 Kiwis. Beata, kesiaf pa. I'm so, we've got quite a lot to get through, so I'm going to speak again like Anna pretty fast, but feel free to interact me at any time. What's going to happen, I'm going to speak for half or two-thirds of this and I'm just going to lay out A, some of the problems that Creative Commons looks to solve and also some of the solutions that Creative Commons is offering, some of the specific policies, solutions we'd like to see in culture and heritage organisations. And then Elizabeth is going to come in at the end and talk about the licences specifically. So that's going to be the three parts, but let's get started. So Creative Commons itself, we've got to feel a grandiose goal, universal access to research and education for participation and culture. And there are 72 plus affiliates around the world looking to realise that goal. The two key words there are access, so we advocate for free access to works. And the second key word there is participation. So not only be able to access things, but also adapting them and reusing them for your own purposes. So that's the goal. We realise it in two ways. The first way is kind of the passive way, and we offer free licences that anyone can use without asking us permission or anything like this. A bunch of well-meaning lawyers from around the world have got together and written licences for different jurisdictions and also for international use as well. And licence just means permission. So all this is a standardised, legally robust way to give permission online. Basically free legal tools for anyone to use. And Elizabeth will go into some detail about that at the end. And the second thing we do though, and this is where kind of the active side of our organisation is we advocate for the use of Creative Commons licencing across eight different project areas. And GLAM is just one of them. So GLAM is that top left weird heart symbol. That's the international symbol for open GLAM. But we've also got a bunch of other projects as well. In culture, government, schools, data, indigenous knowledge, research and education at a tertiary level too. So I won't talk about them today, but just to give you a sense of the scope of the project and the kind of scope of what Creative Commons is an organisation is trying to achieve. So I'm just going to make six or so quick points to kind of set the scene for why something like Creative Commons wasn't invented in the first place. The kind of problems it looks to solve and the opportunities it looks to realise. And the first thing is really obvious. It's much easier to access New Zealand's culture and heritage. I always like to plug Digital New Zealand here, but you guys are all experts on that. So we'll skip through that. The second point is that the technical barriers to access and reuse are dropping all the time. Again, that's a really, really obvious point. The third point, no, and this is what Creative Commons likes to emphasise, is that this means you can't really predict who will do exciting things with your work. I had an open research meeting yesterday and I always like to point out to researchers how many people there are outside of the research community who really want to do really interesting things with their research and data. And researchers often think about their own little research community. You know, there are 100 or so people who may be experts in their field, but there are many, many thousands, many, many tens of thousands of people who will be interested in using their work. And that's not just true of the research sector. It's true of all the sectors I was talking about, educational resources and in the heritage sector as well. A few examples of that, there's a really exciting project. This is not from the glam sector, it's just a cool project. Last year, some academics and librarians in Dunedin decided to get together to solve a kind of glaring problem in the higher education sector at the moment, which is that textbooks are A, too expensive and B, can't be adapted by the people who are teaching from them without violating copyrights. So you've got a whole bunch of professors who are teaching from textbooks that may have been written overseas and may have cost $100, $200 for their students to access in the first place. So what these academics and librarians decided to do was get together and just write in a weekend their own textbook. And they did it. They got together, not just in Dunedin, but they got people from around Australia around New Zealand connecting virtually to kind of write the chapter each, edit each other's work. And they did it. So there's now, if you Google Media Studies 101, a creative commons textbook, anyone can access and download and adapt that work for their own purposes. And it's been picked up by universities in Canada and it's been accessed by countries from around the world. So it's really interesting and exciting project. Another example, a more kind of closer to home, but less exciting example probably, but just to illustrate the point, we've got a video called CC Kiwi. And every now and again, I go on Google and go on YouTube rather to see how many people have looked at it just to see our people still watching this bloody video that we made five years ago. And they are, but more interestingly, it's been translated into a bunch of different languages. I think there are 10 translations of CC Kiwi that