I'm Fiona Fieldsendt, I'm the Digital New Zealand Services Manager and Copyright and Open Licensing is close to my heart. It's kind of obvious to say that copyright licensing has been long a challenge, a headache, a worry, a barrier to progress in the gland sector. Digital technologies as we all know because we're at this conference offer amazing opportunities but also really tricky problems for our sector. Societies expectations about accessing their information, their culture and their heritage have changed and licensing of the materials we hold is a ubiquitous question that our sector circles around. For those of you that might not be familiar with the concept of open glands, it's a set of proposals that encourage the use of creative commons and other open licences and right statements to allow for easier access and reuse of our collections. And it was actually right here at the very first NDF in 2002, May 2002 that the first kernel of open glands formed the New Zealand kernel of open glands that is. And that first forum raised the question of open access to online information, transparency of copyright and intellectual property issues. It broached indigenous copyrights or indigenous rights. It also put on the table the importance of copyright law needing to strike a balance between the rights of the owners and the needs of our users. Those issues all seem quite familiar still don't they? So every year since then I know that copyright and licensing has been a dominant theme woven through NDF. And since then there have been leaps and bounds across the New Zealand sector and around the world. There's now more acceptance of open licensing of our collections but trying to show and communicate the value of opening up digital collections for reuse continues to be a challenge. Fortunately, evidence of the benefits are coming through loud and clear and I'm going to play a trailer for a study called the impact of open access on galleries, libraries, museums and archives that was presented at South by Southwest this year on open access programs and galleries for libraries, archives and museums. So with that is a little bit of inspiration. I'm delighted to introduce you to today three Kiwi movers and shakers in this important space. So we've got Sarah Powell. She's the rights specialist at Auckland War Memorial Museum. She recently, while working full-time, I might add, completed her Masters, sorry, her museum studies thesis towards the connected commons. And I can assure you that it's freely accessible online. And it's CC by. Yeah. Kim Gocilak is the manager of collection, development and description at the National Library. And she's also a member of the Lianza Standing Committee for copyright. She really knows her staff. And today you're going to see Kim flipping hats because she'll be answering and responding to questions from those two different contexts. And last but by no means least, we have Victoria Leachman, the rights manager at PAPA. Did I have the right title? Yes. Since 2008, I've watched Victoria make extraordinary progress in this institution that you're sitting in. And Victoria's going to kick off proceedings with a short summary of the issues that were raised at the copyright workshop earlier this week on Monday. After that, we'll work through a series of questions that we've prepared. And then we'll be opening the floor to your burning questions about copyright and licensing. OK. So you know who I am. When Sarah and I were talking about doing a workshop for NDF, we were thinking about the copyright talks and the workshops we'd actually run with various communities because we're often asked either to do it for other Glam institutions or community groups. And we've both had a lot of feedback telling us that the last 10 minutes of question and answers is actually the most valuable part of those presentations we've done. So our thought was to run a workshop that was all about the specific questions that people have and need answering to do their work. So the workshop was run on a lean coffee format. Everybody in the room had put their questions on post-it notes, then had five votes each, and the questions were ranked by popularity and we started with the most popular. We ran two question and voting sessions, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, and the group shared their views on a large number of questions. So I'm going for the most popular and sort of cutting it off because we haven't got a lot of time to do the whole thing again. The first and most popular bundle of questions was about copyright and social media use. Attendees were interested in how each institution in the room handled content on these platforms. There were concerns held by some about the broad licensing that social media platforms require from users before users can load content. Some institutions don't actually allow the use of content on these platforms because of that broad licence that's required. There was also a discussion about institutions collecting images posted by others on Facebook and other platforms, and the steps needed to check both the content ownership and the copyright status of that content before collecting it. And there was discussion about social norms of reuse and sharing on social media platforms and the gap between that behaviour and the current copyright law. If you collect via a social media platform, I think the message was that we make sure that the person posting their work was actually the owner of the work and to try and find out as much information on the maker as possible so you could get the copyright information established. There was a great diversity of approaches to posting content on social media platforms with each institution really deciding how much risk was acceptable to them. There was also a discussion on whether Glam's have responsibility to tell others when we believe they've infringed copyright when posting content to social media. Some institutions did that, others didn't. The second most popular question are all around orphaned works and what could be considered a reasonable and diligent search. There's no New Zealand standard to due diligence. Those that do this work advise that the best approach was based on the type of work that they were looking at and because the places you look for information on the rights holders will change depending on the type of work that you're dealing with. We talked about how much effort and investment it takes to chase down every single lead to try and find a copyright holder. Some works will take very little effort because so little is known about the maker and others will take hours, if not days of time, if there are good clues to who the copyright holder might be and you're just having trouble contacting them. Sarah shared