 So we may as well get started, so it's five past 11, so I think we'll just run through to five past 12, and you guys can join the long lunch queue after that. So my name is Matt McGregor, I'm from Creative Commons Aotearoa, New Zealand, and I'm really pleased to be chairing this panel. So as many of you know, these kinds of panels have been held every year or so in New Zealand for the last few years, often with some of the people on this panel today. And the general theme of those panels seems to be inevitably, from Creative Commons point of view, they seem to be by their very nature about stuff that we in the open community would like to see happen in the future, but stuff that hasn't quite happened yet. So I'm really excited today to announce that the initial focus of this panel at least will be on stuff that actually is happening in the moment in the glam sector in New Zealand, and what's already happening in three of New Zealand's major heritage institutions. And what is already happening is really great to see, but I'll let our three panelists explain that. So how this is gonna run today is that each of our panelists is gonna give a brief, pre-prepared presentation, a PowerPoint presentation running from eight to 10 minutes or something like that. And then after that, we'll open it up for questions. I've got about a thousand questions myself, so I'll sneak a few of them in, but what we'll do is we'll open it up to the audience pretty early on and hopefully generate a discussion around some of the challenges and opportunities of opening up content in New Zealand's heritage organizations. But first, let's start with Mark. So Mark Crookston, as many of you know, is the Digital Collection Strategy Leader at Alexander Turnbull Library, which is part of the National Library of New Zealand. He's worked in a range of digital and analog archive and library roles in New Zealand, the Pacific and the UK. His favorite day, I am told, as an archivist, was destroying records legally in parentheses in New A by throwing them out a second-story window onto a bonfire. Mark, go for it. Thank you. A lot of people think archivists are hoarders, but really, we like destroying things as well. It means we can focus on the good stuff. That was a particularly good day in New A. So, use and reuse of documentary heritage and taonga is a contested issue. I think we've sort of understood that over a number of years. That was highlighted again with the presentations this morning. There are a range of cultural, social, legislative, and political frameworks, which have conflicting expectations on what libraries, archives, and museums should or shouldn't let happen to their collections. Is this reverberating? Or is it just me? Is this bouncing back on me? Okay. So, when it comes to use and reuse, the library, the National Library, where I work, recognises that there's a lot of improvements that we can make. So, after several false starts, we developed a policy on reuse which was approved earlier in 2014. The policy provides a path forward that comprises an overarching suite of principles that support consistency and transparency in all of our decision-making and activities around reuse, of which open collections is just one aspect. It's an approach designed to address the reuse system across the library, not just put more things online. So, I'll touch through briefly on some of the aspects of that work. So, some context. It's fair to say that the library's approach to addressing reuse has previously been piecemeal, ad hoc, and responsive to a limited context and not systematic. Essentially, there was no agreed approach. This is an example I used when highlighting the effect of not having a systematic approach. This is just one example of a photograph on four different online channels with the library managers. Up on the top left there, it's on Tapuhi. It's a bit blurry, actually, but there's a restriction notice. And actually, the restriction just talks about access, so there's no reuse or use provision there at all. On the National Library website, which is below that, there's a couple of conflicting statements. On the National Library of New Zealand's Flickr page, it takes you up there for a no-none copyright restriction. And on the Digital New Zealand site, understandably, I've looked at what we've done in the past and just put a question mark. A non-systematic approach. Oh, yeah, I won't come into that. External contexts are important to consider as well. So this is just a slide that talks about a range of the initiatives that have gone on around the world in terms of open and freely available, free-to-use collections. Clearly, there's a free culture movement in the world. But some of these initiatives, when relating to the circumstances of a collecting institution, don't really fit, especially a collecting institution in a young post-colonial country. And I think this has been hampering open progress for collecting institutions. So NZ Goal, for example, is great, and they have a review and release process, but that doesn't cater very well for our context. If you go through the review and release process, it says, do you have copyright of the item? If yes, then there's all these things you can do to make them more open and accessible. If the answer is no, it goes to a couple of boxes, which says, can you easily make this stuff openly licensed? And if the answer is no, then there's essentially a box with a do the best you can kind of message. And that's pretty much most of the collections of a collecting institution. We don't own copyright, or copyright is confusing. There are a bunch of other sort of stakeholder rights interests in it. The Rijksmuseum, they were here last year talking about their excellent project. But again, that relates to really, really old paintings, mainly, the questions that were asked there. And in my reading about that project, if you put the photographic collections, say, of the Alexander Turnbull Library within the Rijksmuseum, our entire collection would be in there too hardbasket. So there's this kind of, and most of our photographic collections are about social history. They have people in them. Yeah, and the work of other institutions tend to only deal with part of the picture, so not a whole open system. Looking around for other policies to model, I couldn't find any. We talked about this this morning. Privacy and rights is a complicated thing in conclusion. And like most collecting institutions, our collections are about people. And so this puts the institution kind of in the middle of these conflicting rights and frameworks often and different expectations. And I think that's why there has been no overarching policy being established previously. This amorphous concept of trust is critical to the collecting