exist at the moment. None of those translations came and asked us for permission to translate that video. But because it was openly licensed, they were able to do so. There's also a bunch of different adaptations there. Someone had decided it was too long, which is fair enough. Someone had decided it was too white, so they coloured it in, as you can see in the bottom right-hand corner. Fair enough, we don't take that personally. So a lot of really exciting things happened because we released this openly and people could do what they want with it. And arguably, some of this stuff wouldn't have happened if people had tried to contact us for a YouTube channel that might have been filtered out in spam. We might have been too lazy to respond, I don't know, but they might have just not bothered to contact us in the first place. So some really cool stuff happened. Another thing in the research sector, I won't read these out now, but there's a lot of different groups. MIT have offered open access to a bunch of their research and the library has been collecting stories from people who have benefited from open access to research. And there's a bunch of really, really interesting stories out there from groups that you may not have thought of as needing access to research and benefiting from it. And the fourth point is there's an obvious potential to disseminate heritage items for reuse. Again, this is a fairly obvious point these days. But one kind of good example of this is the Getty Museum. I'm not sure how public these figures are, but this was shared on an email list a short time after they decided to release their content openly. And when their collections were closed and they were essentially licensing reuse of their public domain, kind of high resolution scans of their public domain works, they were saying that they were licensing 121 purchases per month. Just like a fair amount. But they kind of decided that they was going against... Licensing reuse of their public domain works was going against their mission as an organisation, so they decided to make them openly available for anyone to download. And they got, as that says, that there are 60,000 downloads in the first month. It's kind of a surprisingly high number, but goes to show that you can't always predict how many people and how varied the groups are that will be interested in reusing your works. And the fifth point, though, is there's always good opportunities and there's a lot of potential out there, but the fifth point is that the legal barriers to dissemination and reuse remain and the one that Creative Commons concerns itself with is copyright. I'm not going to go into the weeds. We obviously don't have... This conference probably doesn't have enough time to go into all the weeds of copyright, but really, basically, a lot of the problems stem from these basic facts of copyright. A, it's more restrictive than most people realise. So the more you go into copyright, the more restrictive you realise it is. It's automatic. It applies online. No issue required in the last 50 years after death. And as many of you probably know, this causes all kinds of problems in the heritage sector because of that last point, at last 50 years after death, it can be really, really hard to track down rights holders after the initial creator has died. It can be really hard, again, to get permission. Victoria Leachman is going to be talking tomorrow. I think she's talking next in another room, as well, about some of the things that she has to go through to find rights holders. It's a really, really difficult process. And one example of this, this is the kind of famous graph it came out a few years ago. Someone did a study on Amazon about book availability. And you can kind of see that striking black hole in the middle of the 20th century, where once books leave commercial... This is a study of the amount of books you can find by searching Amazon. So book availability by decade of publication. And so once books fall from commercial circulation, they kind of go into this black hole until various people can determine that they've fallen out of copyright and then suddenly they become available again. The sixth point, and this is where we're getting to policy issues at heritage institutions, is that usage rights statements are often vague, overly restricted and not standardised, which essentially places the burden of determining rights on materials to the end user. Now, if your end user is a professional researcher who deals with these issues all the time, that's one thing. If you want teachers to comfortably reuse your work, if you want students to comfortably reuse your work, you need to be clear about what kind of rights they do and don't have. And if it's unclear, it's unclear, but oftentimes it is actually clear, but it's not made clear enough on the usage rights statements. And one glaring example of this is from the Royal Society of New Zealand. I'm allowed to say this because I used to work there. If you go online, they've digitised all the transactions and proceedings from the Royal Society of New Zealand. And if you go on and search some really amazing stuff from some really famous scientists, if you go to 1881, the key point there, you probably can't see it. So if you go into the middle of the page using this item, the usage rights of this item are currently unclear. But if you do the math, the person who