 Kia ora. So I'm honored to be presenting this paper to you today on behalf of Douglas McCarthy. I first met Douglas in 2017 in Hamburg at Shear Care X, a conference dedicated to all things open glam. I've seen this survey that I'm going to talk to you about today, take shape over the past 18 months. And I'm really proud of this body of work that informs where we are at with adopting open glam on a global scale. This presentation aims to give you a zoomed out look at how glam's around the world are adopting open glam practices. And then we also touch on where New Zealand is fits in within this today as well. So on that note, this presentation aims to explore the global picture of open access and cultural heritage through the open glam survey and hopefully inspire excellent open access policy and practice. So what is the open glam survey? In essence, the open glam survey examines how glam's make open access data with the digital objects, such as images, metadata or text available for reuse. The survey was started in March 2018 by Douglas, collections manager at Europeana, and Dr. Andrea Wallace, lecturer in law at the University of Exeter. This research was completely independent to their respective institutions. Andrea will be familiar to this audience and community from her work on open glam and her keynote at NDF 2017. Does anyone remember the Mona Lisa Inception? So the survey is accessible via the short link on the slide, and the survey data is stored in an openly accessible Google sheet for public reference and comment. So feel free to jump in and have a look while I'm speaking. So Douglas and Andrea started the survey for two main reasons. Firstly, to address the information gap, encounter the lack of comprehensive up-to-date information. They wanted to provide a shared space to see and add relevant data, and they wanted to investigate the perceived Western bias in open glam as well. They were motivated to discover and share the global picture. And on top of this, they also wanted to develop a resource for glam people exploring open access policy and practice, and also people wanting to find and use open content or data as well. But firstly, let's define open. A consistent working definition of open glam has always been crucial. The survey adopts the open definition developed by Open Knowledge International. And in summary, it says that open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose. So on this slide, this is the list of the principal licenses and rights statements which conform to the open definition. We have not yet seen the open data commons licenses being used in the glam sector, but they're just shown here for reference. And for the purposes of the survey, you'll note that there's an asterisk by the no known copyright. So for the survey that includes other versions of the right statement, this particular no known copyright refers to the right statement.org version, but for the survey results includes New Zealand's own no known copyright restrictions, and also the Flickr Commons version as well. But what about non-commercial or no derivative policies? Sorry, that is not open access. Creative Commons non-commercial and no derivatives licensing is too restrictive to be considered open. Non-commercial obviously restricts commercial reuse, and no derivatives prevents people from reusing the content in creative ways. So in essence, it restricts people from taking the work and remixing or building on it. And these licenses do not meet the open criteria. To put it very simply, there's a difference between seeing something and being able to use it how you please. To free access is not open access. The survey identifies instances of open glam where glam's make open data available on their websites and or external platforms, such as GitHub, Europeana, German Digital Library, or Wikimedia Commons. It focuses on digital surrogates of objects in the public domain, where the term of copyright for the material object has expired, for example, a vase or a photograph, or it has never existed in the first place, so for example, scientific specimen. The survey also includes glam's publishing digital content that is entitled to copyright protection. For example, site photography taken by photographers at the institution or images of 3D objects, but on open access terms. So this is a slide and a snapshot of the survey in Google Sheets, of the Google Sheets survey, and the survey is openly accessible on comment-only terms and managed by Douglas and Andrea. It is backed up daily and updated weekly. So here are some of the survey data, the columns. Just gonna talk you through some of the columns that are in the survey. So we have the institution name, which is in the original language. What country it's from and the type of institution. If there's a Wiki data item, if there's links to open data, including Github's, APIs and Wiki Commons. The licences, right statements for digital surrogates and the metadata. Sometimes these can be different. Links to terms of use and copyright policies, if they are any, and there's also a column with the admission fee to the physical museum as well. This is a new part of data that Douglas and Andrea have started collecting within the last few months. And also there's a column for the open access scope, which is some or all eligible data. So it's important to note that the survey records instances of open access by GLAMs. And these instances are often small in scale and exceptions to a GLAM's overall policy and practice. So survey inclusion does not mean that a GLAM has a blanket open access policy. To help communicate this, open access scope in the survey indicates where the GLAMs release some or all of the eligible data on open access terms. However, this can be hard to discern because few GLAMs communicate their open access policies so explicitly. Since its birth in March last year, the survey has developed in an organic and crowdsourced way. A combination of desk research and outreach to the wonderful open GLAM community has enabled it to prosper and grow. An important facet of Douglas's desk research has been using the API of Mega Aggregata Europeana to identify many instances of open GLAM in small to medium European institutions. And just as a note, anyone is welcome to suggest corrections and additions by commenting in the sheet, contacting Andrea and Douglas on Twitter or completing the survey Google film. So the number of recorded open GLAM instances has grown rapidly in the past 18 months from 30 institutions at the start to almost 650 today. And this shows you the current global picture of open GLAM based on the survey data. In large parts of the world, such as Africa, India and most of Asia, as far as we can tell, are untouched by open GLAM. That's not to say that it's not happening, it just hasn't been discovered yet. And also Douglas has said that anyone is welcome to make their own visualizations from the Google sheet as well. So this slide shows a breakdown of open GLAM instances by country using the survey data. You'll note that Germany is in the lead with 114. USA is coming second with 64. And UK and Sweden