 Afternoon, everybody. OK, let's get into this. 25 minutes. OK, I'm addressing two different projects today. The first is the Getting It Right on Rights project, led by the Digital Public Library of America and Europeana. And the second one is the UK Orphan Works licensing scheme launched by the UK government in October last year. The Getting It Right on Rights project, it's an ambitious project to develop standardised right statements for GLAMs. The right statements they are developing are intended to be interoperable, machine-readable, and internationally usable, so tailored to overcome the issues of legal jurisdiction. The plan is to develop right statements that will indicate copyright status of works and inform users on how those works might be used. The group proposes hosting these statements on a website so wherever the right statements appear, there can be a link to a definitive explanation to the statement terms. It's no surprise that the work to develop standard rights statements is being led by two major GLAM content aggregators. The missions of the DPLA, Europeana, Trove, and Digital New Zealand are all about helping their users find, share, and use content relating to their particular geographical area. The content these aggregators are assembling is not only sourced from contributors within their geographical location. Collecting institutions around the world have surprisingly enough collected from around the world, so aggregators are also gathering material related to their geographical region from institutions in other locations. The rules each contributor uses to determine the copyright status of their contribution will change from country to country. It's a fact that the rules of copyright are based on the laws of the country where the copying occurs. There's no set international rules for copyright. I like to think of copyright like a patchwork quilt covering the world. Each patch is a legal jurisdiction, and the copyright rules depend on which patch the copying occurs in. The rules change as soon as you move over that stitching from one patch to another, and the rules can change substantially. There's also limited consistency in the right statements used by contributing organisations to these aggregators. This slide shows just some of the terms GLAMs use to describe works that are out of copyright. Because the aggregators are combining metadata from so many different contributors, the numbers of different rights statements are a real issue. The DPLA has over 85,000 different rights statements covering 10 million items, and Digital New Zealand is in a much more positive space having only 21,000 different rights statements covering 33 million items. But 21,000 statements. Don't you think that's crazy? Yeah, sort of why. I don't see how we can expect our users to navigate all of our different rights statements to come up with something meaningful that they can understand. This lack of consistency is an issue not just for aggregators. We need them to do the work we do as individual GLAM organisations. We'll also want to contribute to the growing number of collaborative digital projects out there. Projects such as Google Art Project or Auckland Museums Online Senataf or Government projects such as Te Ara. Consistent rights statements are going to become ever more important. I see this project as having a real opportunity to provide some consistency for our users. Having consistency across the sector worldwide will help us work together more easily. So what have the DPLA and Europeana done so far with this project? Well, they've done quite a bit in the last 16 months. In June last year, they received a $300,000 funding grant from the Knight Foundation. And in May this year, they issued two draft white papers for feedback and consultation. One on the recommended rights statements and the other on technical infrastructure. In July 2015, consultation and feedback was completed. And Tuesday last week, hot off the press, the final white papers for the statements and for the technical infrastructure were published. And they're now working on developing a website to host those statements. So these are the confirmed statements. At first glance, it looks like there's a lot of options here. But compared to $21,000, it's actually pretty good. There's only 19. So let's look at whether these statements will actually work using Tepapa's collection and rights data as an example. So this is broadly Tepapa's approach for copyright and reuse statements and collections online. I've coloured the rights statements on the right with green for no rights reserved, amber for some rights reserved and red for all rights reserved. Firstly, I can see Tepapa using the in-copyright statement. For those works where we know that they're in copyright and where we've either licensed for Tepapa's use or we've got contact details for the right copyright holder, this subset of data currently sits into Tepapa's all rights reserved statement. I can also see us using this second statement for those works that I've assessed as orphan works. Tepapa has 55,000 works where it's likely they're in copyright, but where the copyright owner has been unable to be identified or contacted even after a diligent search to a high standard. Orphanworks is a useful name for this group because it's got no legal standing in the New Zealand