institution. People need to trust us in order to be able to donate or to give collections or to feel comfortable with their community records being managed by a collecting institution. In terms of process for a policy, 18 months, there was no consensus about where we should be going, all perspectives were brought into the discussion. There were a couple of key milestones. We removed access from the reuse debate. So this wasn't and is not a policy about access. It's a policy about what you can do and what is allowed to be done to collections. I think previously that it's kind of been controlled by access and they're conceptually different. So as soon as we separated the access and reuse concepts, we were then able to remove the embedded access thinking from the debate. So this policy assumes access has been granted. We allowed a lot of time for differing perspectives to be given. And recognizing an important step was recognizing that more reuse does not have to mean the rights of donors and the respect of families and different cultures and communities are eroded. So just talking around all the issues for quite a long period of time was important. And having Colin McDonald come and speak to one of these discussions that we had on it was really quite important as well. Colin is the government chief information officer and the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs. I was on a swap day with him where I did his day, his job for a while. Well, I followed him while he did his job for a while and he followed me when I did my job for a while and we had one of these discussions while he was here. And these sort of early questions about what happens if we get sued, what happens if people don't trust us. Having Colin say, well, if we get sued, we get sued. So what? We just deal with it. If we have been honest and authentic and are trying to do a societal good, then that will will out. So that was quite a big step. So just really briefly looking at the policy, here are the nine principles that are embedded in the policy. They're all explained in more detail. This is just from our website. You can go and check it out. On the supply side, so how we get the principles that sort of drive the behaviors and the changes that need to be made about how we get collections coming in. A principle that just says we will do what we say, we will do and what we agree we will do in relation to reuse with donors. Sort of reinforcing that trust thing. Principle four, negotiations with rights owners and donors will promote and be informed by Creative Commons licensing framework to facilitate use and reuse of in-copyright works. Implementing that means we're completely changing our donor agreement framework, our forms, the collateral we have around conversations with donors and the conversations with donors themselves. It's quite a significant shift. We're trying to not create a problem for our future colleagues. And on the sort of delivery side, commitments to clear and consistent statements. My slide before showed that there hasn't been in some situations previously. Specifically around open stuff, principle five is the key. When no copyright restriction applies, we will seek to provide the items for use and reuse with a statement of no known copyright restriction. And it provides over there that we can consider, we should be considering cultural and ethical issues. So it's a direction. And implementing that, the first collection we put through a new test that we have and a new process for determining whole collections that are going into the no known copyright restriction status. The first lot were the H series of photographs of the official war photographs of New Zealand troops in World War I. We've got a bunch more collections lined up. We're just waiting for a new system to be easily, to easily make the rights changes. The current descriptive system, the Turnbull Library requires, it's got a mechanism called slow paste. And you kind of, everyone gets RSI because you have to change the metadata individually per item. So we've demonstrated that we can do it with the first collection. And we are getting a new system, by the way. And we've got a few more collections lined up. So it won't be great numbers, but there'll be whole collections targeted at addressing specific reuse needs as they come up. That's me. Brilliant, thanks Mark. So next up is Victoria Leachman, who's the rights advisor at Te Papa Tongarewa. She's worked in this role since 2006. And before that worked in a number of museums in New Zealand and the UK. The best day of her career so far, this is brilliant, so far was the launch of the high resolution download capability in Te Papa's collection online, which she's gonna talk about now. Good morning, some of this is following on from Adrienne and Phil's presentation yesterday. So if you went to that one, you might find a bit of commonality, but I'll just pour on in. So I thought I'd start with what reuse actually looks like. This is a particularly good example because it's an example of government agency use, taking images of soldiers and uploading them to the War Graves project. Essentially what's happened is in June of this year, Te Papa changed collections online to allow users to download some images at high resolution. How many? Well, 30,000. 13,000 were marked up with Creative Commons license and 17,000 marked up with no known copyright restrictions. So what do we get? Well, we got great press coverage, we got great feedback on social media platforms and best of all, users like this. And in the past six months, we've had just over 9,000 downloads. So other users include things like users by educators and students. This blog, for example, but also in scholarly papers, coursework, online study guide, children's art classes, evening classes and for individual learning. Images have been used to create other artworks, including collages and fabric designs as a prompt for fiction writing and use in a multimedia work. Images have been used commercially on greeting cards, book covers, jewellery and in books. And they've been downloaded for personal use, including tattoo designing, printing on a t-shirt, themed dinner invitation and as avatar images. Well, one of the things we hadn't really expected was that they've been downloaded and used by Te Papa staff. As you see here, this image was downloaded in preference to our internal systems because our external system is actually easier. And finally, by other Glam institutions. These are the three right statements to Papa users. For those of you familiar with copyright and openness, only those images marked up with the no-known copyright restriction statement are open in the strictest sense of the word. They can be reused for any purpose. The Creative Commons license chosen