 Yay, okay, so good afternoon. I'm so delighted and honored to be here to talk about my favorite topic in the world Open Access. So thank you to the Ministry of Culture for sponsoring my trip over my first trip to New Zealand so I'm very excited to be here, but also to all the wonderful NDF conference organizers who have been so welcoming, so informative, and incredibly organized that it's set a pretty high bar for the rest of us who were ever doing conferences in the future. So thank you. But I'm going to spend the next hour or so talking about my research, which focuses on how institutions enable access to collections, both on-site and online, as well as how the terms of that access or communicated or not to the public. And at the heart of my inquiry is how access is enabled to public domain works. So in theory copyright related issues fall away for this entire category of works, but we know that's not the case when making their digital surrogates available online. Different institutions take different approaches, and there's almost a vacuum of binding legal guidance on how institutions should proceed. So it's this gray area, this void that I'm interested in, and how we perceive surrogates, both material and digital, whether a surrogate can be original for the purposes of copyright, how access to the knowledge that the surrogate contains is defined by those responsible for the material object's care, and what happens when we adjust our attitudes toward openness and promote a philosophy that applies broadly to our collections. There are various layers and derivatives to truly enable access to the public domain. So I'm going to spend some time breaking all of this down using some practical examples, which means I have to provide a disclaimer. Please note that the intellectual property rights in most of the visual content contained in this presentation are claimed to be owned by other parties and other copyright owners as specified. So consider this my lawyerly acknowledgement that much of the content I'm about to show you may be subject to a copyright claim, but in many cases I'm disputing that claim. And to this point I'll use copyright consistently to discuss the status of works, but keep in mind that the status is not always in copyright. It might be in the public domain or no known copyright restrictions or a category of culturally sensitive works that should be set aside from copyright altogether. But this highlights an issue for me that I constantly confront in my work. It's impossible to conduct my research without infringing a claimed intellectual property right or the terms of use of a website. And I have to because I examine the layers of validity in the effect that a claim has on visual studies, art history, user culture, public engagement and public understanding of intellectual property. So I've divided my presentation a day into three parts. Each confronts the guilt that goes hand-in-hand with navigating risk, rights and reproductions. So in part one I confront my own guilt and I personally apologize because I'm going to take you somewhat methodically through a couple of projects that illustrate how complicated and transparent copyright can be when discussing layers of works in a single image. Part two is called Let's Be Honest. Everyone and no one is sorry, everyone because we're all struggling with the same issues, the same lack of revenue and those negative or risk-adverse people who have a tendency to tell us no. And no one because the public is largely unaware of these issues and what goes on behind the scenes and this is complicated by the fact that public demand for open access grows every day. So in part three I confront this tension and I advocate for greater transparency. I think the public can handle it and they also need to know that copyright is not a digitally exclusive issue. Considering all the wonderful things that are going on with open access, I recommend revisiting how we can inform practices on-site using the new approaches developed for the online environment. And I believe doing so can not only nurture a better public understanding of copyright with respect to collections, but it can also have a greater impact on society and its awareness of copyright which aligns with our educational missions as institutions. So part one, I'm sorry, in which we descend into a state of madness together due to the nature of my research and hopefully come out friends. So things are going to get intense pretty quickly, but I like to use into it and provide some context using an artwork we all know and love. Can any of you tell me what this artwork is? Just shut it out. Of course you would think that, but you're wrong. This is an original Armin Graham Pellea Michelartado. It's a JPEG at 136 by 200 pixels. It's titled X200 underscore 84749 or to score 11-564761 and according to its metadata it was created in 2014. So that means this image will ascend into the public domain around 2100 when we will all be dead and no one will be using low-resolution images. So I love to use this example at the beginning of my presentations because it helps illustrate the many repercussions this practice has for the public domain. To be clear the issue is not that the Louvre has taken the Mona Lisa and monetized her. Works in the public domain are fair game for everyone to monetize including cultural institutions. But the issue is that the threshold of originality required by law to attract a new copyright has not been met and in saying that it has the museum is signaling to users that its reproduction is a new original work by the museum while presenting it to users as someone else's. But for argument's sake let's say that the copyright is valid. So what's fair for institutions should be fair for anyone else. Anyone should be able to walk into the Louvre make a reproduction of the Mona Lisa and claim a copyright. But in reality the visitor is bound by the Louvre's visiting rules which restricts photographs use of photography taken inside the museum space strictly to private use not even personal use once outside of the museum space. So the combination of these restrictions creates a monopoly around our common cultural heritage in the public domain and it conflates rights in property with rights in intellectual property as well as ownership with authorship. Of course today most reproductions are digital made with photographic technologies but surrogates were originally made by hand. Often the maker had no access to the original artwork which we can see is the case with the image on the very right. It's a hodlain based on a drawing by Galeard. So in other words this print is a surrogate of a surrogate. That the height of reproductive printmaking in the late 19th century engravings were generally seen as one of two things either as an interpretive engraving or a facsimile engraving which still took an incredible amount of time labor and skill to produce but were not viewed as creative productions for a number of reasons. But luckily these surrogates were all made so long ago that now unlike the Louvre's digital surrogate they're in the public domain. Wait for it except they're not. So each is restricted by a copyright claim and as technologies continue to progress this practice has the effect of locking up the