 and re-users across the world that want to know whether they can use or not the works that they are seeing online. And so this is the session I outlined. These are the things that we're gonna talk in the session. Basically we're gonna explain what is this thing that we're calling the public domain awareness project and why we think it's important. And then we're gonna offer a little bit of an overview of the things that we have done so far, which aren't a lot, but are still important. We did a workshop at the Creative Commons Global Summit with people from Wikimedia and with people from the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at the American University and some other folks, well, with Hano, of course, that several of you might know from Copiclear and whatnot. And so we came to some conclusions or more initial drafts for how to continue this exploration and then we'll offer you some channels to get involved and also ask questions or suggestions if you have any. So now I'm gonna invite Claudio up to stage so he can provide more context and explain the value of this for Creative Commons. Thank you. Is this working? No. Can you hear me? Yes? Okay. No? I'm gonna keep talking. I speak. There you go. Thank you. Yes, great. So thank you all. I think it's important for me to be here today because the PDA project or the Public Domain Awareness Project is one of the most exciting things that we are both creating not just within Creative Commons but also with all our partners, including Wikimedians, including universities, and including other partners around the world where we all believe in the same assumptions that I want to share today. So at Creative Commons, as all of you are familiar with, we create legal tools to allow the use and reuse of works around the world on the Internet. And the way that I like to frame it is that we provide the basic legal infrastructure for the Commons. This is important because the reason why we are jumping over this very ambitious project, where we would love to hear your thoughts about and contributions about, is to basically face the necessity of improving the usability of the Commons and increase the number of works that are free to use. It's very important the legal assumptions, too. There's a lot of uncertainty, for instance. The idea of the automatic protection coming out of the creation of the work in terms of copyright has created a problem with all the Internet tools available, including Wikipedia, for instance. However, some of our local chapters around the world and all of us, we do advocacy, either at the regional, global, or either local state, we still think that it's not enough, and we still need to create new tools and to create new resources in terms of to enhancing the ability to allow use and reuse and remix of works, especially on the Internet. Because the problem of the legal uncertainty of the possibility of using or not using certain works is something that is a problem not just for the users, but also for an important portion of the glam institutions around the world. So we can get way better regarding identifying the copyright status of certain works and whether those are in public domain or not. The second important challenge that we are having in terms of this project and the reason why we're jumping into this is because an important part of the questions regarding the use or the reuse of the ability of using public domain works in the world are jurisdiction-based. We don't have a standardized version of a tool or even a public domain tool that allows people or institutions to just identify with certainty regarding whether a work is or is not in the public domain, which is a main problem for all of us. Each country has their own rules, each country has a set of public domain rules that applies for the specific cases, for the specific authors or even for the specific works, which make all of our life basically a minefield when you're trying to just use one work in a specific manner. Connected with this, there's not an international or a standardized body that is trying to address this point, too. So we think that all of the organizations that we work together into this big open umbrella, we have a duty in terms of to tackle this problem and chime in and try to solve in a way that is useful for not just for us, but also for cultural institutions around the world. And also I think that it's important to say that there's not a single way to just use these works as having some sort of a certainty or clarity regarding the use of these works, especially for Glamis institutions that are not in the global north. And what an important portion of them that are in the global south, they don't have, in several of the cases, legal assistance. More of them, they're not sufficiently funded. And some of them are just struggling with the fact of just doing the daily work and they're not necessarily in a position to just join this open movement. However, they might be or not interested into this. And in some of the cases, for instance, we have just champions within local institutions, they are trying to do some work with very lack of support. And we think that all of us here, and this is the main underlying assumption of the PDA project here, is that we need to help them through the process of digitizing their works and trying to enhance the commons in a way. So that's more or less the background and rationale behind this public domain awareness project. And this is a graphic that basically tried to understand or explain better that I do, the kind of outcomes that we want to get out of this. We're still in the very earliest stages of this project, as Scan just mentioned. And I think that it's very important to just socialize the idea, socialize the kind of like stages that we've been burning so far in terms of getting more information, getting more feedback from the Wikipedia community, and we're eager to have more of