ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF OPEN ACCESS ON MUSEUM IMAGE USE POLICY

A thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree 3< o

J io f t Master of Arts m r In Museum Studies

by

Ian Matthew Gill

San Francisco, California

May 2017 Copyright by Ian Matthew Gill 2017 198

Appendix 1: Survey Contact Script

Ian Gill, Graduate Candidate Museum Studies Program San Francisco State University 1600 Holloway Ave. San Francisco, CA 94132 (415) 338-2176 [email protected]

November 17, 2016

«FirstName» «LastName», «Title» «Company» «Address1» «City», «State» «PostalCode»

Dear «FirstName»,

My name is Ian Gill and I am conducting a project on the online presentation of collections information in U.S. museums, specifically as it relates to institutional image use and reproduction policies. The information gathered will be used to analyze museum practice in these areas, and situate them within the context of the burgeoning “Open Access” movement. I am hoping that I might have approximately ten minutes of your time to complete the enclosed survey.

The data collected from this survey will be used for the completion of a Master of Arts degree in Museum Studies at San Francisco State University. You have been contacted because you are a registrar or information manager working with collections at an AAM-accredited Art Museum. If you agree to complete the survey, please understand that any information provided by you may appear in the final written thesis. However, note that you need not supply any information on the response that links your museum to the survey.

If you are not the most appropriate person in the museum to answer the survey, it would be most appreciated if you would forward it along to someone in the museum who can respond. An addressed envelope has been supplied. I would greatly appreciate the return of the survey by December 16.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please contact my research advisor, Professor Edward Luby at [email protected]. The title of my thesis is Assessing the Impact of Open Access on Museum Image Use Policy.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Ian Matthew Gill 199

Appendix 2: Survey Questionnaire

lan Gill, c/o fofciseum Studies Program Assessing the Impact of Open Access on Museum Image Use Policy San Francisco State University 1600 Holloway Ave, San Francisco, CA 94132

1) Which of the following best describes your institution? [ ] Public [ ] Affiliated with University or College [ ] Private [ ] Other:

2) What is your institution’s approximate annual budget? [ ] Below $2 Million [ ] Between $2 and $5 Million [ ] Between $5 and $10 Million [ ] Over $ 10 Million

3) How many employees does your institution employ? [ ] Less than 25 []25to50 []50to75 [] 75 to 100 []100ormore

4) What is the approximate number of individual works in the museum collection? [ ] Less than 25,000 [ ] 50,000 to 100,000 [ ] 25,000 to 50,000 [ ] 100,000 or more

5) Does your institution’s web site include a discrete “collections’’ section, with information provided for each entry? This can include images, titles, dimensions, medium, etc. If not, why? [ ] Yes [ ] No:

6) If yes, does your institution also provide any of the following information? (Check all that apply) [ ] Copyright status for artwork [ ] Institutional image use policy [ ] Option to download images, low resolution [ ]Option to download images, high resolution [ ] Other:

7) If yes, what percentage of your collection is currently digitized and available for viewing online? [ ] 0-10% [ ] 10-20% [ ] 20-30% [ ] 30-35% [ ] 36-40% [ ] More than 40% [ ] No estimate

8) Does your institution currently generate revenue through image licensing policies? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Unsure

9) If Yes, how is this image licensing revenue utilized? [ ] General operations [ ] Programming [ ] Collections [ ] Do not know [ ] Other:

10) If No, why does the institution not ask for financial support for image licensing?

Since 2010, institutions have received publicity for their efforts to provide high-resolution downloadable images online, free of charge, and adopt less-restrictive image reproduction policies online. These and similar efforts from other institutions have been described using phrases including ‘ Open Access,’’ “Open Data,’’ and “Open Content."

11) Has your institution incorporated any of these activities into your own efforts? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] This is the first I’ve heard of them [ ] Other:

12) If your institution would define Open Access differently, how would your institution define it?

13) Does your institution already institute or plan to implement Open Access Policies? [ ] Yes, already implement [ ] Yes, in process of implementing [ j No plans to implement [ ] In Discussion, Undecided

14) What policies or institutions have you consulted in your organization s discussion of Open Access policy? [ ] Rijksmuseum [ ] Getty [ ] LACMA [ ] National Gallery [ ] None of the above [ ] Other:

1 200

lan Gill, do Nfcjseum Studies Program Assessing the Impact of Open Access on Museum Image Use Policy San Francisco State University 1600 Holloway Ave, San Francisco, CA 94132

15) If your institution plans to or already implements Open Access, which of the following did your museum experience? [ ] Revenue increase [ ] Complications with licensing/copyright issues [ ] Expensive to implement [ ] Revenue decrease [ ] No complications with licensing/copyright [ ] Inexpensive to implement [ ] Visitorship increase [ ] High cost of implementation [ ] Enforcing copyright [ ] Visitorship decrease [ ] Low cost of implementation [ ] Freedom of information [ ] Concerns with freedom of information [ ] Other:

16) If Yes, what were the institutional motivating factors for adopting Open Access policies? [ ] Positive effect on reputation [ ] Open Access philosophically aligns with institution [ ] Museum mission to serve public [ ] Stay Relevant with ongoing industry trends [ ] Promotion of academia or scholarship [ ] Other:

17) If Yes, when did the planning begin? [ ] This year [ ] Last year [ ] 2 years ago [ ] 3 years ago [ ] 4 years ago [ ] 5 years ago [ ] Over 5 years ago [ ] N/A

18) If already implemented, how long did the planning process take before implementation? [ ] Less than 1 year [ ] 1 to 2 years [ ] 2 to 3 years [ ] More than 3 years

19) If currently planning, how long do you anticipate the process to take before implementing? [ ] Less than 1 year [ ] 1 to 2 years [ ] 2 to 3 years [ ] More than 3 years

20) What is your museum’s rationale for implementing Open Access? [ ] Public Service [ ] Mission-based [ ] Outside Grants [ ] Strategic Plan [ ] Skill set of employee [ ] Other:

21) Which museum department is responsible for Open Access implementation? [ ] Registration [ ] Collections Information [ ] Information Technology [ ] Other:

22) Approximately how many employees are in this department? [ ] 1 to 3 [ ] 4 to 6 [ ] 7 to 10 [] More than 10

23) What technical systems does your institution utilize for publishing and providing image downloads?