by Te Papa is the most restrictive of the Creative Commons license suite. It's a license that allows copying and reuse, but only if the use is non-commercial and only if that work is copied and not altered. So if you want to find more about copyright licensing, have a look on Creative Commons Aotearoa, New Zealand, about that license suite or talk with Matt afterwards at lunch. So I thought I'd cover how did Te Papa get here. Was this an overnight success? Absolutely not. We have changed and we've changed over time and we've changed our focus as well. I've spent a bit of time thinking about how we've actually got here so far and I've realised that Te Papa's progress fits into a development life cycle. What I've got here is what I call the circle of goodness. This is how things happen inside our walls, but it's actually more like a spiral. We've made progress towards open by tackling different challenges and problems and we're getting an agreement on the way forward internally and sometimes that's the biggest challenge. In fact, it is the biggest challenge. We build, deliver and they're going to climatise until the new becomes business as usual. We move the goalposts and then get on to the next cycle. As the spiral suggests, the changes where the path are on and the changes that are happening are likely to keep coming. These are what I consider the key dates for Te Papa's progress with open. And as you can see, it's 10 years so far. In working towards open, we've wrestled with the same concerns that probably every Glam institution seems to worry about and I think this is the list. I don't think anything on this list will be a surprise to anyone working in this space. Our approach has been to keep moving forward no matter what. We try and gather evidence and ask ourselves, are each of these concerns really a risk? If so, what can we do to mitigate it? Can we mitigate it, set up an action plan if the risk actually occurs and then keep moving forward? Is the concern something that is going to help progress completely while we argue it out with Interpapa? Or is there a middle way where the organisation can agree on a way forward? What if there's no consensus possible with a certain concern? How much does it impact the momentum? Can we park it and maybe come back to it in the next change cycle? So of the six concerns I listed there, we've mitigated or moved past the three that are ticked and the mitigation strategies and orange. And of the three remaining, we've come to an agreement on two in part one. The integrity of the work issue is the focus of our next round of changes. Fear of cultural misappropriation needs a hell of a lot more discussion and work. And the issue of impact on commercial possibilities looks like it isn't changing in the short term. We're looking at the no derivatives part of our Creative Commons licence. This is currently preventing people from remixing the Creative Commons licenced works. Te Papa picked the Creative Commons by non-commercial no derivative licence four years ago because that was the one that everybody at Te Papa was most comfortable with at launch. Te Papa's now considering, well is in the process of removing no derivatives off the licence to allow derivative works to be created. And that's because we're realising from the actions of other institutions like the Reich Museum that the benefits of communities engaging with collections in a remix fashion far outweigh the risk of derogatory use. So looking at progress, we're about here with that change. As you can see, we're fairly early on. I still have to get the building test, which means waiting for my web development, time for my web development team and they are busy. So who knows when I'll get onto next stage but I'm kind of hoping sometime next, early next year. I guess a lot if I can get a slot. As far as cultural misappropriation and impact on commercial possibilities, with Taonga Works and images of Taonga Works in Te Bunah, we've parked this group of collection items and they are not available for download. The Waitangi Tribunal report for the Y262 case has provided us with some recommendations on a way forward and also the Crown is expected to respond to that report in due course. Te Papa's aware of the concerns and is considering these in partnership with Iwi, but practically and right now, Taonga Works and images of Te Bunah and Taonga remain under the All Rights Reserve statement, no matter what their copyright status is. There's a lot more work in thinking that we need to do in this space. The third concern also remains. At this time, Te Papa has decided it wishes to continue with its still and moving image sales and licensing business. This business has certain revenue targets that it's expected to meet. When the download project was considered, it was obvious there was going to be an impact on the revenue generation for that business and that related to the release of the no-knowing copyright restriction images. This impact was quantified and the business plan adjusted. Te Papa decided it wanted to continue to commercially benefit from the use of those images in which it does hold copyright and so the non-commercial crack commons license element was selected and at this stage we're not looking at changing this. So, Te Papa focused on getting to open with the lowest hanging fruit, those images that are exact copies of out-of-copyright two-dimensional works. The focus has been on setting up the systems to sort the fruit out to find the lowest ones. I'm still slogging through the collection, filtering works into one of the three rights statements. On the past six months, I've released another 15,000 works, so we're up to over 46,000 now. There's 26,000 no-known copyright restrictions and 20,000 under the Creative Commons license. This all sounds relatively simple, but another key factor to getting to open is the ongoing copyright research on a large and diverse collection that's meant developing a whole new set of metadata from scratch. This copyright metadata is answering questions on whether a work is out-of-copyright or in-copyright on an item by item level. If it is in copyright, how long for and who owns the copyright? Without this metadata, we wouldn't be in a position to filter and tag the works with one of the three statements. And getting to open, even for this, even for the no-known copyright section of the collection, has been reliant on a lot of work by other staff. So I'd like also to give a big shout out and acknowledge the research by our curators, collection managers, volunteers, interns, and members of the public on both objects and creators of objects. The work of the collections information team and the web development team on the EMU database and the collections online platform, and of course the work