an unquestioned good, there are growing concerns around the ethics of pursuing impact.
  • Should University ethics committees consider engagement and impact plans for projects that are working on controversial topics or with vulnerable groups – even if their research doesn’t involve human subjects and so would not normally fall under their jurisdiction?
  • How should researchers and their institutions manage issues such as:
    • Undeclared conflicts of interest (e.g., arising from funding and promotion outcomes from the Research Excellence Framework in the UK)
    • Positive bias in the presentation of impacts (e.g. research leading to economic impacts via questionable ethical practices that also led to significant harm to the environment or human rights), and
    • Concerns about how vulnerable individuals and groups have been used to generate or corroborate impacts?

Integrating impact into your next funding bid

Date: 20 May, 2024

Time: 10:00 – 12:00

Learn how to increase your success rates and integrate impact into your next research proposal

Key benefits:

  • Discuss insider tips and tricks, and get bid writing tools to help you co-produce your next proposal with the people most likely to benefit from your research. 
  • Discuss examples of impact sections from real cases for support 
  • Learn how to integrate impact convincingly with your proposal, using a mapping approach to ensure your impact goals map onto your impact problem statement, beneficiaries and impact generation activities, whilst managing risks and assumptions. 
  • Power all of this with a systematic stakeholder analysis and impact logic model that will make it easy to articulate specific and credible impacts.

Free training: Influencing policy

Date: 2 September, 2024

Time: 10:00 – 13:00

This session is based on research by Prof Reed and the latest evidence on how to get research evidence into policy.

Key benefits:

  • Discover quick and easy tools you can use immediately to:
    • Prioritise which policy actors to engage with first and how to instantly get their attention
    • Create a powerful impact plan that will guarantee your research makes a difference without wasting your time
  • Discuss how to design an effective policy brief, infographic or presentation 
  • Learn how to get your research into policy, wherever you work in the world, by building trust and working with intermediaries 
  • Be inspired by primary research and case studies

Free training: The Productive Researcher

Date: 2 December, 2024

Time: 10:00 – 13:00

Find out how you can become significantly more productive as a researcher in a fraction of your current working day.

Key benefits:

  • Leave with practical tools you can use immediately to prioritise limited time to achieve more ambitious career goals
  • Gain a deeper understanding of the values that underpin your work, and the reasons why you feel time pressured
  • Identify priorities that are as much about being as they are about doing, and that are stretching, motivational, authentic, relational and tailored to your unique strengths and abilities
  • Turn these into an “experiment” to make practical changes that create a positive feedback loop between your priorities and your motivation, so you can become increasingly focussed and productive