her checklist of the places where she looks for copyright holder contact information and there was also a discussion on what different institutions with orphaned works, specifically whether they publish them online and took the risk or whether they just left them. Generally there was an agreement that adopting a risk assessment approach tailored to your institution was the best approach but only after a diligent search was well documented. The third question was about other types of rights, donor rights, katiaki rights, rights of people within photographs. The group talked about the differences in approach to handling these types of rights and there was definitely no consistent approach in the room. Everybody seems to do this differently. What was common theme was that supporting relationships was both time-consuming and rewarding. The feeling was building and maintaining long-term relationships was more valuable than asserting the institution's rights if those rights were in conflict with what the other party wanted. Then there was Creative Commons licensing, specifically questions on when can the licensing be used. For example, you can't use a Creative Commons copyright licence on a work that's out of copyright. What do people do when they see Creative Commons licences being misused? How do you convince others it's a good idea to use Creative Commons licensing particularly with user-generated content? Those interested in adopting Creative Commons licensing were encouraged to talk to the Creative Commons Aotearoa staff, Keitha and Elizabeth. They have resources specifically tailored for GLAMS and would be really happy to run workshops for the sector or for just your institution. When thinking about specific projects, for example encouraging user-developed content, the advice was also to talk to other institutions who've done similar projects to help with your approach. The fate of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement here in New Zealand and the Copyright Act amendsments was discussed. At the time, Trump hadn't put his latest news article out, so what we thought was that it was likely and it's proved to be true, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will not go ahead. The feeling that the copyright term extension was likely to occur at some later date anyway. The conversation continued and we discussed the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and their creative sector study, which is due out sometime in December at this rate. The copyright policy advisers there are still keen to hear of real-world examples of where we have copyright issues in our sector. There was also a question about end-use and what users can do to encourage GLAMs to release digitised content openly. The main message there was to write to or make an appointment with senior management and provide concrete examples of issues and barriers faced by our users. It was clear there were staff and organisations advocating for more open licensing of content, but that direct contact with senior management by end-users might also have an influential effect. One of the final questions was can GLAMs support copyright holders? Should we be giving them guidance? There was recognition across the room that a portion of copyright holders felt out of depth with dealing with copyright. A lot of people who own these rights don't know the market rates in terms of licensing fees, are unsure of their ground regarding their rights. Those responding had a common theme of wanting to help those who are unsure of their rights, but at the same time not wanting to bias the copyright holder's response. There was a recognition of the conflict of interest in the room. We had discussed problems with the Current Copyright Act. The library's copyright was a barrier to mass digitisation projects, but also the Current Copyright Act doesn't deal well with orphaned works, copying for preservation, data mining and other transformative uses. Galleries and museums would benefit from the expansion of the library exceptions to cover them. There was mention of Australia's work on importing the Fair Use Clause from the USA, and that's the link down the bottom. I've included a link to the Australian Law Reform Commission's report, which was mentioned. The group also discussed the need for consistency across the Glam sector with rights statements. The rights statements of the Digital Public Library of America were discussed, and there was recognition that rights statements could be standardised to a restricted set of statements within the database, but that making it that being able to be interpreted by your users probably would involve an extra step, an extra explanation. Because rights statements are inherently confusing to the public unless they're totally spelled out. For example, the example that came up in the room was the difference. There is a difference between the no-know copyright restrictions statement and a public domain rights statement, but I don't think a user at the end of that is actually going to see the difference between that. Those people are working with copyright will know, but it's so minute that they won't get it. So the solution was to reflect specific situation in the rights statements in the back-end database, but then bundle them together in a useful way for your user on your platform. We also discussed the way we record our rights research and our licensing records. Right, we're going to kick off with some prepared questions, and the first one's actually about data, and is your organisation making progress on opening up and releasing its collections meta-data. Who'd like to kick off with that one? How about you, Sarah? Yep, so I'm just going to be completely honest. I don't deal with that side of things. We have Adam Maraiti that deals with that. He's told me, he's assured me, that Amida data is CC by, although talking to FI, Amida data on digital NZ still needs to be updated to reflect that, so we're going to be talking to him after this. It's completely open, you can do whatever you want with it, and we're also moving, we have a fully embraced link to open data as well. Yeah, that's really good. That's us. Yeah, this is National Library head. In 2013, the National Library released the meta-data for the New Zealand National Bibliography, Publications New Zealand. We also, pretty soon after that, released the meta-data for Index New Zealand. They are available from the Libris website. They were released under the New Zealand Government Open Access and Licensing Framework, the NZ Goal Framework, so they have both data set under a CC by license. Earlier this year, we closed the Tapuna Web Directory, a long-loved product, but passed itself by date. That data went out also under the NZ Goal Framework with a