24) Does your institution keep track of visitors to to your collection web pages? If so, what is the approximate number of visitors per week? [ ] Yes, less than 100 [ ] Yes, from 100 to 500 [ ] Yes, more than 500 [ ] No [ ] Other:

25) If No, does your institution currently digitize collections for purposes other than providing Open Access? [ ] Yes, for internal use only [ ] Yes, for non-Open Access publication online [ ] No [ ] Other:

26) If your institution does not currently plan to implement open access, what are some of the key concerns? Check all that apply: [ ] Budget constraints [ ]Lack of personnel [ J Lack of necessary technology [ ] Not institutional priority [ ] Too soon to assess value of doing so [ ] Other:

Thank you for your participation in this survey. If you have any additional information that you think pertinent to this subject, please provide in the space below. Feel free to attach additional sheets if necessary.

2 201

Appendix 3: List of Total Museum Sample (sorted alphabetically by name of institution)

Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Folk Art Museum, Williamsburg, VA Academy Art Museum, Easton, MD Ackland Art Museum - University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC Akron Art Museum, Akron, OH Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany, NY Albany Museum of Art, Albany, GA Albrecht-Kemper Museum of Art, Saint Joseph, MO Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo, NY Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum, Ridgefield, CT Alexandria Museum of Art, Alexandria, LA Allen Memorial Art Museum, Oberlin, OH Allentown Art Museum, Allentown, PA Amarillo Museum of Art, Amarillo, TX Amon Carter Museum of American Art, Fort Worth, TX Appleton Museum of Art, College of Central Florida, Ocala, FL Amot Art Museum, Elmira, NY Art Museum of Greater Lafayette, Lafayette, IN Art Museum of South Texas, Corpus Christi, TX Art Museum of Southeast Texas, Beaumont, TX Art, Design & Architecture Museum - University of California, Santa Barbara, CA Arthur M. Sackler Museum - Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, MA Asheville Art Museum, Asheville, NC Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA Bakersfield Museum of Art, Bakersfield, CA Baltimore Museum of Art, Baltimore, MD Bass Museum of Art, Miami Beach, FL Bechtler Museum of Modem Art, Charlotte, NC Bennington Museum, Bennington, VT Berkeley Art Museum & Pacific Film Archive - University of California, Berkeley, CA Birmingham Museum of Art, Birmingham, AL Blanton Museum of Art, Austin, TX Boca Raton Museum of Art, Boca Raton, FL Boise Art Museum, Boise, ID Bowdoin College Museum of Art, Brunswick, ME Bowers Museum, Santa Ana, CA Brandywine River Museum of Art, Chadds Ford, PA Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY Bruce Museum, Greenwich, CT Brunnier Art Museum, Ames, IA Burchfield Penney Art Center - SUNY Buffalo State, Buffalo, NY Busch-Reisinger Museum - Harvard Art Museums, Cambridge, MA Butler Institute of American Art, Youngstown, OH California Palace of the Legion of Honor, San Francisco, CA Canton Museum of Art, Canton, OH Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh, PA Cedar Rapids Museum of Art, Cedar Rapids, IA Charles H. MacNider Art Museum, Mason City, IA Chazen Museum of Art, Madison, WI Cheekwood Botanical Garden & Museum of Art, Nashville, TN Christian Peterson Art Museum, Ames, IA Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, VA Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati, OH Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, OH Colby College Museum of Art, Waterville, ME Columbia Museum of Art, Columbia, SC Columbus Museum, Columbus, GA Columbus Museum of Art, Columbus, OH Contemporaiy Arts Museum Houston, Houston, TX Cornell Fine Arts Museum, Winter Park, FL Cranbrook Art Museum, Bloomfield Hills, MI Crocker Art Museum, Sacramento, CA Currier Museum of Art, Manchester, NH Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, TX David & Alfred Smart Museum of Art - University of Chicago, Chicago, IL David Owsley Museum of Art, Muncie, IN De Saisset Museum, Santa Clara, CA De Young Museum, San Francisco, CA Denver Art Museum, Denver, CO Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, MI Dubuque Museum of Art, Dubuque, IA El Paso Museum of Art, El Paso, TX Eli and Edythe Broad Art Museum - Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Everson Museum of Art, Syracuse, NY Farnsworth Art Museum and Wyeth Center, Rockland, ME Fenimore Art Museum, Cooperstown, NY Figge Art Museum, Davenport, IA Fitchburg Art Museum, Fitchburg, MA Fleming Museum of Art, Burlington, VT Flint Institute of Arts, Flint, MI Fogg Art Museum - Harvard Art Museums, Cambridge, MA Fort Wayne Museum of Art, Fort Wayne, IN Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art - University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK Frederic Remington Art Museum, Ogdensburg, NY Frederick R. Weisman Art Museum - University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN Freer Gallery of Art & Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC Fresno Art Museum, Fresno, CA Frost Art Museum at Florida International University, Miami, FL Five Art Museum, Seattle, WA George Walter Vincent Smith Art Museum, Springfield, MA George Washington University Museum & The Textile Museum, Washington, DC Georgia Museum of Art, University of Georgia, Athens, GA Georgia O’Keeffe Museum, Santa Fe, NM Gibbes Museum of Art, Charleston, SC Gilcrease Museum, Tulsa, OK Grand Rapids Art Museum, Grand Rapids, MI Greenville County Museum of Art, Greenville, SC Greenville Museum of Art, Greenville, NC Guild Hall Museum, East Hampton, NY Heckscher Museum of Art, Huntington, NY Henry Art Gallery - University of Washington, Seattle, WA Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art - Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Hickory Museum of Art, Hickory, NC High Museum of Art, Atlanta, GA Hofstra University Museum, Hempstead, NY Honolulu Museum of Art, Honolulu, HI Hood Museum of Art, Hanover, NH Hudson River Museum, Yonkers, NY Hunter Museum of American Art, Chattanooga, TN Huntington Museum of Art, Huntington, WV Huntsville Museum of Art, Huntsville, AL Hyde Collection, Glens Falls, NY Indianapolis Museum of Art, Indianapolis, IN Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, MA International Center of Photography Museum, New York, NY Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston, MA J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, CA James A. Michener Art Museum, Doylestown, PA Jewish Museum, New York, NY John & Mable Ringling Museum of Art, Sarasota, FL Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, Eugene, OR Joslyn Art Museum, Omaha, NE Jule Collins Smith Museum of Fine Art at Auburn University, Auburn, AL Katonah Museum of Art, Katonah, NY Kennedy Museum of Art, Ohio University, Athens, OH Knoxville Museum of Art, Knoxville, TN Krannert Art Museum, Champaign, IL Lauren Rogers Museum of Art, Laurel, MS Long Beach Museum of Art, Long