Unknown Speaker 00:00
Good afternoon. I'm Margaret McKee. Welcome to open access today rethinking open access. This session came out of discussions on the intellectual property SIG Basecamp site, about museums that have had open access policies for a while finding that it's time to take a second look at those policies, and make sure they reflect current best practices. We're going to hear a couple of different points of view today. But I know that many of you probably work at institutions that are currently reviewing your open access policies, or are looking at implementing one for the first time. So I do hope that you add to the conversation during the q&a or keep it going on the intellectual property SIG Basecamp. If you're not on it, please find me during the conference and I will be happy to add you. I'm currently co chair of the SIG and I want the base camp to be a place where people feel comfortable thinking out loud and asking questions. Now for our speaker bios. John French is the director of the visual resources department at Yale University Art Gallery overseeing workflow design, color management, and longtime archiving of images and image data. He is also responsible for overseeing the creation quality control, asset management, distribution and rights to use images of works of art for publication, study documentation, educational programs, promotional and other internal and external uses. John was a co author of the recent publication rights and reproductions the handbook for cultural institutions. At Yale he founded and leads the digital coffee group, a campus wide organization established to build core standards, develop resources and provide guidance and support for digital imaging related technology projects and professionals on campus as well as rights related information. Originally, Peter Duker, head of image of digital imaging services at the National Gallery, was scheduled to speak on this panel, but he was unable to attend the conference due to an emergency. His thoughts are with us though I know that because he emailed this morning to say that he had been reflecting on the national gallery's seven plus years of open access, and that though there are many challenges and a lot of new things to get done, open access is almost as great as a fresh San Diego fish taco. And I thought, well, I can't not share that turn of phrase with everyone. In Peters place, Melissa gold for NEA generously agreed to lend her time and expertise at the last minute to give us an expanded look at Yale's work. In her role at the Yale Center for British Art Melissa oversees the creation, management and preservation of digital images related to the museum's collections and activities, and provides technical and intellectual property expertise to digital projects at the center and Yale. She served as the convener of Yale University's Open Access implementation Working Group, which developed implementation guidelines for collections across Yale. Following the adopt the adoption of Yale University's policy on access to digital images of works in the public domain in 2011. Melissa has held successive positions of responsibility involving museum registration, collections, digitization, online collections and project management at the YC ba since 1998. She is a graduate of Yale College and an MBA candidate at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign expected December 2019. And if you're interested in intellectual property, be sure to note that tomorrow at 1130, Melissa will be moderating a session about international copyright law. And lastly, we will hear from Andrea Wallace, who is a lecturer at the University of Exeter law school. Her research explores legal issues surrounding copyright, cultural institutions and the public domain by examining the impact of digital technologies on the preservation, interpretation and dissemination of cultural heritage. She frequently writes and presents on open culture and the impact that a claim to copyright and reproductions has on meaningful access to cultural heritage in the public domain. Andrea's previous projects include display at your own risk, a research led exhibition experiment featuring digital surrogates of public domain works made available by cultural heritage institutions around the world. She is currently working on a new resource called the copyright cortex, which catalogs material about copyright and digital cultural heritage to provide the glam sector with scholarly commentary, practical guidance, and real world place studies all in one place. She also works closely with Douglas McCarthy to manage the data collected by the ongoing open glam survey.
