 Kia ora koutou. I think we'll get started. It's wonderful to see you all here. My name's Fiona Fields End, I'm the Digital New Zealand Services Manager based at National Library, which is part of the Department of Internal Affairs. So this is a panel today, clearly, with all these great people on stage, and we're looking at the progress and perspectives on opening up rights and licensing for cultural sector collections, which is a bit of a long title, but really one of my passions is making sure that people can easily understand how they can use digital content. And over the last several National Digital Forums, we've been talking about opening up our collection content and data and the barriers and the issues and all of those things that make it harder. And one of my goals in work, and to be brutally honest in my life because I'm really passionate about my job, which is kind of sad, but is to make New Zealand digital content easier to find, share and use. And one way that we do this at Digital New Zealand is to encourage our 150 or so content partners to be clear about how their content can be used. If it's all rights reserved, then make it really clear that that's the case, but preferably that content will be open or Creative Commons licensed or so forth. So we really encourage clear and open licensing so that people can use our search services to easily find New Zealand content that they can use in their art projects and in their work. So here in New Zealand, we have various things that are trying to encourage openness on its way. So we've got an easy goal. The government open access and licensing framework to help guide the way. And more recently, the declaration on open and transparent government to show what shows the commitment the government has for actively releasing high value data. And in the cultural sector, there have been some really great inroads that have been made and that's what I want to show you today with some of the panellists that we have. So to date, in Digital New Zealand, we have about 300,000 items from our various content partners that are licensed as what we call modifiable. They will have a Creative Commons or an open license in Digital New Zealand and that doesn't include also the wonderful behemoth that is Papers Passed which expands that number actually to over 20 million items because Papers Passed is so massive. But a lot of Papers Passed is in the public domain because it's pre-1916. And we've also, in Digital New Zealand, opened up a chunk of metadata for commercial reuse so that vendors and library vendors and so forth can use that data or developers can use that data to sell apps in an app store, for example. But copyright and licensing issues are hard work. There's donor agreements, there's cultural and ethical issues, these things are bound in. But there is content out there that it could be and should be in the public domain or there's content out there that and data out there that our organisations hold the copyright to and could open for reuse. And licensing issues are tricky and scary to traverse. And copyright and licensing requires backbravering. We've seen some examples of that here at NDF with the Rikes Museum and Museums Victoria being really brave in opening up their collection and content and data for others to use and just seeing what happens and building up the structures around it and starting the journey, starting the leap. So the aim of this panel is to explore that journey and the progress and the results from a range of organisations and initiatives have actually taken the leap to opening up data. So I've got some great examples of people to tell you about great examples. Importantly, we've also got a couple of perspectives from two key audiences, the publishing sector and the education sectors to find out what difference and indeed what impact access to open cultural content and data is made for them. So we hope to show you some options for opening up licensing and access and inspire you to take that first leap or to take a longer leap towards opening up your content and data. So today I've got six very talented and dedicated people, four have made significant progress in opening up their collection content for reuse or starting a journey to do that as well and two want to tell you why it's so important to them and their sectors and I think we can learn a lot from them. So I'm going to let them introduce themselves. So I'll start off with Victoria. Hi everybody, my name is Victoria Leachman, I'm the rights adviser here at Te Papa and I thought the first thing I'd do is tell you our latest step. Te Papa's latest statement of intent commits Te Papa to releasing for open reuse, 10,000 high resolution images per year for the next three years, so 30,000. Really that's been a result of the revisioning process led by our CEO, Michael Hurlehan, over the past two years. We've had the opportunity to look again at open reuse of collection images and during the revisioning there was a whole lot of discussion about Te Papa's mission. Our revisioning process determined a number of strategic priorities for Te Papa including doing more to share our collections and knowledge and to share authority over those collections with individuals, communities and iwi. Open access obviously provides a key way we can do this to share the collections and empower individuals and communities to use those collections in their own ways and we certainly want our digital collections to be the start of something more. So what that means for us is that the result of that is that Te Papa's new executive put this statement of intent and really wants to include some of those measures to reflect this shift and that's one way of doing it and providing evidence that audiences were engaging with our collections in a meaningful way. How we're on the ground, people underneath the executive, we're seeing it as a stake in the ground and a mandate towards change towards making open reuse businesses usual in our working process and building it into our website. There's obviously some technical challenges with our site to overcome but it's due around March 2014. Now when I say open reuse, at the moment that's the public domain images at high resolution, we have other material obviously, the stuff we own copyright in which will be available under Creative Commons non-commercial licenses and then of course there's the stuff where