public domain and perpetuity. So I want to take a moment to discuss the concept of the surrogate which comes from the scholarship of Haleen Roberts the late visual collections the late head of visual collections in the Fine Arts Library at Harvard University and editor extraordinaire visual visual resources. So I came across 1994 keynote by Roberts called secondhand images the role of surrogates in artistic and cultural exchange. And in it Roberts described an informal survey that she conducted asking people how they learned about and remember certain well-known artworks. She found that most people first encountered them through their images whether in books art history courses a postcard or even framed and faded on their grandmother's walls or in this case in the stairwell to my office at the University of Exeter. But interestingly even when the person later encountered a better reproduction or saw the artwork itself what the person remembered was that first seen image. So Robert self confessed objective had been to reveal just how much of society's knowledge especially visual knowledge comes from a variety of secondary sources. Copies facsimiles casts replicas drawings engravings photograph slides half tone prints color reproductions posters transparencies microforms and as she mentions in her 1994 keynote most recently digitized images. So at that time no one could have foreseen the variety of forms and formats that would emerge in the category of digitized images alone. But Roberts anticipated the broader issue raised by reproductive media's potential that quote each of these forms may in turn be reproduced reproduced by another medium. So if you've seen the movie inception now is a good time to reach in your pocket and grab a hold of your token because this next bit might have you questioning what is real and it's only a small peak into the descent of the rabbit hole slash black hole slash surrogate inception infinity that is currently my mind on the drug that I like to call finishing my PhD. So if you remember the movie inception which for my first serendipitous travel to New Zealand moment number one was on my inflight options. A group of people go deeper and deeper into someone's mind via their dreams and dreams within dreams to either extract or plant information. But as Leonardo DiCaprio points out the objects mind can always trace the genesis of the idea. So applying this to surrogates let's start at the first level of the dream the surrogate. So we could use a number of terms to differentiate between the source and all other image based things that follow. And the term might reflect the medium or level of skill for a painting we might say copy replica or duplicate for prints a translation interpretation or facsimile for a sculpture a study or a cast. And as technologies change so to do our terms for how we experience and classify the images. Ultimately our understanding is mediated not only by the technology and the person making use of it but also by our understanding of the term. And there may be overlap for example what terms used to describe works legal status like original forgery reproduction copy or derivative work. So assigning the term not only mediates how we perceive the work within a narrow category but it also limits our understanding of the knowledge it contains and how it is participated in knowledge exchange across history. So building on Robert scholarship. This is why I use surrogate. The term signifies a broader category of works that engage in a dialogue with each other. And now we descend to the second level of the dream because most of these are actually surrogates of surrogates except for the born digital photograph on the very right. And just as something didn't. There we go. And just as material surrogates communicate vertically with the Mona Lisa and horizontally with one another. So do digital surrogates. So now we welcome the third level of the dream copyright back when these works were made. They may or they may not have attracted a copyright. Some were made before copyright existed and for others the copyright has expired. But during digitization a new copyright is often claimed. So regardless of whether the copyright is valid access to the digital surrogate and the public domain material surrogate or the public domain material object is subsequently restricted. We're limited and using the information embedded in the surrogate by what the copyright tells us we can do. Which has this effect. So for most purposes reuse is dependent on whether the material surrogate steward has dedicated it to the public domain. And considering that we're speaking about the Mona Lisa here the most reproduced parodied written about sung about and visited artwork in the world. You'd think that there would be a wealth of images online out there to choose from from legitimate sources of the Mona Lisa and her surrogates especially if you're someone like me who's writing about the history of the reproduction of the Mona Lisa. But let me assure you that the opposite is true. So welcome to level four. I should preface this by saying that I went to art school for my undergraduate degree and I worked as a graphic designer for five years before I went to law school. So I'm a visual learner. It's my first language. And I end up working through the legal issues that I encounter with visual communications. And in this case it's necessary. So what you're looking at is an unreadable version of the graph that I made showing my experience finding images online of the Mona Lisa and her reproductions. So this is for a book chapter which means although it's research it was commercial use. So I had to work within the licensing budget I was given by my editors. But I figured considering I'm using the most reproduced artwork in the world I'd be able to supplement the chapter finding free images made available online via all the open collections that are out there. And so that was my starting point. Find as many open free images as possible of the Mona Lisa and her reproduction. But I also wanted to find images offered at lower prices to get the most bang for my buck. So each of these clusters represents one of the surrogates that I found. There's 100 clusters in total. So let's zoom in just a bit. The gray line that runs through the graph is a timeline starting with Da Vinci's creation. But it also delineates the source or the original from her surrogates. So above the line is a Mona Lisa which of course I can't show you without taking you to the Louvre and each of us paying an 11 euro fee. Below the line are her surrogates. And the first grouping which is outlined in red are 27 surrogates for what I would call contemporary surrogates. Digital surrogates made recently and offered by various institutional or licensing websites. But they all enjoy a copyright claim which is why the information about the surrogate is contained in a pink box rather than a green box. So originally I had this like grand idea of having a full spread to show the variety of images with regards to color, detail, resolution, source and so on. But as each is subject to a copyright claim I've only used a sliver. The surrogate, or each surrogate also has its own history which was sometimes taken from the online context where it was included in