Unknown Speaker 05:04
All right, so I wanted to speak about the impact of open access. And first wanting to give a little bit of background and kind of history into moving towards open access. So as I prepared for this, I realized that over the years over the last seven years, I've given a various talks on open access. And part of that surprises me that it's a continuing topic that not more people have adopted. But I also understand that things can be a little bit slow to take on. And so I want to talk about some of the things that we've learned over time. So regarding open access, as well, I don't think we can give full credit to him, I think back to MCN 2006, which was my first MCN conference. And the keynote speaker at that time was Ken Hama, who was the Executive Director of Digital Policy and Initiatives. And the theme that particularly here was access to assets, return on investment. And for those who may have been there, Ken gave a very good keynote that, in essence, was even somewhat contradictory to what the Getty was looking to do. And was saying it was time to start releasing assets out into the world starting to make data more open. And he was really starting to kind of lead that charge and hope to get more people to do that. And so I think a lot of people left that conference inspired to start finding ways to encourage their directors, their leaders, to go towards open access policies. And I think some of the initial pushback that we would hear from a lot of people going open access was, we're going to lose a lot of money, we make money off of our images, and therefore we shouldn't go open access, but because we're going to lose that. And I think continually people look, but in particular, there were a lot of research done in the early 2000s, Simon Tanner, of King's College put out a very good report through the Mellon Foundation that started convincing people that generating money through images was not really that large of a revenue stream. And if you looked closer at what's happening, you are potentially spending more money trying to process money you receive from images, then finding other ways to distribute them and the goodwill that goes into that. So it was around that time that Yale in particular started looking at going to open access. And the Mellon Foundation held a meeting in New York City among several large museums, their directors and the equivalent of rights people, to try to convince somebody to start kind of making the first forays into this. And so at the time, the director of the Yale art gallery, Jack Reynolds, and the director of the Yale Center for British Art, Amy Myers, were there and both walked away, pretty much saying they were committing to going open access. And very soon after that, Yale in 2011, launched their open access policy that was obviously not before several meetings on campus, to get more of the cultural people in place to doing that. But the concept was that the open access policy applied to all Gale cultural items, works in the public domain, and that they would be made available free of intellectual property charges. The policy at Yale does indicate that people can charge for services or materials but at the gallery, the decision was to waive all fees, regardless of cost. So this is where potentially we start to kind of bridge into the part of the Talk where we have to look at what is the impact of going open access. So this is a snapshot of the art gallery and what we have available online as of just a couple of weeks ago, realizing that the art gallery has collections that are both in the public domain and objects under copyright. Now, objects that are under copyright, of course, don't fall into open access, because they have rights restrictions on them. But anything that we have that has an image and is in the public domain we make available for people to download free of charge through our website.
Unknown Speaker 09:48
What the gallery decided to do was to make two sizes of images available. Those images were a 20 megabyte TIFF, which was suitable for full pay Ah scholarly academic reproduction, or to make PowerPoint presentation size images available for download. Now our images tend to be much larger than that. But the decision was not to make the full size image available for download, in part because of concern for the impact on our website and how that might interact other users using the website. So one of the early decisions we had to make was what size were we going to make and and how is that going to be delivered. And secondly, those images that people needed larger have we needed to come up with a system to do that soon, and Melissa will touch on this some in her talk after me. We currently do not have triple if enabled at the gallery, it is enabled on campus. But soon, the art gallery will also be enabling triple if for its public domain works as well. So one of the things that the gallery needed to work on was figuring out how on the back end of our database, we were going to get these images out into the website. And so those are managed through back end databases. But on the viewer end of things, viewers can see either these images here just below where you can click to download the JPEG image or the TIFF. If you're downloading the tip, you briefly go through a CAPTCHA device. The reason we did that was to try to avoid machines coming through and scraping all of the data out not because we didn't want people to have that data. But again, we didn't want to risk impact to our website. For works that are under copyright, those are available on our website as thumbnails following the AMD and CA policies. But if somebody wants an image of that work, they need to go through our rights and reproductions office. And so we provide two means of links on our website. One is a link to our rights and reproductions page where users can then fill out a website fill out a form to then request that image which is sent out again free of charge, but notifying people that there are underlying restrictions. And additionally, one of the things that we aim to do is anywhere where we know who the rights holder is and their contact information, we make that available on our website, if that is publicly available information. So this example of the Georgia O'Keeffe museum, we have information there that says that sue the rights holder is so that people can track that information. Again, that is fed through some of our back end systems. A lot of this work is managed through our rights and reproductions office. At the gallery, we have one full time rights and reproductions person as well as a Yale student worker who works at this 15 hours a week. And for our requests for photography, we also at the gallery have a policy that if an object has not been photographed, we will photograph that object for free. But that currently is around a six week turnaround time for people to get those images. So those staff handle that workload for us. But because much of our work has been photographed and is in the dam and is available online, it's less than the workload for our full time rights and reproductions person. So one benefit of going right, open access and making images available online has been that our rights and reproduction person is now freed up to work more on other projects. And one of those projects we've done at the gallery is to streamline that all internal projects that we do that need rights clearance now go through the rights and reproductions office, whereas before it would go through curatorial departments. So we've streamlined the process that allows us to track and store information in a better method. And again, we've kind of saved costs by automating a lot of the work we do.