there are other copyright or relationship issues which will stay all rights reserved. So that's a position at the moment. My name's Fiona Moorhead and I'm Assistant Registrar at Auckland Art Gallery. It's interesting, I think you're going to get a whole spectrum of different responses here. I think Auckland Art Gallery is sort of somewhere along the road of that journey of opening up content. Currently we have a collection of just over 15,000 artworks. Of that we've got just over 50% of our collection which is out of copyright, so copyright has expired. We've actually found it really easy to identify items that we can release out as copyright expired. We just go on the copyright laws, so 50 to 70 years after the death of the artist depending on the country of origin. Of the remaining artworks in our collection, just over 5,500 we have copyright permission from the artist or copyright holder. And obviously reproductions occur through a reproduction service so a request is made indicating how they'll use it and then they are able to use that content. We do have a number of artworks that we do not have any copyright permission on. Those are the ones that when you visit our website you don't see an image at all. They may be ones where the artist has stated that they don't want their artworks reproduced online or it may be artworks, for example, orphan works where we know that it's in copyright but we're unable to find the copyright holder. I think in summary for Auckland Art Gallery we find it easy to determine whether something is out of copyright. It's just a simple bit of maths and every year we release more artworks when they go out of copyright. I think the harder thing for us is what to do with orphan works and I definitely agree with Allie's statement. Allie from Museums Victoria where she sort of said that that's really the difficult thing but I'll pass on now. So that's a brief intro. I've got two mikes. That's too many. Hi, I'm Reid. I'm the coordinator of the Upper Hutt City Library Heritage Collections of which we have a slide. Basically we're like what you call community archives. We serve as the main repository for collecting and preserving items that document the history of Upper Hutt and its people. We actually have a fairly substantial and varied collection of heritage resources that would be of interest to a far broader group of people than just our local community. However, the problem we've traditionally had like a lot of small out-of-the-way under-resourced archives of our kind is that we've tended to be very underutilised. And so, second slide, it has been as a way of getting around that problem that a couple of years ago we decided to make the move towards using a web 2.0 kind of model for getting our collections out there. We've managed to do this with the help of New Zealand micrographics and their online interactive database platform Recolect of which we've been one of the pioneer users and this is the landing page of our Recolect site that you can see here. Chris Dempsey, I believe, spoke yesterday about the new version that's about to come out soon. It has a lot more features. But anyway, Recolect, as an interactive site, it's got a lot of features that are designed to invite user participation, crowd sourcing, that sort of thing. But it also has tools aimed at making our content more readily available for use. And, for example, the vast majority of the over 15,000 photographs we currently have on our site and that's soon to go up to 19,000 are available under a Creative Commons 3.0 licence and you can see a little detail in the corner there that shows you what that looks like on an item page and people just have to click the actions tab and there'll be a download tool and so they can easily download a high resolution image of that. Move on to the final slide. OK. Here are some examples from one of our largest and most popular photograph collections. Rebel Jackson was a local photographer who documented upper hut life during the 60s and 70s. We have over 8,000 of his often wonderful and striking images available for download on our Recolect site. And Rebel Jackson is still alive. He's in his 90s, but this is done with his full permission. The kinds of common uses to which people put images like these seem to include things like framing prints for decorative use around their house or workplace or using them as illustrations for books and other publications including websites. We've also recently had some Rebel Jackson images acquired for use in a feature film. Some of these uses are obviously might be deemed commercial, which places them outside the terms of our Creative Commons license. However, we generally waive this restriction when requested because most of the projects don't involve significant profits and don't seem commercially exploitative, but the license means that people have to actually ask us for permission. We previously charged for permission to use our prints, but this represented a very minor income stream for us and involved administrative costs and we feel that the very small loss of income here has been more than offset by the goodwill and publicity that taking an open content approach has generated. Also, of course, it's gratifying for us to see our collections being put to use, which is, after all, the whole point of preserving them in the first place. Thanks. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Fiona Grex and I'm the third of the Fiona's in the session this afternoon. I work in the media policy team of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage here in Wellington. In the media team, questions around copyright are really important in relation to media convergence and this balancing act between the public wanting to access the content they want when they want it and the more traditional business models that still operate, particularly in the screen industry. But one of my other tasks at the Ministry is thinking about how we might provide input to the review of the Copyright Act when that happens. And that led me to convening a group of people in the cultural sector who are really dealing with issues around the operation of the Act on a daily basis. Agencies such as Archives New Zealand, Alexander Turnbull Library Film Archive to Papa. And one of the main things this group has ended up doing is a best practice project around attributing consistent and accurate