wrote articles in the 1881 issue might have been 30, might have been born in 1850. They probably weren't alive if you go by how long people lived at the time. They probably didn't live till 1964. It would have had to be 113, right? And if they were older, they would have had to be older. The point is that this really is placing the burden on someone who may or may not know anything about copyright to determine whether this item is usable legally or not. And the seventh point is that many heritage institutions feel tension between being a kaitiaki and enabling reuse. And I think Creative Commons licensing enables institutions to do both of those things at once. I don't think there should necessarily be any tension between those two principles. So what to do, where our basic recommendation is to start from the other direction. So instead of making everything closed, by default, we argue across the public seat. I know this is more complicated in the glam seat because you don't often hold rights to what's in your collections. But on principle, we argue that items that are produced by public institutions in New Zealand should be made open by default, unless there's a really good reason for them not to be. More specifically though, what we're recommending in glam institutions is to clearly mark out of copyright works as such. If a work is falling out of copyright really clearly, then tell people that it's out of copyright. It's pretty simple, but it's not always the case. So we argue that it should be the case for works like the transactions and proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand. Second, when you get works from your communities, whoever it might be, from donors, give them the option of applying a Creative Commons licence at the beginning because once you have that work and once that person's gone away into the world, there might be 60, 70 years down the track, someone wants to do something really interesting with that work and that person's descendants are not available, it's a problem, right? And it's a problem that's easily solved at the beginning but becomes much, much harder to resolve the further down the line you go. So again, really basic, just giving them a box to tick on the form and a brochure that we can give you to give them, to start a conversation about this and the kind of problems it solves. A really good example of this is from the Apahat City Library, they've got a really rich collection of works which, correct me if I'm wrong, but that was from one donor, right? They decided that that was a good thing. It was one donor who had 20,000 photos from one donor who decided, I don't mind if you put a Creative Commons licence on my work and suddenly there's this really, really rich collection of photography from Apahat City that's made available under a Creative Commons licence. Third, and this should go without saying, I think works for what's the institution holds, copyright, UCC licensing and that's not just, that could be including policy documents as well. It's the stuff that other institutions in the glam sector might find useful to repurpose. There's probably an awful lot of reinventing the wheel that goes on in the glam sector and I think it's a really good idea for works that are produced by institutions to be released under a CC licence. And yeah, fourth repeats too, doesn't it? No, forget that. So wait, what is Creative Commons licensing anyway? We're going to skip over to Elizabeth Heritage. Now Elizabeth. Kia ora everyone, it's good to be here. Firstly I should say that yes, heritage is my actual name. I have my driving licence with me if you'd like to check. So Creative Commons licences are free. You can just come to our website and have a look at them, download them and use them. They are absolutely legally robust and they are recognised all over the world. There's no register, you don't have to tell us that you're using them, it's not like trademarks or patents, you can just absolutely go for gold. So they vary from more free to more restrictive. So in the public domain, obviously there are very few restrictions and then regular copyrighted all rights reserved, there's very few freedoms. So Creative Commons falls neatly into the middle there where you can choose which rights you want to reserve. So there are four elements of the licences. First one is, we call it BY, it's attribution, it's where you say who made the thing. The second one, NC non-commercial, it means that you are forbidding people from making money from your work. The third one is the no derivatives licence, which means that you have to reproduce the work absolutely as it was. So for example you can't crop it or change the colour or change the name or that kind of thing. And the fourth part is share alike, which means that with the reuse, you have to re-licence that the same way that the original work was licenced. So there are six combinations of those different elements that go to make the six Creative Commons licences. And here they, does this go through them one by one? No. Okay, so I'm just going to point. So we've got up there, we've got the CCBY, which is the most open one, it's where you just have to say who made the thing. Then underneath that, we've got BY&C, which is where you have to say who made it and you have to licence your work under that same licence. BY&C, you have to say who made the work and you can't make money from