these sessions and other gatherings around the world trying to just have a better sense regarding what is needed to be done and how can we contribute together. So the proposal of the work has three phases. The first one is understanding the ecosystem and needs. A part of that was made on the last Lisbon summit that we had in Creative Commons, where some of the important portion of the people there were Wikimedians too, they were working on Wikidata and trying to just understand basically the connections between the legal struggles that we're having and maybe we'll speak a little bit further on that later, and the technical possibilities that we have in terms of that. The second stage is publishing a final design and work plan. So we're working on that too with Scan and other partners here. And the third one is just to build the tools and connecting the projects that we all have together. So I'm not going to go into big detail regarding the public domain tools that we already have at CC, so you may be aware of this public domain mark that we have for use, or mark, sorry, existing third-party material into the global public domain, and the CC0, which is a public domain waiver, basically, in case that you are the creator and intends to waive all of your rights in terms of the public domain. So I'm going to present Merivith, and she's going to explain a little bit further regarding the structure of the public domain from the legal standpoint. So that's it. Thank you. Hi, everyone. So I think before we sort of get too deep on the weeds of talking about why and how we determine what's in the public domain, there's sort of a threshold question of what is the public domain and why does it matter if something is in that? And so it's not advancing. Yeah, the basic baseline is that public domain is the default, that copyright does not exist like gravity, that copyright is something that we have created for certain specific purposes, and that the commons we're building starts with the public domain that exists underneath that. That copyright-related rights, data protection, all of that is something that we've added on as a temporary protection to incentivize certain types of creation or protect certain structures. And within that, the CC licenses are one way to say, okay, we're going to put something outside of that copyright protection, but the vast majority of things that are in the commons that you can use without copyright protection are going to be things in the public domain. And so while the licenses provide a lot of clarity about what you can do, while there's actually much more freedom to operate for things in the public domain, there isn't the same type of clarity and understanding and marking. And so for that reason, this project really believes that documenting copyright information and marking and tagging the public domain is valuable, but it is in some ways more complicated than applying the license to an original work. So how do we get the absence of copyrighted? There's sort of three big buckets and there's, as with everything, some detail within that. The first is that there is a huge amount of stuff that is, by its nature, not copyrightable. Ideas are not protected by copyright. Like math, algebra, those things are not protected by copyright. Inventions are not protected. Shapes, data in many places. And so there's a lot of stuff that just exists outside of copyright by the very nature of what it is. And then there is the vast section of culture that is, as subject matter, protected by copyright, but came before copyright existed, right? So Shakespeare's works before copyright, the Iliad, the Greshan urn, there's all these big cultural touchstones that are really valuable culture but are just in the public domain because they were created before copyright. And then the last section is things that were created under copyright in the period where copyright existed but where their copyright term has expired. And so the copyright expiration and the questions around what is protected by copyright and when did that copyright expire is the problem that we're really tackling and digging into in this public domain project. So generally speaking, works from the early 19th century and before are in the global public domain because their term has expired. And there are some sort of narrow use-based restrictions on some of those, but broadly speaking, if it's from the early 19th century, you know it's in the public domain, simply because in every jurisdiction the term on that has expired. Otherwise, lack of harmonization in copyright law from country to country means that it's harder to make a simple date-based determination that something is in the public domain everywhere. So as we said, timing for copyright varies. There's also that different countries have sort of narrow special laws that have been designed to extend a term for certain categories of work or even individual works. So often national laws have seen basically to try to reward individuals who otherwise might have been deprived of some copyright royalties by adding these sort of odd extensions. So for example, in France, there's some copyright term extension for works created during World War II. There's actually individual laws protecting certain works like the Little Prince. And then there's also a broad range in how national governments protect the copyright in what they and their employees create. So in the U.S., things created by U.S. government employees are in the public domain for the United States, but not in every country. Many countries have crowned copyright. And so for these reasons, it's hard to know simply with the publication date of a work whether or not it's in the public domain everywhere. There's also a category of works that are in the public domain under sort of core doctrinal copyright law, but that there's still some restrictions on their use. So a small number of countries have something