right statements to digitised material online. And this came about, we started looking at photographs. That might be the same photograph on different agencies' websites where we found there was different rights information in relation to that photograph. Or it wasn't clear that the photograph might be copyright might have expired but the person still had to contact the institution to find out how they could use it. And we felt this could be made much more consistent. So we've started a project looking at some World War I material taken by a man called Henry Armitage Sanders Government's official photographer and he took some film footage on the western front. And this material is held in several of the agencies around the working group. And what we're doing is we've got a deadline of Anzac Day next year for getting all of the negatives digitised online, the ones that aren't already, and the same rights statement attributed to each of those wherever they're found. Tom Rennie, I'm the Associate Publisher at Bridget Williams Books, an independent publisher based in Wellington. As I explained in my brief talk yesterday, we publish complex non-fiction works, particularly a lot of history that are often heavily illustrated. Typically these illustrations are central to the intellectual structure of these works. At times they're even indispensable, particularly with Judith Binney's histories. One recent example is Claudia Orange's new edition of Story of a Treaty, which had over 120 separate permissions clearances for this work and a lot of Iwi permissions. But we also have a number of works that have far more permissions for that for an individual work. BWB has always been scrupulous with its permissions clearance. Over 30 years of publishing, I'm not aware that Bridget's ever encountered a permissions issue, which I think given the complexity of this space is quite an achievement. It also reflects the deep respect that BWB has for the glam sector and their expertise as collectors, curators, and rights holders. We are, however, still facing some significant challenges with permissions, notably with clearances for our retro-conversion work. This work involves taking over 100 titles, stretching back over 30 years of publishing into a digital space, and we're having to clear over 3,000 items for this. As I mentioned yesterday, we are committed to re-releasing these titles fully illustrated. We don't want to devalue these works by having to redact images. But this means a number of our e-book releases are delayed until we can reach this stage. And a number of the... a couple of the issues that we're facing with these firstly revolves around the terms that were being offered or not offered by some institutions for digital usage. I started on this work back in 2011, and I started by preparing a broad spectrum permissions request. This was shaped around how the industry is going to be evolving over time, and we took this approach simply because we felt it's the most honest declaration of where digital publishing is going to evolve, and we saw it as a way that would potentially save costs across all parties. Really, a number of New Zealand institutions have agreed to these terms, and we're extremely grateful for that. But we're still having some issues, and these are largely revolving around being granted only one e-book instance for a permission, which is not clear to me as to whether or not that permits books and browsers, whether or not it permits database products, and whether or not it even permits different formats across different vendors. I mentioned yesterday that we're having to prepare actually one e-book for each vendor now. We're often only being offered New Zealand rights only, or alternatively world rights, but with a huge, sometimes unfeasible increase in the cost, which for me simply defeats the point of publishing digitally in the first place. We're often being granted a fixed term, which can be as short as five years for a permission, and again, that makes little sense to me because there's no meaningful way that we in good faith can police that, to say, us having to license material a complete work back to libraries who are requesting perpetual access for a work. And then at times, not often, but at times we're also having unachievable or idiosyncratic requests around DRM, such as having to reassure rights holders that we can't, that the user won't be able to right-click an image out of an e-book. A few institutions have also seen the range of this initial request is extravagant. Some of them are quoting as high as $500 per image, which in terms of our retroconversion work, these are titles where often we expect they'll sell a handful of copies a year, many of them. We're doing this for scholarly reasons, not for commercial reasons. And those sorts of costs are plainly unfeasible for publishers in New Zealand or abroad. So in these few, and I would emphasise few, notable instances, we remain stuck between either agreeing to these disingenuous terms in terms of single-instance usage or fixed usage or not being able to include these items at all, and neither of those are acceptable for us, but I'm confident we're going to be able to reach agreement in these instances and we hope this session might make some small contribution to advancing that. Thanks. Brilliant. So my name is Matt from Creative Commons Aotearoa, New Zealand. I'm not actually from the education sector but I'm going to talk a wee bit about some of the work that Creative Commons has been doing in the education sector to encourage the development of open educational resources, utilising some of the open materials that people on this panel have been opening up but also many other institutions in New Zealand. Creative Commons provides free licences to enable people to share works according to a range of restrictions and we have the rather lofty goal, you can see it on our website, of universal access to education and participation in culture and we actually take that quite seriously and the good news is that it's happening, we're making progress and by when I say we, I mean the international Creative Commons movement is making progress towards these aims. We're making really fast progress in the last 18 months actually towards open education, open access to research, open government and also open glam and I see from my perspective in between all those different open movements