 Thank you very much, Phil. And thank you New Zealand for having me at some, like Phil says, it's the first time I've been to NDF and I'm really, really excited to be here, so that's great. As Phil said, I work at Museum Victoria in Melbourne and my job is to put collections online. This talk's going to be a little bit about that, but really what it's going to be about is the philosophy and principles underlying what we're doing and what we are trying to achieve, not only with our data, but also with our images. Oh, and first, before I keep talking, I'd like to just say a really huge shout out to our fantastic interpreters over there. They've been doing such a wonderful job. In the Deaf community, when you want to applaud people, you go like that rather than clap. So I wonder if we could all give a really fantastic thank you and clap to our sign language interpreters, because they really are doing a wonderful job. And I'll try not to talk too fast. So the underlying principle about open access to collections has been with us for a long time. Museums put collections on display and exhibitions once in collection halls once used to look like this. You could come as a visitor and view the collections. And if you were very diligent at reading labels, you might even leave knowing something you didn't know before. So now, our collection exhibitions look something like this, which really, in some ways, isn't all that much different. What's different, I guess, is the digital labels and the labels that provide us more of an opportunity to put to put extended information, images and stories about the objects that we're putting on display. So, but as I said, what I really want to talk about today is not so much physical access to the collections, but the sense of online and connected access to collections information that putting our collections up onto the web provides us. I'm going to start from the premise that open is everywhere. So we talk about open science. We talk about open access publishing. Penny was talking about that yesterday. We talk about right to information now, rather than freedom of information. We talk about open source code. We talk about public information available for public good. So initially, I had a whole lot of slides to try and convince you that open access and making things open was a good idea. But I think in this audience, you don't really need to be convinced. If there are anyone who is in the audience who does need to be convinced, speak up now and I will try to convince you. But otherwise, we'll continue on. The bottom line is that museums have a lot more stuff in their collections than they can ever put on display. And there's plenty of things that never ever get beyond the store, particularly if your museum's got science collections like we do. This slide shows stats for the British Museum, which has 42,000 objects on display. Now, I don't know about you, but I'd seriously get museum leagues if I had to try and look at 42,000 objects in one visit. That's out of a collection of 7 million objects, which is only 0.006 of their collection. And Peter speaking yesterday also gave stats similar for the Rikes Museum, where he said that they have 8,000 artworks on display out of a collection of 1 million. So clearly providing access to collections online changes the game, as you can provide access to so many more things. At Museum Victoria, this is our current collections online site. And at the moment, we have just over 79,000 items on the site. Only a fraction of these are on display. And this set of information is only for our humanities collections. We also have sciences and indigenous cultures, which are not yet available through the interface. Each item on display has one or more images of varying quality, including some really dodgy images taken off a video disc. It's got text either written by curators or gathered over many years by various registrars, collection managers, curators and researchers. And you can see there's a few widgets up there too, things like is this thing on display, the map showing the various provenance and location information for the object. And right down the bottom of the screen that you can't see on this slide is a place to leave comments and lots of people do. But we've also put collection information out all over the place. We put about 8,000 historic images out to Historypin, for example. We put that data out onto Historypin, really just because we could. And because we thought Historypin was just such a cool project. This one particularly wasn't a strategically thought out decision. But after hearing Courtney telling us of Paula's experience of using Historypin with her father, it just makes me so glad that we just did dive in and put the images up. One of the curators who we initially approached to say, could we put these images up, sort of hummed and hard, scratched his head, and said, oh, yes, maybe we'll have them ready in about five years. And I thought, no, I'm just going to do it. So we did. So I think sometimes not thinking too carefully about who are your users going to be and what are their needs. And just doing something is good. We also have artworks up in Google Art. That was a difficult decision for us because we're not an art museum. We don't generally have art collections. And there was a lot of discussion about whether we even had a strong enough collection at all to be able to view it through the lens of art. But we're in there. We've got 188 items up there. And it did allow us to find an excuse to publicly make available some of the items from our Indigenous cultures collection, our scientific artwork collection, and our rare books collection from our library that we haven't got anywhere else, although eventually they'll hopefully make it into collections online. And all 79,000 of the items that we've got in our collections online site are harvested every Monday morning at six o'clock in the morning and go into the National Library of Australia's Trove site. Trove is very important to us, even though it's not a site that we run, because it's consistently the highest referring site back into our collections online. So people are finding stuff in Trove and then they come to visit our site. That's highest referring above Google. So it's a very important site. And we think it's very valuable to be able to share our records through into that resource. And then there's a project that we heard, some of us heard about yesterday, which is the Atlas of Living Australia. And Alexis from South Australian Museum talked a little bit about sharing their data into that project. Oops, if I actually showed you the slide it would be good. We put about 560,000 specimen records and about 13,000 images into the Atlas of Living Australia. This website takes scientific data and aggregates it with records from museums, herbaria, government departments, and CSIRO, so from all around the