of our imaging team and photography interns for taking all of the awesome digital photographs and scans of collection items, which you would have nothing to release if they hadn't done that work. So what now? I just wanna say that there is no finish line for Te Papa. I wish there was, but there isn't. We've still got collections arriving. We're still documenting collections we've had for a while. We're still digitising. We're still photographing. We're still doing rights assessment and research and copyright terms are expiring every year. But we are thinking about the next steps. As far as our users are concerned, we need to do more to communicate the availability of this resource to our target audiences. We need to go where they are. As far as the pub is concerned, right now we're planning on releasing collections data under a Creative Commons by license and minimising attribution as recommended under New Zealand Goal. We're also trialling the releasing our first set of scientific data. We're at the build and test stage of this and it's in progress. As I mentioned, we're looking at the Creative Commons license we're using for collection images and we want to get a better understanding of where, what and why reuse and remix is happening with our collection images. So maybe so that we can target what we're actually gonna be digitising. Longer term, I'd also like to look at what we can do about educating donors about Creative Commons licensing. If our donors are also the copyright holders, it only makes sense to get them when the collections are coming in. And that's where DePub has got to so far. Wonderful, thanks Victoria. So finally, we've got Anzlie Jew who's the digital advisor at the Auckland War Memorial Museum. She has been involved with copyright issues as a former president of Leanza and has promoted open access in New Zealand, Australia and internationally in a number of roles including as president of the International Association of Scientific and Technological University Librarians. Correct. Makes sense. Kia ora, Tato. So as you can see, I'm talking about the Auckland Museum's approach to open collections and we are hoping to, we're planning to launch our collections online early next year. Sorry, I'll get closer. To launch our collections online early next year, we already have a lot of digital content under a Muse database on our website but that database doesn't have right statements for the images, so there are some images there but we don't yet tell you what you can do with them. And one of the things that has become apparent as we look at collections online and building really a parallel collection is that digital collections are a collection in their own right. They're not just a surrogate for the physical collection. So this little dancing boy which is in Nets Gay and they're about that big and there's something special about coming into the museum and seeing the real thing. But you can only see a certain amount of detail in the real thing. What I can do now is he's taller than me so you can see a lot more detail with the digital and there's a lot of different things you can do with the digital collection. So in looking at our policy framework for seeing where our rights framework would fit into this, we are very fortunate to have a core strategic document of Future Museum which talks about creating a digital museum. There is feedback on this but hopefully you're not hearing it. So Future Museum has the principles of digital guardianship, sustainable delivery which talks about reusing and sharing so that fits right into what we want to do with our collections online. And universal access and that's been a very helpful phrase to unpack as well. Talking about the experience before, during and after a visit to the museum but of course we know there might never be a visit to the museum and so this is a whole new audience we can reach. So we have added a fourth principle to Digital Museum which is about open access and it takes the idea of universal access and puts it in the terminology of the open access movement and this principle is that we will be one collection not many collections and we will adopt an open access first approach so we start with open unless we can't. Just looking at the hierarchy, it's about open access and then the content which is primarily images or other digital assets but also looking at the data of our collection records and making those open. And here's a slightly contrived example of a Netscape which is an open shell with figures standing in a world inside their shell and again the detail you can see in the digital item is different from the physical. So another of our policy documents that's really important for this is the audience development strategy and of course open collections and digital collections fits right into that strategy. We want to provide more for our existing audiences but we want to look at groups who are currently underrepresented and that could be anyone anywhere in the world and recognising that this is going to mean transformational change in the way people look at what we hold on behalf of the public. So the NZ goal certainly has been a wonderful foundation document for us to build on because within the public sector framework we are not public service and we're not a state sector organisation but we are a public sector organisation and local government, the museum is a council controlled organisation, fits into that local government sector which has also been invited on behalf of the the information it holds on behalf of the public which we should never forget to make it readily available without charge and reusable. And the principle there about assisting educational research and scientific communities to build on existing knowledge and create new knowledge is again another factor that's really important. So these specimens that were collected by Joseph Banks and clearly you can't have those sitting out in the museum for everyone to handle but in collections online not only can that image but the data around that collection can be available and can be aggregated by other resources like the virtual herbarium and other collections of John Banks' specimens. We have done a lot to build consensus within the museum about what this means and it's a big shift from particularly for curators and collections people to think what are the implications of open access. So we've had all staff meetings, we've held workshops on copyright and amazingly far more people than we ever imagined wanted to attend that workshop and we recently had a workshop on open collections looking at the data and what data should be made available. So this building up a good understanding. We've also linked closely with the work we've done on cultural permissions because we're