a real potential for different kinds of open material to be used together especially for schools. I really see a potential for teachers to be reusing some of these open materials and making open educational resources using some of these high quality, high resolution images, but not just images, all kinds of open materials that you guys are releasing. On a day to day basis I work in schools quite a lot. The big copyright issue that I'm trying to address is that teachers don't hold copyright to their teaching resources and they share any resources online, they're technically infringing the copyright of their board of trustees which is a ludicrous default but we're doing our best to get schools one by one to adopt Creative Commons policies to ensure that teachers can legally share resources online and also for schools themselves to give an active statement that they encourage the teachers sharing educational resources. But the real message I want to send is that there's a massive, massive potential for schools to be using much, much, much more stuff, much more of the glam sector stuff than they currently do. And I think that potential will be realised in the next five or so years and some of the steps that these institutions have been taking are getting us much closer to that goal. We're going to kick off with a set of questions that I'd come up with and then, so that'll take I don't know, 20 minutes or so and then we'll open up to the audience for questions. And whoever wants to start can start, but why did you choose the open licence approach that you did choose and what were the decision factors? Go. From Te Papa's perspective it's been it wasn't really a choose it was what I think is an idea that whose time has arrived and been here a while. But just to say also in preparing notes for this I looked back at Te Papa's progress and I wrote up the notes and thought jeez this looks really organised and planned and it wasn't. There's a lot of trying and a lot of failure and a lot of trying again and it really hasn't been easy especially for a large organisation with a lot of competing teachings and priorities and that continues. The way I've looked at it and the way we've sort of brought it forward is by pruning our ring fencing and parking anything that looks hard and just focusing on the really low easy fruit to deal with and luckily with a collection of our size that means we can be in a position of being able to commit to what seems sometimes seems quite a small amount of 10,000 images a year for 3 years but from my perspective I see that as a stake in the ground practices and I see that as a bit of a trial and embedding it into work practices so that we can grow from there rather than we've reached the finish line I don't think that's the case at all I think we need to continue on with it. I'll just say once we decided to go the open content route and that for us flowed on from the decision to do the Web 2.0 thing taking the actual choice of license was pretty straightforward for us the creative commons 3.0 attribution non-commercial license covered what we needed we needed two things one what was basically important for us was some kind of acknowledgement and recognition for both our institution and our donors for having made this material available but the other thing was the non-commercial aspect which as I said before we do wave depending on the circumstances but it was deemed necessary for us to retain some control over use and prevent inappropriate wholesale appropriation of work and in the name of some kind of profit making enterprise so somebody could take the entire rebel Jackson collection and put it in a book so this stops that but the 3.0 seem to cover the two main concerns that we have these are the two responses I think for Auckland Art Gallery as I alluded to before we're kind of at the start of that road currently if you look at any out of copyright content on our website it just says copyright expired we don't currently use any creative commons licences similarly if an artwork is in copyright it does say copy and restrictions apply and people do need to go through a slightly convoluted route on our website to figure out how to request permission to reproduce those artworks so I think we're really keen to move towards ideas about creative commons licences my colleagues that I have spoken to do seem really keen so I think it is just continuing on that project I think our main difficulty is that currently we don't have anyone working on copyright full time it's part of several people's jobs and so because it's split between people like that it is slightly disjointed I deal with copyright at the point of acquisition we have a reproductions coordinator who looks after the requests and we do have marketing staff and other people within the institution who do all sorts of bits and pieces plus our research librarians who in the past have managed copyright and have done an amazing job of research so we're kind of in a bit of a tricky place and as I say hopefully in time to come you'll sort of see better content on our website and more clear instructions on how people can reuse content in relation to our World War One project we couldn't use a creative commons licence because that material is already in the public domain but in terms of what's been helpful in that process was getting a legal opinion that said black and white that it was in the public domain that Crown Copyright had expired and then we could then take that to the agencies and talk about what's the right statement and we're looking at the moment at no-no and copyright restrictions So what has the biggest hurdle been and how did you overcome it? Well I'll start that one I don't know about hurdle but far and away the biggest issue for us is orphan works the works where it's not clear what the copyright status of we, as I said the Rebel Jackson collection doesn't fall on that another major collection we have relating to photos from the Upper Hut Leader doesn't fall on that either but we still have a substantial amount of works that we we just simply don't know the copyright status of and we kind of a small institution like our own we just simply don't have the time and resources to go through and check and go through the very lengthy exhaustive process of making sure copyright is clear on items that are passed a certain date so basically and I really want to stress