 Kia ora kouta katoa. I am conspicuously not Siwan Leachman. But I will be attempting to channel her during this session, up to, but not including wearing a wig. So, Siwan is an avid re-user of digital content provided by New Zealand Glamms, which is why she wanted to give this talk today and she's rather gutted she couldn't be here, but I'll do my best in her absence. Siwan, if you know Siwan, you'll know that re-using glam content is her passion. She's not a museum professional, she is one of these members of the public that we are trying to engage with our collections. And I'll now switch into Siwan mode and speak, she can speak through me. So the reason I'm here is I have problems re-using public domain digital content. So I want to explain the issues I have and offer suggestions as to how my difficulties might be mitigated by you, the glam community. Before I start, I should say at the outset, you are my people. Each and every hard-working glam employee and volunteer, you are all doing amazing work with limited funds and time. I recognise what I'm about to say might make some people feel defensive. But when I name particular institutions as examples, please recognise I'm using them to illustrate the problems I'm having. I am not blaming my people, the folk doing the hard yards, attempting to do the right thing to change the institutions from the inside. I want you to get the support you need, the training, the funds, the institutional buy-in. Also recognise that this is my Siwan's personal experience attempting to re-use my cultural heritage content held in trust for me by New Zealand Lambs. I am by no means an expert in copyright. I'm just trying to do my best when it comes to navigating public domain, copyright, and website terms and conditions. So how did all this come about? I re-use digital content and data in Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikidata every day. I like to think I'm doing so for the benefit of all New Zealanders so that when they Google it, they can easily find content that's relevant to them. I want to improve not just their access to New Zealand content, but their ability to re-use their own cultural heritage. This is heritage content, again, held in trust for them by New Zealand Lambs. Heritage content that the New Zealand public have played a role in creating, collecting and donating. Cultural heritage that they are hard in taxes and rates, their payment of entry fees, their fundraising and donations go towards purchasing and maintaining. When re-using our images, I as an ordinary member of the public have to work out, preferably with glam guidance, whether the works provided on New Zealand glam websites are both culturally and legally appropriate for re-use. And I recognise, acknowledge and firmly believe that not everything provided on glam websites can or should be available for re-use. Other rights exist aside from copyright. The cultural status of the original work may restrict re-use. Privacy rights or donor restrictions might apply. And I look to glam institutions to provide guidance on these rights. Ideally, these valid justifications are explicitly stated on the institutional website, so the reason for the restriction on re-use is clear. But for the purposes of this presentation, I want to discuss those public domain works where there are no other rights that apply to the digital copy of the work. I firmly believe that publicly funded glam's should ensure that their culturally appropriate public domain digital content is freely re-usable. But while I've been doing this work, I frequently come across what I regard as unjustified restrictions on the re-use of public domain content on New Zealand glam websites. So at the beginning of this year, I, Siobhan, decided on a New Year's resolution. When making this resolution, I hoped that by raising the problems I was having with the institutions themselves, this would help them clarify their instructions, write statements and terms and conditions on their websites. Now, I admit that I came into this assuming that publicly funded cultural heritage institutions didn't intend to be hoarders or gatekeepers. I assumed they weren't gollums stroking their treasures and saying, my precious, I believe the mission statements of glam's that they were there to change hearts, minds and lives, to collect, connect and co-create knowledge to power New Zealand, to serve their communities to enrich lives and inspire discoveries, to connect through sharing stories of peoples, lands and seas. I still believe this, although as I will explain later, this belief has wavered as a result of some of the issues I've faced. So what issues do I have with re-use? Well, there are three general problems I've come across this year. The first is inconsistent re-use statements or terms of use clauses on glam websites. As an example of this is the National Library. Now, I love the National Library. They are by no means the only institution that suffers from this issue. I recognise that over the last year they have made massive strides improving the ability of New Zealanders to re-use the public domain content on their websites. And given the final issue I'll be discussing, I almost feel like I'm nit-picking when I raise this. But they are currently a good example of where inconsistent statements on their various websites are causing confusion and hindering re-use of public domain content. And to show you what I mean, let's look at this public domain image. Okay, so on their website I see this statement attached to the image. In this case I'm looking at a photograph that was taken in 1917. So according to my guide New Zealand Copyright Duration, to