aware and NZ Goal makes it very clear that tanga there are different issues in relation to tanga and the integrity of that information as has been mentioned earlier. But one of the big concerns from curators is about our reputation, if particularly our data is not accurate. And so we had a look to see what other organisations how they felt about this and the British Museum, for example, it puts all its data up in its entirety excluding prices paid and personal addresses and then anything for which there are legal reasons. And they also have a disclaimer to say that they've been collecting this information over 35 years. A lot of it will be inaccurate. Improvement will take years but it was better that we put it out and you see that improvement happening. So hopefully if it hasn't hindered the British Museum's reputation that won't act negatively on ours. The other thing we have to look at in terms of collections online and specifically rights management is think about how people want to use this information in the future. So even just in the last few years when information went on the web, initially you were just a passive reader of it, then you could discuss or comment on it or put it under social networks. But we know that our audiences, the audience of the future, want to share, reuse and remix. And in fact, they're not the audiences of the future, they're the audiences of now. So we want to be building a system that's future-proofed for whatever else might come. So just to summarise, the options that we have approved are obviously all rights reserved where it's not our copyright and in some cases of Taunga. No-known copyright restrictions where it's not subject to copyright. So this rather disheveled-looking moth in our collection, he's got rather wiggly antennae. There's no copyright in the moth itself and we will be able to make this image available under CC By. I had a look under Google, did a Google search for images and Landcare have got a moth that is much better groomed than our moth. It's got lovely curly antennae, but it's under copyright. So because we're also not going to apply the non-derivative restrictions, somebody, if they really wanted to, could take our moth and do a bit of photoshopping and tidy up its antenna. So we want people to be able to do what they can, so we are not going to be using the non-derivative. And although non-commercial is an option, there really isn't any desire to use non-commercial. We have an image ordering service. It's seen as just that. It is a service. It doesn't necessarily make money and we don't feel there's evidence to say that making these images available under non-commercial will affect the viability of that service. So in yellow, those are our three main options that we will be using. We've been looking at what are the legal implications of CC0 for natural science data because it becomes really cumbersome to keep adding attributions when you're aggregating scientific data. So that's where we're at in terms of our recommendations. But just to summarise, we've agreed on our copyright statements. I noted from Victoria's presentation that Taipapa did this in 2010, but it was 2014 before those images could be 30,000 images with reliable right statements. So we don't have any illusions about the amount of work that has to be done. We know that about 10% of our collection has images and we're working fast to increase that percentage. But we also have to work fast to make sure that we have copyright statements that tell people what they can do with them if we're to get the full potential. Thank you. Brilliant. Thanks, thanks, Ainsley. So just to get us started, I thought I'd ask a kind of open-ended question which Mark actually suggested, which was what? So my hope is that the progress we've seen here is moving us beyond the stage of kind of early adopters of open glam policies and into something where this is becoming kind of best standard practice in the sector. So my question to you three is what the sector can do collectively to kind of spread this good practice much broadly beyond these three institutions? Well, can I just have one piece of advice if you haven't set up an image library as a commercial business and don't set up an image library as a commercial business? Go just leap straight over it and go to openness. Just share what we're doing. I mean, looking around and trying to find policies and practices to incorporate into our work was really, really challenging. And it was so limiting. It was often just related to this particular collection and not an instrument of change which is what we're trying to sort of put in in the library. So I know that the three of us were actually in regular contact with each other during our various processes. And that helped a lot actually. So I'd just encourage anybody else who's looking to put in open policies or practices in their institution to get in touch. I think one of the things we can do within the sector is start within our own institutions. And I've started when I've been talking to people about just groups within the museum about copyright because it's a very complex area. But there are just some myths that need to be dispelled. And I just wrote a few of them down. One of them is that if you own the object, you own the copyright, well, you don't. If you don't know what the copyright is, we'll just say it's in copyright. Well, what if it isn't? So that's not a very good approach. If you have the right to use it, then you own the copyright, well, you don't. That copyright is fixed and stays the same. Well, it doesn't, as Victoria said. Newlock comes out every year. If it's in the public domain, you could put it back into copyright. Well, as we heard yesterday, Bruster said, that's a sin. So I think if we can just raise the level of understanding within our own institutions about some of those myths, and then hopefully it will spread across the sector. Yeah, I agree. I think that's something we really need to recognise, is that while the people coming to the National Digital Forum get exposure to these types of issues and questions and abilities to become a bit more aware of these situations, the fact is that for a large percentage of museum workers, it's of little interest to them, and they only see it as a barrier. I mean, that's currently 80% of my job is talking to public staff, helping them through copyright issues. 