here I don't want to give the impression that we've taken a cavalier kind of like whatever approach to copyright we have identified the most problematic-ish ones and anything that looked like it's could be a problem we haven't put a Creative Commons license on but the vast majority of our collection we just made the judgement call that these are items that even though we weren't sure local photograph collections that sort of thing we didn't think people were bothered by it we didn't think copyright claims were going to be made and so the decision was made to make these available and otherwise this content's just locked up and so yeah that's so that's not exactly a hurdle that we've overcome but that's the way we've dealt with the problem and as I said it's not we're not being cavalier and I appreciate the differences with other institutions and larger institutions and reputations and that sort of thing and the reason for the extremely cautious risk averse kind of approach that tends to predominate whereby it's very hard to find images that you could use post-1916 or something but yeah we've made this decision kind of to you know make stuff available as long as we felt pretty confident that there were no claims against it I would say at the very start of this back when we 2005-2006 when I think we first started looking at rights in the collection was making sure that we had good tools we do a lot of rights research at Te Papa and the worst thing that can happen is for somebody to have to go and do that rights research all over again six months later so from my perspective emu has been an absolute godsend we have a really great rights module associated with our collection information and it allows us not just me but also other researchers as well to track copyright research and to record proof when we've found it of when something is definitely out of copyright we also have a large orphaned works problem and as soon as it has orphaned works it gets parked as soon as there's ewe relationship issues it gets parked as soon as there's nudity issues it gets parked as soon as there's any kind of images of dead people parked if it's a problem park it move onto the stuff that's going to be easy to release I'm looking at that and thinking we'll release what we can right now to the best of our ability and then once that's done and we've got it embedded in our work process for the easy stuff we can go back and look at the hard problems later I'm going to say what we've challenged is what we do in an institution wants to withhold some work that is in the public domain but for other reasons of sensitivity such as ewe or dead people being portrayed in the images and for us it's been around not allowing those sensitivities to stop the whole collection being withheld so thinking about perhaps a statement that the institution can attribute to that material saying why it's not being released but then releasing the remainder so we're still getting the material most material released kind of a sideways response not so much about releasing content with an open licence but what I'd like to comment on is the differences with art collections from other types of collection and I think for us one of the interesting things that has come through dealing with copyright is talking with artists about copyright and not only artists but also copyright holders and it can be a really great opportunity as an institution to talk with people and to kind of educate them about what it means to release content and what there is what the possibilities are and why it's good to release content from an authoritative source as one example we have two artists who are now deceased and their family manages the copyright and they have actually the family has given us permission to open out reproductions I think to A1 or A0 size because they're really happy about how we've managed reproduction requests and how we sort of look after that for them and I think that's a really successful example of how you can work with copyright holders to kind of get a more open result so have you achieved what you wanted to has anything surprised you or is there anything that you would do differently well just to be bold I'd really love it if we all shared our copyright holder information that would make my life significantly easier one of the things I find is that in doing this job for five or six years is the community I've built up and all the people who I know hold the information to the addresses and contact details for artists, artists states artists granddaughters artists nieces and nephews and various there are times when things have been bound up regarding copyright I mean this hasn't got anything to do with open this is the stuff that's actually in copyright where it's been a real battle to try and find somebody to get permission and take it from being an orphaned work into something that we're actually allowed to reproduce online at all you know like you say with the art collections and artist's choice not to have their work up online that's an artistic, you know, they're the rights holder, you have to respect that but for the most part it's making sure you do the due diligence and because the last thing you want is to be in a position where you're upsetting people without knowing I think adding to your comment about that we at Auckland Art Gallery we're often in touch with other institutions around New Zealand sharing copyright information and that as Victoria sort of said it's a really positive relationship, you know that you can email a colleague at Te Papa or at Christchurch Art Gallery or other institutions to go help do you know who the copyright holder is for such and such and that's super useful and another thing that I ought to slightly plug is that recently the Auckland Art Gallery has worked together with Christchurch Art Gallery and I think also Te Papa on the New Zealand Artists Names database which is a pretty amazing resource basically it's a list of all of the known New Zealand artists their place of birth date of birth, place of death date of death and also who holds a bit more information about that artist so if any of you are doing research into copyright of artists that can be a really great starting point I don't recall the website off the top of my head but I'm sure you can google it someone will tweet it find New Zealand artists find NZArtists.org.NZ they're all going