the metadata. For example this image is available on Getty Images for only £485. It's copyright folding art collection in Getty Images but it was made from a print featured in William Orphan's book The Outline of Art published in 1924. Or maybe you'd prefer this image from Getty also £485. Copyright University History Archive and Getty Images and made from a print featured in the world's greatest paintings published in 1934. Or you could go straight to the source, arm in photo and pay €80. But you could also shop around and contact other rights holders to see if you could find something cheaper if you have the time and energy. Level five in which you experience full on Andrea mode. So I organize the surrogates chronologically, begins with painted copies as shown here. And apparently although there are anywhere between 23 and 40 according to different lists that I found, I could only find nine online total. So we have an anonymous painting at the Prado, four anonymous paintings in private collections, an anonymous painting at the Hermitage, the Walters Art Museum and the Portland Museum, and then a painting by M. Bras de Bois at the Castle of Colosseum. So the paintings are in the public domain. So the first level of the surrogate is shown in green. And then some are translated into another media, now also in the public domain or in copyright. But there's only one full sized image and that's because this surrogate has been dedicated to the public domain by the Walters Art Museum. Thank you. So of all the 26 digital surrogates that I found online for the nine paintings, I can only use one image without paying a fee. For surrogates that exist in multiples, like engravings or other print media, there are more options because usually more than one institution collected it. So I found three of Gustave Legret's drawing, which is based on Malaise, or excuse me, Gustave Legret's engraving and based on Malaise drawing. See how confusing it gets. So each of these though has something different to tell us, whether it's the fact that it's digitized long ago in 1999, or because it isn't cropped and so it has a printer's margin and all the information, or because it's extremely high resolution and allows us to zoom in and examine the surrogate in detail. But instead of going straight to the open image, there might be a reason for why someone wants to use the poor quality 1999 image, and to do so would have to pay the copyright fee. So in my embarrassingly obsessive exploration of online surrogates, I found nine that I could use. Six are held by the Walters Art Museum, the Getty Museum, MK Hamburg, Brooklyn Museum and Rijks Museum, which even though the Rijks Museum has a wonderful open access policy that I absolutely love, all of the images made available online contain a copyright and the metadata due to an image bank setup. But even this is important to me because I'm interested not only in the material surrogate and the information that it contains, but also the digital surrogate and its information. The metadata, the size, any digitization or digital archiving norms that I can garner from the analysis of these images and their data and so on, and what that can tell me about the history of reproduction. So take the color strip at some point in the future, including one might not be necessary. But we will still be able to use technology to horizontally link surrogates from the color strip era with each other as well as vertically in the timeline of the reproduction of the Mona Lisa. And then these are the only public domain surrogates that I could find of the Mona Lisa herself. They're all black and white, made from Detroit Publishing Company in the early 20th century, made available by the Library of Congress. So maybe some of you are thinking, why didn't she just go to Wikipedia? Obviously they have a public domain image of the Mona Lisa. But as a matter of policy, Wikipedia operates on the basis that a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work is also in the public domain in the United States, which is exactly what it says here. But if I go to the digital file, the caption tells me that this image has a copyright claim specifically, C2RMF2013. So if I use this image, I might open myself up to secondary liability. So to bring this back to copyright, Robert's framing of the surrogate helps resituate the original as a source. It's not only a source for the information it contains, information about artistic quality and technique, context about what materials, methods, and documentations were used at that point in time, even historical context that we can garner from subject matter, iconography, and its representation, but also as a source of a network of knowledge that might follow due to the generation of subsequent surrogates. So some of these surrogates might be new works worthy of copyright, and some might not. But when copyright is improperly claimed, the surrogate is robbed of its dual function. It's reduced to a commercial purpose, and it's removed from the network of knowledge generation made possible by the digital realm. So this is why it's so important that we settle the issue at its most basic level by confronting copyright and two-dimensional reproductions of two-dimensional works. This Washington Post article from February is titled, This is how you photograph a million dead plants without losing your mind, and it details how digital technicians literally hear the beeps and whores of the Smithsonian's conveyor belts in their dreams at night. Yet the absence of originality is not simply due to the use of conveyor belt technology. Instead, throughout the industry, creative choices are being limited in many other ways, by industry-made best practices, by digitization guidelines and standardized methods, by the lack of choice of what technologies are available due to what's provided by the institution, by the lack of choice in subject matter, representation, and so on. And the claim to copyright is further undermined by examples of disparate treatment within an institution. So for example, this reproduction of a work by living artist David Hockney is clearly marked copyright David Hockney, regardless of how or by whom it was made because it's a copy of his in-copyright portrait. But by contrast, this reproduction of a work by Millet, who died more than a century ago, is marked copyright Tate and released under a CC by NC and D license. Millet's painting is in the public domain, yet in this case the same process produces a new original work. So this is something I explored in a 2016 project I worked on with Ronan Deasley of Queens University, Belfast. With all of this in mind, Ronan and I set out to learn what might happen if we treated the digital circuits as new works, and if we looked at the institutions as the authors themselves, especially if we removed entirely the context of the source and the artwork. Could we learn anything about the claim, the legitimacy, and the impact of exercising intellectual property rights in the process? So display your own risk is the natural result of these questions. It's a research-led exhibition experiment that examines the path a public domain object takes during digitization, and it challenges whether the work status and authorship norms should change simply