20% of my job is working on the collection and taking up with right statements. I wish it was the other way, but it's not. Wonderful, any questions? Yeah, someone's coming your way. Oh, there's a microphone coming, yeah. Hi, yes, I've got a question picking up on the panel discussion last year, where there was discussion about a group working across agencies around consistency and right statements, where particular images were held across different institutions. I wonder if someone was in a position to give an update on that work. Yeah, Mark, would you be able to...? Yeah, sure. It's a piece of work coordinated by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage in New Zealand, which is not represented on this stage. So that's where we got agreement from the sector for the series of photographs at the Turnbull Library, made no known copyright restrictions. So that copies of those images exist in lots of other institutions. We hold the negatives. So we call them the H-Series. The H-Series photographs were the sort of demonstration that it can work. There hasn't been that much done since then. It was kind of geared around the launch of the WW100 site that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage administers. My understanding is that they're planning to get that group together again soon, as there's more sort of another sort of cycle of promotion around another 100-year event takes place. So, yeah, an initial sort of win, but still more to do, I think. And just to comment on that as well, we did come to a consensus on what the statement was around no known copyright restrictions in terms of New Zealand Goal. We went through... That group went through a process of standardising that term. So hopefully you go from one institution to the next, and when you see no known copyright restrictions, you should have the same statement. Yeah, that was actually quite a big step, and there was quite a debate around that. Can I just add something? I think there is an issue in that as well, that for legal reasons, we want to be safe and say no known copyright restrictions. We're in fact, for the layperson, it would be better if we said this is out of copyright, but we don't actually go quite that far. So there is still an issue about what people understand. Do we educate them that this is what it actually means, or even all rights reserved? I mean, the person on the street doesn't necessarily know that means it's in copyright. So we're kind of tied to those statements that are safest legally, but they're not always very helpful. So firstly, it's great to see all this happening. We just did a project for Heritage New Zealand, and I think we've used images from all three organisations, and had some of the stuff been in place then, we would have saved ourselves hours of time and money, so it's great to see this happening. We've mentioned NZ Goal quite a bit, but there's a New Zealand Data and Information Management Principles, which specifies six kinds of things that data should be open, protected, readily available, trusted and authoritative, well-managed, reasonably priced and reusable. So did you look at those principles and are you scoring yourself against those things to see how truly open you can get? Is that one of the things you're looking at, or are you just really looking at NZ Goal? We looked at NZ Goal because it's a Cabinet directive, and we're a public sector central government organisation, so we're sort of mandated to consider that. But we looked broader than that as well, because, as I said before, NZ Goal doesn't quite match up in all the circumstances that we describe, but the short answer is no, in terms of the other initiative set of principles that you discussed. I think that is a Government directive as well. It kind of supersedes, it kind of came in after NZ Goal and kind of looks at some of those broader things about the management of that data and the release of that data. I think it's probably a good thing to do because you can sort of checkmark yourself against some of those principles, and it does cover some of the privacy in those kind of issues. I think, from my perspective, I don't disagree, but every second I spend looking at policy spends as time for me that I'm not putting no known copyright restrictions against the collection. So right now my practice, my real impetus is to get more content out there, and then once I've gone through that first initial two million items, I'll go back and look at the policies and practices. I've got to sort of balance it, like for me, I've got a process now where I can get stuff out and I can actually do it, and I'd prefer to spend a majority of my time getting that to a certain level, to maximising that to the best of my ability, and then I'll go back and do that targeting. I mean, I know it's good due diligence to do that, to see where you're at and do your progress, but with one person in an institution, I have to be really careful about how I spend my time, and I feel it's, you know, I've got so many other things that I have to do for this institution. For me, it's really, how much time can I spend in the collection, actually releasing stuff right at the moment? Maybe in a year's time, I might be able to do that, but right now I'm all about release. I think that it's really helpful, as I had that hierarchy of open access as the principle, and then open content is primarily what we're doing with images, but open data is certainly the next phase of what we need to do, and that those guidelines will be very valuable for looking at that. Yeah, there is a principle in the policy as well, which I didn't touch on about the data from the National Library as well, which is where we do have a copyright interest in the data. The intention is to make as much of it CC by and releaseable as possible. We've already got a bunch of stuff out there. I'll look at that, and it does raise an issue that we haven't quite addressed yet about measuring effectiveness, and if that is a tool with which you can sort of start to measure the effectiveness, then I think that's kind of interesting. I guess that's where I'm coming from, because I mean, you know, National Library has probably the best highest quality images, but it's not machine readable, right? So, but then Tapapa has some great stuff that don't have the machine readable, and there's restrictive licenses. Auckland Museum, it's a bit hard to machine read at all, and you're trying to get to that stage. So I think if you measure yourselves up against those things, it's like, well, where can we spend our time to get those goals? Brian, I think we've got a few other questions. We'll just get the mic passed along. Thanks. I'd actually just like to comment a bit on that, because Glenn did forward that onto me on Monday, and so I had a really quick look, and what's interesting about that list is, it is best practice, and it's not like it's new. So, you know, most of our processes that we've been through do address those things anyway, so I think with our image release, we would pretty much take every box with our data. No, not yet, because as you say, we're not machine readable, but we also can't do everything at