are third equal with 43. We are beating Australia on six, we have 16 and they have 10. So this graph shows you the most frequently deployed open licenses and rights statements seen in the open GLAM survey. And as we can see, there has been widespread adoption of Creative Commons public domain dedications and copyright licenses by GLAMs. As I already mentioned, when looking at the conformant licenses, some data smoothing, so mapping the non-standard licenses to the nearest standard equivalent, has been done here to assist the clarity of the presentation. For example, as I mentioned earlier, the Flickr Commons no-no-on copyright restriction statement has been mapped to the rightsstatements.org, no-no-on copyright statement. And here are the New Zealand open GLAMs. Collectively, they have released just under 800,000 instances of open GLAM material. If you're on this list, give yourselves a huge pat on the back. And just to repeat, if your institution is open in some way and not on this list, then please let Douglas know. So having the survey data in a spreadsheet format has an unavoidable flattening effect, giving the impression that all open GLAM instances are equivalent. However, the devil really is in the detail. And in order to truly grasp the open GLAM landscape, we need to go deeper. So as we saw earlier, the open access scope in the survey indicates where the GLAMs are at least some or all of their eligible data on open access terms. Here's the picture across the whole survey. Less than a third of the surveyed GLAMs published all of their eligible data openly. Less than a third. And remember, data includes metadata, text, and digital surrogates. To really grasp the disparity in the open access scope, let's take a close look at two GLAMs in the survey. Museums Victoria is an all-eligible data instance of open GLAM, as well as openly releasing digital surrogates of its public domain objects with the public domain mark. They also apply an open CCBY 4.0 license to their contemporary photography. And the pie chart shows the volume of openly released items by license. And Douglas would also like to praise Museums Victoria for its excellent communication of open GLAM online. Not sure if you can read that, but it says, in plain language, can I reuse this image without permission? There's clear attribution information. The conditions of use are on the page, which Douglas has said, it's a rear bird. Pardon intended. Direct links to the CC license information. Clarity on licensing for text and image content. And finally, when you dig into the right section, they have a statement. We support the open release of data and information about our collections, which links to the open definition. Bravo. To illustrate the other end of the open access scope spectrum, let's take a look at the some eligible data at London's Victoria and Albert Museum. So as the chart shows, the V&A has released only a tiny proportion of its eligible data on open access terms under CCBY, which was done via the Europaana fashion project, and not even on the V&A's own platform. The V&A policy and practice asserts copyright and its digital surrogates of public domain works. And in this example, we looked at objects made before 1890. That's a lot of images that have copyright on them that should be in the public domain. So this is what a user sees on the V&A Search the Collections website when they want to download an image, which is of a public domain in this case. The restrictions are extensive. So it's non-commercial use only, maximum 4,000 copies of five years digital use, maximum A5 print, 768 pixel digital use, requirement for image attribution, which has to say copyright, Victoria and Albert Museum London, and mandatory consent to terms and conditions that are almost 4,000 words in length. So there's a significant difference between this organization and Museum's Victoria. Judging by the survey research, communicating open access effectively and consistently is challenging for many GLAMs. Given the complexity of copyright and licensing, this is perhaps not so surprising. The survey's online policy field links to the most relevant rights policy in terms of use available for each institution. We have found that GLAM terms of use and copyright statements are often generic, conflicting, lacking in relevant detail and subject to change. Do not expressly disclaim copyright. Inconsistence across web platforms, for example the GLAM's own website, third party aggregators, Flickr Commons, Google Arts and Culture. Accurate and consistent communication of copyright policy is a clear opportunity for GLAMs to do better. Douglas says GLAMs should consider getting your ducks in a row. It's also not uncommon to see examples of TLDR, too long, didn't read, terms of use. And as you can see here, sometimes even those terms of use are literally unreadable. This is a real life example from a Greek institution. Literally just question marks. For positive examples of good practice and a comparative analysis of how GLAMs practice open access online, here are two recommended articles. One, Communicating Use and Reuse in the Digital Collection Interface by Earl Cully Fitzpatrick. And one by Douglas, The Great Wave, why Hokusai's masterpiece tells us about museums copyright and online collections today. So when we consider the tens of thousands of museums that exist around the world, fewer than a thousand recorded instances of open GLAM seems modest. Open access is currently the exception and not the norm. It seems there's a cocktail of structural factors, financial, legal, political, strategic. These all restrain the growth of open access in the GLAM sector. And there's also a strain of active opposition to open access. Let's call this an open GLAM. So this is an open GLAM true story of what happened to Douglas recently when he asked a GLAM for permission to use a copyright-expired image. So this recent press release from the French Culture Workers Trade Union, CGT, is a timely reminder. Under the false pretext of opening to all the freedom of access to the images, it is in fact an organized plunder of the images of a patrimony for purely private and commercial uses that will be put in place. In this case, open access to cultural heritage is perceived as enabling cultural pillage and bound up with the apparent deregulation agenda of tech giants like Google. As a result of the survey, we can better understand the global landscape of open GLAM. We now have accurate data on open GLAM's geographic distribution as disparities of scale and scope in its licensing practice. Knowing which organizations have invested in open GLAM, even those with minor instances, encourages studies on the impact of open GLAM. In fact, one could say that open access practiced by small institutions is actually more significant and relatable than that of major Western museums. Douglas and Andrea's work on the open GLAM survey combined with a growing body of high quality literature and practice ensures for our sector a greater chance of mainstream adoption of open GLAM values on a global stage. So let's continue this journey together. Thank you.