Beach, CA Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, CA Lowe Art Museum University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL Loyola University Museum of Art, Chicago, IL LSU Museum of Art, Baton Rouge, LA Lyman Allyn Art Museum, New London, CT Madison Museum of Contemporary Art, Madison, WI Marianna Kistler Beach Museum of Art - Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS Maiy and Leigh Block Museum of Art, Evanston, IL Maiyhill Museum of Art, Goldendale, WA Massillon Museum, Massillon, OH McNay Art Museum, San Antonio, TX Mead Art Museum, Amherst College, Amherst, MA Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, Memphis, TN Miami University Art Museum, Oxford, OH Michael C. Carlos Museum, Atlanta, GA Michele & Donald D Amour Museum of Fine Arts, Springfield, MA Middlebury College Museum of Art, Middlebuiy, VT Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum, Saint Louis, MO Milwaukee Ail Museum, Milwaukee, WI Minneapolis Institute of Art, Minneapolis, MN Mint Museum, Charlotte, NC Missoula Art Museum, Missoula, MT Mobile Museum of Art, Mobile, AL Modem Art Museum of Fort Worth, Fort Worth, TX Montclair Art Museum, Montclair, NJ Monterey Museum of Art, Monterey, CA Morgan Library & Museum, New York, NY Mulvane Art Museum, Topeka, KS Munson-Williams-Proctor Arts Institute Museum of Art, Utica, NY Muscarelle Museum of Art - College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA Museum of Arts and Design, New York, NY Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, C A Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, IL Museum of Contemporary Art of North Miami, North Miami, FL Museum of Contemporary Art, Santa Barbara, CA Museum of Contemporary Photography, Chicago, IL Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA Museum of Fine Arts - Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, TX Museum of Fine Arts, Saint Petersburg, FL Museum of Glass, Tacoma, WA Museum of Latin American Art, Long Beach, C A Museum of Modem Art, New York, NY Muskegon Museum of Art, Muskegon, MI Nasher Museum of Art Duke University, Durham, NC National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC National Museum of African Art, Washington, DC National Museum of Mexican Art, Chicago, IL National Museum of Wildlife Art, Jackson, WY National Portrait Gallery - Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC Neuberger Museum of Art, Purchase, NY Nevada Museum of Art, Reno, NV New Britain Museum of American Art, New Britain, CT New Mexico Museum of Art, Santa Fe, NM New Orleans Museum of Art, New Orleans, LA Newport Art Museum, Newport, RI Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art - Utah State University, Logan, UT Norman Rockwell Museum, Stockbridge, MA North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh, NC NSU Museum of Art, Fort Lauderdale, FL Oklahoma City Museum of Art, Oklahoma City, OK Orlando Museum of Art, Orlando, FL Palm Springs Art Museum, Palm Springs, C A Parrish Art Museum, Water Mill, NY Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia, PA, Pensacola Museum of Art, Pensacola, FL Perez Art Museum, Miami, FL Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, PA Philbrook Museum of Art, Tulsa, OK Philip & Muriel Berman Museum of Art, Collegeville, PA Phoenix Art Museum, Phoenix, AZ Poll; Museum of Art, Lakeland, FL Portland Art Museum, Portland, OR Portland Museum of Art, Portland, ME Princeton University Art Museum, Princeton, NJ Racine Art Museum, Racine, WI Rahr-West Art Museum, Manitowoc, WI Renwick Gallery - Smithsonian American Art Museum, Washington, DC Reynolda House Museum of American Art, Winston-Salem, NC RISD Museum, Providence, RI Robert and Frances Fullerton Museum of Art, San Bernardino, CA Saginaw Art Museum, Saginaw, MI Saint Louis Art Museum, Saint Louis, MO Saint Mary's College Museum of Art, Moraga, CA Salvador Dali Museum, Saint Petersburg, FL Samuel P. Ham Museum of Art - University of Florida, Gainesville, FL San Angelo Museum of Fine Arts, San Angelo, TX San Antonio Museum of Art, San Antonio, TX San Diego Museum of Art, San Diego, CA San Francisco Museum of Modem Art, San Francisco, CA San Jose Museum of Art, San Jose, C A Santa Barbara Museum of Art, Santa Barbara, CA Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art, Scottsdale, AZ Seattle Art Museum, Seattle, WA Seattle Asian Art Museum, Seattle, WA Sheldon Museum of Art University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE Smith College Museum of Art, Northampton, MA Smithsonian American Art Museum, Washington, DC Snite Museum of Art University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, NY South Bend Museum of Art, South Bend, IN South Dakota Art Museum, Brookings, SD Spencer Museum of Art - University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Springfield Museum of Art, Springfield, OH Swope Art Museum, Terre Haute, IN Tacoma Art Museum, Tacoma, WA Taft Museum of Art, Cincinnati, OH Tampa Museum of Art, Tampa, FL Taubman Museum of Art, Roanoke, VA Telfair Museums, Savannah, GA The Fralin Museum of Art, Charlottesville, VA The Frick Collection, New York, NY The Grace Museum, Abilene, TX The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, MO The Newark Museum, Newark, NJ The Phillips Collection, Washington, DC The Rockwell Museum, Coming, NY The Speed Art Museum, Louisville, KY The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, MD The Westmoreland Museum of American Art, Greensburg, PA Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo, OH Tucson Museum of Art and Historic Block, Tucson, AZ Tyler Museum of Art, Tyler, TX Ulrich Museum of Art Wichita State University, Wichita, KS University Art Museum - California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach, CA University of Arizona Museum of Art, Tucson, AZ University of Iowa Museum of Art, Iowa City, IA University of Kentucky Art Museum, Lexington, K Y University of Michigan Museum of Art, Ann Arbor, MI University of Wyoming Art Museum, Laramie, W Y USC Fisher Museum of Art & International Museum Institute, Los Angeles, CA USC Pacific Asia Museum, Pasadena, CA Utah Museum of Fine Arts - University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT Vero Beach Museum of Art, Vero Beach, FL Virginia Museum of Contemporary Art, Virginia Beach, VA Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, VA Visual Arts Center of New Jersey, Summit, NJ Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, Hartford, CT Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, MN Walter Anderson Museum of Art, Ocean Springs, MS Washington County Museum of Fine Arts, Hagerstown, MD Weatherspoon Art Museum, Greensboro, NC Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, NY Wichita Art Museum, Wichita, KS William King Museum of Art, Abingdon, VA Williams College Museum of Art, Williamstown, MA Woodmere Art Museum, Philadelphia, PA Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, MA Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, CT Yellowstone Art Museum, Billings, MT Appendix 4: List of Survey Recipients