through the creation of a digital version, which is viewed as a new and independent asset. So I visited the websites of dozens of heritage institutions and downloaded digital surrogates. The surrogates were then printed to the original dimensions of the material object, producing a material surrogate. On the title card, I cited the institution as the artist. The title of the file was taken from the title of the work, and then I included information about the file itself, which was taken from the metadata, because it literally gets so meta. So what you see here is a copy, which is the day or photo of a copy, which was the day or print of a copy, which was the RMN photo of a work that was never in copyright to begin with. But we also organized the works into categories of risk and reuse, and we made everything available online as an open source exhibition. Users can download the file, which has all of the components necessary to host an exhibition, including information about each institution's rights and reuse policies, and all of the research data that we gathered for others to use. And in keeping with the concept we published a catalog, which you can view and download on the website. And I'd like to reiterate a point that I made yesterday in the workshop for Oak and Glam. We had no idea what we were doing. I turned to the sector to figure out how to do this, and I worked alongside the National Library of Scotland and Glasgow Print Studios for the printing of the surrogates, as well as with the University of Glasgow Archives to digitize the entire collection. Then I referenced the Getty Museum's open publications for inspiration on the format, the National Gallery of Art and Yale Center for British Arts practices for file management and delivery, Davison Art Center for the metadata stuff, and yes, I wrote my own very detailed metadata, which I'm very proud of. But even the font is an open source font that's made available by Cooper Hewitt, and the list goes on. So the project did very much an homage to cultural institutions that make their collections available online. But it's also an archive of a moment of digital cultural heritage in time. New surrogates are uploaded every day, and digital heritage is constantly in flux. So Dayor captures a selection of digital heritage, and it archives it along with the rights and reproductions policies for future reuse. The publication includes a catalog of the works organized by risk category, as well as plates for each of the work with information about the material object, the digital surrogate, licensing information, the material surrogate, and all of the metadata. And we invited contributions on topics explored from the project, from academics, lawyers, heritage practitioners, and artists. So there's usually someone in the room at this point who is panicking and saying, oh my God, they can't do that, those works are in copyright. So to that I say, are they? And then I say, well, regardless, Ronan and I are copyright lawyers, and we feel that our use falls within the UK Section 29 non-commercial research exception. And that serves us just fine for this purpose. But what about the general public that wants fair access to works in the public domain? Well, we thought about them too, and we gave them lots of wine. We hosted an exhibition, invited the public, and asked them to reflect on these new works created by heritage institutions. We also invited them to engage with the works in ways that institutions would, like using Van Gogh yourself, and then to post the interactions to social media. Because we wanted to test users' appetites for risk and reuse. So for example, the piece in this image is held by the state hermitage. Reuse is categorized as high risk, which is clearly communicated on the title card. But here we have two users playing with the work. They're engaging with it in full knowledge of the risk, and in doing so, they're creating a copy of a copy of a copy, the copyright to which might be different at each level of the surrogate inception. Exactly. Oh, and it's being projected. Whoa, whoa. Anyway, so do you see? So now that we're all hopefully in the same surrogate, yeah? Okay, part two, let's be honest. Everyone and no one is sorry, in which we all accept that we are imperfect ourselves and our users, but especially copyright. So at the moment, we're all taking some very different approaches. And one of the reasons I say this stems from the massive survey that I did in preparation for Deore, I looked at 130 institutions copyright policies tracked a number of data points such as if there was a policy, what it was called, where it was located, how many languages it was translated into, whether institutions claimed copyright, if so how, and so on. And I found an overwhelming lack of standardization among the industry. First, there's no standardization of terminology. Policies are called anything from impress them to about this site to disclaimer copyrights, which did not have a disclaimer. Copyright was most commonly used, but by only 16 institutions. But this means when users visit our websites, they first have to sort out what a copyright policy is called and where it is located before they can proceed to trying to understand what it means and how it applies to their reuse. And even that's simplifying it, because as I quickly learned, each institution often has several policies pertaining to copyright online. So this is a page from the Tate Copyright Permissions and Photography Policy. It comes with a dozen conditions just highlighted in yellow, and it's one of 10 policies in various places online that address online and on-site content. But the last policy, a brief guide to copyright, is a 65-page document that covers a number of issues, but not the public domain. And then we also have a visitor photography policy that specifies photography is permitted in the main galleries for personal non-commercial purposes only. Again, a restriction on the visitor's enjoyment of copyright and his photographs. And it places the onus on the visitor to determine whether copyright is infringed during the taking of those photographs, but it doesn't tell the user what that means or mention the public domain. I've yet to see a visitor photography policy that does clearly distinguish between copyright and public domain works. Most focus on what you can't do rather than what you can. And most institutions make different policies online than they do on-site. So take the Musee d'Orsay. If you're lucky enough to stumble on the visiting policy, you'll find that it links to an 18-page visiting rules and regulations document in French. So this bottom section specifies photography for commercial purposes must be pre-approved. But then when you visit the museum, this is what you see. A clear and comprehensive policy that prohibits flash photography and selfie sticks, yes, but nothing else. So the visitor isn't presented with a more restrictive policy at any point during the visit, which raises the question as to whether it applies. And we can all understand safety measures that are necessary to protect our engagement with the artworks or policies for culturally sensitive objects, but blanket prohibitions on photography are difficult to rationalize, and users are actively challenging