country. In aggregate, the data is much, much more useful to the researchers than having to come individually to each one, each organisation, and ask us to share. The main use of the data is by researchers who continue to download their use is to download the data and then do their analysis on it. So we make that available for them to do. And finally, of course, we put data into Digital NZ as well. Digital NZ uses our open access public API from our collections online site to pull all references to objects related to New Zealand into Digital NZ. So, you'd think with all that data that we're sharing and all that we're already doing, we'd have all our rights and licensing under control, but you'd be wrong. What we found in sharing data out to these other sites and in wanting to make our collections more available to people to use was that what we really had to address was this, the copyright footer. At the moment, all of the information that we put out on our own collections online site, as well as our main website, the rights information is covered by this copyright footer, which I'm not expecting you to read. But it starts. Museum Victoria makes its material accessible to the public. And then goes on to tie the user up in all sorts of legal jargon. It's the right sort of statement or an expected sort of statement for about a decade ago, which is about when it was written. So what we really wanted was to get to a point where the content was licensed at what I kind of call not point of sale, but point of eyeballs. So rather than by inference only, I mean seriously, how many people really go down to the footer, go to that statement and actually read it carefully. It's a bit like the I accept terms and conditions, isn't it? So what we really wanted to do was do better with making our collections open. And in fact, we're now in the position of having to start having some of those conversations about open licensing. Anything that we put out to the Atlas of Living Australia, for example, must be openly licensed. So and you can see I've put a circle around the Creative Commons by license that we've put on that particular image, which I picked just for you for the amusement of the species common name at the top. One reason the Atlas requires people, requires contributors to put that open license on is to avoid the issue of license stacking. It's problematic for big aggregators. As I said, one of the main things that people do on the Atlas of Living Australia site is download data. So you don't want to get into a situation as a data provider, where a user is unsure what they can do with the data. The user doesn't want to be restricted by the most restrictive license that's on any one particular record. In fact, the data side on the right hand side of the screen is actually licensed with a CC0 license. So you can take the data and do whatever you like with it with the image we've got a CC buy. Another project that required us to think about it was with our local education department, where we set up a series of education resources in our learning lab. The education department, as you can see down the bottom, required all of that content in order for us to participate in their project and get funding from them, required that the content would be openly licensed. That was so that the education department could guarantee that schools weren't going to be charged copyright fees for the use of material that we clearly intended to make free. And there are definitely instances where schools have been charged. So we're inspired by the work of Michael Edson, so another shout out to Michael, and the Smithsonian Commons prototypes. And we decided that we wanted to go along a path of being much more explicit about how our content would be licensed online. And I'm just looking, I think we might start playing the video. A third of Smithsonian web visitors identify themselves as enthusiasts, lovers of art, nature, science and history. This story shows how the Smithsonian Commons helps enthusiasts and citizen researchers to find and engage with Smithsonian resources. I work as an electrician by day, but I'm an amateur astronomer by night. I keep track of a lot of astronomy resources on the internet, and I have a blog where I keep in touch with friends and share what I'm working on. Every year I give a talk about astronomy at my kid's school, and this year I'm making them a web mashup that links the sky chart to photos and videos that explain celestial features. I've met a lot of great people through astronomy, and I want to contribute something back to the community. This amateur astronomer uses his phone to subscribe to a number of astronomy-related RSS feeds. This one is from the Smithsonian Commons. He's notified that there's a new picture in the Commons from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory's Chandra X-ray telescope. On the Smithsonian Commons, he sees the image in the context of the whole Smithsonian with links to deeper information, related topics, recommendations, including related exhibitions, interviews with staff experts, and e-commerce opportunities, communities, and opportunities to participate and get involved. The image and associated images are available in high resolution, and because he can clearly see the sharing rights associated with this picture, he knows that he has permission to modify, adapt, or incorporate this image into new works. He uses sharing tools to embed the photo in his own blog. And we might stop the video there. Thank you. So Michael has a set of four videos that he put together with the Smithsonian Commons. If you haven't watched them in the past, I'd really recommend that you do, because they really set out a model for what could be for collections online. We're also inspired by others taking the initiative to start talking about open licensing, and there are many. I won't actually play this video, but it was first shown just last week at the Museum Computer Network Conference in Toronto on a panel convened by Ed Rodley called After You've Opened Pandora's Box. And it's talking all about that panel was talking all about openly open access to collections. In this particular video, Meretta Sunderhoff from SMK Museum in Denmark talks about their decision to go open, and she talks about the change program that was initiated by the SMK Museum's decision to start to participate in the Google Art Project. And what would that mean for sharing their images online in Google, but also through their own services. That's also a really good video. I should also just point out too, once the slides go up on SlideShare or through the NDF other mechanisms, there's links to every single thing that I've got on here that you can follow and watch for yourself later. So where did we start? A new strategic plan sets out a primary goal of digital transformation. Now no one in the organisation quite knows about what that means just yet, but