 Reitana Diw事kei? Ngai kura maenum Pettuman ganbini rauinkan pola tuli na kajas spontaneously nabat split, ma an Has it times resulted in inertia, internal conflict, and an inconsistent approach when dealing with intellectual property? And this strategy was a step towards breaking that inertia and solving the problem. Before I go into the strategy, I thought I'd give you some examples of what intellectual property is. Intellectual property rights, monopoly rights granted under the law. These rights cover the creations of people's minds once the creation is in a fixed form. And I can see you kind of glazing over, so don't worry, I'm going to give you case studies. IP includes copyright, which exists automatically, and also patents, trademarks and designs where the personal organisation has to register with the government to gain those rights. And there's also a third type of intellectual property, which is controlled by protection of access and lack of availability, and that's trade secrets and know-how. Now, Te Papa develops a lot of intellectual property and not just related to its collections. So let's get on to the examples. This is a whale heart prop, and it's an exhibition output. But the intellectual property in the prop is Te Papa's right to control the creation of another copy of this whale heart. This data set is a research output, but the intellectual property is Te Papa's right to control who can copy that data set and reuse it or combine it with other data sets. Te Papa creates intellectual property every day. Museums are intellectual property machines, and these are just some of the examples. The best way to think about intellectual property rights is as a control mechanism. The owner controls who reuses the work. A key part of our strategy is to identify and log intellectual property units in a register. In order to manage something well, we need to know what we've got and who has an interest in it. Te Papa often develops intellectual property with other parties, and their interests can impact on how Te Papa can reuse, repurpose, or commercialise those units of IP. Once a piece of intellectual property has been identified, Te Papa can go on to determine how we can best extract the most value from that unit of IP. There's obviously teams with Te Papa whose job it is to leverage and profit from intellectual property. For example, the intellectual property associated with Te Papa's trademarks and brand is leveraged through our partnerships team. The intellectual property and Te Papa's exhibitions is exploited by our touring team and our commercial team, and the intellectual property and Te Papa's footage and interactives is available for licensing by contacting our media sales and licensing adviser. The strategy provides a framework for deciding how Te Papa can extract the most value out of a piece of IP after its initial extraction life cycle is complete or when it's unclear how to get the best value. The strategy gives Te Papa a documented way to measure value, not just in dollars and cents, but in the impact of the unit of IP. There are nine areas of impact that have been identified of interest to Te Papa. Each unit of IP will have different quantities of impact in each of these areas. So let's go back to some more examples. Going back to the whale heart. The impact of the physical whale heart prop is in entertainment and education and learning, which is why it's a point of difference for our whales' exhibition when it's on display. Kids love playing in it, and they learn some biology facts about, sorry, my fault, biology facts about whales. But if we look at the impact, sorry. If we look at the impact of the intellectual property in the whale heart design, it actually sits mostly in wealth generation. There's little to be gained in the other impact areas, other than maybe a small bump to reputation coming from the credit given when the whale heart design is copied. Te Papa's the sole copyright holder in the design, and copies of the whale heart are made by a model making company here in Wellington. It costs around $30,000 to get a copy created and shipped. The model making firm are keen to create copies for others. We were keen to permit it if we got a nice licensing fee, and it didn't clash with the exhibition tour, and some institutions were keen to get a copy after they saw the touring show. So having decided that the main impact for Te Papa is wealth generation for this unit, the next part of the strategy is to decide what level of commercialisation we should aim for. The strategy has four levels of value. Open reuse, of course, is where there's more value for Te Papa in sharing and making the unit of IP openly reusable so the public can use it, remix it, build on it, share it, rather than Te Papa continuing to control it and restricting reuse to protect a non-existent or very limited commercial return. CBA zero is where we think we might get some financial return from controlling the IP, but it's likely to be less than full cost recovery. CBA one is cost recovery plus a small profit, and CBA two is where there's obvious benefit to controlling IP because the expected commercial return is good to excellent. So going back to the IP and the Whale Heart Prop, this for us is a good example of aiming for the return on investment of CBA one, with 100% being cost recovery. This level of value has been selected for this piece of IP because there's only a small market for this product. It's really only other museums and cultural institutions that are interested in licencing the IP to copy this prop. As a result, the investment by Te Papa the investment by Te Papa and developing this IP for sale has been very limited. We've kept it really light. We've set up a licensing arrangement with the model makers and they pay us a licence fee whenever they make a sale. We've got one more sale to make before we reach cost recovery target, but there's no reason why we can't keep sitting on this IP and waiting for sales for the foreseeable future. A second case study. This is a data set of at sea observations of seabirds over a couple of decades. There's copyright in the assemblage of the data, but not on the individual items of data within the spreadsheet. This is valuable scientific data as it's used as a comparison for current states of bird populations. If we look at the impact map, the main value of this data set rests with increasing knowledge and in reputation and awareness in building Te Papa's brand. There's no commercial prospects in selling this data as there's absolutely no market. The scientific sector know we hold this data and have never approached us to buy it. There's no commercial value. Also, keeping the data solely for Te Papa's use and as a point of difference when applying for research grants won't necessarily be a positive for funding agencies either. In fact, not sharing the data is more likely to disadvantage Te Papa. More scientific agencies are requiring the data they fund to be released openly. If we were to release this data set for open reuse, then Te Papa would likely gain a reputational bump with government and possibly other funding agencies. It'll also benefit our reputation among the scientific community and the data set would likely be reused and built on by others, thus increasing the data set's usefulness back to Te Papa over time. Now, we've had this data set a while and we don't really know how much it costs to get into a good state. Anecdotally, I believe we received some government funding to gather the data so it likely only costs Te Papa a little bit of staff time to collate it. The cost to release is minimal. Again, staff time to do the work of getting a web page ready to host the data set to ensure the data set is edited data.gov.nz and a bit of time communicating that the data is available for reuse. The return on investment of releasing it openly is unknown as the release is yet to happen. Daniel, I'll look at you. We are releasing this data set under a Creative Commons attribution license and we aim to promote it and circulate it as best we can. Tracking our return on investment will require monitoring the impact of the release, the number of downloads, instances of reuse, any crediting that might eventuate. And that information will inform us whether it's worth us releasing other similar data sets in the future. So it's likely that a fair portion of IP won't be worth us investing in commercialising ourselves or actually worth us taking our time to seek others who might be investing interested in investing in commercialising it. Some IP will clearly fit within our mandate to release openly. Releasing certain pieces of IP on an open basis can ensure we meet the core needs of our audiences and meet our mission. Some IP, on the other hand, will be retaining control over for a period because we'll be able to recoup our costs and a few will be worth further investment and heavily controlling over time and over the long term because they're commercially valuable. The decision on how each unit of IP can bring additional value to Te Papa rests with the Intellectual Properties Steering Group. This group consists of four senior managers at Te Papa whose portfolios cover the strategic goals of the institution. It's the Chief Digital Officer, the Director Commercial, the Director Collections Research and Learning and the Director, Naam Manu Ataro. The IP Strategy Steering Group takes advice from the developers of the units of IP and also product development specialists on the impact value of each unit. Calculated risks are taken to build an informed decision-making process and to get the best return for Te Papa. The group recognises having an open risk attitude will be vital to the success of this strategy. They've got a willingness to accept uncertain outcomes and will select the option which they consider to have the highest anticipated return but also recognise the risk of miscalculating. This strategy is just a start. Now we've got to register to record our IP and we've got a mechanism for informed decision-making. The next piece of work for me to do is to develop further ways of monitoring and measuring impact. Thank you.