to be asking some questions soon yeah just picking Victoria's Victoria's point I totally agree that the worst thing is to offend people or upset people without meaning to and certainly I'll be honest that when we launched the site and which was over a year ago I had a lot of sleepless nights and I actually worried about do people know about this open content thing are we going to get in trouble for something are people going to be upset it's been over a year now I'm a bit surprised but we haven't had a single issue and we've had a lot of publicity our collection available has been out there I've had three requests during that whole time to remove material those requests were none of them involved copyright they were people they were all involved photos from the newspaper that had been publicly available but because of something that had happened I won't go into detail in these people's lives these photos being made available online and I removed them immediately apologized for any upset that caused them and they were more than happy with that situation without wanting to jinx things if you say what I've been surprised by I've been surprised by how smoothly things have gone so far because we realized we were taking a bit of a risk here and we just didn't want to be put in an embarrassing situation of having to take lots of material down I'd just like to comment one more thing about orphaned works after Te Papa does due diligence and gives it its best shot at trying to find a copyright holder if we have tried and failed we do actually put the work up in collections online the reason we do that is to try and usher out of the woodwork the copyright holder there has been since 2006 there's been three instances where that has happened on two occasions they didn't even know they were the copyright holder they came back to us and said I'm so glad to see Greendad's whatever and we negotiated a license retrospectively and the one occasion that the rights holder was a little bit upset about it an apology, a takedown and negotiations afterwards solved the problem it actually built the relationship so for those of you with worries about orphaned works do some due diligence if you can, when you can and put them up and this question is especially for Fiona G Fiona Gregson so you're trying to work with multiple organisations to come to basically consensus about copyright statements or licensing statements that must be a little bit of a challenge how's that going it has been quite slow progress I have to say and I think part of that is that what we're trying to do is something of a first among a sector trying to agree a statement that everyone will use so it's sort of slow steps but I have to say we're on track in terms of our deadline of Anzac Day next year and I feel confident that we'll get there and that we thought we'd start with public domain material because that would be the low hanging through like you talked about before Victoria as a first go and then perhaps it will lead on to looking at material that's within copyright term and so and this is for everyone at the table because you two might haven't answered it this question as well and I've got more questions for Tom and Matt don't worry is there an inspiring institution here or internationally that you've regularly gone to as a successful model or open content or just an organisation that you admire that has helped I'd like to say Digital New Zealand and the reason I say that is by golly if they pushed us they have been really great advocates and great people to bring ideas off essentially we wouldn't have probably gone to the three tiers of all rights reserved Creative Commons licence and no-no copyright restriction statements had they not pushed us with the opening of Digital New Zealand and the coming home memory maker project that was our first trial in terms of using three statements and for me that was while it was only 100 objects and it took us a while to get the memory maker stuff working with the statements on collections online it was actually the start of prompting us towards that we were thinking about it but it was taking a while and that gave us a really great impetus to just get on and do it and we're still working we're basically very grateful for any institutions that's met our digital usage but one in particular that stood out for us is ATL and we submitted a huge permissions request it was a couple of thousand images I think and I know they've teamed a huge amount of work on that and for me it's interesting because I'm not an expert on where they are but my understanding is they're not necessarily an open institution in terms of where they are present but they met all our requirements and did a huge job for us so I know the team would be really grateful for that I know that and I think Mark might be in the audience but National Library and Alex Under Turnbull Library are working on their reuse policy at the moment and it's imminent we're nearly there so look out for that and I think it'll be a policy for organisations to look at and maybe copy and use or re-bix themselves I mean it's actually been to Papa and things like the goal around 10,000 images for high resolution download and the risk management approach to all from works we're actually putting material out there and as well as that I really like New Zealand on screen website and the processes they go through to clear the rights to New Zealand content is quite admirable as well as that they release their own clips interview clips under Creative Commons licences which is great sucking up to people on the panel but Te Papa and Digital New Zealand have been Digital New Zealand is extremely supportive of Creative Commons, always has been and I learnt most of what I know about what goes on in the glam sector from the conversation I had with Victoria Leachman when I wrote a case study for Creative Commons way back when so definitely to Papa and Digital New Zealand as well internationally the Open Knowledge Foundation are pretty good on some of the stuff, they're getting better they've launched an Open Glam project which is a way of coordinating some of the information around Open Glam in Europe and North America specifically though it's intended to be an international project so if you're looking for news about Open Glam institutions internationally there's a public domain discussion list and there's a lot of information