Abby Aldnch Rockefeller Folk Art Museum, Williamsburg, VA Ackland Art Museum - University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany, NY Albrecht-Kemper Museum of Art, Saint Joseph, MO Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo, NY Alexandria Museum of Art, Alexandria, LA Amon Carter Museum of American Art, Fort Worth, TX Appleton Museum of Art, College of Central Florida, Ocala, FL Amot Art Museum, Elmira, NY Art Museum of Greater Lafayette, Lafayette, IN Art Museum of South Texas, Corpus Christi, TX Art Museum of Southeast Texas, Beaumont, TX Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA Baltimore Museum of Art, Baltimore, MD Bennington Museum, Bennington, VT Birmingham Museum of Art, Birmingham, AL Blanton Museum of Art, Austin, TX Bowdoin College Museum of Art, Brunswick, ME Bowers Museum, Santa Ana, CA Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY Brunnier Art Museum, Ames, IA Burchfield Penney Art Center - SUNY Buffalo State, Buffalo, NY Busch-Reisinger Museum - Harvard Art Museums, Cambridge, MA Butler Institute of American Art, Youngstown, OH Canton Museum of Art, Canton, OH Charles H. MacNider Art Museum, Mason City, IA Chazen Museum of Art, Madison, WI Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, VA Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, OH Columbia Museum of Art, Columbia, SC Columbus Museum, Columbus, GA Columbus Museum of Art, Columbus, OH Cornell Fine Arts Museum, Winter Park, FL Cranbrook Ail Museum, Bloomfield Hills, MI Crocker Art Museum, Sacramento, C A Currier Museum of Art, Manchester, NH Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, TX David & Alfred Smart Museum of Art - University of Chicago, Chicago, IL David Owsley Museum of Art, Muncie, IN Denver Art Museum, Denver, CO Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, MI Dubuque Museum of Art, Dubuque, IA Eli and Edythe Broad Art Museum - Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Everson Museum of Art, Syracuse, NY Farnsworth Art Museum and Wyeth Center, Rockland, ME Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA Fleming Museum of Art, Burlington, VT Flint Institute of Arts, Flint, MI 208

Fogg Art Museum - Harvard Art Museums, Cambridge, MA Fort Wayne Museum of Art, Fort Wayne, IN Frederic Remington Art Museum, Ogdensburg, NY Frost Art Museum at Florida International University, Miami, FL Frye Art Museum, Seattle, WA Georgia O’Keeffe Museum, Santa Fe, NM Greenville County Museum of Art, Greenville, SC Henry Art Gallery - University of Washington, Seattle, WA Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art - Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Hickory Museum of Art, Hickory, NC Hood Museum of Art, Hanover, NH Hudson River Museum, Yonkers, NY Huntsville Museum of Art, Huntsville, AL Hyde Collection, Glens Falls, NY Indranapolrs Museum of Art, Indianapolrs, IN Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, MA J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, CA James A. Michener Art Museum, Doylestown, PA John & Mable Ringling Museum of Art, Sarasota, FL Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, Eugene, OR Joslyn Art Museum, Omaha, NE Jule Collins Smith Museum of Fine Art at Auburn University, Auburn, AL Katonah Museum of Art, Katonah, NY Krannert Art Museum, Champaign, IL Long Beach Museum of Art, Long Beach, CA Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, CA Loyola University Museum of Art, Chicago, IL LSU Museum of Art, Baton Rouge, LA Marianna Kistler Beach Museum of Art - Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS Maryhill Museum of Art, Goldendale, WA Massillon Museum, Massillon, OH Mead Art Museum, Amherst College, Amherst, MA Miami University Art Museum, Oxford, OH Michele & Donald D'Amour Museum of Fine Arts, Springfield, MA Middlebury College Museum of Art, Middlebury, VT Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum, Saint Louis, MO Mint Museum, Charlotte, NC Modem Art Museum of Fort Worth, Fort Worth, TX Morgan Library & Museum, New York, N Y Munson-Williams-Proctor Arts Institute Museum of Art, Utica, NY Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, CA Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, IL Museum of Contemporary Art of North Miami, North Miami, FL Museum of Contemporary Photography, Chicago, IL Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA Museum of Fine Arts - Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, TX Museum of Fine Arts, St. Petersburg, FL Museum of Latin American Art, Long Beach, C A Nasher Museum of Art Duke University, Durham, NC National Museum of Wildlife Art, Jackson, WY National Portrait Gallery - Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC Neuberger Museum of Art, Purchase, NY Nevada Museum of Art, Reno, NV New Mexico Museum of Art, Santa Fe, NM New Orleans Museum of Art, New Orleans, LA Newport Art Museum, Newport, RI Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art - Utah State University, Logan, UT Norman Rockwell Museum, Stockbridge, MA North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh, NC NSU Museum of Art, Fort Lauderdale, FL Oklahoma City Museum of Art, Oklahoma City, OK Palm Springs Art Museum, Palm Springs, CA Parrish Art Museum, Water Mill, NY Pensacola Museum of Art, Pensacola, FL Perez Art Museum, Miami, FL Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, PA Philbrook Museum of Art, Tulsa, OK Philip & Muriel Berman Museum of Art, Collegeville, PA Polk Museum of Art, Lakeland, FL Robert and Frances Fullerton Museum of Art, San Bernardino, CA Saginaw Art Museum, Saginaw, MI Saint Louis Art Museum, Saint Louis, MO Salvador Dali Museum, Saint Petersburg, FL Samuel P. Ham Museum of Art - University of Florida, Gainesville, FL San Diego Museum of Art, San Diego, CA San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco, CA San Jose Museum of Art, San Jose, CA Seattle Art Museum, Seattle, WA Smith College Museum of Art, Northampton, MA South Dakota Art Museum, Brookings, SD Spencer Museum of Art - University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Swope Art Museum, Terre Haute, IN Tacoma Art Museum, Tacoma, WA Taft Museum of Art, Cincinnati, OH Tampa Museum of Art, Tampa, FL Telfair Museums, Savannah, GA The Frick Collection, New York, NY The Phillips Collection, Washington, DC The Rockwell Museum, Corning, NY The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, MD The Westmoreland Museum of American Art, Greensburg, PA Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo, OH Tucson Museum of Art and Historic Block, Tucson, AZ Tyler Museum of Art, Tyler, TX University of Michigan Museum of Art, Ann Arbor, MI Utah Museum of Fine Arts - University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, VA Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, MN William King Museum of Art, Abingdon, VA Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, MA Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, CT 210

Appendix 5: Random Number Generator Results

Home Games Numbers lists & More Drawings Web Tools Statistics Testimonials learn More login

Search fWCOfCGRG

RANDOM.ORG True Random Number Service

Do you own an iOS or Android device? Check out our app*

Random Integer Set Generator

You requested 1 set with 150 unique random integers, taken from the [1,279] range. The integers were sorted in ascending order.