once, and we're taking steps forward. So, and we're also not just looking at that. Effectiveness is more about what is happening with the content once it's out as well. There's no point in doing those things if it's still not being used. So, there's a lot of stuff that we actually need to look at, and they can't just be single policies, but we actually have done a shitload of research and a shitload of work to get to this point, and I think that's often forgotten, or at least not acknowledged. I know, and I'm just, and I'm pointing that out. The other thing about the consistent rights statements, we've been doing some work at Digital New Zealand and making sure the stuff that comes into Digital New Zealand is being passed through in a slightly more consistent way, so at least there's one avenue where there's some consistency, because we're sending people to different places, and they may end up with the inconsistent rights. We're trying to get some consistency there to help out the other organisations, and we just had a discussion the other day at National Library about some work we can do that there is actually work going on in a number of places. We're not necessarily talking to each other, so we need to bring that in and talk about it a bit more and be more consistent, but I do think that overall, again naturally, it is starting to happen. Brilliant. Yeah, I think we had a question at the back, because there's a big hand up there. Hey, yeah, I'm just wondering what you think about the practice of applying no-known copyright restrictions when you really don't genuinely know, don't know what the restrictions are, there may be, and perhaps being a little less conservative, and basically putting it out there and saying, well, you know, it might have some restrictions, but we don't know, and if someone knows something, tell us and we'll change it. From my perspective, the no-known copyright restrictions means it's been resiliently checked. It's just a phrase that means it's out of copyright, for God's sake, go and do something with it. What you might be talking about is more of an often works situation, where we've done, we know the item, well, we think the item may be in copyright, but we've got no way of actually knowing that, and we've got no way of tracing the copyright holder if the copyright holder actually does still exist. We do, Te Papa does actually publish its orphaned works under the all rights reserved because of that uncertainty. From my perspective, the no-known copyright restrictions phrasing is directly lifted from New Zealand Goal. It would be interesting to see, well, it would be useful in the future if that could be re-looked at, because I did feel, when we were commenting on that for our wider group with the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, it did kind of constrain us, I felt it constrained us from going further in terms of making that right statement clearer that we truly, truly, truly do believe that this is really, really, really out of copyright, just go for it. It's a standard in terms of where we've got to with the cross-agency approach. It's a standard in terms of its initial point of use, which was the Flickr Commons platform. Yeah, so that's where I'm at with it. I mean, in terms of it not being the best plain English indication of what it actually means. Yeah, I mean, I don't know how to answer that. That's why we stuck to New Zealand Goal as the rulebook, really. Well, in the slide, I had listed the option of saying, for the sort of things you're talking about, the option of copyright undetermined, untraced rights owner, which is for those orphan works. We see that slightly to be quite a small proportion, but there might be some really important images that we want to make available. And so the key thing there is that you have to document that you've tried to trace the rights owner and you also have a takedown policy, so if a verifiable rights owner turns up, you immediately take it down. But that's the kind of industry standard phrase as well, copyright undetermined, untraced rights owner, and it means you've got some documentation to back it up. I can just comment on that. I can tell you how many orphan works we've got at Te Papa that are currently up on Collections to Line. That's 55,000. I have no idea how many orphan works we've got up online. So yeah, we did the similar thing. There's a principle in the policy about where we're uncertain about the copyright. There's a principle that provides direction, that we put it up and make it available with the copyright uncertain statement, that is the standard. And yeah, the known copyright wording is, it is what it is. It is part of the government directive in NZ Goal. It is, when we debated it, it is the truest statement that we can make to the best of our knowledge. This is out of copyright. And I think it actually provides more flexibility to put stuff up there, rather than a definitive statement of out of copyright. They're things where the institution is slightly uncertain or a little bit risk averse. The known copyright restriction enables a little bit more flexibility. Can you speak a little bit about something that was touched on, which is something that might overlap in the conversation between copyright and access restrictions, which is issues of either donor, things that are bound under donor agreements or cultural sensitivity. And I know you said it to Papa that you've just chosen all rights reserved. Is that sort of a fallback? Is that sort of your preferred way of doing it? Do you think that some of these frameworks need more granularity around that as a particular state of copyright? Well, in some cases, I'd argue whether copyright exists at all. I think it's a two, definitely two divisional, it's a two different, it's two approaches, two very separate approaches, particularly in terms of tile works and images thereof. From my perspective, what I'm trying to do is chase the lowest hanging fruit and then we'll work on those processes later. That's the only way I feel we've managed to get as far as we have. And because it's a difficult space in terms of the number of people with an interest, the sensitivities around the type of material we're dealing with, it was a sitter for just parking it. It is certainly not perfect. It's crying out for more discussion and for a systematic approach to it. But, yeah, it's even worse than copyright for me because I look at it and I go, we may need to talk to two, three, five communities about a particular item on an item by item basis. So it's not just one contact. Is it out of copyright? Is it, you know, and if it is, then great. And if it is in copyright, who's the person I have to talk to? It's much more complex than that. For our approach, the principle about if it's