called a paying public domain where you can use materials in the public domain without permission, but that there is sort of like a statutory license for that. There are also a few situations where, for example, in the U.K., Peter Pan is granted a sort of perpetual paid license that the money goes back to actually supporting like a charitable hospital, sort of these odd little carve-outs that have done that. And then there's a public lending rate in many places. And so you'll see these sort of specific examples where you can use something without permission, but when there is still some payment or restriction on sort of open use. And so within that, I think we have sort of two separate areas of understanding of like how precise do we need to be in determining that something is in the public domain. And on one hand I think glam institutions and archives and people who are taking in material and documenting what they know about that have a pretty high interest in precision. They're at a point where they're capturing information. They put a fair amount of research into understanding the object when it was created in that context, and that's important to document with a relatively high degree of precision to make that available for use as soon as possible and as broad as possible. On the other side, I think we have end users and creators who want to use materials they think are in the public domain who might need a lower level of certainty, who are willing to take a sort of broader rules approach to this. And so we want to make sure that we have a balance between precision and understanding that copyright law does vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and at the same time sort of artificially postponing the control of copyright and artificially delaying things getting into the public domain by sort of over complicating understanding what is and isn't in the public domain. And so I think when we talk about a public domain determination, one of the questions is about sort of facts and law and data. The other is also about the use and the risk tolerance. And so as we go forward, you have to sort of balance a desire for certainty with the reality that for many users, they don't need absolute certainty, they need probably certainty. And so going forward, it's one of the reasons that data and not just our red light, green light, it's going to be an important part of the public domain determination. So towards that, we have talked about right statements as one way to document information that we do or do not know. They're not licenses, but they do have a purpose within that ecosystem. So moving on from the sort of big picture law to a more detailed part, we have Hano and Sandra. Yeah, so going one, two, three, yes, going more deeply into the data topic already at the CC summit and before, we have had conversations and discussions around this topic that maybe from the point of view of the Wikimedia infrastructures, Wikidata can play a role in this entire picture. And one of the things that is good to be aware of is that Wikidata is a general knowledge base. It describes things in the world. And if you look at what it does in terms of storing information about creative works, we already have a lot of information stored there. So are Wikimedia communities in just a lot of glam collections in there. We also describe films. We also describe printed works, etc. So that is already kind of a sound basis with which available under a CC0 license. The data can be reused very easily with which a data model or some kind of data infrastructure can be built. And Hano is actually, you know, a specialist who is also trying to figure out how copyright, the modeling around copyright statuses and public domain statuses of these types of works can be done. So I will give you the word. We created the property copyright status and we used this on different kinds of works in Wikidata. We decided to use this property status as with qualifiers for year's diction and qualifier for the method of calculation of the copyright. So one item can have several copyright statuses and that can even be contrary. So for example, if a work is published 70 years ago, we can say it might be public domain, so it gets the public domain status, but it might also be that there is a known creator. And with this method, we can deal with several difficult situations. And we modeled this, for example, on works like the Diary of Anne Frank, that is really a complicated copyright issue, and amongst others. And we have now two possible failures, public domain and copyrighted, and also these are other two are that is not evaluated yet or unknown. Besides this copyright status, we also added some other properties like the copyright we present her, and that's used for authors like artists. And we also provided a property, it's called the copyright holder, and we try to fill that as well. And at the moment, for example, in commons, we don't have a distinction between a copyright holder and a copyright author, but that's for some cases, it's really important to have that distinction. And especially for institutions, we want to get in touch with the right holder, we need that distinction. Besides that, we created an help page on copyrights in Wikidata, and that's an overview page with all kinds of determination methods we now currently have. We connected all the determination methods to the templates in commons. We've not done all yet, but the mapping is, for the most, the templates we have the mapping now in place. And we also give there some examples how to map them on the items. Here you see a simple example that you can give a copyright status, and here you see that we use two copyright status, one for the US and one for countries with 70 years, PMA or shorter. If you go to that determination method, we also have there are more specified information, for example, there's the duration, the property duration and