CC by license. For those of you who attended Nicholas's talk yesterday, you'll know that very soon, before Christmas, we'll be making the meta-data for the unpublished collections held in the Alexander Turnbull Library available again under the NZ Goal Framework with a CC by license. I understand there's going to be two data sets, one for the unpublished collections meta-data and one for the names, so watch out for those and enjoy that Christmas present from the Turnbull Library. So, including the paper's past, meta-data is made available via the Digital New Zealand API. So, I think there's reasonable progress going on there. Te Papa is also making progress. We've got meta-data on our collections available now as CSB files, but we're actually working on an API pilot project right now, and once that goes into fruition, we'll be looking at NZ Goal and placing it with the Creative Commons license. We're just not sure where that's at. We've got to wait for the pilot project. I can talk to Digital New Zealand and we are trying to encourage some media of our content partners as possible to consider releasing their meta-data for commercial use. So, Digital New Zealand, if you've got your meta-data, if we've bought your meta-data into Digital New Zealand, the majority of it is for non-commercial use. So, if developers use the API, if they're non-commercial use, there is a very fine selection of partners that have taken the first step and said it can be used commercially, and we would allow for more partners to go in that direction as well. So, if you want to talk some more about releasing your meta-data for commercial use, then come and see me or email info at digitalnz.org. Okay. The next question. The Creative Sector Study report from NB due out in late 2016 may recommend that the Copyright Act be reviewed. If the Copyright Act were to be reviewed, what would you want for the Glam Sector Victoria? At a minimum, I'd like to see a fair dealing provision for online digital surrogates for collection catalogs. Icon have got quite a nice list of requests that they send through to the World Intellectual Property Office periodically to ask for some kind of standardisation between the Glam Sector. But that's something that would make my life significantly easier being able to have at least provide access without necessarily having to invest in a significant amount of work, rights research work. That work still needs to get done, but it would be nice to be able to have the ability to get information from the rights holder in a two-way street, not me just looking, but them coming to us and contacting us as well. And unless they can see what that we hold some of their material, it's unlikely that that ever happens. I'd also like to see the fair dealing provisions associated with libraries expanded to include museums as well. We're actually, as a Glam Sector, we all do the same similar types of work, and to be excluded from those fair dealing provisions means that there's times that we can't have the same level of service for our users that libraries can provide their users. And given that we're still dealing with similar types of information and knowledge, it feels a bit crazy to me that they can do a whole stack that we can't as a museum. Now this is another hat one. I'll switch over and put on my Leanne's hat here. I've probably got quite a long answer to this question. To begin with what we'd like to see to start a Copyright Reform would be a discussion and an agreement with the principles that should frame any review of Copyright Law. We have a few thoughts on that, not an exhaustive list, but some of the principles we think should be included are acknowledging and respecting authorship and creation and recognising the importance of planning incentives for the creation of works. We all have collections that are full of people's intellectual property and creative output and we need to respect that. But, and there's a big but here, alongside that we think there also needs to be a principle acknowledging and respecting that the creation of new works depends on people's ability to access and use existing works and Copyright Law needs to recognise that and support that. We also believe that all people should have access to and enjoy creative works regardless of their situation and their income and all sorts of other things. So, for instance, we'd like that recognised as a principle and the importance of Copyright Law and policy and facilitating access to people with works, with people with disabilities. We heard a great talk about that yesterday. As many others internationally have commented in these times of ever faster technological development, we think it's really important that the law is technology neutral so that it can adapt to new technologies and doesn't hinder technical innovation. Those would be some of our starting principles and we'd like to see those really articulated and agreed in the community. In 2017, the Lianza Copyright Committee is going to survey New Zealand libraries about what they'd like to see in copyright reform and so while we haven't done that yet, we think some of the key things that our sector would be looking for in addition to a fair use provision which we will talk about in a couple of minutes, I think, would include support for mass digitisation by libraries of works in their collections which are no longer commercially available and often works exception in the legislation. Our preference is for a wide exception with some fair reasonable, not punitive way of dealing with library infringement. We don't really support a licensing model of the kind that's been used overseas. Legislation, making the law easier for people to understand what they can and can't do and what librarians, making it easy for librarians to understand what they can and can't do to help their users. No extension to copyright term. Ideally, we would like copyright term shortened. We think in terms of an incentive to create 70 years after death that was potentially coming to us after TPPA is not appropriate and not justified. We recognise that it's not just that the creator has incentive that publishing in the whole library community they also encourage creation by the money they get from intellectual property but again 70 years just seems too long. We'd probably also want to keep exceptions that we currently have that allow us to fulfil our roles and do our jobs like being able to, the library's exception for breaking technological protection measures for doing authorised acts and the exceptions that we have for copying for preservation although we would like those improved. I think it's very silly that you have to sort of close off access to the original once you've digitised it because it's often going to encourage