out of copyright, put it in the public domain, comma, after careful consideration of cultural and ethical issues, that gives us the direction and the requirement to consider Tonga Māori or Mataranga issues. We've put a process in place whereby we're identifying whole collections and then going through a process of understanding whether there are any particular issues relating to cultural sensitivity in there. We have a Māori specialist group within the library that we then consult with. And then they're also helping us identify situations where we need to go externally to have a conversation. So the workflow and the process has been put in place for the H-Series stuff. There were sort of identifiable Māori in those images, but the overriding criteria there was that they were images created and meant for wide distribution already rather than a personal collection. So that criteria overrode the other criteria, so we released it. But we've got a couple of collections that we're working our way through at the moment and just having a good discussion about which stuff is in and which stuff is out. From my perspective, talking to Māori curator, Paul Diamond, he explained to me the concept of Māori, which is that the image can have a life force. And so an out-of-copyright work with a depiction of someone of Māori descent, someone who is Māori, another cultural perspective on that is that person, that life force still exists in that image and that takes a completely different perspective on where to release that into the public domain or not. So we're working our way through those particular sort of more complicated issues where Western legal models just don't apply, really. We've had some interesting discussions, particularly in relation to Taonga, but there are other issues for openness as well, but we've had done quite a bit of cultural permissions work. And in fact, the curators were less concerned about the images, which they felt we'd actually got quite a good handle on. They were more concerned about the data, so the provenance or the donor, if that was inaccurate. And so while we're saying to the curators of the non-Māori collections, accuracy or limited information is not a reason to withhold it, we do think we have different obligations for Taonga, so we're working our way through what those are. But there are other fields that aren't copyright issues, but they are open or not open issues of fields that we will not put up in collections online. And for all of those, we wanted to get some legal or some formal policy reason. So for example, we won't put the geolocation of endangered species, and that goes directly to the active trade of endangered species, or the geolocation of illicit natural science plants of their drug plants, because you don't want people going and digging them up. So the photo could be there and all the information, but not actually where you'd find it. So we've been looking at not just kind of having sort of vague feelings about what we should put in or out, but actually looking for what was the legal or policy requirement for keeping something out. As far as donor restrictions are concerned, Pup is quite blessed in the limitations of we don't have a lot of donor restrictions. We've got some in our archives collection, but nothing the same conundrum that others might face on this panel. Yeah, the term below has a lot of donor restrictions. Relationships with our donors are critical, though, and there's a principle in the policy that says we will adhere to restrictions that have been agreed with donors at the time of acquisition or purchase, sort of an underpinning sort of trust, sort of principle sitting behind that. But when you look at the donor agreements, I mean, it does allow us the library often, I mean, there are variations in the agreements, it does often allow the library to manage and make accessible and reproduce items according to the library's policies and practices. So, you know, there's a little bit of leeway there, but I mean, the underlying trust relationship with the donor is critical, which is why there was a principle about sticking to agreements. It doesn't mean we can't go back then and renegotiate where there's collections that we want in the public domain. Yeah, brilliant. So this might be our last question. Go for it. I just wanted to go back briefly to orphan images, and it seemed to me that maybe there might be some merit in a uniform, standardised, sector-wide statement on orphan images and a corresponding takedown policy that would give confidence to users and to curators and nervous registrars and nervous gallery personnel to say what the whole sector views orphan images in a similar way, and they will all handle requests to remove them if there's an imagined or real copyright infringement, that they will take them down in a standardised and efficient and effective way. Yeah, the National and State Libraries of Australasia have dealt with orphan works. They've released quite a lot of discussion papers and articulated what a traceable search looks like. So in the National Library policy, we followed those guidelines quite closely, but the boundary of a sector, it's kind of in the library sector, it's not necessarily in the broader archival museum sector as well. So sure, I think there's more work to do to standardise that more broadly. And takedown is important also. I think it's also another part of a trust picture. If we have good processes and documentation in place about takedown, then I think that provides a little bit more security for institutions and for communities to be a little bit more bold with enabling reuse. I know that the National Library is working on there as we're pretty far along with it. I don't know if I've shared it with you guys yet, but once we get to a certain stage, then it will be shared just to get that peer review and to ensure a little bit of consistency within New Zealand. And I think we, there's also perhaps a danger in waiting till everyone is as brave as the bravest. If somebody steps out and nothing bad happens, then other people will follow. So it's good to have principles, but... In that spirit, I'll come back to my statement of we have been publishing our orphaned works with their images have been up online since 2007. And since that time, I've had three inquiries regarding copyright holders. Two of those did not know they were the copyright holder. And one we negotiated with and got a licence. So please don't be afraid. If you've done your due diligence search, putting your orphan works online is probably incredibly low risk. Just have a process in place for very nicely apologising, taking it down and then negotiating a licence. On that note, I'd like to thank our speakers, Ainslie Dew, Mark Crookston and Victoria Leachman.