legal jurisdiction. So this rights statement is actually a good and transparent reflection of the actual situation. I'm also looking at adding into Tepapa's rights framework the full suite of Creative Commons licences to future proof any collecting that we may occur that might occur where the donor or rights holder have assigned a Creative Commons licence to new acquisitions. Tepapa already uses a Creative Commons licence. It's the attribution non-commercial and no derivatives for collection works and digital surrogates where Tepapa owns the copyright. It's unlikely Tepapa will waive all rights reserved and all rights and use the CC0 as this isn't recommended under the New Zealand Government open licensing framework, but a donor might do so in the future so it will be useful to have it available. So moving on to the statements reflecting works where copyright doesn't apply. If Tepapa does adopt this schema, I don't think I'll be using the Creative Commons public domain marks for Tepapa's material, at least for the foreseeable future. Currently New Zealand Goal recommends the no-known copyright statement and it's a consistent statement adopted by the National Library, Alexander Taupo Library material, Auckland Museum, Tepapa and Auckland Libraries as well as others in New Zealand. In the future it might be a priority to tease out of this group those works where we definitely know they're in the public domain and all jurisdictions and also those where we definitely know they're in the public domain and solely in the New Zealand jurisdiction, but right now I'll probably stick with the no-known rights statement. Using the statement is not preventing others from using the work and there's clear information on what people can do with the work and collections online. It's pretty clear that we're encouraging reuse for those materials. Another statement Tepapa would use is the no copyright and other contractual restrictions statement. Mostly for those out-of-copyright images considered towing or works under the definition of the Y262 report. I think it would be more useful for Tepapa and internationally if there was a statement in the schema specifically acknowledging traditional knowledge. I know feedback was provided on this point to the statements working group but it wasn't included. I'm still hopeful that it might be considered in the future. The group have said that this is just the start of the project and the intention is that these statements will actually evolve over time. Certainly for Tepapa's uses we're very interested in users recognising traditional knowledge communities. When we're the copyright holder of images we can insist on consultation with Kaitiaki regarding proposed uses but for those works in the public domain Tepapa can really only control via access and reuse agreements at the moment. This means we have less control to insist that consultation with relevant Kaitiaki groups is completed prior to use. The user may not always realise that consideration should be given to a culture other than theirs. The no copyright contractual restriction statement is a statement that will allow Tepapa to be transparent that there are additional issues to consider when using those particular materials. We'd also use the statement in those rare instances in Tepapa's collection where donor restrictions are associated with collection items. Finally, I'd also use the copyright not evaluated statement. The team developing these statements are keen that this particular one is not used as a sort of dumping ground of uncertainty. But I see this as a really useful designation to indicate the quantity of work Glam's still have to do with rights research. Copyright research just doesn't happen out of the blue. In most cases institutions are starting into online collection projects having to create a whole new set of metadata. The rights metadata has not previously existed and that is a stack of work. Tepapa still has a vast array of catalogue records online that describe collection items without reproducing the images of that particular collection item. I like the idea of declaring outright that we haven't assessed the rights yet. Maybe somebody will do my job for me and contact me with the rights information. I'd love that. If users know the situation then they can make their own judgement as to what they need and whether to contact Tepapa. So my reading of this is the project is doing great work and it gets a big tick for me. I think it's got real promise, particularly as it's coming at a time when New Zealand institutions are looking at their rights statements and scheming. And I'm watching this project with real interest to see where it goes. Right, so let's move on to Orphan Works. OK, the Orphan Works, the UK Orphan Works licensing scheme was launched by the UK government in October last year. And just as a quick note, I tend to look at things with a particular bias towards my own institution. So I'm looking at this licensing scheme recognising that my institution holds quite a few standalone artistic works that are orphaned. Like I said, there's 55,000 of them. So first of all, a definition, what is an orphaned work? Well, it's any work, not just literary works or sound recordings or film, but any work that is eligible for copyright where after a search is completed, the copyright holder is unknown or