Here is your set:

Set 1: 3, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 87, 88, 92, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 106, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 128, 129, 131, 132, 135, 138, 140, 142, 144, 145, 146, 149, 152, 155, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 173, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 200, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 217, 219, 222, 225, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 240, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 258, 262, 265, 266, 268, 274, 276, 277, 278

Timestamp: 2016-11-07 16:25:44 UTC

Again! Go Back

© 1998-2016 RANDOM.ORG Terms and Conditions About Us

Home Games Numbers lists & More Drawings Web Tools Statistics Testimonials learn More login Smrtfn

RAND0n.0RG True Random Number Service

Do you own an iOS or Android device? Check out our app* Random Integer Set Generator

You requested 1 set with 6 unique random integers, taken from the [1,129] range. The integers were sorted in ascending order.

Here is your set:

Set li 5, 13, 30, 59, 72, 94

Timestamp: 2016-11-09 22:53:45 UTC

Again! Go Back

S B © 1998-2016 RANDOM.ORG Terms and Conditions About Us 211

Appendix 6: Darcy DiNucci, “Fragmented Future,” 1999

w, s r a n ■ , ■ r m S c f i f i ! flLVJ

The Web has become an almost front end. the Web will fragment page you can display on a cell phone iconic cultural reference— ubiqui­ into countless permutations with or Palm Pilot is a far cry from the tous and familiar. Even your grand­ different looks, behaviors, uses, and kind you'd create for a computer mother can recognize a Web page hardware hosts. The Web will be un­ monitor. The format is not only by its typical brochure-like displays derstood not as screenfuls of text much smaller (think 2" of screen of Times or Arial text, eve-grabbing and graphics but as a transport real estate instead of 17"). but on­ graphics, and highlighted hyper­ mechanism, the ether through board storage is either minimal or links. What we need to remember, which interactivity happens. It will nonexistent, and keyboards for By Darcy DiNucci though, is that the Web. as we know still appear on your computer alphanumeric information entry are it now, is a fleeting thing. Web 1.0. screen, transformed by video and usually missing. In fact, the hard­ The relationship of Web 1.0 to the other dynamic media made possible ware will lie different from device to Web of tomorrow is roughly the by the speedy connection technolo­ device; compare the interface of the equivalence of Pong to The Matrix. gies now coming down the pike. The Palm Pilot with that of the Game- Todays Web is essentially a protcv Web will also appear, in different Bov, for instance. Do you have a 20- type—a proof of concept. This con­ guises, on your TV set (interactive pixel. 200-pixel, or 2000-pixel screen cept of interactive content univer­ content woven seamlessly into pro­ width? Pen entry, joystick, or touch sally accessible through a standard gramming and commercials), your screen? Each device’s input anti out­ interface has proved so successful car dashboard (maps, Yellow Pages, put methods will demand differed new industry is set on trans­ and other traveler info), your cell interface designs. iting it. capitalizing on all its phone (news, stock quotes, flight Besides the hardware differences erful possibilities. The Web we updates), hand-held game machines designers will have to consider m :now now. which loads into a (linking players with competitors ever-widening array of connection Wowser window in essentially static over the Net), and maybe even your speed capabilities. Web ■nfuls, is only an embryo of the I microwave (automatically finding meant to be viewed on full-sise to come. cooking times for products). monitors or TV screens will soon be Hie first glimmerings of Web 2.0 The world of myriad, ubiquitous able to take advantage of Mgt'*- liP^are beginning to appear, and we are Internet-connected tools, often re­ bandwidth connections such m just starting to see how that embryo ferred to as Internet appliances, has cable modems and DSL connec­ might develop. long been predicted. Until now, tions. Mobile appliances such m Ironically, the defining trait of though, that world has been de­ PDAs rely on much slower ccnm t- Web 2.0 will be that it won't have scribed vaguely, indicated by a bit of tions: The two-way radio planr«4*j| any visible characteristics at all. The hand-waving rather than any con­ for the Palm VII, for instance fet* Web will be identified only by its un­ crete product specs. Now the first about 10 Kbps. While wirekss® derlying DMA structure— TCP/IP generation of Internet appliances— speeds will likely see gains in ih t fea­ (the protocol that controls how files Web-ready cell phones and person­ ture, the chasm between wired m i are transported across the Internet), al digital assistants (PDAs)— has unwired speeds will likely HTTP (the protocol that rules the begun to appear. And while these wide, and both connection communication between comput­ devices are still fairly primitive, they will be important. ers on the Web), and URLs (a do offer some clues to the likely fu­ The lesson is inescapable V * method for identify ing files). As ture of the breed. development— Web design p? those technologies define its work­ For designers, the first thing to gramming, and production—« ings. the Web’s outward form— the notice is the different considera­ split into fragments mirrorirvr t hardware and software that we use tions concerning form that are al­ fragmented Web appliance m m ; to view it— will multiply. On the ready appearing. The kind of W'eb Continued on pmt ^ 212

