 Thank you, Joan. Hi, everybody. I hope you can see the screen clearly and hear me well. Thank you, Katie, for that amazing talk just now. It's incredible. We're really pleased to be here to talk to you with you about open access and cultural heritage and about how Andrea and I in recent years have put together a global survey of what we call Open Glam. So without further ado, let's briefly introduce ourselves. Andrea, over to you. Who are you? Who am I? I ask it every day. I'm Andrea Wallace. I'm a senior lecturer in law at the University of Exeter. A lot of my research focuses on how cultural heritage institutions make their collections available online and the intellectual property issues around that. Over to you, Doug. I've been working in cultural heritage and museums that focus on copyright and licensing for almost 20 years now. I'm currently working at the European Foundation based here, speaking to you from the Netherlands. Open access to cultural heritage is a real passion and interest of mine. It's something that Andrea and I share. So Glam, you've seen it in the title, but in case you're not aware, not sure what it means. Glam stands for galleries, libraries, archives and museums. It's a useful shorthand and encompass is really the whole world of cultural heritage. So if there are cultural collections, museum type collections that are held in non strictly Glam institutions, maybe like libraries, sorry, like universities, then those can also be encompassed and fall into the definition. So what is Open Glam? We, there's actually two parts of this question. Open Glam is a movement that stands for Open Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums and it's looking at digital collections and how those are made available online, particularly for reuse by the public. And the second part of that is what does open mean? Because there are often a lot of understandings around open access and open data or open Glam that don't necessarily match onto the international standards, which require materials to be freely accessible, usable and that can be modified and shared for any purpose, including commercial purposes. And so that's usually the kicker right there. It hasn't been made available for commercial reuse. And if it's not, then it doesn't meet the international standards for open access, which means Open Glam in this instance is digital collections that are made available online for any purpose whatsoever, including commercial reuse. Just over three years ago, our mutual friend, Simon Tan, who's based in London, put out this tweet asking for a quick, short list, a few examples of why CC0, so that's the legal tool from Creative Commons for full liberal open access, is great, you know, it's good for museums because he wanted to convince the museum to go open access. So simple question and there was a longer answer, which has taken over three years since. So in the Twitter thread that followed Andrea and I and a few other kind of Open Glam activists and interested people shared a few examples, but we quickly realized that actually a list of any sort that was even reasonably like that, you know, that encyclopedic or representative actually didn't, didn't exist. So we thought, well, no, maybe, maybe we should make one. So why did we start what we call the Open Glam survey? Well, first of all, there was no, there was a lack of up to date information on the topic. I mean, there had been a couple of surveys, I think we've been working media projects around open access a few years before, but as with, often with projects, people move on, the data gets old really, really quickly. So yeah, there was nothing up to date. There's also no shared place to kind of see and particularly to add relevant data in this field. And I think Andrea and I shared a sense that there was a perceived very Anglophone European and North American bias in the field that Open Glam was totally dominated by national or massive museums. So we really want to discover the global picture of Open Glam. Who is the survey for? Well, it's for people who want to find and use open content or data. And of course, you know, open data in the Glam space is incredibly varied. And also, we wanted something, a resource for Glam's who were thinking about open access, maybe starting it, dipping the toe in the water or going further with open access, open data, and to really understand what their peers were doing around this topic. So those are the key motivations. So what our survey actually collects is we kind of start and think about how Glam's make this data available, whether it's digital objects, metadata or text, and available for reuse. And so we kind of start with that idea that obviously there's a lot of objects that are held by cultural institutions. Many of those objects have passed into the public domain, which means there's no copyright on them. There's no copyright restrictions and making reproductions. And there may be other restrictions that we need to think about. But of course, cultural institutions have been digitizing those and making them available. So then the question becomes whether or not that reproduction, that digital copy, however we want to refer to it, is in fact, original enough to receive its own copyright protection. So this is where that kind of dynamic of how our institutions making their collections available online centers. So if institutions with public domain objects digitize those and make those available under open standards, that's the entry point for the survey. After that, we end up looking into see what the right statements are for the metadata or any other text around some of the content that's made available online. And we also track the specific license or label that the materials are made available under. So kind of going back to Simon's tweet, he