we know it needs to extend across all our activities. So while we're in a bit of flux about definitions, it's a good time to introduce the concepts of open access. When talking about open, I've also been asked repeatedly, repeatedly, but what does the museum think? We have a lot of museum buildings, but I don't think any of them are going to tell me what they think. So a small working party has formed our legal council, the head of records archives in the library, the manager of our collection management and digital asset management systems and me, who's not there, the curators, the photography department, the content generators, if you will, and commercial and marketing are also missing. We see them as stakeholders, but no one from those areas has been really active in these discussions. We were the ones making the noise, so we were the ones who thought we should do something about it. We will talk to those people, we won't just leave them out altogether. So we did a lot of reading, we educated ourselves, we went to training, we participated in a review of copyright law in Australia. Finally, we put a paper to our executive management team, and he's a little old to be on our executive management team. He was the first director of Museum Victoria. We stated an ambit claim of open access to everything collections related and another ambit claim of licensing all Museum Victoria owned in copyright content with the least restrictive Creative Commons license that we could offer scientific data, no license at all. We want things to be, we want Wikipedia to be able to use our collections. We want people to remix and reuse our content. They were supportive but cautious, so we went even higher. We consulted a member of our board who's also an IP lawyer. After an initial raised eyebrow, we now have the nod to write a policy on open access. We'll be making a quite deliberate statement of what does the museum think. We've also consulted a significant figure in Australian Creative Commons movement, Professor Brian Fitzgerald. We were interested in his perspective on all tricky things, orphan works, unpublished material, things I think we all struggle with. While the policy is being written, we've started to assess the collections. For images like this one, which is old enough to be in the public domain, we know what to do with that. For images taken recently or taken by Museum Victoria photographers that we know we own, we know what to do with that too. And in sciences we've now specifically started to go out to take images ourselves so that we know that we'll be able to reuse them. This is important for projects like our app projects which are being talked about in another room. And then there's the messy middle. This is a mess tent that was the closest I could get to an image for mess. The messy middle of orphan works, unpublished works, and things we're just not sure about. That's going to be a long process of trying to assess the status of the objects and we'll do it gradually. Of course we get the same issues raised as I'm sure you do. What if someone takes it and puts it on a tea towel? What? Put farlap on a tea towel? Will we publish a book? We publish a postcard? We publish a key ring? And we even sell a snow dime. So as a towel, a tea towel produced by someone else really going to be such a bad thing. In fact we make lots of merchandise out of our collection martens. It's a deliberate strategy by our commercial and retail sections. So we want to be able to say, if you want to put farlap on a tea towel, then go for it. And of course we heard yesterday from Peter that that's exactly what the leaders in this field, the Rucks Museum, are doing. So here's our early win. Where have we gotten to? We've dipped our toe in the water. This site is a site we put up for sciences. It's about called, and it's called Port Phillip Marine Life. We've tried to make licensing explicit. There's a license on every photograph, drawing and video. Not all of those images and videos can be licensed with a Creative Commons license, but those that can are. Those that can't, we say so. There's also a license on the text. There's a byline for who wrote the text and there's a site this page. The site this page is for my 15-year-old son who's now accessing websites like this for his homework and always needs to add the bibliography in, but never quite knows how to do it. For him we're trying to make it easy. This site's being used as a quick win and a proof of concept that it will all be okay. And now we're going ahead with our whole collection site. So in summary, making the case for open takes a lot of talking. As high up in the organisation as you can get in order to find a directive that can then trickle down and provide a reason for action. We needed to be able to give an answer to the question, what does the Museum think about this? And we needed to make it quite clear in being able to advocate to our internal stakeholders and users. We needed to change the mindset. We're doing cool things under the radar as well. We're releasing our web code and our app code for free as open source on GitHub. We're putting new 3D scans up on Thingiverse and sharing them openly too, but that's another story. We still have a way to go and sometimes our systems don't yet live up to the needs that we have, but we'll keep going. I was hoping to be able to come here and say that we'd already reached our destination and solved all the problems. And that was all wrapped up neatly in a bow, but we're on a journey as we all are. And we'll let you know how we go. Thank you. So we do have about maybe two or three minutes for questions for Allie before she runs away. Museum Victoria's just opened its new first people's gallery and I just want with an open licensing of images was considered or discussed as part of that development. And you probably can't answer it in two minutes, but just... I can say, yes, it was considered. Is that enough? So the first people's gallery, we have opened up as much as we can. There was an extensive consultation with the Indigenous cultures and we had a knowledge group of elders who helped us with that content. Much of the content in the new first people's gallery is very personal. It's very related to stories and it's very related to personal family histories. So in some cases, just even getting it into the exhibition was enough for the family and for the contributors. In other cases, we are able to make it more openly available and we certainly intend to. We've used digital labels in the first people's exhibition, which is new for that type of presentation. We're hoping that we will be able to... So the data we will be able to share and hopefully some of the images that we'll be able to share as well. Images of objects are easier to share in this context than images of people. Any others? I might have time for one more. Okay, looks like it. Thanks again very much.