puppets freely available copyright duration flowchart, this photograph is likely out of copyright. However, the National Library website states that I can't re-use the image commercially without permission. And this restriction means I can't actually upload it into Wiki Commons or have it appear in Wikipedia or WikiData. So this image appears to be in the public domain, but the website is telling me it can't be used for commercial purposes. And whether this type of restriction is actually legally enforceable in New Zealand. Can institutions in New Zealand contract out of the public domain via terms and conditions on their website? It's certainly confusing and has put me and others like me off from re-using content. But I'm looking for a way, any way, to re-use this work. So I click on the More Information can be found in their Terms of Use link. Now I'm normally only wanting to re-use free downloads provided by the library. So I head to the Terms for Free Downloads paragraph and is this image a free download? Yes it is. So assuming that this information trumps the previous information given, and because I want to re-use the work I will definitely assume this, I can re-use this image so long as I obey the three requirements. So I still have some restrictions imposed on me when re-using this public domain work. I have no idea whether these restrictions are actually legally enforceable in New Zealand and if they are legally enforceable I admit it annoys me a bit that the National Library are imposing requirements on re-use of public domain works rather than just requesting the same. Yes, what they are requiring is good practice and at least for my particular re-use I'm not too overly burdened by it but I do feel sorry for say someone wanting to re-use multiple public domain images in an artwork like a collage. The white description label next to that will just have to be UPDIN words long. So I go to download the image but there at the corner of the download page is another terms of use link and this tells me that the file is made available for personal research only. Now you'd think not many people would even notice the small link but you'd be wrong. There aren't that many Wikipedians in New Zealand but I've had at least two who have been confused and put off from re-using content on the website as a result of this link and that's a pretty small subset of the people who want to re-use these images. Now as a result of this terms of use statement I've written to the National Library to request permission to re-use public domain content that's available for free download I can ignore it. Well this is great for me but I do wonder if I can ignore this statement what other re-use requirements and statements can I ignore? Also staff time and resources have been wasted and continue to be wasted clearing up the confusion created by these conflicting statements. But my main concern isn't so much with the folk like me who write in. It's with the New Zealanders who don't who are put off from re-using public domain content to the detriment of everyone because of statements that are inconsistent or unclear. Now I know that the National Library are working hard on these issues and I'm hopeful that sometime in the near future they'll be addressed. And before you start feeling virtuous thinking well my institution doesn't do that I'd like to remind folks that the National Library are by no means the only glam institution in New Zealand who are suffering from this issue and this results in New Zealanders being put off from re-using public domain content I believe they should be entitled to re-use. So I want you to go and look at your institution's website. Look up the terms and conditions. I'd like you to imagine you're a member of the public rocking up to the website for the first time. Take an example of the public domain work your institution holds that's well out of copyright, has no other issues waiting to cultural status of the work privacy donor requirements or work that would fall within the fallacy or to low hanging fruit of public domain content. Follow your institution's website trail of re-use instructions if that trail even exists. Exactly how simple and easy do you as a professional find it then think about how the public might experience it. Remember if your institution's terms of use are inconsistent or in any way restrict re-use of public domain content limiting the public's engagement with your collection. Now there are also many glam institutions doing a great job making it easy to re-use public domain content. If you'd like an example of a website with right statements on their works and terms of use page that explains those statements in a simple, easy to understand way look no further than the sergeant gallery. Anyone from the sergeant here? Oh shame. I recognise that the sergeants are much smaller institution with a much smaller collection and I admit I'm biased in their favour as they also provide a search function where I can find all their works that are classed as no-no and copyright restrictions. It says swoon here. Their terms of use section is clear and succinct, gives an example of how to credit a work and also gives a point of contact for future inquiries. Oh that every glam in New Zealand was like the sergeant. Now onto the second issue I've come across. I've frequently seen institutions place Creative Commons licences on public domain content. They want to share what they regard as their content but only under restrictive terms. Now I'd hope that everyone in this room is aware that a Creative Commons licence is a copyright licence and in most cases copyright will eventually come to an end. And