a lot of people to want to see the original. Finally, we recognise that yes galleries and museums don't currently enjoy the exceptions and the legislation that libraries and archives do so we'd want to be supporting you to get those as well. Auckland Museum we've actually submitted against TPPA, we've written a submission with the help of Victoria and Kim as well. We agree that if the TPPA goes ahead to extend the copyright duration from 50 years to death, plus 70 years this is going to create a huge headache, lots of orphan works where we can't trace the owners it's going to involve a lot more work for glam professionals in carrying out these due diligence searches, we don't have a due diligence search set kind of template to go by, we just kind of do what we can and hope for the best so that's probably for us the biggest thing. We also agree with TPPA and Leanda we would like to extend the current provisions for libraries and archives to include museums and public galleries and again yes we all perform very similar roles in preservation and administrative acts and we would like that to be included. We would also like an orphan works exception so we can publish orphan works online and not be at risk of infringing copyright. So what's your opinion of a fair use provision and is this something that we should be looking to import from the USA to New Zealand, do you want to kick off with that one Kim? Yes again with my Leanda hat on while we haven't yet surveyed the library sector about that we think there's quite a lot of support for the introduction of a fair use provision like others we see fair use because it's a principle spaced approach would provide flexibility to respond to changing conditions particularly changes in technology we think that being able to utilise technology to use works in new ways will encourage the creation of new works. We also see fair use as a way to help restore the balance to the copyright system between rights holders and users particularly if there's going to be any extension of term. On the other side we do acknowledge the arguments against fair use particularly that it would create uncertainty and could require expensive and lengthy litigation to determine what was fair. But we think the approach to fair use which Victoria put the link up on the Australian Law Commission Law Reform Commission in their paper Copyright in the Digital Economy has a lot to recommend it and that paper they recommended that Australia's current fair dealing exceptions were repealed and replaced with fair use. They also recommended that the current fair dealing exceptions would provide a sort of illustrative list of things that could be considered fair use along with the, I think they've got four factors that they're thinking about to determine fair use. They felt that that list would help act as an example of the type of activities that could be constitute fair use and could help reduce uncertainty in the need for litigation. I also note that the Australian Productivity Commission report this year and some of you may have read that about intellectual poverty arrangements. They stated they really came out and supported the Australian Law Reform Commission's position and actually said that their recommendation on fair use was the absolute minimum level of change that the Australians should be looking to enact. So I think there's a lot of support for it across Australasia. I think there's a lot of value in adopting it but my only issue for me is that reliance on case law and the expense of legislation, I mean court cases here in New Zealand. I would say that if there was some way of making some kind of less expensive court arm to be able to hear these cases so that we can get some case law in place that I think that would be really useful. At the moment if you are looking from a rights holders perspective and you're being infringed it's incredibly expensive to chase down infringements and make them stop and it would be good benefits from a rights holders perspective to be able to have that avenue if it was sort of a small claims court type arrangement I think. So for me I think it would be a useful a useful thing to have as long as the implementation was it wasn't just the act changing to look at the whole set up. Yeah I guess if the TPPA goes ahead or even if it doesn't go ahead and copyright probation gets extended obviously we want to be in line to match US and international laws and they all have for use exceptions so perhaps we should as well but I think it's not more consideration in consultation with both institutions and creators on how we can have something that's fair for everyone Yeah so Moving on to orphan works how does your institution deal with them? Ah We do a diligent search and so research, research, research and then we publish online and hope somebody comes forward and then anytime anybody wants to use the orphaned work we do another diligent search and either use it or do a risk assessment approach on whether we use it or not or whether other people use it. We do allow our picture library to supply out onto other people There is a risk there we recognise that but at the same time there's the value of the use is sometimes outweighs it and like I said it is a risk assessment there is a great deal of difference between for example a Pacific item where you don't even know which island group it came from through to an artwork where you know who the artist is, you know who the inheriting estate, who holds the inheriting estate but you just can't find them Each of those has a different rights assessment where you go okay to the risk here and you make a judgement call and you get better with experience. National Library Hatch Currently the National Library doesn't really have an agreed policy or procedure to handle orphan works but we are starting to develop such an approach we see the key initial steps as the definition of what a reasonable search is and with different criteria according to the specific kind of work you're looking at published print audio visual the library is currently working on the copyright clearance of board sheet so that this can be digitised and through this work we are defining what could be a reasonable search for copyright holders of published material in a New Zealand context another key initial step is establishing a transparent takedown policy for when the rights holders turn up. Orphan works at the biggest headache but in saying that I love them because I love a challenge Auckland Museum has adapted the copyright under to him and unknown rights holder rights statement from the National and State Libraries of Australia and I follow their guidelines to carry out and record the due diligence search when I'm actually searching I start close to home and I