so on. So our idea is that at the end, we could do some automatic calculations with bots, but we hope that that will take some time, of course. There are also some difficulties, for example, how to check if a work is really published or not, for example. Here you see the 70 years after authors of death with the connection to the template in commons, the duration and also the US diction. And for now, we did the US diction with a group item countries with 70 years PMA or shorter. We still have to deal with that, how to deal with 200 member states of the Berner convention. But this is one approach we currently are doing now. What's next? I don't know what's next. Okay. So basically, and I'm sorry that we didn't have anyone from right statements in this session, in our session at the CC Summit, there was a lot of people from right statements too that also explain their ambition on this project and what their tools are doing. And I don't know if you're familiar with them. Right statements, labels are also modeled in Wikidata, actually. But basically what we have right now is like we know that there are a lot of different initiatives working in this space and trying to bring together a solution for marking and tagging works in the public domain. So some of these are of course creative commons, Wikidata and with all the work that Hanoi is doing. We also know that there are several Glam institutions that are developing their own copyright claim strategies. Some of them are really vague like the MED museum, like the RIG museum. But as Claudio said, some of them are really small and they actually don't have the resources for doing all the copyright claims processed by themselves. And sometimes they don't even have such a thing as a legal department. Even when that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have works in the public domain. So we know that there are like several institutions that due to funding problems and whatnot, they don't necessarily have a legal department that is dealing with copyright claims process inside the institution. So how do we transfer that knowledge and how do we make this process easier? It's also a big part of the question that we have for this project. And of course, we have right statements also as a partner or an initiative that is actually like trying to figure out some of the problems in this space. But what we haven't gotten there or where we aren't yet there is like how all these different initiatives work together to actually solve this problem. And so that's part of the thing that we want to do or try to encourage with this project to actually bring together all the partners that are having this conversation to have this conversation together. So that's pretty much the idea. And so that's also the reason why we had so many people on stage today. It's not only because I'm lazy and I don't want to give a presentation myself. It's also because we're trying to deal with a lot of different actors and people. And so I'm supposed to provide a summary of part of the discussions that we had at the Creative Commons summit. And basically I'm going to post a very ugly picture of some of the things that we did. So we had a really long intensive session of almost four hours. Luckily they were divided in two days. But it was basically a hands-on workshop. And so we had Hano and Sandra working there on all the problems with structured data. We had the lawyers also having a lot of input and several other people that are also working on this space like the guys from the non-sphere project that are sitting there that offer very interesting conversations too. And so some of them are also people that Sebastian, that is the organizer of the public domain day. So he's very interested also because it would provide a lot of value to his project. And they were working from the perspective of the re-users of the content. How much level of certainty you need to actually have on this, right? And so we kind of workshop some of the ideas. Of course there are some more high level ideas around this. How deep we want to go into structuring this data and at which point we should stop and be like, well, okay, this is fine. Like we might never be able to determine this or might not be a workable solution for everyone. So those are like part of the things that we talk, right? And so also by the way those results are actually public. And we have published a document that it's like going on there in this on the sewer space and on a Google Drive folder. It's a Google doc. But it's like so far when we have summarized of those discussions. And as it is for right now, these are the things that we want to tackle next. As part of the project, we need to do a sort of research and investigation inside Graham institutions to understand better how they are doing copyright agreements or not. Because we know that some of them are actually not doing copyright agreements. And there also might be institutions that are actually not necessarily doing copyright clearance and just like going to copyright holders or going to collecting societies be an asking for a license to directly publish all that material. So we want to know and understand better what are the strategies that they are applying for doing this work. We also want to make a better or have a better sense of who is working in these sort of solutions, right? And in part this is also a reason why we're doing like this presentation here today because if you have a project that is related, we would love to know about it. And the other part that we want to try to do hopefully is also have a more working conversation with the people that is doing the data modeling on Wikidata, but also with the legal experts that could actually provide more information about what is the level of uncertainty. And also to solve some of the questions that Hano has, for example, like when do we consider that a work is published in the U.S., for