wanted to know specifically what institutions are making things available under the CC0 public domain dedication. So even though we kept coming up with, oh no, but that institution uses CCBuy or this institution uses a public domain mark, these are the types of data points that we find to be useful for people who are starting to think about doing this either with their own collection, doing research on Open Glam, even users trying to find collections located close to them that they can reuse for any purpose whatsoever. So how do we go about putting the survey together? So the data focus really is Glam, it's data that focuses on Glam's data made available either on their own websites, typically collections online and or a variety of external platforms. And as Andrea said, the focus is on digital surrogates of objects in the public domain where any tone of copyright for the material object has expired or actually never existed in the first place. And the information from the survey is gathered via extensive desk research and importantly, outreach to the wonderful global Glam community. So thank you again to them. And that can be via Twitter, via email, a variety of ways that there is an Open Glam community out there who put their hand up and let us know when we've missed something or something has changed. So they're incredibly important part of the whole process. Key data points in the survey, which at its heart is a large Google sheet. We have institution name that's always recorded in the original language, country of the institution type. So is it a gallery, is it a library, is it a university, for example? There are always direct links to the Open Glam content and the data, including GitHub's and API services. As Andrea mentioned, that we specify the licenses or the right states for both the digital surrogates and metadata. And wherever possible, we link to the Glam's terms of use and their copyright policies. And finally, there are Wicked Data and QIDs for every institution in the survey. So one of the things that also helps us with this is going to places that collect this information and doing some searches within that or going straight to data aggregators like Hirakiana, Japan Search, Trove, and Digital New Zealand. But we also look at the Committee of Commons, Flickr Commons, CC Search, Sketchfab. Of course, institutions have been uploading 3D collections under open licenses or public domain dedications. And then hackathons, where institutions are often digitizing or releasing a small set or a sample of data that they've been able to prepare for the purpose of a hackathon, that then becomes part of, for example, the coding DaVinci initiative, where that data set isn't available. And then of course, there's other open data portals. But the fact that these things are maintained allow us to sort by the license or the label and kind of look at the different areas where institutions are trying to make things available, whether that's because there's an aggregator geographically in the area or because Wikimedia Commons provides a platform that they can use where their own institutional website wouldn't be able to support that kind of functionality. The survey has its own, actually more than one ID in Wikidata. So it's fairly extensively referenced now in Wikidata, which of course, and I know this audience, there's this back to front, enables a very sophisticated, kind of sparkle queries and other forms of data interrogation of open ground. And we started, of course, with about 30 cultural institutions trying to think, oh, what's been on our list? Who have we been tracking? According to, of course, that open standard in March of 2018. And today we now have 1200 cultural institutions, but also even like government archives or online repositories and other types of organizations that aren't maybe traditional cultural institution, universities, but make cultural heritage available in, you know, within the parameters of what we're collecting, which is like an incredible amount. And I think we just got very close to 16 million openly licensed digital objects linked to from the surveys sheet. So, okay, that's enough to keep most people going, right? Andrea, over to you. And so also some of what we are doing is using the Wikidata and Wikimaps to be able to run a query so that we can trace the locations of each of the institutions that are represented on the datasheet. So you'll see that there are large clusters and areas that have an aggregator. So we have representation in Japan, also New Zealand, Europe with your piano, the United States with DPLA. And so there's obviously a benefit to having these aggregators in terms of like the representation and what it can capture. And we know that we're missing things too. But outside of that there are institutions doing really creative things in India, in different countries in South America, where they're starting to dip their toes in and take smaller approaches to specific datasets or initiatives on a collections by collections basis. And I would say this is across the board with what we typically see. Some institutions are adopting an all eligible data approach, where basically everything that they can make available because they have either the rights to do that, or they know that there are no underlying rights in the material is made available for anyone to use. And the majority of institutions, I would say at least 75% of the list make things available on a collections by collections basis, which is often because of technology or funding or even grant obligations that come attached to the money that supports the digitization of some of these objects. So there's some very different and diverse approaches being taken all around the world. And yes, so you can also see of course, if we zoom in that where we have Digital