them. So I'm sure you're familiar with the Nefertiti hack in which Nikolai and L.A.'s Nora El Badri visited the noise museum in Berlin. They allegedly scanned the bust using a camera hidden beneath a scarf and released all of the data online. The museum was pretty upset, and many suspect that one of the reasons is because it sells a painted replica of the bust online for 9,000 euro, excluding that, which it made through its own 3D scans. And online the museum has gone open, but in this case, open means thumbnail size images, all placed in a white background with the artist information, the CC by NC and DSA license, and a museum's copyright and logo, none of which is readable either at thumbnail size or when blown up. But the Nefertiti data has been downloaded and remixed by the public to install re-pest dispensers, potted plants, and even re-textured and re-released for the purposes of study. So in this instance, users have filled the gap left open by the museum, and the museum has missed our huge opportunity to be the person, not person, but, yeah, that made that data available for future reuse, because the demand is there. But not all institutions are happy to go along with what seems to be inevitable in a day and age when everyone has a camera in their iPhone. So last year the Rice Anglehorn Museum brought suit against Wikimedia after an editor uploaded 17 surrogates made by the museum. The museum prohibits visitor photography, and the website has no copyright in German or in English, or excuse me, a copyright policy. But in June of last year, a regional court came out in favor of the museum. And interestingly, the opinion included photocopies of each of the infringing surrogates. So Wikimedia appealed, but the decision was affirmed, and the appellate court held not only that copyright as simple light photography existed in the museum's reproductions, which is a very German thing, but also that the museum could restrict visitors from taking their own photos based on its private ownership of the works. So Wikimedia appealed again, but the highest court in Stuttgart affirmed and permitted an appeal to Germany's highest court. So following the outcome in the court of first instance, the general director said the following. The question for us is who should decide whether and especially how our holding should be made available online. Even if one supports the free public accessibility of cultural items on Wikimedia, it's difficult for us to comprehend that a single Wikimedia author claims the right to decide on their own to release to everybody the results of works created with public funds on Wikimedia for free and thus also commercial use. But what's difficult for users to comprehend is the irony of this statement that reserves that decision exclusively to the institution, although the works are in the public domain. So according to the general director, the museum is concerned with not only retaining the commercial benefits from licensing, but also with what it sees as its moral obligation to control how its works are used to protect the art and its history from derogatory treatment. And while many might agree that this is a genuine concern, writing for ICOM, Maria Vashau has made a compelling counterpoint. The next big question is how do we know what people are going to do with these freely accessible images? This is perhaps the hardest thing for some heritage professionals who feel they have a responsibility to protect the works of art and their reproductions. The hard truth though is that they do not. Objects in the public domain belong to everyone and no one has appointed heritage professionals as arbiters as taste. So put another way, perhaps the next big question is what's the worst that could happen? And so far I've only come across instances that are just more annoying than anything else. So for example, Karen Glasman at the National Museum of Sweden and Maria Tysanderhoff at the SMK in Denmark have both encountered instances of free and open images from the respective institutions being offered for sale on image licensing websites. So like this image, a 25 megabyte digital surrogate for Guggen's landscape at the National Museum of Sweden uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. The same image is being offered for sale online by Alamy. Now the digital surrogate on this web page is much lighter and brighter than the National Museum's image. So at first glance I thought that this was probably a completely different digital surrogate. And maybe this one is. But what you get when you buy the stock image seems to be the exact file on Wikimedia. The 25 megabyte image is offered for a variety of uses at different prices making no mention that the surrogate is in the public domain. In fact, there's a notice just here stating if you want to use the image commercially you might also need permission from the model, artist, owner, estate, trademark or brand. And Getty has been doing the same thing for years. A photographer who dedicated thousands of images to the public domain and deposited them at the Library of Congress tried to bring suit against Getty for selling her images which was dismissed. Because the public domain is the public domain and there's nothing to stop image licensing websites from doing this. But on the other hand there's also been some unexpected and really exciting results. So the SMK noticed many of their artworks on the walls of the Netflix's new series based on Margaret Atwick's book, Alias Grace. The story takes place in Canada in the 1840s and the art featured is Danish from about the same time. But as Miranda points out in her blog post it's factually impossible that these paintings were in Canada at that time, but who cares? It's the SMK's job to educate the public about art, not the set designer of Alias Grace. And so they did. Now if you go to the Wikipedia page for the miniseries and you scroll down you'll see the educational information included about the paintings from the SMK's collection. So the gallery is now a part of the popular shows narrative and it's using that exposure to further promote its collections in the public domain. Moreover, the show Alias Grace is now a part of the paintings narrative. Paintings that in their material form exist in Denmark but because digital surrogates have been made available by the institution others are able to participate in, learn from and enjoy that narrative in other places. So open access is imperative to enriching existing narratives and enabling new narratives to develop around works in the public domain. When an institution lacks an open philosophy it can prevent those narratives from naturally developing and I'm not saying that it prohibits the narratives from developing but it does mean that the institution takes a more active role in deciding which narratives develop and subsequently who has a say in art history and meaningful engagement with the public domain. The more bargaining power the person who seeks access has the more likely it is they'll be able to participate. So if you visited the Louvre you might be looking at this image thinking that's not the gallery the Mona Lisa is in and you'd be right. Because the wall that the Mona Lisa hangs on looks like this but the red walls on either side are actually