example, right? Which is an important part of determining the copyright status in the U.S., for example. In some countries that's not necessarily a problem, but for example in the U.K., it's also a problem if you consider the perspective from manuscripts and unpublished works, right? So how long copyright lasts in those cases is also important. So that's the next step that we want to tackle. And so we have a Slack channel for discussing this project, and there we also have the results of the summary of the things that we discussed at the summit. And now that's more or less what I wanted to share with you. And if you have any questions, suggestions or remarks, this is the moment to do it. We have like 20 minutes. If not, you can all go and grab some coffee. But I don't know. Questions, remarks, suggestions. Okay, sure. Good question. I mean, I don't know, Hano, you want to intervene on that? Oh, there are mics there. We're going to do a live workshop, right? This is what this session is going to turn into. One of the elements that we need is indeed much more detailed information per work as of when is it published? Information about the other. And that is indeed stuff that we can store on WikiData, for instance, and probably on other platforms that store search data. On the other hand, at this moment, we do focus on more indeed like the derived information of whether, you know, we believe it's either public domain or copyrighted based on certain assumptions. And that is actually the current work that Hano is doing. And I think my idea is that we need both, but... Yeah, the current approach is of course that it's in, we do a determination method in WikiData itself. It would be great if there are copyright licensing organizations, and so we can also provide databases that we are not on our own, because WikiData is a reference database. So, yeah. Another question on that is, do we currently capture data creation data about new information going into the comments? Because like right now, we rely on everything in the comments being under, you know, either we think it's the public domain or it's under a license, but that license stuff will eventually presumably age out of copyright. I like to say presumably age out of copyright because who knows, but you know, I think at some point we will stop with copyright term extension. And I think the question is, you know, how future proof does Wikipedia want to think about being and about capturing information for stuff that is currently protected by copyright, even if openly licensed, so that we're not sort of perpetuating this problem? So, can I say two things around that? It's like, well, first, I think that Hannah is right on like that model of actually capturing both, but we also need to better understand like some of the problems that we have right now, which is like we're only like doing copyright status for works, and we know already that we have like authors that actually have like a different problem than works, right? In the sense that like an author might be in the public domain in certain jurisdictions, while the work might not necessarily be, right? So those are like two different problems that are not necessarily we are capturing right now at its fullest, right? And to your question, then I think that for me ideally, and like this is like me dreaming, basically I think that we have the same problem in terms of like, do we know when rights statements expire? We actually don't, right? So like that's part of the question that I think that we could solve in some way, if we actually generate some like sort of technical infrastructure, we also don't know when CC license will expire, right? And we know that eventually they will expire because things that are under CC licenses will enter the public domain eventually, right? And so those are things that I think that if we try to tackle those things now with the underlying infrastructure, like we could actually provide some sort of, yeah. Is it working? Yeah. Yeah, my name is Peter. I worked on English in Swedish Wikipedia and I've also worked on WikiSource and I'm an archivist by trade. And I was wondering one thing, this is a fairly specific issue, but what is the copyright status of transcriptions, especially of, for example, well, diaries such that maybe they were written maybe in the 1800s, but what about the transcriptions? Are they generally free or do transcriptions generate copyright? Is that an issue? Can you hear me? Is this on? So I think if you're transcribing it in a single language, so like a diary written in English transcribed letter for letter in English would probably not create a new copyrighted work under US law. So to the extent that you are only shifting the format of that, really, I don't think that that has a separate copyright under US law. Translations obviously have their own copyright. So if you're like modernizing language or translating, that would be an issue, but I don't think you aren't the author of that transcription. Like the follow-up, yes, under US law and when we upload, when we add content, it's always, you know, we abide by US law. But then there's the issue of other legislations where we might do like a guerrilla upload of a transcription made by someone in a country. But what about, are there issues in the EU, for example, in countries where? I think that if we provide some contextual information, I would say like in that case, in for WikiSource, I would say no, right? Like more plainly without getting into a lot of details, right? And I would also say no, because basically like the people that are doing their contributions there, they're already doing it and they're a free license. So even in those cases where you could potentially have some sort of like suite of the row approach to copyright, the volunteers that are doing it in WikiSource are already agreeing to do it under a free license, right? So even in the extreme case that you