your reuse of the work. BY&D, attribution and no derivatives. So you have to say who made the work and you can't change it when you are using it yourself. And then over here, we have the more restrictive kind of licences. BY&C, SA, so these are obviously just combinations of the things you say, who made the work, you can't make money from it and you have to re-licence it with that same licence. And then lastly, BY&C and D, you have to say who made the thing, you can't make money from it and you have to share it as it was, you can't change it. So there are three different aspects or layers to each licence. There's the Wii symbol, which is what you will display usually. There's the human readable version of the licence that sets out the terms and conditions in very clear language that everyone can understand. And then there's the lawyer readable version, which should hopefully keep all the lawyers happy and just ticks all those boxes with relation to copyright law as it currently stands in New Zealand and overseas. So they're very easy to get and to use. You can just go to our website, creativecommons.org, and choose which ones you want and it will walk you through those steps. And if you're looking for things to use that have been licenced under Creative Commons so that you can use them confidently knowing that you are using illegally licenced work, you can use the search function there on the Creative Commons and it's got all kinds of amazing stuff and there's way more stuff than you perhaps would have thought, especially if you're new to Creative Commons. It has actually been around for a while and there's an enormous amount of resources and works and artistic works and research and all kinds of cool stuff. So I just wanted to talk a little bit about a couple of case studies from the New Zealand glam sector. So right here in Taipapa where we're very happy to be and thank you Taipapa for the lovely welcome this morning. Taipapa and I'm glad that we have Victoria Leachman with us here, there she is. Has they've been doing some absolutely sterling work, licensing images, digitisations of collection items and images under Creative Commons where things are out of copyright and so forth? I would invite you all, if you haven't already, to go and look on collections online and you'll see that there's a box you can tick to search just for images that can be downloaded and reused in high resolution and you can just use them and follow the terms of the licence and do whatever you'd like. So we're getting a lot of very positive feedback about that and I personally use the collections online a lot especially when I'm looking for interesting images to illustrate a blog post or make a point about something or just sort of pretty up a newsletter or that kind of thing. I use that a lot. And if you were here just for the talk about social media earlier and the power of images and the power of really interesting shareable images, perhaps have a look round, tip up his collections online and see what you can do. The other project that we'd really like to celebrate is with the National Library of New Zealand, Te Puna Maturanga o Aotearoa, with the centenary of World War One. There's an enormous collection of really fascinating images from World War One which are now available and openly licensed to be used. And there are some phenomenal stories to be told there and they've all been beautifully digitised and are available for sharing and reuse. So do go and check those out. Do you want to say anything further? No, no, no. Yeah, so that's us really. There's huge amounts of resources on our website, www.creativecomments.org.nz, that are particular to the New Zealand context and to the glam sector, so please swing by. We also run the site called NZcomments.org.nz, which is more of a community chatty site where people submit articles about what they've been working on and their particular experiences, for example, passing an open access policy at their institution. So if you want to really get into the kind of nuts and bolts of how people have made things happen in glam organisations in New Zealand, please do swing by that site. We're on Twitter, of course, because we're really cool. And we have a mailing list and the other. And there are email addresses. So we're very, very happy to come in and talk to you and answer questions and help you out with any kind of licensing or copyright things that you're working on. And this presentation has been licensed, CCBY, so it's go forth, really, since now I've given it to you. But yes, we're around today and tomorrow, so please do, if you spot either Matt or me, please do just come and ask us anything you like. Is there any... questions immediately? Last year, Peter Gorgals, from the Rites Museum, talked about what they've been doing between the city and a lot of places where we've tried to pass over and understand the nature and digitise the standard and non-standard standards and set them up perfectly. Please do yours. You can do it in life. You can do it in my time. Do you know which licence of the Rites Museum you used? Fair Public Domain. Fair Public Domain. I'm just to reiterate the basic principles that that's how it should be as well. So institutions shouldn't be asserting rights on digitised reproductions of works that are out of copyright. That's just bad practice. Licence everything Creative Commons. Thank you very much.