check institutional knowledge first I then search on every digital platform that I can. Our fine New Zealand artist is a really good resource other museum websites I constantly check to Papa's website for things so we can share details if we need to I then search Ancestry.com, Archway Probates, Births, Desson Marriages Online Cenotaph, White Pages a good old Google search and then if the person is still alive I do a lot of stalking it's a bit creepy I stalk a lot of dead people as well so when I do find a probate on Archway I have lovely I actually have two lovely rights research volunteers and they help me trace the living descendants and we can kind of ask the living descendants about the copyright and if they own the copyright and if they'd be willing to give us a licence I make sure that we document the search really well and if the work is determined to be an orphan work I then release it under the copyrights under term and rights statement knowing that we have really low risk we also have a takedown statement on our website as well if they come forward there is an element of risk in doing this especially for applied arts objects that are more contemporary but it is a good way for the work to be visible and the copyright owner to see the work if it's online then they can approach us and we can deal with it from there so we deal with orphan works moving on to rights statements where has your organisation sourced its rights statements from and what's the background to the statements your institution uses and are you thinking of any change our rights statements are sourced from New Zealand Goal we've got three pretty much which is all rights reserved for anything that has any third party rights associated with it for the content where we own the copyright it's the creative commons so by non-commercial and no derivatives and no non copyright restrictions for anything that's in the public domain in here in New Zealand the change, yes I've been investigating looking at the Digital Public Library of America rights statements diverse set of statements which are really interesting to me I can see them really working for my institution I'd like to add more of the Creative Commons licensing in because I want to future-proof my acquisitions process for those times that I can see come in where we want to acquire material that's already been Creative Commons licensed by the creator at the moment we've got one item that we can't reflect the license of so it's not quite a pile back there that I need to, it's prompting me to go and change everything but I'm fully aware that that's going to influence me so that's where we're at thinking of change the only problem with it is that there's a whole lot of programming resource I'll need to scrape out of the digital team and put on my project in order to get it done and there's conflicting yeah it's finding that resource and getting their feet now to the floor to be able to get them to work on my thing rather than somebody else's thing this is another area where the National Library hasn't been as consistent in our approaches we would have liked and for our published collections we have a variety of fairly generic statements saying who the copyright owner is noting if reproduction requires their permission and if the material has a Creative Commons license we will note that as well include that in the statement we point people for further information to the Copyright Guide for Papers past which we need to review and the Copyright Information on the Digital New Zealand website for the unpublished collections the right statements have basically been created in-house for those they reflect donor conditions so again there's more variety in them than is really desirable in terms of making them easy to understand by users Regarding changes absolutely we are planning on making change the libraries recently brought together a group of people to look at right statements and recommend a set of statements that can be used across all our collections published unpublished, digital and physical and we are using as our starting point the right statements by DPLA, Europiana so we will probably make some public announcements about that and make our decisions Auckland Museum is open by default and what that means is that we follow the NZ GOAL framework so we have a really good copyright framework that supports this whole concept and it explains in detail the research behind each statement and why we are using it we currently have five, five or six main statements that we use the first one is all rights reserved we have CCBIF images where we own the copyright too and we release those under CCBIF and we also have other Creative Commons licences chosen by copyright owners and we use the copyright undetermined statement for often works we have the no known copyright restrictions for public domain mainly for 2D works and we also have cultural permission statement for Māori and Pacific work and this has been done in consultation with those direct communities so we are hoping to review the statements possibly next year particularly the cultural work statements we really would love to open up some of that content either through a CCBIF non-commercial licence or a CCBIF whatever they feel most comfortable with and we are also going to look at the DPLA rights in the near future because I think there is a lot of talk about that and we would like to be involved I think it was last year Victoria that you got me to have a look at how many different rights statements that are used across all of the digital New Zealand content partners so I think back then we were at about 180 partners and 33,000 different rights statements in your rights metadata fields so I think that there is a discussion to keep having and sharing the direction that we all go in donors do you ask copyright holders and copyright owning donors to consider adding creative commons licences to their donations and if so how did it work I can answer that yes we do we copyright holders and donors we are possible we make it clear that we are only licensing the image that we have taken of their work not the actual work itself we are quite open with our preferred creative commons licence choices we think it is a bit confusing for copyright owners to have copyright and then also the creative commons so I have adapted Mark Crookston I believe wonderful pamphlet from the National Library for copyright owners creative commons licences and copyright owners and donors so we send that out with the copyright letters and it has actually been more popular than a standard copyright agreement and the most preferred copyright statement is CC by ED&C so non-commercial and that is from our Applied Arts section so as artists they will ring me they will say what one