are like under a suite of a row again, copyright sort of thing wouldn't be a problem, right? Yeah. Are we thinking about developing a standard of practice of determinations for the community, you know, incorporating WikiData because right now we're kind of, you know, self-taught functionaries are making these determinations, right? Well, that's a potential application of this data. Hi, Alex Denson at the Wikimedia Foundation. Yeah, part of the reason why we started really seriously talking with Hano as structured data on Commons kicked in was because we realized that we have all these public domain licenses that have been created over the years on Commons that are being applied in irregular ways as people interpret them. And so there's real opportunity for the methods and structure of data that they want to approach with the public domain awareness project to actually clarify that and simplify that for communities without as much learning, right? And so part of the reason this is a good opportunity to investigate is like we could be one of the end users to proof of concept, this use of like PD clearance through rules and structure. Yeah, I think we also need to add external references to the determination method. So there's now this book, Public Rights, you brought this here, for copyright determination. And we could use this as an external reference besides other, for example, we also added some copyright law interpretations and so on. So that might be a way to make it more legal proof. Yeah, and can I, yeah, while the mic is going there, I want to add something too. I think that part of the issue that we also see is that maybe for some lawyers, like the gray areas are way much more clear. And common admins sometimes are very strict on their own norms, right? Even when they might not necessarily be right, but they are like doing a really strict interpretation of the law, right? So if we can like make some sort of proof of concept where it's like, you know, like this is okay to go and like we definitely consider this to be public domain, it's like it's going to allow for more things potentially entering to common, so I guess, right, eventually. Hello, thank you for mentioning the project Noosphere. We took part in the CC Lisbon Summit and it was very productive, very impressive. But the takeaway from our project, which is also kind of proof of concept, is that basically without some fieldwork on the ground, within every jurisdiction, it is impossible to make copyright clearance. And also our takeaway is that without actually having the work itself, not only an entry into the database, but without having the work itself linked to it, it is not possible to differentiate between copies and versions. So you don't, you don't, you cannot actually make the actual clearance, it will always be a sort of a guess, unless, unless you can verify that this is the work that has actually passed into the public domain. So this makes you vulnerable as a user and as a platform for all sorts of lawsuits and the national jurisdiction that people are actually using it. So this can create some problems. And what we see is a need to actual, to start work and to push this agenda within different jurisdictions. And we think that Wikipedia, Wikimedia has a huge role to play because there needs, because in every jurisdiction, there are people who would actually do that. There's Glam community who has some information, there are people on the ground who understand creative comments and who have some technical skills. But I see that there is very little demand from anywhere coming to actually prioritize the public domain agenda, which is very sad because without properly, without properly finding out what's in there, we can't make the big changes we want. For example, if we would know every text, you know, we could make every text a hypertext by making the quotes scrollable, because then we would know which text comes from which text. So we could actually, we could make augmented reality for different texts as long as we have it, but we don't. So I think, I'm sorry, I missed some of the presentation because we had a parallel session, very unluckily, also on public domain in a different building. But my question is, what are the ways for jurisdictions, for projects like ours and other projects that are on the way, to actually participate and make meaningful input onto this infrastructure? And what are the guidelines that we can make for people who can actually start projects and efforts within jurisdictions so that their work is productive in the global sense so that they can make an input into the sort of global database? Because my feeling is that we're sitting on incredible riches, but the riches are treated like rubbish, like in the culture of commercial waste, that since it is not generating profits or commissions for collecting societies, people like this, it's treated like, not like a resource, but like a byproduct, or actually it's not treated at all. For example, one other last thing I want to say is that we have made a research in our jurisdiction. We were amazed to discover that even though some people have some ideas about what to do with public domain, there are no due procedures. Actually, they have no real guidelines within GLAM institutions. I mean, if something passes onto the public domain, they have no guidelines to put it on their website without registration to make it easily accessible and discoverable. And also we see that there is no effort to make public information, which is easily discoverable, that can be crowdsourced and corrected if something goes wrong. Thank you. So yeah, I would say briefly that I think that we are trying to explore how we are actually going to have this conversation, right? So this is like an initial conversation. We yet don't know. May I say something additional to that? I think that well, the whole spirit of the project is basically to provide, you