The initial signs bear out this hy­ oping display, interface, and pro­ for years to come. As new devices Trash Palace pothesis. The handful of Web-con­ duction standards for mobile devices appear, developers will cleave to ex- 1 Continued from page 60 nected cell phones already on the j like cell phones and PDAs. Setting isting standards when practical, and Initially, they got their presswork market each have different display standards for phones makes a lot of strike out on their own when it pro­ done by sneaking into I T ’s design standards and interface models, | sense, and cell phone makers have vides competitive advantages. The department at night, but when de­ leaving it in the hands of each ser­ some incentive to do so. The exis­ process will doubtless be similar to mand grew, they decided to set up a vice provider to produce content for tence of standards not only would the one we’ve already witnessed in shop of their own. Without much its own subscribers. When 3Com free them from the task of doing the world of the browser as defined seed money to start. Yee-Haw Indus­ announced its Internet-compatible their own publishing, but would by Netscape and Microsoft. These tries was opened— where else?— in Palm VII, it also announced a pro­ ; also open the market to third-party companies first strove for domi­ a former riding-mower shed and prietary Web publishing format to j publishers— leading to a profusion nance by accentuating their brows­ trailer in Belcher’s mother's yard in support it, featuring an icon-based of content that would in turn sell ers' differences, then acceded to j Corbin. Kentucky. Belcher and interface limited to simple queries more phones. But, because of the standards when doing so offered Bradley purchased presses and type and a pint-sized page format for hardware issues described earlier, benefits in the marketplace. fonts after scouring the local Yellow publisher responses. The underly­ it’s unlikely that standards set for In the end, way down the line, j Pages and traveling to Tennessee, ing technologies are the same as for cell phones would work well for some set of standards for different West V irginia, and New York to find what we might now call ‘ traditional” PDAs. And for practical and com­ devices will probably be devel­ retired pressmen who were delight­ Web pages, but the publishing for­ petitive reasons (the tendency of oped— say. one for cell phones, an­ ed to turn their outmoded equip­ mat and interface are quite different. any company to differentiate among other for game machines, and one ment and type cases over to young This initial chaos can be tamed, | its own products), we re bound to for household appliances. The people committed to continuing the to some degree, over time. Actually, see a proliferation of new Web pub­ process will be long and unpre­ craft. Vandercook proof presses (the the battle has already begun. A lishing formats. dictable, though— an organic sys­ SP-15 and SP-25 models) were ac­ W3C standards group, dubbed the It s way too early to say how many tem of mitosis, mutation, and natur­ quired to print posters, and two Wireless Application Protocol con­ fragments Web publishing will al selection that we can only regard tabletop platen presses were added sortium. has formed to begin devel­ break into. The field will be evolving with wonder. for small-format jobs. The studio also eventually added 1000 cases of lead fonts, a huge collection of orna­ ments and dingbats, and a wood j type collection of 150 fonts, Al- ] though Yee-Haw does most of its de- ; sign work the old-fashioned way— ! by hand— Belcher and Bradley do Choose from several complete construction always gives you smooth, copystand models, or custom-design vibration-free performance. complete a small portion of designs your own modular system. Mix and Kaiser doesn’t build-in obsolescence. | on the computer. match from 3 baseboards, jm £ * but rather the strength of For both Bradley and Belcher, 3 columns. 11 lamp sets ■ 1 growth through modu­ j starting a letterpress fulfilled many (tungsten, fluorescent. IS larity. Build your halogen), 4 camera H mt own Kaiser j of their desires; It enabled Bradley to arms, and more B I copystand expand on his printing and lettering Kaisers solid I ■ 21 ways. talents and allowed Belcher to es- i cape the confines of computer- ; based design, to enjoy the tactile pleasures of hot-meta! typesetting, and to work on her own painting. Belcher revels in the fact that Yee- Haw can complete projects from start to finish without dealing with the numerous prepress issues in­ volved in offset printing. “We do it all. right here, and we don’t have to involve anyone else.” she says, adding, “except maybe the client.” Nevertheless. Yee-Haw has formed KAISER collaborative relationships with S 3 local illustrators whose work suits its * §Martetr>gGorp FOTUTECHMK 16 Chopin Rd, Pme &ook NJ07058,201/808-9010. Quality is always a better value. tn Canada: Natiefinterpfiset 7290 A ? Mwssauga. Onfono L4T 3Y8

Send few M w Free Information with Reader Service Card. Circle 21 2 2 2 PR! N'T 213

Appendix 7: GNU Operating System, “Overview of the GNU System”

Overview of the GNU System

The GNU operating system is a complete free software system, upward-compatible with Unix. GNU stands for “GNU's Not Unix”. Richard Stallman made the Initial Announcement of the GNU Project in September 1983. A longer version called the GNU Manifesto was published in March 1985. It has been translated into several other languages.

The name “G NU” was chosen because it met a few requirements; first, it was a recursive acronym for “GNU'S Not Unix”, second, because it was a real word, and third, it was fun to say (or Sing).

The word “free” in “free software” pertains to freedom, not price. You may or may not pay a price to get GNU software. Either way. once you have the software you have four specific freedoms in using it. The freedom to run the program as you wish; the freedom to copy the program and give it away to your friends and co-workers; the freedom to change the program as you wish, by having full access to source code; the freedom to distribute an improved version and thus help build the community. (If you redistribute GNU software, you may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, or you may give away copies.)

The project to develop the GNU system is called the “GNU Project”. The GNU Project was conceived in 1983 as a way of bringing back the cxxjperative spirit that prevailed in the computing community in earlier days— to make cooperation possible once again by removing the obstacles to cooperation imposed by the owners (if proprietary software.

In 1971, when Richard Stallman started his career at MIT, he worked in a group which used free software exclusively. Even computer companies often distributed free software. Programmers were free to cooperate with each other, and often did.

By the 1980s, almost all software was proprietary, which means that it had owners who forbid and prevent cooperation by users. This made the GNU Project necessary7.

Every computer user needs an operating system; if there is no free operating system, then you can't even get started using a computer without resorting to proprietary software. So the first item on the free software agenda obviously had to be a free Operating system.

We decided to make the operating system compatible with Unix because the overall design was already proven and portable, and because compatibility makes it easy for Unix users to switch from Unix to GNU.

A Unix-like operating system includes a kernel, compilers, editors, text formatters, mail software, graphical interfaces, libraries, games and many other things. Thus, writing a whole operating system is a very large job. We started in January 1984. The Free Software Foundation was founded in October 1985, initially to raise funds to help develop GNU.

By 1990 we had either found or written all the major components except one— the kernel. Then Linux, a Unix-like kernel, was developed by Linus Torvalds in 1991 and made free software in 1992. Combining Linux with the almost-complete GNU system resulted in a complete operating system: the GNU/Linux system. Estimates are that tens of millions of people now use GNU/Linux systems, typically via GNU/Linux distributions. The principal version of Linux now contains non-free firmware “blobs”; free software activists now maintain a modified free version of Linux, called Linux-libre.