Unknown Speaker 14:17
In order to go open access. It involved a lot of work with our IT department and in particular with our database administrator. That information. The Art Gallery uses TMS as its collections management system. And in the rights and reproduction screen. We track all of our information through that field. There are numerous dropdowns that we use object rights types fields, and each of those dropdowns triggers a series of automated actions that then feed our website in varying ways. And so the workload is shifted that we now need to rely on TMS to track and manage that information but also defede, various data services. One of those services that we have is called the content delivery service. So each of those dropdowns that you saw before that tell if an object is under copyright, or in the public domain, correlate to content delivery service settings that you can see here on the screen. Those settings, then speak to the website, and determine what can be allowed to be downloaded and at what size. All of this work involved it people from each of the cultural units on campus and central IT at Yale to continue to manage and maintain that system. So each unit wanting to go Open Access has triggered further workloads. Once these workloads are in place like the content delivery service, the workload becomes much less because the automation is built into place. And as policies change as an example, as AAMD change their definition of a thumbnail from under 250 megabyte pixels on a dimension up to a larger size, we were able in the backend to change what the parameters of a thumbnail definition were, for these to automatically start going through and generating through our system. One of the other systems that we've set up within our program is that TMS sends out nightly email alerts to our rights and reproductions people and to users in my group that alert us, anytime us a curatorial staff member makes a change that may impact open access. If they change a date, if they add a new object, it triggers an alert, that automatically sends an email that we can then review just to make sure that there's nothing that seems out of the norm. Because again, we've set up parameters within TMS in order to look and say, if your date is pre 1923, or automatically public domain, automatically open access. But if somebody inadvertently or an educated makes us switch change, we can see that catch that and decide whether that needs to be changed or not. So some of the impacts that I would say Open Access has hid for us is the positive aspects arts increased visibility to the collection. So when in 2011, when Yale went open access, within the first six months, we saw dramatic increase in the number of requests for our images for people wanting images, both under copyright and in the public domain. The self service aspect of people being able to go online and download images on their own has been met with great success, and it's freed up time for other staff to work on other projects. It's also given greater transparency to what's available in our collection. So more people are starting to want to use our collection right about the collection, therefore we're getting more visibility. And it's also started to lead now towards movements of open data. So open access for us was leading largely to making our images available online. But our data wasn't necessarily perfectly clean. And so that started to lead to projects to start to clean up our data field so that we can start working towards linked open data and making that material available. The impacts that open access are going to hit most people, it's going to impact your studio workflows, most likely because more people are going to be wanting images. And so we at the gallery have a very busy studio schedule. already. We have two full time studio photographers, who are often working on several publications and exhibition projects at the same time, who now we also have to filter in these other requests to keep people on the outside happy.
Unknown Speaker 19:06
Unknown Speaker 23:19
Cursor, the mouse over there, okay, so to scroll down that's where the mouse is over here. That's why
Unknown Speaker 23:44
That's okay. can't do without okay. So much of what John covered in his presentation is similarly reflected in the systems at the Yale Center for British Art. So what I'll talk about today will focus on the Yale Center for British arts early and current use of the international image interoperability framework, the wider adoption of triple if at Yale, and how we're collectively looking towards implementing standardized rights tools as part of these efforts. So some brief background on the center. So the center is one of two art museums on the university campus. We're the most comprehensive collection of British art outside the United Kingdom, and it's part of our mission to facilitate the study of British art worldwide. The center along with the University Art Gallery was at the forefront of the development and implementation of yells open access policy for digital images of works in the public domain. So since 2011, we've made 1000s of high resolution images of our works freely available online. Today, with open access policies in place and more collections worldwide, the question is, how can we build on this openness? What to our colleagues, users and researchers really Want to be able to do with our images they want to see works at the highest level of detail. Compare images not only within collections, but between works held by in different institutions, create their own online galleries for research or exhibition, and annotate images in the course of their research. It's the goals of the international image interoperability framework and the software being developed by the triple if community support all of these uses, Yale University and the Yale Center for British Art were among the founding members of the triple if consortium in 2015. So the center itself is committed to using technology to make our collections as widely accessible as possible. So in addition to open access, this includes the use of data exchange standards and protocols, open source tools, and linked open data. So AAA F is an extraordinarily good fit for the centers digital strategy. It's an international shared standard. It supports interoperability between image repositories. It leverages open source software and open access resources. And it utilizes the principles of linked open data. So with this in mind, what uses are we making of triple if so back in 2013, the yeld digital collection center established a triple if compliant