know, so the basic guidelines for others to participate. That's the reason why this is not a CC project, or we do not envision this just as a Wikimedia or a Wikidata project, but as a joint venture, right? And the second thing that I like to say is that it's critically important, the support of the local groups working on this matter because of all of the reasons that we already indicated. But I think that, well, this is my personal point, I'm not speaking on behalf of CC here, but my personal point here is that I think that well, all of what we're doing in terms of open licensing, in terms of creating an amazing encyclopedia and all of that stuff, it's based under the assumption of the good faith of the people who are participating there. And that also applies for the copy or the status of the works that we are creating, and where we are including into all of these works. So I'm saying this because sometimes, and I'm saying this as having a low background, I'm saying this because sometimes we get afraid of the risk associated with doing some work with this kind of somehow protected work in certain jurisdictions that will not allow us to create and recreate the comments basically because of the risk of being sued or the risk of not being used properly or the risk of certain work not to be properly tagged as an open license or a public domain work. So I think that we should be very aware of that fact, but at the same time to keep working under the assumption of the good faith of all of what we're creating, because otherwise we will be stopping there and not doing anything. But that's a good point. Hi, I'm Marta. I'm a commons user and uploader of public domain arts. I have a shorter question. What are you planning to do with public domain day next year? It's like your birthday, so you should do something. It's like community members are doing things all over the place, right? So Sebastian from Creative Commons Netherlands, and he's the one that is organizing like the public domain date.org website and he's there receiving applications from people that want to organize their public domain in the countries. I don't think that CC, and I'm like looking at it right now because I'm not part of Creative Commons only as a member, but I don't think that CC has ever like... Well, actually last year we all together with the Internet Archive covered me, Ryan, if I'm wrong, but the Internet Archive, us, Hukimedia, and several other partners who were there speaking, and we created something which I'm very proud of actually, which was a public domain celebration project that we hosted the Internet Archive in San Francisco, and was basically one of the opportunities that we all joined together created in terms of to celebrate this. I'm going to leave the mic to Ryan to explain it further, but the only thing that I'd like to say is one of the difficulties of this, but also an opportunity to, is that in different countries the day of celebration may differ. You know, countries like in South America, January 1st it's not necessarily the public domain day, you know, like you have different rules for that to happen, and one of the good things that Sebastian and others are doing with the public domain day that worked, initiative strategies, you know, like having one umbrella to celebrate something that we're all, you know, in agreement with. So, Ryan. So, I won't repeat too much of that, but so one thing, internationally, publicdomainday.org, and there's some organizing starting, not a lot, but it's getting started, and then in the U.S. Creative Commons is joined with Internet Archive, and a bunch of other organizations, Spark and Nick Shockey, if you've seen him around, is taking more of a lead role this year, and there'll be an event in the first couple of months of the year, because we all kind of agree that January 1st is maybe the worst day of the year to try to do an event that anyone pays attention to, and so we're going to do it later, because it's, you know, we can celebrate it whenever we want to, and so I think we'll do that a little bit later, but there hasn't been more conversations, so if you're interested, then find one of us or swing by publicdomainday.org and get involved over there. So, I'm Sam. I work for the Center of Expertise for Digital Heritage in Belgium, and we've been partnering with other organizations with celebrating public domain day for a couple of years now, and we focus a lot also on trying to create, you know, some artistic creative reuse, but mostly we try to provide trainings throughout the years, throughout the year, to specific institutions to release one or two specific artists or the works that they produced into the public domain by next year, so we want to do that again, and we decided to focus on one artist specifically because he's a big deal in Belgium, for sure, James Ensoch, and I would like to make use of this platform to sort of ask, that I've been talking to some people to, this sort of, how should I say, federate this project throughout the community, so we're going to try to get an exhaustive as exhaustive as possible list of all the works he created on WikiData, and then we would like to contact specific communities to contact the GLAMs that have content by James Ensoch in their country to release that content online, and that would be a really nice opportunity to sort of start working together for public domain a little bit more rather than sort of sitting in our corner and hoping that people in our own countries believe us that there are other communities around the world working on this, so if you're interested in it please talk to me, thanks. So we are between, our session is right between the lunch, right, so I'm pretty sure everyone is hungry and unless someone else has any questions like you should go and grab lunch. Okay, thank you everyone for coming and thank you to the speakers for providing that many useful information.