unable to be traced. When you can't find or can't identify the copyright holder, you're now in a situation where copyright is preventing the public from accessing these works and is hindering the spread and use of past knowledge. These works are essentially locked up with no one holding the key. You can still give users physical access to the work, but the benefits of digital access are not available legally. If your organisation does provide access to digital copies of this work, then it's a copyright infringement and the institution is taking a calculated risk. Some governments are starting to recognise this problem and looking at developing a copyright exception for orphaned works. The main orphaned works policy work has been happening in the EU and in the USA. In New Zealand, there's only been a small amount of work so far and tiny in comparison. So let's have a look specifically at the European Union. OK, so the European Union directive is an exception to copyright that all member states to the EU must have added to their national laws by the end of 2014. As with other copyright exceptions, it's very limited and specific. It's definitely not a free-for-all. To qualify for the copyright exception, you have to make sure that the work isn't orphaned because a diligent search must be completed. There are only certain organisations that qualify for this exception. The use must be non-commercial and related specifically to digitisation and online display only. Only to the collection items of the institution applying the copyright exception qualify. And those works that are deemed to be orphaned must be registered with an administrative body in the EU. And worst of all, well, the exception applies only to those works that are written or film or sound recordings or embedded images within those works. So the elephant in the room is that the EU directive sounds great for Glam's, but it doesn't include standalone artistic works like paintings, drawings, photographs and sculpture. So the orphaned works directive is of limited use for, say, art galleries and museums that have large collections of standalone artistic works. And this is where the UK orphan works licensing scheme comes in. The UK Intellectual Property Office runs the licensing scheme and it covers any type of orphaned work. Anyone can apply for a licence for an either commercial or non-commercial use. And in order to qualify for a licence, applicants must prove that the work is orphaned by submitting a digitised version of the work and information regarding their diligence search for the copyright holder. The Intellectual Property Office checks the diligence search, decides whether or not to accept the licence application. And if they do, the work is registered as an orphan work in a publicly searchable database and a licence is issued. So let's have a look at the investment a UK institution needs to make to get an orphan work licence. Let's say for use in an online collections database there's a not-so-random example. And let's use the number of orphan works into Puppa's collection as a starting point. So 55,000. First step, digitisation and diligence search. Digitisation, let's have a good look at the object and find any inscriptions. Good digitisation practice would cover not only digitising the item, but also digitising the information associated with the item. So you might find some copyright clues in there, holder clues in there. And then it's onto the diligence search for the copyright holder. A check of places to look would include things like a Google search, databases of other collecting institutions, companies registered, birth deaths and marriages, probate searches, telephone white pages, genealogy websites, the whole Kibbutel. It's costly in staff time and money, but it's good information, collection information practice, and we're doing it anyway, whether or not there was an orphan works licensing scheme. And then it's onto applying to the UK Intellectual Property Office for the 55,000 licences. The cheapest rate for application in the UK if you apply for 30 works at a time is a cost of 80 pounds per application. With 55,000 works to get through, that's a lot of applications and a lot of fees. That application fee there shows me that UK institutions will have a strong incentive not to use this scheme for licensing in bulk. It's more likely that the UK institutions will cherry pick which orphan works their licence because of this application fee. You might wonder why this fee is so large. Don't forget there's a requirement to register the orphan works. So in addition to covering the cost of reviewing the diligence search, this fee is also going towards some way of covering the cost of administering this scheme. So let's assume that the UK institution we're dealing with has got a grant to pay for this and keeps going through the process. Because our institution is only interested in reproducing these standalone artistic orphan works for non-commercial use in an online database, we're going to be applying for the non-commercial licence. Now this licence is pretty broad. You get all of these uses in association with this licence. So after the hefty application fee payment, I'm starting to feel a little bit better. That's quite a few uses. So if all the applications pass and the diligence searches are accepted by the Intellectual