from the long hallway galleries that are leading up to the Da Vinci gallery painting. So this is actually, now that I have my beautiful credit in the corner, a screenshot from Willam's video Mona Lisa Smile directed by Michael Yerkovich. Now I'm like obsessed with this video and you're gonna find out why. But there are very few people that the Louvre would allow in at 2 a.m. to meaningfully use its material collection and now we know that Willam is one of them. So the video begins by focusing in on the painting surrounding the Mona Lisa in which a Dorian Gray version of Willam begins to serenade us about his woman of desire. Let me tell you about my girlfriend, my girlfriend Mona Lisa. She lets somebody take a picture so she can be a fashionista. It's catchy. As he continues with the verse he appears in a number of paintings as Vermeer's astronomer in the Louvre's collection, as Napoleon and Bonaparte crossing the Alps. So five versions of this painting exist, none of which are at the Louvre. But then we hear the voice of Mona, or rather Nicole Scherzinger humming the melody from Giorgio Belto's song, Mana de Carnival. Then back to Willam, singing from Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People, he tells us how beautiful his Mona Lisa is, how she wants to be a model. And it's constantly catching the eye of other men as the men alongside him and the other paintings turn their eyes to look toward her place in the gallery. In my favorite verse, Willam tells us she says I need to free her. She says she feel like she in a prison, but why she feel like she in a prison? And it makes me want to shout, it's because she's in the public domain and she wants to be free. And I know that's not the case, but it feels like Willam has written this verse, especially for me. So there's many layers of inspiration in this video. Willam inserts himself into Titian or Giorgioni's pastoral concert, which was inspiration for Mona's controversial painting The Luncheon on the Grass, along with other people of color and other paintings throughout the video. And then Mona's voice returns for the climax of the song. We hear it echo through the galleries, which pans out again to the gallery that does not host the Mona Lisa. And as the video begins to end, we see others entering the space and the narrative to appreciate the art. In this case, much closer than any of us have ever gotten to the Mona Lisa. But what I love about this video the most is that it's inserting into the narrative of these works the very people who have historically been written out in a collection like many others out there that was originally designed by European white upperclass male collectors for the appreciation of similarly elite audiences. And we notice Willam has inserted himself not only into the subject matter, but also into the authorship. Like this painting is by Rambrandt I Am, another by Ruben I Am, which is so good, which is inspired by Ruben's portrait of Malay Ahmed, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, and Lucas Chronic I Am, which I'm pretty confident is not a Lucas Chronic at all, but it doesn't matter because Lucas Chronic is in the public domain and probably whoever made this one. And finally, Solario I Am. A painting at the Met, though, the Louvre does have a smaller version of Solario with just John the Baptist platter on a head. Or a head on a platter. So as the song fades away, Nicole looks back at us from over her shoulder as Vermeer's girl with a pearl earring. Also not at the Louvre, but which seems an important book into this narrative of what is desirable and by whom. But I'd like to contrast this with another collaboration entitled Masters. Earlier this year, Jeff Koons and Louis Vuitton released a line of bags inspired by the great masters, all of which are in the public domain. In the press release, the collaboration boasted its attempt to, quote, erase the hierarchy by, quote, generating appreciation for classical artworks by bringing them to a contemporary audience. We could get a lot of ideas here. So I've been, I guess you could say excited about this collaboration for completely different reasons, but I hadn't actually been to a Louis Vuitton store to look at the products, which didn't really even cross my mind. Why would I shop there? Which brings me to the serendipitous travel to New Zealand moment number two, coming around the corner at Heathrow Airport and seeing this, a giant display of the Jeff Koons Louis Vuitton collection beckoning me to come in and touch everything. And I sure did. So at first I was a bit cautious, but after the third person who worked there asked me if I needed help, I was like, ooh, I fit in. And I started to feel a bit more confident. So I started opening up all the bags and I noticed magical details like this. Written inside each bag, concept and design by Jeff Koons for Louis Vuitton and his signature with a bio that reads, Jeff Koons was born in York, Pennsylvania in 1955. He studied at Maryland Institute College of Art in Baltimore and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Since his first solo exhibition in 1980, Koons' work has been shown in major galleries and institutions around the world. Koons lives and works in New York City. And then on the other side of the bag is a short bio about the artist and a description of the painting, including where the work is held, along with a public domain image of the other master responsible for the bag. So I couldn't touch everything because some of it was literally in a glass box on display, but I think there's a convenient analogy to be made here about the fact that viewing the digital surrogate online is never a replacement for visiting the physical collection and learning from the material object in person, the whole appreciation of the collection. And then once viewing the objects in this space, like many others who want to learn more, I went online to further explore the collection. So here's a better example of what the inside of the bag looks like. But I zoomed in on each of the pieces to see where they were held and made a list to check and see if anywhere at open access institutions, because you just can't let that go when you're in this mindset. All of the institutions claim copyright and their surrogates. Two, both held by the PNAC and Munich are not available online. So I would love to know what or even if Kuhn's paid for the licensing fees. But I find it interesting that even just by chance, not one open access institution is included in this lineup. It's something I find more problematic about this project and it's reinforcement of an exclusive art history. I also love these works and the artists. I studied them in art school and I remember the emotional experiences that I had when I visited them in person. But I can't help noticing the narrative that this particular selection of work and the collaboration itself tells us. From personal experience I know that it's really hard to find works by female artists and people of color in the public domain, let alone from the so-called master's era. But among other reasons, this is due to historical collection practices and access to education. I tried really hard to combat this when I was curating display at your own risk but unfortunately could only