should I choose and I just kind of tell them go through with them each statement and just say whatever you feel comfortable with and a lot of them choose the non-commercial which is absolutely fine we are still in the process of adding this link onto our website but we have around 500 objects that collection management system that have been tagged with that licence so they will be released soon so I mean it's there's very few institutions doing this at the moment I know National Library is doing it so we would love if anyone wants to do it or is doing it please get in touch because it's really something that I think we should be thinking about just for the future so yeah certainly we do ask people to assign creative commons licences the Turnbull Library discusses copyright ownership and licensing with all donors and the creative commons licences are part of the deed of gift that people complete as part of their donation the take up of it's been quite slow and we think there's a couple of reasons for that one is that our own staff are still developing their skills to be confident to have that licensing conversation with people and often donors either don't know whether they own the copyright or they think they do and then when you tell them for instance that letters written to them are not their copyright they're the person who wrote the letters copyright they start to get a bit spooked really about perhaps their knowledge of copyright or what it was and maybe they are not confident they're a bit more cautious about saying yes they can assign a license to it but I think that's just something that we'll build over time and it's we also have donation forms that are on the website we're just hopefully going to update those really soon and they will again also include all the creative commons licences we offer the full suite of them we don't suggest that they go for CC by necessarily for the digitised newspapers and journals on papers past this has worked really well for us except Tracey who's down the back room has said to me that ever present issue of being unable to determine which articles are in copyright and subject to the license and which ones are not it's a real headache in the newspaper world so far when we've done this with people like Fairfax and that we've managed to use the same CC license which is CC by non-commercial share alike which is great because it's very preferable for users to avoid on that same platform having things with different licences in terms Te Papa doesn't do this yet we're thinking about it but again some of the problems in terms of the acquisitions team and education and relationship clarity also the donor or vendor not necessarily owning the copyright in the work in fact it's more like from Te Papa's collecting process it's actually more likely that they're not the copyright holder so it's it takes a bit of time to dive in to say to the acquisitions team actually no no for that one out of the 10 that you're dealing with in the next month that one we have to have a conversation about and there is a level of pro-activness you need to have internally to manage that and to be honest the amount of resourcing I've got right now it's just not entirely possible I'd love to be able to do it and I'm struggling to try and think of a way that I can get that done but I can't yet Last question then we'll open to the floor if your organisation makes digital surrogates free for reuse, how do you promote it and do you have any hints for those who might be considering opening up their digital surrogates, their digital objects for of their collections for reuse? Well when we did it we were quite lucky we had a really good press release it was a slow newsweek the Herald picked it up the Dom Post didn't but the Herald didn't did a double page spread we gave them what we thought were our sexiest images to blow up and make beautiful on the spread and it looked great that caused a bit of a Twitter freak out from the ministers at the time which made us feel happy but following on from that there was a bit of a peak there then it got picked up by other users in Twitter and we got a second round as well which was really great but following on from that it's it's keeping that message out there that the material's available we found that it's a constant surprise when you say come in and use this material hey there's 35,000 images there that you can use with no problems there's no known copyright restrictions against it by all means take it and use it and it's rare for me to come across somebody who's not in the sector that knows that that's available so how do we promote it it's when we get professional development for teachers it's one of the things that's mentioned every time I've got it as an email signature and somebody external emails me that's on the bottom and a bright nice illustration and I've got to say in my personal life on my social media platforms I'm forever pushing it to my wider circle but I think that's it's very similar from the question that Digital New Zealand asked at your breakfast it's like how do we promote Digital New Zealand same situation how do you get it out of the sector how do you get it out of our bubble and out into the community to know that it's available and I think it's a real challenge and I think that's something the whole sector is still struggling with the National Library does make these things available on the website you can find them and there's a facet to find the free downloadable ones on the main search but there's also a collection of all of them so that you can just get quickly all the images that are available for download they're also available on Flickr Commons and on Tumblr and we quite often tweet about them and if it's a really lovely image that we think is very attractive and catching we will include that in the tweet as well when we first put the images up on Flickr Commons we blogged about doing that but we haven't done a lot of blogging about them since so yeah I think there's ways we could promote them more certainly when we have to when the research services staff have to turn people down in terms of wanting to use an image that they can't use then this is a great opportunity that they use to say but there's all these other ones you can so this is one of my top priorities we I'm constantly putting all these amazing images online that are openly licensed but how will people know that they're there so we are working on a marketing press release and remix program in the pipeline this will use collection metadata and images and hopefully be aimed at those demographics that don't physically visit the museum but we'll be able to they'll be able to use our content in new and creative ways and engage with the content through the screen which is