that they put out including the public domain review which is an excellent public domain publication that you guys should all check out Questions for Tom and Matt now put them in the hot seat so has access to Open Cultural content made a difference to your industry yet has it saved time has it saved money frustration, any other factor Open Access having quite a bit of impact on scholarly publishing generally but that's a separate issue for us the short answer is no I spoke to my team earlier today on the number of permissions we've cleared over the last years two years it's been under a CC license and there was one and that was from Stats New Zealand that was a graph for an equality book so there's an issue there for me perhaps about if stuff moving to this open space is understandably the low hanging fruit where perhaps higher up the tree I guess and we've otherwise found that as I said before ATL fantastic with our digital permissions usage so for us it's not always an issue of whether or not something is open the immediate issue for us is the terms, the license and the cost so in that respect it hasn't had a significant impact thus far for BWB just with the proviso that I'm not from the education sector necessarily so I don't want to make too many overarching claims but I will anyway I think with the glam sector and the education sector are both in a pretty early stage of development in terms of open and we should always keep in mind that we're talking about a pretty fundamental shift in how people access and reuse cultural objects it's a pretty major thing that's happening so again I point to the massive potential in the education sector I think there's a lot of students out there reusing stuff from digital New Zealand in other places and there's a lot of teachers that are starting to incorporate it in teaching resources I think some copyright issues are still pretty difficult and some of the usage statements on glam institutions websites are still a little bit vague for some teachers you can't expect every teacher in New Zealand the 50,000 plus teachers in New Zealand to have the same expertise and copyright as someone like Tom who works in this day to day that kind of copyright knowledge is never going to happen so you really need to make it trivially easy for people to access stuff, reuse stuff and know that they're doing it legally because if there are any issues around the legality of reuse most teachers are going to do absolutely nothing because most teachers are really interested obviously in staying ensuring that what they do is legal but also passing on that kind of legal practice to their students and so and you've kind of started answering this matter so what do you really wish would happen in this area and what would really make a difference in your industry and area I mean I want to stress again that already you know we're very happy with the relationship we have with the glam sector in terms of our image licensing and I think for us the question again really is just we'd love to see a bit more sophistication around the nature of the terms being issued so that is looking at things like finer distinctions between an independent New Zealand publisher and a commercial entity that's larger or from offshore perhaps in terms of the terms being issued more of an emphasis on whether or not an image has been licensed for a backlist conversion work or for a frontlist title we'd like to see more sophistication around the nature of the usage being granted in terms of how it's being represented online whether or not it's this idea of a single instance of an e-book whether or not it's a more distributed online presence and we'd also you know we'd like to see more of a discussion and engagement about what is achievable on DRM if a rights holder actually wants us to apply DRM because at the moment is to some extent a disconnect between some of the requirements on DRM versus what we as a publisher are able to apply in the supply chain but what I have been struck by and again I'm not an expert in terms of where those are evolving but the the Hargraves report in the UK 2010 led to the development of the copyright hub over there and what was striking for me in that development was that there was a specific focus on scale and volume of usage and small and medium sized enterprises and for me that focus particularly on medium sized enterprises matches the realities of what we meet and what we're able to achieve is an independent publisher now again I don't know all the details on that and I know it's a the copyright hub is something that's an ongoing process and I think it's still subject to review but it's that sort of degree of granularity and sophistication I'd like to see coming through in the terms being offered to us more so really than issues around openness at this stage it's more about reaching a midpoint that allows us to reuse these works than our digital titles is it just to expand on what I said before I think it really does need to be trivially easy and I think the intended audience the kind of base level intended audience should be a 7 year old should be able to access and reuse the stuff and reference it properly which sounds ridiculous but we've just run Digital New Zealand have run Mix and Mash and we've had 7 year olds do that Creative Commons is a bit guilty of this as well and we are developing tools to make it trivially easy to provide attribution on images that we don't do it properly and that's presumably because it's a little bit too difficult but I think if it can become trivially easy to access, reuse and reference properly works in culture inherited institutions you're much more likely to see uptake in the education sector where again you can't expect people to go through the kinds of processes or even read the right statements like Tom obviously does quite a lot and so if there's one particular piece of content or group of content that could be opened up and make a real difference for your areas of interest what would it be? Images of course but I don't really feel qualified to say that it should be opened up per se if the institution is happy to open it up then that's great I know that there are financial imperatives for some of these institutions and I don't feel like I'm in a position to sit here and say that this material should be opened up without a finer understanding of those commercial imperatives it