image server, and they modified an extension to our digital asset management system to allow us to encode and deliver a JPEG 2000 images. So as a first step in May 2013, we implemented an open source source viewer in our online collection to enable high res zoom on a group of nearly 17,000 images. So we've now implemented the Mirador viewer along with drag and drop technology in our online collection. So today, out of over 93,500 images available in our online collection, over 81,000 images representing nearly 34,000 objects are triple if compliant. You can view and compare our images in the same environment online with images from other triple if compliance collections without having to download the images or without having to install any special software. So to see this in action, I encourage you to take a look at the above demo. When you have moment. Snap a picture of the link if you want. So zooming out. Over the past several years, there's been further consolidation and prioritization of cultural heritage IT related projects at Yale under the Provost Office, and in conjunction with IELs Information Technology Services. So cultural heritage information technology is now one of the five main pillars of University IT service and governance at Yale. So it's on equal footing, alongside academic research, clinical and administrative it. So as part of the above, triple AI F is now being integrated into other cultural heritage technology initiatives across the hill. However, although we are all under the umbrella of Yale, and we're all under the same open access policy, each of the Yale museums and library collections tends to record and communicate information about the copyright status of works in their collections in different ways. So most of you are probably already aware of write statements.org. It's an initiative that has established a vocabulary that can be used to talk to our audiences about copyright, and related rights and how digital images can be used. And to do this in a meaningful and a consistent way. The statements are high level summaries of the underlying rights status of the digital objects they apply to. And they've been designed with both human users and machine users in mind.
Unknown Speaker 28:46
So since the international image interoperability framework provides for the efficient communication of rights information, and triple AI F is being implemented across yell. The yelling museums see value in using this moment as an opportunity to move away from our individualized ways of describing the right status of objects in our collection, and moving to a shared standard. And so at this time, that seems like the next logical step in our Open Access journey. Thank you
Unknown Speaker 29:19
I'm really nervous about this big jug of water. Okay, great, so I'm Andrea. I'm, oh, does that say Peter? No, that's the very beginning slide. There we go. There's my slide. I'm going to kind of do a little bit of like a big massive zoom out and kind of take stock about out where we are with the past less than a decade of open assets at excuse me access, and thinking about how we move forward and updating open access so that it's more inclusive, and that we find greater nuance for our plural audiences. So, kind of my agenda, what we're going to look at is beginning to kind of scope, open glam, and open access based on like the data that we have. Um, so there's a couple of surveys that have been ongoing. One is with open glam survey, which has been kind of examining the revision of the open glam principles, how it's been working for people. And then the second one is a survey that I managed with Douglas McCarthy at Europeana, and it collects instances of open access globally. So it can be a really small release of data, or it can be an entire policy that's been adopted by an institution. But then after looking at kind of where we are, I want to look at kind of what's next. So thinking in terms of open access to point out now that we have all this data about what is working and what isn't, and shared experiences. Where do we go from here. And part of that is research that is ongoing about what the next open gland principles will be, which we hope to turn into a declaration on open access for cultural heritage. So starting with the open glam principles, the survey was conducted by scan and Sandra Falcone and a few other people from Wikimedia to kind of explore their effectiveness and how they are being used or not by different people in the glam sector. So these are the principles, which is a set of five principles published in 2013. They're focused on digital collections and releasing copyright. And to see them today, you'll have to use the Wayback Machine from the Internet Archive, because the site has been updated to display information about the process on the declaration. But while the principles were drafted to be broad, and more general, all of the examples that were included and kind of best practice case studies, were actually big institutions from Europe and North America. Um, so part of that, of course, is because this was 2013. And following, so relatively early on in the open glam movement, but we really wanted to kind of question whether they were relevant, or whether they did, they needed an update. And so scan was part of the organization that organized a survey. And it was really looking at, if they needed to be updated, what those areas of need were. And kind of there were various questions that were asked, but I want to focus on this one here. So interestingly, the results kind of to this specific question, were a bit inconclusive, because the majority of people were kind of saying maybe, and then the rest of everyone else was split between yes and no. But in the follow up questions, they didn't find four categories for possible updates. Um, so kind of new areas of focus and core updates, so standards of treatment for traditional knowledge, other ethical questions around the release of materials, also legal and policy concerns. So these are kind of, you know, updates, or improvements to guidance around openness and licensing, management and governance. So that underlying structure about the principles and how we can get it to better reflect global diversity, and incorporate more regular updates, so it's not so much of a static set of principles. And then finally, communication strategies. So improving the text itself, but also some of the definitions around various terms that are in the text, thinking about opposite opportunities for translation. So it's translated into different languages, and other general outreach strategies.