Property Office in the UK, what's the licence fee? Again, the rate's pretty good. It's 10 pence per non-commercial licence. But when applying for licences in bulk, it's still a sizeable fee. And worst of all, UK institutions will need to re-licence every seven years. That's the maximum term of the licence. I think a limited term can be useful. Information on artists and copyright holders does improve every year. The searches I did seven years ago are likely to get different results if I did them again today. However, conducting a diligent search to a high standard on all 55,000 works every seven years will be a huge investment of staff time for any institution. Te Papa conducts a diligent search on every use. So there's a search when the item is digitised for online use. Then there's another diligent search if the item is used in the exhibition or publication project. There's also a diligent search triggered when other works by the same creator are cleared for online use. And also, if more information on the maker is found during curatorial research. But none of the searching means that I revisit all 55,000 works regularly. The online reproduction might be the only time the work is used while it's orphaned. I rely on rights holders to come to me to find the works and come back to me and identify themselves. And I rely on time passing and the yearly data checks to see what works are likely to go from orphaned to the out-of-copyright basket. Under the UK scheme, part of the terms of the licence is that the orphaned work, once licensed, is credited as an orphaned work. And I think this is really useful as it allows rights holders to see up front that the works they might consider theirs are actually orphaned and will hopefully prompt the rights holders to get in touch. Given the quantity of licensing that would be required with mass digitisations of collections, I'm also wondering what the licence renewal process is. Do you get a discount on that huge application fee? If you're applying in bulk and you're doing a renewal, I don't know. I mean, I'm assuming UK institutions will be up for the same fees every seven years. So who's using it? Well, it's not inundated. In the past year, there's been 293 orphaned works registered so far. There's a couple of case studies in the Intellectual Property that the Intellectual Property Office have added to their website. Both Leeds Museum and Sheffields Museums have cleared works by an in-copyright artist for their collection online databases. Now, it's the same artist, so I'm assuming they got together and did the application as a team. Splitting costs. And this particular museum cleared in-copyright photographs by a nurse from World War I for use in an interactive learning resource. I think it's interesting that the scheme isn't reflecting bulk digitisation efforts, but rather licensing individual works or small sets of works by single makers. I can also see orphan works like the licensing scheme to be useful in those instances where there's a commercial product being developed and the person investing in that work wants some certainty regarding licensing from a commercial perspective that makes sense. I just want to remind you what did UK glam institutions do before this licensing scheme came into place? There were a number that did the diligence search to reduce the risk and then took the leap and reproduced the works online. Some of the institutions also listed the artists that were considered orphaned on a separate webpage in their website. This is something that the Tate and the National Portrait Gallery did and continue to do. And it isn't just galleries. The Public Catalog Foundation researched every oil painting and public ownership in the UK. And they too published orphan works both online and in their print catalogs. These institutions have yet to get the works licensed using the scheme and I wonder if they're going to. The Tate List 18 artists, the National Portrait Gallery lists over 70 artists and I'm not sure how many of the artworks in the 210,000 oil paintings digitised by the Public Catalog Foundation are considered orphaned but it's likely to be in the hundreds if not thousands of works. Given that these works have been online for some years prior to the launch of the licensing scheme, what was the risk of the copyright holder coming forward for these institutions? Is the protection afforded by the licensing scheme worth the cost of obtaining the licences in the first place? Or will these institutions just continue to take the risks given that nobody has obviously approached them in the years that the works have been up online? Like these UK institutions, Te Papa takes the risk and reproduces orphaned works online after a good diligent search. We've got an immediate takedown process if approached by copyright holders or possible copyright holders. And just to clarify in the... Well, since I started this job in 2006, there have been three occasions where a copyright holder has contacted me and on two of those occasions they didn't know they were the copyright holder and I had to tell them and there was only one instance where we've been charged for non-commercial use and that was $350 with 55,000 works. So, good idea for New Zealand. With the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade confirming that copyright will be extended to DEATH PLUS 70 as part of the Transpacific Partnership Agreement and as more New Zealand institutions digitise their collections, the orphan works problem is going to grow. New Zealand definitely needs to take a copyright exception, needs to consider a copyright exception for orphan works for Glam collections, what shape that takes and where the New Zealand should follow the lead of the AU directive and all the UK licensing scheme is up for debate. There are some elements that look useful but I think we should learn from the experience of the EU and the UK and improve on it. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. We do have five minutes if anybody has any questions. I missed the first couple of minutes. I may be covering all ground but can you confirm that the UK system means that the copy that you put online isn't an infringing copy? That's right. So, it gives you a bit of immunity. It is immunity, yes. Yes. Any other questions? It's an... If you've judged the risk and you think that's an adequate approach, then I'm not going to argue against you. I would think in terms of publications that's a possible way forward. Certainly others have done that as well and just dealt with it as rights holders have come forward. I think as long as you've got a strategy in place and are willing to take the risk, do it. She can ask the recent. I've got a question. I was just wondering, Victoria, how much do you think a clear and instructive takedown notice would ameliorate the situation? Do you think it's anyway as a... Is it a good next step? Well, the next best thing and how much does it protect an institution? It doesn't protect an institution. You don't get a free pass. You're either infringing or you're not infringing. But that said, every time... If you are infringing, having a positive and open discussion with any possible rights holder that comes forward and being prepared to apologise and emphasise the goodwill goes a long way. I mean, of the three instances where it's happened to me, well, all three were thrilled that the items were actually online. There was just one that would have liked a payment for it. So, we didn't go to court. We didn't have a horrible discussion. It was very amicable. We had an amicable negotiation and we settled. Any more questions? Well... I don't know whether you can comment as well. My understanding is the British have also implemented an extended collective licensing thing in parallel with this. Is that right? Yeah, that was the... Is that going? That's, again, that's the EU directive. So, that doesn't include standalone works. It includes written works and it includes sound recordings and film. So, that's the EU directive. So, that doesn't include standalone works. So, that doesn't include recordings and film and any standalone works that might be incorporated within those items. The interesting thing with that is that the diligence search has to be done on both the embedded works within the works and the works themselves. So, if you're dealing with a publication with 56 illustrations, you still have to do the diligence search for each illustration. And in addition to that, you... It's a copyright exception, but you still need to register with the EU. So, you register, but there's no... As far as I'm aware, there's no administration fee associated with that. So, only the orphan works licensing scheme in the UK that has that administration fee and licensing fee associated with it. And that's partially so that they can... I'm assuming get a bit of bank of money together so that if a copyright holder does come forward, they can negotiate a payment for the uses that they've licensed. The licensing scheme or the... Yeah, it doesn't seem to. 293 orphan works in a year, that's pretty slim. I thought there'd be at least a couple of thousand, but that's... And of that 293, there's probably at least a couple of institutions that have cleared 10 to 15 works, so it's not 203 applications per se. 293 works and, I don't know, I don't know, much less, many less applications, I would say. So, maybe people don't know about it, I don't know. It seems to be very slow and not use them bulk. We've got time for one more question of... I guess it's a comment more than a question around why it's not used that much. I mean, my position is fundamental opposition to licensing of orphan works because they're orphans for a reason. It's because you can't find the rights holder. You can't locate them or you can't identify them. And so, certainly, I think people are saying, well, why would I apply for a licence for something to give me some small measure of security when the rights holder is 99.999% likely never to come forward? I think the issue is trying to deal with the risk-averse nature of our institutions and make wise decisions about what works that are orphans that we should digitise and to not go down the road where we're actually paying someone like Cal, for example, in Australia, to manage our risk for us. We can do that ourselves. I mean, my preferred option in New Zealand would be to have an orphan works exception where a diligent search occurred. You know, I mean, it's like for all works because wider film and sound recordings and published works get a free pass, but a piece of pottery doesn't. The artists are artists are artists. Thank you, everybody. Thank you very much, Victoria.