include two works by female artists, Mary Cassatt and Gwen John and a hand-sewn apron by an anonymous woman. And I remember growing up and going to museums, seeing as a child men's names on the walls everywhere. And that had a really powerful impact on my confidence in wanting to be an artist at a young age when I was a teenager. But I also can't help being struck by the irony of this collection. We have a collaboration that celebrates the achievements of 10 white European men by a company founded by a white European man in collaboration with a white American man. The product line is exclusively for women. Further, for an exclusive group of women who can actually afford these luxury bags. And the only representation that women or people of color in this collaboration is from the perspective of the master's gaze, including Koons, who has literally written himself into the bags. And finally, and most importantly, notice that the women featured on the bags are all partially to fully nude except for the Mona Lisa. But who else might be able to pull together a collection like this? Who would have the bargaining power to convince institutions to let them use works in this way? Can you imagine receiving a licensing request from a lay person that says permission to commercially license for five years a high resolution digital image to be used on the outside of women's retail handbags with the company's trademark and artist name imposed over the image to be sold online and in-store to the general public? But we all want to participate in appropriating the public domain and open philosophies enable users to decide how rather than institutions. So what you're looking at is the webpage for the Wright Studio Award. This year more than 2,600 entries were submitted and they were fantastic ranging from sleep masks based on portraits to a butter dish based on an 18th century dress to a travel pillow inspired by and then adorable baby dishware for your posh baby and then as a shameless plug this was my entry which made it to the top 10. So it's actually two pieces. The one on the right was a pixelated version of Abraham Mignon's painting. On the left was the Wright's Museum metadata that was attached to the image. So the concept highlights that visual data and even metadata have a surrogate dimension when it comes to digital reproductions and both can be used as a medium to create new works. So what do we do now? Let's never be sorry again in which we decide to awful hands and not look back and I think this image detail from the fall of man perfectly captures how we all feel. It seems like unchartered territory. There's too many complications copyright is weird and sometimes the general public's perception of what copyright is can be hilariously flawed. There's too much risk and once we go forward we can't go back. Just one bite of the forbidden fruit and the world could come tumbling down. But I want to challenge some of these perceptions. So first I think the public wants more copyright. Maybe I'm biased. But even if they don't, we should give it to them anyway. Maybe you're thinking no, they don't want more copyright. They want more open access. But copyright is a sine qua non to open access and you need to understand copyright in order to understand what open access is. So I'm sure you've all come across a phrase, the very cute phrase, no copyright infringement intended which apparently some people think communicates good will in reuse or serves as an informal insulation against a legal claim. But this no copyright infringement intended was a group exhibition in Lester and Birmingham that explored the relationship between copyright culture and the digital age and outdated IP laws. So it was curated by artist Antonio Roberts and it featured a number of works including Deore. But I want to use the exhibition to make a couple of points. First it was really well attended in both locations, Anthony hosted panels with the artist, curator talks, gallery walks and so on. There was substantial public interest by lay people who wanted to know more about copyright and learn how it impacted artistic practices. But there were also people who traveled to see the show who had copyright backgrounds and were interested in the art side of things. People we spoke with in the spaces and others who attended the panels kept saying, oh, that's really fascinating or I never knew that and they actually meant it. And the purpose of the show wasn't to make copyright more transparent or explain it to anyone. It was to explore how it is constantly impacting artistic practices from how artists are inspired to how ideas can mutate as well as how copyright can shape that process in ways that artists are not aware of or don't fully understand. And that's my second point. Yes, copyright is confusing but there's more that we can be doing as institutions to help artists and the general public become more aware of its presence and especially how it might and sometimes should impact their engagement with cultural content. So this is something that we all already do when it benefits us to do it. When providing images or making works available online we ask others to note the host institution or any copyright. In one way the public more aware of copyright awareness is to bring it back to the material collections. So as an example this 2016 exhibition hosted by the V&A Celebrated Copyright, Appropriation and the Creation of Derivative Works Botticelli Reimagine also hosted the largest collection of Botticelli works ever on display in the United Kingdom. So you can imagine the complexity of the loan agreements negotiated considering the exhibition featured a range of works. Some predated copyright some had passed into the public domain and some were still within the term of copyright. So as a policy matter like many institutions do the V&A prohibited photography in the exhibition. But they got in a little bit of trouble when a visitor who also happened to be a journalist for the Guardian called out the no sketching policy. So after some pretty significant public outcry they reversed their policy to enable sketching and issued a response explaining their decision noting the sizes of the crowds attending as well as the copyright concerns. I visited two weeks just before the exhibitions closed, camera phone in hand and this is the sign that I encountered outside of ticket collection which prohibited photography and asked people show consideration to other visitors when sketching. It's like okay, great. 