Unknown Speaker 33:24
But maybe you also have come across this other open glam survey, that, you know, we kind of are looking at, and building upon that data to scope out and develop what's what's been like a resource and a master list of all these different examples of open glam. So this is kind of the survey and there's little Bitly link here. It is document. It's a Google Doc that I manage alongside Douglas McCarthy of your piano. And it was based on some conversations that we were actually having with Simon Tanner, Simon was asking, oh, you know, who does this and how many institutions are using CC zero or CC BY we were like, You know what I feel like we all have that data, but it's just not in one place. So we started to kind of gather a master list. And actually, Rob was helpful in getting some of the information to us as well. And we wanted to collect not just what the instances were, but some other data points. So we started this survey, of course, for a number of reasons. First, there's kind of this perceived information gap around, you know, the lack of up to date information about what everyone else is doing and where that was occurring. But also, because similar to what the open glam principles survey found, was that there's perceived bias around European and North American institutions headlining the movement. But we also thought the list would be relevant for a number of audiences. So users who want to find open content as well as people in the glam sector, who want to explore open access and see what other people are doing, both locally and globally. So a key component of the survey is that we really wanted to also focus on the inconsistency about what open access means and to whom because there's you know, there's a spectrum of what people are doing. And it's all the way from my collections are online, people can use them, they can look at them. And they can see them to everything as high resolution, public domain data, public domain images taken and run with it. So we felt it was important to kind of adopt and encourage the international definition for open, which, you know, is kind of the same theme across a number of open access declarations, but allows for commercial purposes. And that's really important when we're thinking about whether something is open or not. So we've adopted the Open Knowledge, international definition. So in practice, this comes down to these specific conformant licenses. So it's public domain Mark CC Bureau's or zero, CC BY CC BY SA. And some of those no known copyright restrictions or equivalents that are kind of bespoke licenses adopted by different institutions.
Unknown Speaker 35:55
And then the scope, we decided that it would only include instances of open starting with digital circuits of public domain objects. And so that includes not just data that's released on the institutional website, but really anywhere. So we're going to get hub, we're looking at third party platforms, like Flickr commons, or even RT UK. And we start with whether or not those images are made available. And if they are, we collect the rest of the information that's, that's in the survey as well. So that extends to data API's where the different policies are, and all this is organized according to the institution. So I thought I'd show you some data. For comparison, this is how the US breaks down. So of course, when I made this slide, there were 647 total. And like the list basically grows on a week by week basis, there's a few more now, but the US has 64 institutions that release content openly. And Doug, and I also document whether the institution has adopted open as a matter of policy. So everything that would qualify, is categorized as some or excuse me all eligible data, or if it's on a collections by collections basis, or project by project basis, that signaled as some eligible data, but there's 28, that as a matter of policy in the US have released eligible content. And this is the breakdown of the licenses. So it's kind of across the board. And there's a lot of those bespoke licenses coming up. But the majority do use a public domain mark, or generally designated the content is in the public domain. It's really interesting to compare with different jurisdictions, because this is what it looks like in the UK. So we have only four institutions that have adopted as a matter of policy. And the rest of them are kind of doing it on this, you know, really small collections basis. So the UK in general, is not quite as open overall. And this is pretty representative of the UK Open Access scene, because a lot of institutions view open is making collections available for people to look at. And they're bringing people in to do really interesting digital projects. But that that question about copyright is not something that they're as comfortable confronting. So there's this tendency to continue to maintain control, which is very much part of like the UK scene in general. But one of the arguments that, you know, always comes up when we're thinking about, Oh, but they can go up and we can't, is that question around ticket prices, and how that can help offset some of the income that might be sacrificed when we think about going open. So we're working on building in some different data points, it would be really helpful to making those arguments to upper management. And this is one that we've recently added. So in the UK, again, this is a card that's disproportionately played, especially when looking at the Rights Museum, you know, the rights museum can afford to go open because they charge 20 Euro at the door. So we collected the data just on museums and galleries, because obviously libraries and archives have a bit of a different model. And that would have skewed the information. And of the 96 institutions that make content open as matter of policy. 