once a worker sends into the public domain in New Zealand to New Zealand copyright to licence. So I spent time this year fulfilling my New Year's resolution by writing to institutions explaining this. My first institution was the Canterbury Museum at the beginning of the year and I love the Canterbury Museum though, fabulous. They get an email from someone on the 2nd of January peak New Year's resolution time right when everyone's on holiday and they're still extremely responsive replying straight away to the email explaining what they intend to do about it and amazingly quick turnaround considering they had to correct the metadata on multiple objects on the website and they've now added no-no and copyright restrictions statements to the items I brought to their attention. But some Glam institutions have seemed to want to use Creative Commons licences on public domain works and to ensure they get attribution or alternatively stop folks from reusing what they regard as their content commercially. This can't seem to understand that although they may own the physical work the intellectual property in that work has ascended to the public domain. If a Creative Commons license is placed on a public domain work or a copy of the same I believe that license is unenforceable that doesn't make any legal sense and as a result I can ignore it you can't license a copyright that doesn't exist but not everyone is able or prepared to make that judgement by placing Creative Commons license on a public domain work the institution is hindering reuse of the work. Folks will be put off from reusing a work if they think they have to comply with the license. I know because I have been put off reusing works which are appropriately Creative Commons licenced because I like to prioritise works with the least requirements for reuse. Members of the public will be confused and put off. Often this confusion is multiplied by a statement being duplicated on aggregators such as EHive and Digital NZ. These aggregators rely on the original institution being correct in their right statements and they likely field concerns from a confused public when a work is in the public domain but has had a Creative Commons license placed on it so don't only does this hind to reuse it also waste their time so I believe the solution to this idea is more education of all staff from institution board members to chief executive down. Education on the public domain the much smaller subset of works that fall within copyright and the even smaller subset of those works which have their reuse licensed under Creative Commons. Now you all work for institutions that are amazing generators of copyrighted content. You constantly encourage the public to actively engage with your collections and engage to me means reuse. You yourselves generate copyrighted content in your daily lives. You should all have a basic understanding of the public domain copyright and Creative Commons. Reuse is the digital engagement that everyone at NDF is talking about see me aiming for so educate yourselves on reuse watch those YouTube videos read those papers take those courses Now on to the third issue up to now I've been dealing with problems that result when an institution is taking their content online and at least attempting to allow for some sort of reuse but there are publicly funded glam institutions in New Zealand that place content online and then restrict most if not all potential reuses whether the works in the public domain or not they tend this through a variety of ways but most frequently it's through a blanket restriction set out in the glam website terms and conditions and over this year I would have believed possible it is these institutions I've been extremely reluctant to contact I admit that although I've written to a few during this year given their blanket restrictions I feel like contacting them is likely a complete waste of my time and I also find it too emotionally draining the frustration and distress that results when I start looking at the combination of their licence statements, their terms of use and their physical entry restrictions is just too upsetting for me and it takes from preparing this very presentation after spending time on their websites it is hard enough writing institutions who at least are attempting to allow reuse in some form but I find it almost impossible where there appears to be a deliberate effort to hinder the reuse of public domain content and I get very distraught and I don't like being distraught so what do they do to get me so worked up here's an example of the type of institution I'm going to pick the Dunedin Public Art Gallery again I'd like to emphasise that they aren't the only New Zealand glam that appears to severely restrict the reuse of digital public domain content they've just become the glam unfortunate enough to be picked by me as my example like many glam institutions in New Zealand Dunedin Public Art Gallery has physical entry restrictions one of these is if a member of the public creates their own copy of a public domain artwork by taking a photograph of it the gallery limits the reuse that people can put that copy to and the members of the public can only reuse it for personal non-commercial purposes only now as I said that is an unusual many galleries and museums do the same but this contracting out of the public domain via terms of entry is exacerbated by restrictions on reuse of digital copies of public domain works on their own website and if you go to their website you'll see on the bottom right link link to the terms and conditions of use now the way I read the website access clause is that the Dunedin Public Art