 Thank you, Martina and hello to everyone. It's really nice to be a part of this conference and thank you for inviting me Martina to speak more on copyright considerations and 3D printing. And with that, I'm going to go ahead and just let you know that none of the information that I share today is intended to be legal advice. Please consult with an attorney or if you work at a cultural institution where you have in-house counsel. Please connect with them regarding any questions regarding copyright and 3D printing. The ideas and the information that I share today is my own. All right, and I with that I'm going to share my screen and okay. I'm hoping everyone can see this. It looks great. Great. All right, so 3D printing just as an overview 3D printing touches on all three major areas of intellectual property law. I should also make a note that I'm specifically going to be speaking about intellectual property and copyright as it is governed here in the United States. It is important to be aware that copyright laws do vary depending on the jurisdiction of the country. So within the US, one of the three major areas, the three major areas of intellectual property law are trademark copyright and patent. We have what is an identifying mark like a name logo or slogan that allows consumers to connect to a good to a good or a service to its source. Copyright is the legal right held by the creator of an original work. This right arises immediately after an original tangible work is created and this is the area that we're going to focus on because copyright is really the analogous to to artwork in the creation of original art. And patent provides legal rights to the owner of an invention or mechanism that prevents any other person from manufacturing using or selling or importing the product substance or process under patent protection. And just as a side note, most recently, I know there was a dispute that arose in Italy during the height of the pandemic there where I think local engineers had created a recreated a breathing valve designed for a medical device and digitally printed it with a 3D printer without permission of the patent holder and patent holder was a company in the United States and so this really raised a lot of issues around and also potentially ethical concerns about enforcing intellectual property rights during a medical emergency. It also showed how easy it is for for anyone to possibly infringe on intellectual property rights owned by another via the use of 3D printers. So as I mentioned today we're going to focus on copyright as one of the tenements of intellectual property law. And you know the rules around copyright and 3D printing in the United States are governed by the current laws of copyright, namely the Copyright Act of 1976, as well as the digital millennium copyright Act of 1998 which governs more of the online copyright use and both both the statutes both laws are very important within the context of museums and cultural institutions, because of the nature of the work and reproducing images reproducing original art, which is really a right that is exclusive to the copyright holder. And so, because museums seek to reproduce artwork images, often for their various exhibitions and programming, we are then creating derivative works as part of those artworks and in a lot of ways 3D printing can be viewed in the same way. When we take an image of an artwork, it's more of a two dimensional image, but with 3D printing, we can now create these 3D printed reproductions. But it's important to note that the laws don't really change and that the current laws that we have are are are pertinent to 3D printing as well. It's also true that there's not a lot of case law in the area of 3D printing. Maybe because it's a relatively new technology for the mainstream I know that 3D printing first started probably as far back as the 80s. But as far as coming into the mainstream realm, it's still fairly new technology that maybe use in a more mainstreamed way and so we haven't had too many legal case laws, or legal disputes on the other hand, however, there is one that I'd like to highlight and this was the Penrose Triangle takedown notice. And so just for a little bit of background, the Penrose Triangle was a design created by a Swedish graphic artist named Oscar Reutersvard, who created this optical illusion in the 1930s. And then in 2011, a design file was posted onto Thingiverse, which is a lot on online site that allows users to post their designs for 3D printed objects. In 2011, a designer named Ulrich Schwanitz wanted to send a copyright takedown notice to Thingiverse claiming to be the owner of the copyright in the 3D printed version of the object, claiming that the design files and fringe on his copyright. You know, essentially, there was kind of a public outcry and Schwanitz relented and offered his digital file of the Penrose Triangle into the public domain. And so I raised this because it's always an interesting question of whether taking a reproducing an original design or a work, an object, when we think of photographing an artwork, when we create that copy or that derivative work. So are there any underlying work or rights that the reproducer then has so in context of 3D printing. If we take a design and create a digital code in order to create a 3D printed object. Does that designer of the code now have intellectual property rights in the creation of that 3D file. So these are still a lot of matters that are very much in a great area. They often will hinge on the severability doctrine, which basically the courts will look to see if there's anything unique. Is there any unique identifying mark to the copy that would give it some originality or is it merely just an exact copy of the original. And I think this also applies when we look at the museum or cultural institutional use of 3D objects. There is in the United States we have the doctrine of fair use and fair use. I'm not going to get into it too much because it's a conversation all in its own but it was also codified in the Copyright Act of 1976. There's a four part test to to fair use one being the purpose evaluating the purpose and character of the use to looking at the nature of the copyright copyrighted work. Three looking into the amount and substantiality of the portion taken and for the effect of the use upon the potential market. And so that's what is often used to evaluate a fair use case. If it goes through the courts and you know fair use often comes up for museums as well in the event that we are, you know, if a rights holder comes with question about why a museum reproduce a certain object. It may be able to argue fair use. It's a very gray area of the law, and it's often very dependent on a case by case basis. At this point in time, it's to my knowledge it's not widely known if museums or cultural institutions are using 3D printers as a tool to document conserve or exhibit artworks, apart from works that are created by artists using 3D printing as their