seems to me that there's perhaps a tension here between this desire for openness and whether or not some of these institutions are having financial imperatives placed on them from higher up, I don't know so I'd love to see these images opened up that would allow us to bring all these 3000 rights through for our backlist but I'm very cautious in saying that that's something that can be done simply and I know that there's great complexity throughout all of this process I don't have one image of one piece of content I would say it would be really good to see more of film and TV opened up though I know that the rights issues around film and TV are super complicated but that would be really useful and interesting for people in schools to be able to reuse especially stuff from kind of there's kind of a bit of a black hole in the middle of the 20th century for a lot of this stuff and if it's too hard some of that stuff if I'd be really keen in ensuring that we don't reproduce that problem for the 21st century as well so maybe putting in place policies within cultural funding institutions to ensure that publicly funded cultural works don't get dropped into that black hole where you can't really access it you can't really reuse it even though it was publicly funded in the first place just try and ensure that that doesn't happen again for the next century that would be my hope Regent OK, time for audience questions hopefully we've got some we've got some questions out there great I just wanted the museum panellist to comment about what do you do when you loan to each other with regard to intellectual property and the sorts of rights and requirements that you place upon each other or have experience from other museums placing on you loan agreement of items the loan agreement from te Papa says no photography of the item if you want to use a photograph of that particular item you have to go back to our picture library and negotiate a licence and possibly pay for it at Auckland Art Gallery in our loan agreement it generally states that the public can photograph collection items as long as it's not for commercial purposes and again if people want to use if the other institution wants to use an image of that collection item for publicity purposes that just goes through reproductions side of things Thanks the issue of artists not wanting their images used online is that because they're worried about unauthorised reuse in some cases yes, in some cases no in some cases it's a a wish of the artist for the work to be experienced in the flesh as opposed to in an online environment so it's a philosophical standpoint it's one that I happen to disagree with violently I come from Australia but it's their work so that's the whole point it's their work so we don't have any rights to reproduce it without their permission I know it's their work but you hang their work in the gallery don't you and it's physically accessible but not I think it's come to I'm not arguing with you at all I personally think that if you're not online you're invisible but that's not the perception of some of our artists and we collect from a lot of them I think as an institution that collects art you have to really respect your relationship with artists even if you don't personally agree with that opinion you've really got to you're working with these artists so you've got to do what they really feel I think one example that a colleague of mine told me about was an artist who had not given permission for any of their artworks to be reproduced online and one of my colleagues met with this artist and just talking to them did a google search on their name and then did an image search and showed them all of the images of their artworks that were online and managed to convince the artist that well you know why not have the authoritative image you know a really nice high quality image with really good information about that artwork why not allow that and as a result of that conversation the artist changed and did allow the images to be reproduced so you know it's something that does change over time with artists as well and I think certainly given where we are now with the web and images and content I think there is a greater understanding from artists about what it means to have their images of their artworks reproduced online and how it can be a really positive thing I think that's a really good question I will feed that back to those in the research library whose project that is thanks for that and just more generally on that topic of intellectual property of the organizations around metadata if the panel got any comments on that and why metadata created by cultural and heritage organizations can't all be open metadata or creative copyright creative commons licensed from to Papa's perspective we were focusing on images we haven't got and it is on the list because it would make a big difference for digital New Zealand and what one last question so I just really quick question we've been talking about copyright and these kind of issues and I wondered we've described what is quite a complex situation we find ourselves in and it's difficult and hard work now that we've seen at least a draft of the TPPA I wondered if you organizationally or individually have any comments around what that may or may not do if it's going to make your life easier or worse is there any comments you have about that given that we've at least seen a draft of it in the last few weeks I can comment on it personally I'm not speaking for my organization when I say this but it's going to make my life harder really quickly creative commons HQ just released this is not specific to the TPPA but they released a statement in support of copyright reform quite broad quite obvious reforms that creative commons HQ thought were necessary such as don't extend the copyright term that kind of thing and broader fair use provisions internationally it's not a very controversial statement but that is a statement that it has some relevance to the TPPA I think we'd better wrap up there because there's hordes of people coming in thank you all for your time and your interesting perspectives and experiences and I hope some of you in the audience have been inspired to take a deeper leap or start a journey or at least come and talk to one of us about our experiences and thank you and if you could all thank our wonderful panellists that would be great