However, the GNU Project is not limited to the core operating system. We aim to provide a whole spectrum of software, whatever many users want to have. This includes application software. See the Free Software Directory for a catalogue of free software application programs.

We also want to provide software for users who are not computer experts. Therefore we developed a graphical desktop (called GNOME) to help beginners use the GNU system.

We also want to provide games and other recreations. Plenty of free games are already available.

How far can free software go? There are no limits, except when laws such as the patent system prohibit free software. The ultimate goal is to provide free software to do all of the jobs computer users want to do— and thus make proprietary software a thing of the past.

https: //www. gnu. org/gnu/gnu-history. html 1/2 214

Appendix 8: GNU Operating System, “What is Free Software?” (Excerpt) ‘^IpGNU Operating System

What is free software?

The Free Software Definition The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a particular software program qualifies as free software. From time to time we revise this definition, to clarify it or to resolve questions about subtle issues. See the History section below for a list of changes that affect the definition of free software.

“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.

The four essential freedoms A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: • The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical.

In any given scenario, these freedoms must apply to whatever code we plan to make use of, or lead others to make use of. For instance, consider a program A which automatically launches a program B to handle some cases. If we plan to distribute A as it stands, that implies users will need B, so we need to judge whether both A and B are free. However, if we plan to modify A so that it doesn't use B, only A needs to be free; B is not pertinent to that plan.

“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no 215

longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies. The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes specific freedoms adequate or not.

The freedom to run the program as you wish The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.

The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from doing so. It has nothing to do with what functionality the program has, or whether it is useful for what you want to do.

The freedom to study the source code and make changes In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated “source code” is not real source code and does not count as source code.

Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours — a practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown”, or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure boot” — freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather than a practical reality. These binaries are not free software even if the source code they are compiled from is free. One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free subroutines and modules. If the program's license says that you cannot merge in a suitably licensed existing module — for instance, if it requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add — then the license is too restrictive to qualify as free.

Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter. If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.

Use the right words when talking about free software When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms like “give away” or “for free,” because those terms imply that the issue is about price, not freedom. Some common terms such as “piracy” embody opinions we hope you won't endorse. See Confusing Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding for a discussion of these terms. We also have a list of proper translations of “free software” into various languages. 216

Appendix 9: Michael Gowan, “Requiem for Napster,” 2002 PC World OO FROM IDG A Phones & Tablets T Computers w Gadgets w Business Centre v Home Entertainment * Requiem for Napster

Michael Gowan (PC World) on 18 May, 2002 12:17

We gather to mourn the passing of Napster — or at least mourn its evolution into a different virtual life- form.

The music-sharing site, in its brief few years of operation, became a friend to millions, but an enemy to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and its chief executive officer, Hilary Rosen. Napster has been finally and completely swallowed by its business partner, Bertelsmann. The music label had invested in Napster and was helping it reemerge as a subscription site, mending its wanton ways.

But Napster’s legacy as promoter of music — if not of copyright - cannot be tainted by a whimpering end: Napster spawned a true revolution among music listeners.

Music Explosion

Brainchild of wunderkind Shawn Fanning, who himself once personified the dot-com boom, Napster affected how we listen to music, how we use our PCs and how we think about property. It brought geek concepts like ”peer-to-peer" to the masses. It created a real use for broadband. It may have even made stealing culturally acceptable. It was a symbol of the new economy and a target of old-fashioned corporate ire. And in the end, it could not adapt to the new market it helped create.

But let's reminisce about the good days. When Fanning released Napster to the world in 1999, the concept of trading music files over the Internet was relatively unknown to most. Lee Black, who worked for the now-defunct research firm Webnoize, says the true genius of Napster was not that it let us trade music over the Internet, but that it made peer-to-peer networking so simple that anyone could do it.

The MP3 format made it possible to download music via the Internet. But Napster took both the format and the concept to the masses. The site catalogued files from millions of users on a central server so you could quickly see who had what you wanted, and it then enabled a seamless connection between you and a remote PC.

Perhaps no one in the music industry thought people would want access to millions of song files. And once there, those digital music fans discovered even more music by chatting with people who loved the same obscure sub-sub-genres. 217

Copycats and Copyrights

But with its great success (around 80 million registered users at its peak), Napster became an oversized bull's eye for the establishment. As the record companies took turns pummeling Napster with lawsuits, similar services and even better services came along. Gnutella, MusicCity (later known as Morpheus), Kazaa, and AudioGalaxy stepped up, adding video and software file-sharing to the mix. Some of them are still around, and they’ve drawn in even more customers. But Napster has remained the enemy for the music companies and the RIAA.

Somewhere along the way, the concept of what is yours and what is mine, and who should get paid for what, came to the fore. The courts and the corporations and the rock stars ail had comments. Meanwhile, in the court of public opinion, people kept trading in greater numbers. It was as if they said, "You guys worry about the money. We'll enjoy the music. Copyrights are for squares, man."

The big music companies — Sony, Universal, Warner Bros., EMI, and BMG — have decided they need to get in on this action even as their lawsuits sought to destroy the movement. After much hemming and hawing, during which even more people got hooked on a free supply of unlimited songs, they banded together into two groups that have released music downloading services.

These industry-backed services lack two important traits Napster delivered: Whereas Napster was free and its selections almost unlimited, the official sites' products are not affordable, nor are their selections bountiful. This is called shooting oneself in the foot.

Tunes of the Future

And what of Napster's role in the CD-R revolution? Users were quick to endorse the benefits of collecting many different songs from many different artists and many different albums, downloading them from different people in different countries, and then melding them onto a shiny disc for the singular pleasure of listening. The pay music services largely didn't realize that this was something their listeners might like, too. The battle is on to make that operation not just illegal, but impossible — instead of figuring out how to license the practice.

At one point, the company behind Napster proposed that if the record labels licensed their catalogs to the company and the company in turn charged every Napster user $5 a month for the service, the result would be more money than ever dreamed of. Unfortunately, that was not enough.

Napster tried to play by the rules later, after the court defeats and an infusion of cash from one-time foe Bertelsmann. The company even developed a beta version of a pay service that used a special ".nap" file and that could only be traded among paying users. But it was a neutered version of its former self. Even when trying to go legit, Napster had no friends among those who could grant the rights to music. And now we may never know if all those people would have made the record companies very, very rich.