10 feet later at the entrance door was another sign that reversed the policy and acknowledged public concerns. If you regret that due to the restrictions and some loan agreements photography and sketching are not permitted in the exhibition you are welcome to sketch in any of the museum's permanent galleries. So while it's trying to be transparent about why photography and sketching are permitted it's still not explaining that in terms of copyright in terms of law, in terms of specific works that might be restricted or in a way that's transparent for visitors so that might appreciate or at least understand the reasons behind the policy and then I didn't follow the rules but in my defense I only captured images of the title cards because I wanted to see if and how copyright was evidenced by the exhibition since this was being used as a defense. So for example here we have a title card for a video by Bill Viola. We can see the surrogate at the bottom is included to aid visitors in their appreciation of how Viola was inspired by Botticelli and underneath a text about the original painting is a text about the original painting but also there's a copyright information for the museum that provided the image but nowhere on the title card is any information about copyright and Viola's work. Another example is Cindy Sherman it's her appropriation of Botticelli's allegorical portrait of a lady. Surrogate has been provided and it notes that the original is in a private collection and of course owners may prefer to remain anonymous so that they don't attract theft or public attention but it doesn't explain why there's no copyright information for whomever made or provided this surrogate especially when that information was consistently displayed when it was a museum. And then eventually a guard noticed that I was taking photos and told me if I wanted to capture all of the title card info I could just take the large format title card and he opened a door for me that had a chair in it and was very well lit and he said take your time and I felt a little bad but this example shows copyright reference both to the copyright owner of the Botticelli surrogate as well as the artist for her copyright and the photograph on display but this was the only example in the exhibition where I saw any reference made to the copyright status of the work. And what's the point like these images are out there the damage has been done instead of signaling on title cards whether a thumbnail sized surrogate work is copyright protected we could signal whether the work that we are looking at is copyright protected. To this point we should give the public credit they can handle copyright. Imagine the effect on public perception and changing a sign from this which says no photography in this exhibition to this photography encouraged please take note of any copyright considerations even going so far as to framing what activity is permitted in terms of copyright exceptions like fair dealing or to borrow a phrase from this morning and notice that says no photography some memories are not for everyone just as we know the materials, dimensions the year and the place the work is created we could also be noting the copyright we're making this assessment internally during collection management providing it externally with our online collections but we could also present this information on site with our material collections. Now money is always the angry black rhino in the room and more and more institutions are being expected to give away their images for free and when they do it's fantastic but I'm sensitive to the concerns that small to medium sized institutions have who may rely on image revenue especially to fund further digitization for those who might need to take smaller steps forward going open doesn't mean that the institution must give its reproductions away for free reproductions are still property it costs money to make manage store and deliver copies and some institutions do rely on fees to support that service but perhaps we should be discussing how a service based fee system might look around property rights rather than intellectual property rights property does not equal intellectual property it's important to acknowledge the concerns in generating revenue and supporting digitization efforts but they have to be balanced against the public's right to access and reuse of the public domain and we can also think about how we ask for money setting aside the fact that the National Gallery claims copyright in their images I'm a fan of this option just before download users are presented with an opportunity to donate and they're told how their donation will be used by the museum and they can add a little note and get credit for their donation five pounds could buy one specialist paintbrush for the expert conservatives 20 pounds could buy art materials for 40 people at a drawing event 50 pounds could provide a storytelling session for young visitors 100 pounds could buy sensors for scientists to monitor the environment of the paintings we've all seen those on the wall I bought that right but imagine this rephrased around the cost of the digital side of things five pounds could help store one high resolution digital image for one year I don't know if that's a thing but still we're attaching money to it we're attaching a value that the public can understand it costs money 20 pounds could help us digitize one work in our collection 50 pounds could pay for one week of our commercial licenses for image editing software and 100 pounds could go toward a new lens or 3D scan are necessary to digitize other collection formats so we're all doing what we can with what we have and support is key in the main time but I want to conclude one thing or by discussing one thing that my colleagues and I are doing to help provide that support so we've created a resource called the copyright cortex which is still in the development phase but the copyright cortex is a catalog of material about copyright and digital cultural heritage it aggregates in archives research on the topic tools and resources for the sector to use policy and evidence submitted at governmental levels and all open collections and data made available online our focus is on providing librarians, archivists, curators and researchers in the digital humanities with scholarly commentary practical guidance and real world case studies all in one place and soon you'll be able to go through and sort the resources by jurisdiction keyword, tags, institution and so on and Ronan Deasley has also written an entire book called Copyright 101 to help the sector in its understanding of how copyright law applies to digital and material collections so at the moment copyright 101 focuses on UK law but we're developing a methodology that will be used to incorporate other jurisdictions as well so importantly we're populating the cortex using only open content because we want everyone to be able to access everything and it's our intention that the copyright cortex becomes the principle point of reference for heritage institutions seeking open, free, expert, objective and research led commentary and analysis on copyright law so to conclude I argue in my research that we need to shift our perceptions to thinking of hand processes and new technologies as not only another medium for making new works but also and especially as another medium for slavish copying and disseminating knowledge and accepting this argument is the first step toward the attitude shift required to implement a truly open philosophy and this argument is not new it's a debate that goes back to the renaissance and the first appearance of surrogates it continues into the debates for the justifications of legal protection for engravings and later for photography and it's especially relevant today in the context of 3D digitization and who knows what reproductive technologies are to come but our priority should be to honor content in the public domain for what it is content that is fair and square in the public domain thank you