medium, or in a specific case where an artist has bestowed through the acquisition process, the digital file in which to create the 3D printed object. So I'm going to talk a little bit about the advantages and best practices of 3D printing. There are lots of advantages to to the use of this technology, and one coming from a conservation point of view, it would allow for greater study of an object or of an artwork. So understand that 3D printing can be used as a tool in exhibition design, thinking maquettes I know oftentimes when an exhibition is being organized, it is very helpful to see a smaller version of the exhibition, as it would be installed using a tiny tool like this and 3D printing could be a great tool for being able to envision the exhibition design on a smaller scale. And then also one of the advantages of 3D printing is that it could bring life to older objects in the collection and particularly those in the public domain. While I was doing some of my research I was reading about how many artists are using 3D printing as part of their tools and as part of their medium. And I came across this quote from these are designers named Rob and Nick Carter in London. And they said they created sculptures through 3D printing that were inspired by centuries old paintings, for example, Sunflowers after Vincent van Gogh. And according to them they said they wanted to bring old masterworks to life to marvel at Dutch golden age realism and share in that culture's delight of nature. It became our ambition to create a body of work that rewarded viewers for the extra time spent looking through the introduction of new and interesting elements. We want to slow down the viewer draw them in and make them read examine the work and relook at a painting. And so, when you think of 3D printed works I think it's, it's great for for collections that do have a lot of objects that are no longer rights protected or are in the public domain. So 3D printing can be a really great tool to use in recreating reproducing these artworks in a way that can further create more engagement to audiences, maybe even provide opportunities for for more tactile engagement. Often times in museums. Perhaps it's a bit of human nature but there is often this desire to touch and hold objects, and 3D printing might be able, maybe a really great tool to address some of those desires to touch and feel an object, particularly of those works that are no longer rights protected. And so I'm going to now pivot a little bit to best practices. When seeking to and using 3D printed technology in collections I thought Peter did a wonderful job of discussing the pre acquisition conversations and pre acquisition questions that can often come up. When a museum is acquiring a work or an object that is 3D printed or uses 3D printed materials. I think it's very important from a rights point of view to communicate if the artist is living. It's really great to to have those conversations directly with the artist so that the museum can really understand further how how to conserve and how to steward these objects. It's very important also to state your reasons. What are the benefits to the museum. If the object or if the artist has also bestowed the digital file to the museum as part of the acquisition. Really understanding what that enables the museum to do and how the museum can further preserve and conserve the work into into the future and in perpetuity. As far as language in agreements. It really does depend on a case by case basis. However, there is language that can be included into agreements that provides kind of broad usage and Once some of that language in agreements and I quote could be could be written as the artist here by grants to whatever the name of the acquiring body is a worldwide perpetual royalty free and irrevocable license to copy use a form display or otherwise create images or recordings of the final work without restrictions and this is the key in whole or in part in any media whether now known or here after device and so that language really gives a very broad use and a very broad interpretation in terms of how how the museum or how the acquiring body may use and reproduce the work or the license that is obtained when acquiring the work. Now, of course the rights holder could take issue with some of the language there maybe place a little bit more restrictions around what media whether now known or here after device actually means but you know it is one way in order to kind of provide a catch all for current technologies and technologies that may be made and created in the future, and the museum will be able to reproduce or have a license to reproduce the, the, the object that has been acquired using these new technologies that are with us currently and the technologies to come. Lastly, I'm going to touch a little bit more on artists and 3d printing. So here we have an image of the artist surely sees work negotiated differences. And as part of this work the artist use 3d printing use 3d printed materials and the creation of the work and in particularly the joints that connect the pieces together so if you looking at this image you can see that there's kind of these joints that connect these objects together. And it's my understanding that the artist also applied a creative commons license to the digital file for these these joints. And this enabled users to reproduce these materials provided that they adhere to the license created by the author. And so that's also another point that is very important to make is that with creative commons I think creative commons is a really wonderful tool and platform for users to share content without, you know, the current copyright restrictions, or to set their own parameters around usage. However, it's very important that when using or using content from creative commons that you pay particular attention to the structure of the license that the author has set on that object or on that image. A common license that you see associated a common a common creative commons license that you see associated with 3d printing is the CC BY NC and D and what that means is that if you are to use or reproduce this object. The license request that you provide attribution as well as that you not use it for that it's used for a non commercial purpose. So that it's not used and then reproduce or distributed for sale. And then that there are no derivatives of the artwork so in some cases there are restrictions that could come with using creative commons licenses it's it's not necessarily that it's a free for all that you can you find an object or an image or a code on a creative commons license that you can just do whatever you wish, but there are some parameters that a rights holder can set. And so depending on the type of use users can go and reprint the joints that surely see used in her piece negotiated differences provided that they abide by this creative commons license that the artist has set around usage. And with that, I am going to stop.