fine and I just thought you talked about the New York public library there's a really great example of how they marketed they marketed so well that they got a whole article on stuff about their open images where we've been doing that a lot of museums have been doing that institutions have been doing that for many years so and just on that note they've got a really good twitter bot you send them an emoji and it will ping you back a collection object that relates to that emoji it's really cool so check it out but they're just doing all these really cool things so yeah I'd love to hear anyone else's thoughts on how to do that because I think it's something that we all struggle with so yeah and Digital New Zealand's been trying to help along the way so we helped set up and ran GIFITUP for I think it was two years and then we were supporting it this year so GIFITUP is a competition with our counterparts at Europeana and Digital Public Library of America to encourage people to use openly licensed content to make GIFTS and it's growing bigger and bigger every year and we all continue to support it and continue to push the New Zealand openly licensed content that we have in Digital New Zealand as well so that's getting quite a lot of international recognition alright that's the end of the prepared questions time for questions from the floor a bit of time there's one just behind you there um sort of a question that I'm bringing up from a PhD candidate at University of Canterbury a chap called Jeff Field who's doing his research on Hansard parliamentary debates as a linguistic corpus he's recently, well we recently discovered that Google's digitised Hansard back 1850s through to about 1980s which I wasn't aware of until quite recently but they've done Google digitise public domain so we can't play with that content but given that it's Hansard does anyone on the panel they know that they've been done and how can we help Jeff play with that content just to start up a 10 Tracy thanks Tracy you should be up here too just from the point of view of the material that's been done by Google and also the hearty trust in the states I work for the National Library and we've digitised a lot of the appendices to the journals of the House of Representatives but we've kind of stopped at 1950 because the hearty trust have done the ATJs from like 1945 to 1970 so we have been negotiating extremely slowly and intermittently with them to open access to this content because I'm not aware of the legal complexities but they apply different more restrictive copyright to non-American material for some reason and so the potential is that if you want to open access to Hansard if you get I imagine the Office of the Clark are the the House of Representatives is potentially the official owner of the material the Office of the Clark, certainly for the ATJs acts as the steward and they potentially if they can get access opened as the owner working with the hearty trust then your student may be able to get access to that data so I suggest that you approach, is it available it's in the hearty trust isn't it that you actually approach the hearty trust well they'll need the rights owner and that potentially is the Office of the Clark but certainly from our position it's been quite a slow piece of work but that might be more due to our lack of constant pushing than them but I mean that is an issue for us is that there's a lot of New Zealand material that's already been digitised so do we put our effort into trying to open access to that or do we just duplicate the effort thanks for answering that one Tracy Mark and then I see you there I asked this on Twitter so I might as well ask it to you guys is there value in us as a broad sector having a single voice on copyright reform maybe some pros and cons on that but you can just answer yes or no and if it's yes how do you think we go about I'm getting that single voice. I think it's worth our having a discussion about having a single voice. We may find that actually the devil's in the detail and that a single voice is not necessarily going to serve us well. I know that Leanza has been, we've made suggestions to the Leanza leadership team and Executive Council that we certainly approach other parts of the glam sector to have those conversations about what we would be looking for from copyright reform so that we can see where the areas of common ground are. I think that it's not one of those all or nothing. We can have a common voice on things where we have got a common agenda and support other ones. I just, on that question, I agree with you in some ways but I also think that the more submissions or letters or whatever we can throw at government is probably going to make it be heard maybe louder. I'm not sure, but I think we all have different things. Libraries and museums are quite different. We deal with a variety of objects that all require different kinds of legislation changes. So my view would be that if people want to make submissions or that we can work together as a working group and maybe it's different templates that we all kind of sign our name to or different types of letters, but yeah, it's a hard one, I think. Yeah, I think that's a really important point that if we're going to have to speak the same voice on issues, we need to speak multiple times. I mean, we need to send it in. And there are other partners that are very natural partners for us. People like Internet New Zealand, Creative Commons. Yeah, and we've been, we just recently, the Copyright Committee actually had a face-to-face meeting in Wellington recently and we tried to meet up with some of those people and actually had those conversations and start them, yeah. My question is around DMCA takedowns, which kind of ties in with fair use. So I'm just going to use video games as an example. So if I recorded my gameplay session and cut the video within all sorts of work, maybe add it in a little bit of commentary to it, is it still privy to being taken down on YouTube? It depends on what platform you post it. If you post it on YouTube, for example, that's an American platform. Ergo, American law is not, it's not New Zealand law. The DMCA is an American Act. So that's what you've got to work with. If, yeah, it's one of the key issues with Copyright Worldwide is that it's jurisdictional, depending on which country you're in and consequently the Internet doesn't really has its issues. It doesn't fit. So it means that you have to look at things, simple things like, well, okay, we're under what law is the platform I'm posting on, ruled by. And for the majority of the social media platforms, they're American and consequently American law applies. But it's not such a bad thing. I mean, you can at least challenge under fair use instead of fair dealing. So there's an upside. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know. By that logic, doesn't that mean that every single digital content on YouTube can be taken down by DMCA notices? Yes. Yep. Okay. Any other questions? Yes. I don't know. It might be slightly off the radar a bit, but in terms of copyright recently where I work, we had to do an image search and it suddenly made me realise that I'm just as good as anybody else. I put my photos on Flickr. There's an awful lot of people out there who put their photos on Flickr just under Creative Commons. And of course, that can just be re-used anywhere without necessarily being told because the image for re-use, blah, blah, blah. Do you think there's a place in terms of the glam sector, just in terms of just putting out a little bit of basic knowledge out there so that the people realise that their photo might one day appear on this big poster, you know, unattributed to them and they've got the original... Well, if it's a Creative Commons licence, then they're breaching the terms of the licence if they don't attribute it. But yes, if somebody prints a T-shirt with your image on it and you've got the attribution underneath the image, they're sweet. Depending on what licence you've picked. But yes, I think in terms of education, I know that Creative Commons Aotearoa does a lot of, you know, is working with the education sector. They've got a whole stream of work in terms of educating the public about Creative Commons licensing. And I think Glam's have a role to play in that, but I think it's going to take more than just us talking about Creative Commons licence to educate people about Creative Commons licensing and copyright generally. No, no, I realise that, but I was just thinking there's actually nothing, you know. I mean, I work in the library sector. Copyright is big in my library world. But even I hadn't really thought that, hey, you know, possibly my photo could pop up somewhere unattributed to me.  There's so many amount of infringement online that's going to happen regardless of your image. Somebody's going to take it and use it. If you make it publicly available on the internet, it's likely that that will happen. But that's where you come down to well. It depends on how you and how you feel about your images. My sister's a really great citizen scientist. She does everything CC0 if she can because she wants everybody to use her stuff. So, you know, she wants to receive everything as CC0 and she gives everything away as CC0. It's... It's very much... You can't... I look at it and think it's like us taking responsibility for other people's rights. There's a certain amount of responsibility that the rights holder has to take in terms of self-education, in terms of finding out this information. I've had 10 years of having to learn this stuff so that we can be on the right side of the roles. And I really feel that, you know, people have to take some responsibility for themselves as well in their content. It's so much more helpful if you get a knowledgeable person on the other side of the table. Whereas if you're doing a negotiation and they don't know what their rights are, it's really difficult to have to do the education and then do the negotiations after you've done the education because you always feel that maybe they'll think that I'm telling fibs or maybe they think they'll see my bias and it's hard to have that. So, I mean, I do think that there's certainly a role to play in terms of educating people more about copyright and about Creative Commons licensing or any type of copyright licensing, but I really don't think it's just up to us. People have to sort of start, yeah. It's a core element of digital literacy and that's well beyond our sector as well, so education sector and others. Last question, because it's afternoon tea time, unless you want to stay and talk about copyright. Maybe this question is primarily for Fee and Victoria. Do you think the NC provision of Creative Commons is really fit for purpose when you've got this tension between not wanting to have your work out there for stock photo libraries to make money off or people putting it on shower curtains, et cetera, et cetera, but at the same time, if you do that, then that locks you out of things like Wikimedia and Wikicommons and that sort of thing. There seems to be a really fundamental tension there and with DNZ encouraging NC licences that you, how are you approaching that? We don't encourage NC licences. We like the wider scope. Do you mean for the metadata? For anything people are licensing because there's really good reasons why you want to not have an NC licence from our perspective, but also you can see why creators see really good reasons for having an NC licence, but there seems to be a middle ground that's missing perhaps? I don't think there is a middle ground.  And it's a pragmatic response. I think it's... I mean we have an NC licence and it does make things difficult for some of the platforms that we would love to be part of, but at the same time there's a reason we've picked that and we still have to work through that and unpick it. At what point are we going to decide that the negatives aren't big enough to keep us there? That we can actually... It's a weighing up situation and eventually maybe we'll leap off that cliff and take that dive. But at what point that happens? I don't know. I have concerns about the NC in some ways but that's the essay that you're alike that I kind of does my head in a little as well because some of those licences don't fit together and if you're acquiring one to be non-commercially, you can't remix it with a commercial one because it has to have that licence. We have difficulty with the no derivatives as well because we picked that licence and then a year later we're going to go but we want people to change the work. We want people to be able to make other artworks and engage with this in a creative way and we just shut that door. Did anybody think of that? No. OK, we might need to revisit that. It's that type of situation where if you choose the more restrictive licence you've got to take the good with the bad. You're protecting your rights but the bad part of it is that you're shutting yourself out of further engagement with your user base. But if you do go for the more restrictive licence you do have the option of opening it more. Yes, that's the good thing about it. The good thing about it is you're not stuck there. You can't actually add another creative licence. Only if it's more open. If it's more open, you can follow your path down that open route. You've all stayed. OK. Rock on, people. Can we thank the panellists? Thank you. And I'm sure we're all open to coming and chatting to us and go have afternoon tea.