39 are also open on site as well. And in general Sweden has the most open on site and online policies with 10 institutions offering free admission and making data available. But the US really leads in this category when it comes to the quality of content. So Cleveland Art Museum, Getty, Minneapolis National Gallery of Art, St. Louis Walters, Yale Center for British Art on dataset, I'll free on site and release high quality data online for any reuse. So when we're starting to think about what this all means, and what's next, you know, I'd encourage you to go and look at the survey and poke around because based on some of you know, what we've kind of collected at this moment, we're starting to think about, you know, that idea of open access 2.0 Because now we're starting to think about whether what we're doing is actually working and how we might do it better, especially for whom. And so there's a few areas that I want to highlight as part of this kind of bigger question. But I also want to pose that question to you at the end as well. So the first one is, you know, how we design policies around co creation and user generated content. And I'm a lawyer just want to highlight like, I know exactly where these policies come from. When they come from the people like me who are in institutions are the people that are giving the, you know, the recommendations. But I just want to point out that this one is particularly,
Unknown Speaker 40:14
I guess, you know, oppressive because it says here that by submitting content to the institution's platform, the user accepts of the content and all the rights then become the sole property of the institution. So this isn't even a license, it's a total assignment of property and intellectual property over to the institution, which then can expose the user to copyright infringement of their own previous material that now belongs to the institution. And the institution claims all rights to reuse that content for any purpose whatsoever in perpetuity in any sort of media now and forever now, right, so I know where this type of phrasing is coming from. But as GLAMs, we really need to start pushing back against some of it and making arguments for more equitable policies, especially in our online content and contracts. And I love that at the end here, it says, you know, they may require the user to confirm the rights in the in the paragraph, and the user shall provide all reasonable sins to do. So it's basically a threat. There's here's another, that's, you know, pretty similar, overbroad, oppressive, especially because it says that the user waives the right to be identified as the author to the treatment and the right to object to derogatory treatment of material. So this policy, I probably don't even have to say it, but is pretty much at odds with the missions that, you know, we're focusing on inspiring the next generations of artists and rights holders. But as we move forward with co creation, and try to figure out what that means, and working directly with users to generate either new works or knowledge via the collections data, we really need to be thinking about what those equitable policies look like, and making sure that they do consider the needs of both parties rather than policies that are really designed to insulate the institution and make their life easier.
Unknown Speaker 41:51
Another kind of key issue here that I've actually just read a chapter on, so I'm really fired up about it, and I would love to send it to you, if you email me, is accessibility, but especially how accessibility should be extended in a digital environment and how copyright can can really pose an issue there. Because we're all kind of thinking you know, about how we should be extending access to our physical spaces for disabled and neurodiverse audiences. But how do we reach those same audiences digitally? So copyright again, is a huge concern here, because while there are copyright exceptions that we can use for the for the most part, that are based on literary works, and similar content, depending on how they've been transposed, or there may be, of course, in the US Fair Use, we need to start thinking about actually that glammed generated content, especially around reproductions of public domain works, and thinking about an accessible format copy that we make in the process of trying to extend access on site. So there's a number of questions that that might arise and, you know, really like what is access at a greater greater in an age of greater inclusivity? And who's defining the parameters of that? Because that question can be answered differently by the law than by the glam sector, or even a digital audience, depending on the audience. But how open is used might become problematic, depending on that various context. And with visual art, you know, accessible format copy is a legal term that's kind of thinking about how we translate the work into something that can be accessible. But what does that even mean? Because once that box is kind of checked, it means that haha, we've done our we've done our duty, and that is now available in rapidly developing technologies, you know, we could have a better option that is available, but if that box is checked, the law might prevent a new accessible format copied from being made. But then related to that, how do we share that equity and not just equality is extended through different different iterations of an artwork according to need. And finally, this is a big one, um, how might the legal exceptions apply to new works generated by GLAMs, especially with regard to the translations of public domain works. So to provide a little bit of a context, I want to just briefly talk about this example the feeling Vanco use project and the Van Gogh Museum so maybe you heard about this couple years ago, worked with Fujifilm Belgium to develop like high resolution scan of an image of nine Van Gogh paintings. They were printed so that there was a scan and then they also had the high resolution photograph combined together, printed to create almost exact copies of the originals. And this is, you know, canvas that's behind the printing. So, you know, the tactile experience is pretty similar to what it actually would be. And so this is a screenshot of the program page online. And, you know, people are able to book a two hour tour for up to 12 people. And the there's a workshop that includes these 3d printed paintings, as well as sound sent elements, 3d miniature models of some of the scenes, so like Van Gogh's bedroom so you can pick