Trove and also New Zealand that the representation is there as well. And in the US, particularly in areas where there are some of the larger institutions or really kind of metropolitan areas that release information either according to their website or also through DPLA, which is Digital Public Libraries of America. And then of course in Europe with the Europeana being a data aggregator and Doug working there, we always have the latest information from new additions to Europeana. So of course, there are many possibilities of querying filtering interrogating the data that I mentioned. After the Google Sheet itself, the Open Glam Survey, you can of course really easily output things like this, pie charts showing country distribution. So the number of Open Glam institutions per country, of course, it's a global survey with their role numbers and all the percentages. You can slice and dice the data by institution type, which I mentioned earlier. So here you can see that there's around or just over a third of the institutions are museums, libraries are also significant institution type in the survey. So it's really easy and very much encourage you all when you get to the survey to to output and play around with it and dig into the data and see what you find. And from a copyright licensing perspective, you can interrogate the data to look at, say, how many institutions are using the public domain mark versus CC0 or the known copyright flavors, a right statement versus CCBuy. So yeah, from a licensing practitioner copyright research perspective, I think it's useful. Andrea. So what we've also been learning from this is some really interesting things about the sector, which we all know, but it's allowed us to kind of reduce into things that are quantifiable and in a way that we can demonstrate some of the socioeconomic, technical and human infrastructures that are required and very expensive to support digitization, even access, how people are accessing and the quality of data that's made available. Of course, the metrics themselves are designed by areas of the world who see this as a priority. And those metrics then control how we are able to kind of capture different examples and represent them within the spreadsheet itself. Again, the aggregator distortion effect, because these are large datasets that come forward, evil with Wikimedia Commons being able to find examples that exist that then allow us to enter that data into the spreadsheet. And then of course, copyright and culture and the culture of copyright, which what that kind of relates to is thinking about areas where maybe copyright is actually kind of important to retain because it restricts access and reuse around materials that necessarily aren't appropriate. But at the same time, copyright is not always the best way to restrict access to these materials. And we need to be thinking about other ways where we don't use copyright as such a blunt tool to kind of tell users what they can and can't do with it. So this culture of copyright is something that, you know, often people say, oh, well, let's let's just claim copyright and then people won't be able to do these things with it. But it's not necessarily the best answer because copyright has an expiration date. And then of course, there's a very high barrier to entry for open access around this and open glam, because it requires having someone within the institution or access to someone with the legal knowledge around copyright, which is highly specific according to every country, even changes depending on, you know, the subject matter, whether, you know, it can be film material versus a painting. And so having an awareness of all of these things to be able to even do the copyright clearance in order to digitize is a huge barrier to entry for cultural institutions, because most most people often don't have that knowledge in house. You just can I just jump in to say you've got two minutes left. Thanks, Joe. So close to wrapping up just some notes on a crowdsourced approach. If you are taking this approach yourself and thinking about it, here are some of Andrea and I's reflections. The advantage, of course, to this agile and very low tech, you know, we just made a spreadsheet and we started filling it and making it bigger. We didn't need an IT department, any kind of permissions culture. It allows you to make incremental updates. The survey is updated most weeks. So most people can get around to spreadsheet. So it's a reasonably accessible way to store and manage data. The survey has been community powered, as I mentioned, and it also avoids this thing of survey fatigue, like who really needs to be to get another survey, you know, the response rate is usually super low. So we can dodge that bullet, I hope. And also, this is independent and inclusive. It's not owned by an institution. Andrea and I are hopefully can reasonably trusted positive actors in this space. And it's very much a community driven initiative rather than being owned by anybody. And it's easy to ask for expert help. So I've definitely got a little bit better at wiki data from all this zero knowledge over the last three years. There are lots of people out there who will help you out with any queries and help that you might need. The challenge is, of course, is that this approach lies in the discoverability of open data. We know, for example, that search engines generally don't do a great job of surfacing open access cultural heritage. And it does require commitment from the lead actors of Andrea and I in this case, mostly, to keep it going and to keep it active. So to read more about the survey, I've written a few articles on medium. Here's a link to open glam survey, if you want to dig in a bit deeper. And we would like to thank you very, very much for listening and joining us today.