Gallery restricts reuse of their website content personal use only outside of personal use unless the reuse falls within the fair dealing sections of the Copyright Act 1962 1962 you have to get written permission to reuse content again I don't know whether these website terms and conditions are legally enforceable in New Zealand institutions restrict reuse of public domain content in New Zealand via the website terms and conditions if they can I would like to think that this publicly funded institution doesn't mean what they appear to say surely their whole reason for existence is to share their art let the public engage with their collections perhaps they mitigate these blanket terms and conditions with specific terms of reuse for particular public domain artworks but if you go to the collection tab there appear to be no right statements placed on copies of public domain works the only information the gallery provides about copying particular works can be found on the reproductions tab and this information gives the blanket statement that to make a reproduction of any work in the Dunedin Public Art Gallery collection you have to fill in a form accept their terms and conditions and pay a fee and this blanket restriction on reuse also appears even when searching aggregators all 15,807 images from the Dunedin Public Art Gallery which appear on digital NZ many of which are in the public domain have a statement all rights reserved on them 106 files on e-hype which again include many public domain works say all rights reserved what rights the art gallery is reserving when the works are sent into the public domain I do not know so in practical terms institutions that do as the Dunedin Public Art Gallery appears to have done take public domain works out of the public domain assuming such website terms and conditions are legally enforceable institutions who use these strategies are establishing practical and perpetual control of the copying these public domain works and I'll remind you I'm discussing institutions that are publicly funded and hold these works in trust for the New Zealand public and obviously I regard this as wrong institutions that do this are publicly funded hoarders of cultural heritage now I argue that institutions don't intend to do this that all they want to do is get funding from the reuse of these works or alternatively they want to control the reuse for other reasons such as for works that are culturally sensitive but I'd argue there are fair mechanisms than this if institutions are concerned about the cultural status of a work then surely they can specifically restrict reuse of just those works alone if institutions are relying on the argument of the need to generate funding how much funding is actually being generated from these images and I hope when figuring this out they offset the administrative costs incurred from generating this type of income if it's a significant amount institutions can always compromise and allow for reuse of lower quality copies of public domain works but charge for the privilege of access to their professionally produced high resolution versions and personally I even regard this compromise as short-sighted but I'm desperate so I'll settle for any crumbs they prepared to throw my way so I'd also remind you that I'm discussing publicly funded institutions the New Zealand public is already paying through taxes, rates and grants provided by organisations such as Creative New Zealand the public is supporting the existence of these institutions by paying entry fees to exhibits they're donating works and cash providing free labour through volunteering and for some institutions this support by the New Zealand public has been happening for decades so I firmly believe that the public deserve to be able to freely reuse that part of their heritage that's ascended to the public domain and is culturally appropriate for reuse so what's my workflow when I come across institutions like that sometimes copies of their public domain works are on other websites and those other websites may have no terms or conditions on reuse or if they do they only discuss this restriction in relation to copyright which of course no longer exists so that's the website I copy sometimes I'll write to the institution asking what consequences I might suffer if I copy and reuse these works in contradiction to their terms and conditions other times I weigh up the risk and if I feel brave and offended enough I might possibly take a copy for reuse without contacting the institution take a look at my slides for examples of this but I'm risk of this and more often than not I don't and I'm sad to say I don't reuse copies of these public domain treasures nor do other New Zealanders and we're all poor as a result what these types of institutions and my New Year's resolution have taught me is how much I appreciate those glams that are easy for me and the rest of New Zealand to reuse public domain content the institutions that are working hard to allow reuse those who have easy to understand public domain rights or copyright statements who have generous website terms of use who provide guidance on the cultural status of works who make it easy to download those who give reuse guides on what you can do with the works and those who provide suggested credit statements this year has made me appreciate all the wonderful New Zealand glams who prioritise reuse of their collections who enrich my life exponentially and make it easy for me to deeply engage with my cultural heritage and to those many institutions and their hard-working staff I say a heartfelt thank you this has been me Mike Dickerson channeling Shaborn Leachman