up the pieces and move it around. But when you start to kind of do an audit of how the material, the physical visit, and then the digital kind of extension of that looks in a big bubble. It's not as thought out in terms of access that it could be you To the program cost 120 euro in addition to the 19 Euro admission fee for each participant, but carers receive free entry. And in the gift shop, the rabbit cars are available in limited editions of 260. And they're sold for 25,000 Euro. So we have some interesting priorities around what the various uses can be for these types of technology according to the audience, and the way that it can be monetized. And the museum has also extended the business model to offer pop up museums with gift shops, some of which were in North American malls around the country, you may have visited them. So visitor, visitors can actually buy a raffle cup in the US at a reduced price of $17,750. And online, you know, the museum makes claims of copyrights. And it's reproductions. So that prohibits users from doing the exact same thing with the images that are made available to you to to make their own accessible format copies. So the idea here is locked up at every level. And it's not kind of triage to think about, well, what could we be doing to actually generate the income for the institution, according to this business model, versus what can we be doing according to accessibility and reaching digital audiences, there's just that tendency to lump it all into one place, which, of course, is a hard decision to make when you've got the people who are looking at the end of the black and the red line, to make sure that the operations are sustainable. But we should really be questioning you know what role technology can play to invite alternative uses of the public domain works, that will advance the marginalized voices and facilitate more inclusive discussions around copyright culture and digital media accessibility, and how GLAMs can help clear the way for disability communities to explore and design their own solutions. And then finally, just to touch on something that we're going to talk a little bit further about tomorrow is how we can reconsider digital policies around cultural heritage that was taken during periods of colonization looted, otherwise illegally obtained. So in the process of answering this question, you know, we're thinking about how we might indigenized treatment of the materials that remain in situ, versus what we do around the digitization of the work that may or may not go back to the country of origin. But the bigger question here is, you know, what does it mean to return material cultural heritage, while exercising the right to digitize claim, copyright and exclude others from participating in that digital cultural heritage of another communities culture. So part of this has kind of been catalyzed recently due to the source of a report, which is commissioned by President Emmanuel Macron. And the report is fabulous details extensively the effects of colonization on general, or generations of African communities, and the access to their culture, and what that does in terms of trying to reappropriate the material cultural heritage. But it also says that we should digitize everything and make it available open access before returning it. And it's worth noting that French institutions currently don't have that own obligation on their own culture. And that creates a bit of a double standard when we're thinking about whose culture should be open access and for whom. But we should also be thinking about what is appropriate to digitize or not, and who may be best placed to do that, and particularly whether the current preserve, possessor should be the person leading that initiative. So this all leads me to, as I mentioned, the kind of the Declaration on open access for cultural heritage. And we're, we're thinking about the law and policymaking process as a way to kind of work out the method for how we're going to get to this declaration. And there's both conceptual and practical reasons for this, you know, we don't want to reinvent the wheel. But we also want to kind of carry over some of the meanings that have a legislative and democratic history that attach to them, especially rooting it in human rights and international measures that that are about, you know, access and participation in culture. And we're really attracted to the idea of soft law, which is non binding, because it allows people to set kind of a goal that works for them, but also work according to more local customs or laws that that might kind of shift how they interpret that specific measure. We're also following the process. So at the point at this point, we're working on a green paper, and with the hopes of publishing that in February or March, and we'll be inviting public feedback, because we want to be thinking about who actually should have a say and some of the topics that we're looking at. So I would encourage you to reach out if you're interested, and being a part of this process. But just quickly, some of the questions that we want to be asking are, you know, what are the main topics for open access 2.0, which should be important here, not just the ones that, you know, I touched on briefly but also technological and environmental sustainability issues around privacy technical measures, glammed generated IP, thinking about how we make the declaration relevant for glam institutions, especially because we want to think about, you know, this broader conversations around open access for cultural heritage and the arguments that are necessary so that others or they can stop doing that labor and that work that's been You've done in so many different places. So hopefully bring it all together in one place to make a really compelling case that then can be used both governmental and institutional levels to move this conversation forward and give people the arguments that they need. So if you'd like to be involved in this, please get in touch. You can go to the open glam website or coming up and talk to me, because we have a regular monthly phone call talking about the development of this at the moment. So thank you