Consider this: Napster has not had a working service for about a year, and we still talk about it. That's a legacy. 218

Appendix 10: Open Knowledge International, “About Open Knowledge International”

□ Facebook □ Twitter 0 Donate 0 Subscribe

PROJECTS WHAT IS OPEN? THE OPEN KNOWLEDGE NETWORK @

Open Knowledge international is a worldwide non-profit network of people passionate about openness, ABOUT using advocacy, technology and training to unlock information and enable people to work with it to create Mission and What We Do and share knowledge.

Vision and Values Our mission

Our Impact We want to see enlightened societies around the world, where everyone has access to key information and the obiiity to use it to understand and shape their lives; where powerful institutions are comprehensible Team and accountable; and where vital research information that can help us tackle challenges such as poverty

Board of Directors and climate change is available to all. We envision a world where: Advisory Council • knowledge creates power for the many, not the few. Governance • data frees us to make informed choices about how we live, what we buy and who gets our vote. • information and insights are accessible ~ and apparent - to everyone. funders This is the world we choose. We want to see open knowledge being a mainstream concept, and as natural Press resources and important to our everyday lives and organisations as green is today.

Jobs To reach these goals, we need to raise the profile of open knowledge and raise awareness of how important it is. We need to change cultures, policies and business models at targe organisations to make opening up information acceptable and desirable. We need to build capacity in understanding information, sharing, finding and using data, across the population and the world. We need to create and encourage collaborations across government, business and civil society to use data to rebalance power and tackle major challenges. We need tools (technical, legal, and educational) to make working with data easier and more effective. Here’s how we do it at Open Knowledge International:

• International network We support, encourage and coordinate an international network of individuals passionate about openness and active in making, training and advocating • Opening up information: We advocate for open release of key information, particularly at national or large scale, and we monitor the level of openness worldwide • Impact through information: We help people learn about openness and gain data skills, and we partner with change-making organisations aligned with our key themes to help them use open data to accelerate their work, creating positive change towards our goals, stories and case studies • Project stewardship: a home for projects and communities: helping nurture and support efforts to open up data and see it used for positive change

Legal notice

The Open Knowledge Foundation, trading as Open Knowledge International, is a not-for-profit organisation. It is incorporated in England & Wales as a company limited by guarantee, with company number 05133759. VAT Registration N* GB 984404989. Registered office address: Open Knowledge Foundation, St John's Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0W5, UK. 219

Appendix 11: Open Knowledge International,44Vision and Values”

Around the world, we want to see societies where everyone has access to key information and the ability to use it to understand and shape their lives. We want to see powerful institutions made comprehensible and accountable. We want to see vital research information which can help us tackle challenges such as poverty and climate change available to all as open information. We want to see open knowledge become a mainstream concept, as natural and important to our everyday lives and organisations as green is today.

Our vision Knowledge is power. With key information openly available, power can be held to account, inequality challenged, and inefficiencies exposed. With the latest research openly available, everyone has the potential to understand our world, and the knowledge they need to tackle major challenges such as poverty and climate change.

This key information includes how governments spend our money — both their plans and the reality — so that they are accountable to citizens, and the laws which govern us, the results of elections, maps and postcode information — the plumbing of modern society. It includes how companies are owned and controlled so that poor governance and damaging social and environmental practices can be uncovered. It includes data about global challenges such as poverty and climate change, and the findings of publicly- funded research, so we can start to understand these, tackle them, and know if our solutions are working. We see a world where information helps deliver a balance of power; where we are free to make our own choices, with key information and insights available to all. The concept of openness is critical: meaning that information is free for anyone, anywhere, to use for any purpose, so that everyone - citizens, scientists, activists, entrepreneurs - has access to the information they need.

What it means to be open We set the standard for genuinely free and open sharing of information with the Open Definition. Although we can express this succinctly, there are more technical and legal forms which help people use it day to day where licensing and legal matters must be considered.

‘Open knowledge’ is any content, information or data that people are free to use, re-use and redistribute — without any legal, technological or social restriction. We detail exactly what openness entails in the Open Knowledge Definition. The main principles are: • Free and open access to the material 220

• Freedom to redistribute the material • Freedom to reuse the material • No restriction of the above based on who someone is (such as their job) or where they are (such as their country of residence) or their field of endeavour (including whether they are working on a commercial or non-commercial project)

Open knowledge is what open data becomes when it’s useful, usable and used - not just that some data is open and can be freely used, but that it is useful - accessible, understandable, meaningful, and able to help someone solve a real problem.

So open knowledge is empowering - it helps us effect change and improve the world.

Our values We are a worldwide network of people passionate about openness, and we use advocacy, technology and training to unlock information so everyone can benefit from open knowledge. Open knowledge is a cross-disciplinary endeavour and needs people with diverse skills and experience, and so we collaborate internally and externally to deliver the best results. A core strength of Open Knowledge International is that we can work well with both deeply technical and deeply specialist groups and bring them together with shared understanding for strong collaborations.

We work in the open wherever possible and practical, and all our tools and materials are released openly. Although we strive to be open in our work for reasons of efficiency, when being open conflicts with our ability to get things done we may not always choose to be open - it is more important that we have a positive impact through our work.

We try to be pragmatic in our work; not everyone will believe equally in all parts of our vision, but the open knowledge network is a “big tent” where participants are welcome regardless of their specific motivations. We are enthusiastic, collaborative and inclusive. We are engaged, not complacent. We are not just thinkers - we are doers, making things happen, building, investigating, training and learning, writing and analysing.

The Open Knowledge Network is not ours. It belongs to the people who form it. We acknowledge this with community governance structures and a carefully “light touch” from Open Knowledge International in how we support the network, respecting its diversity and expertise. The network is a space where any and all open projects and communities are welcome to find a home - by contrast, Open Knowledge International may have more specific focus to its direct activities.

Open knowledge All our activities are connected to open knowledge. The Open Definition sets out what this means: Open means freely shared for anyone, anywhere, to use for any purpose. Whether we are convening communities, developing tools, creating open material, or seeing it used to effect change, open knowledge should be at the heart of what we do. We hold firmly to the Open Definition as the defining concept at the heart of the open movement, and will call out attempts to weaken or misuse this definition, and strive to maintain this clear, shared definition of open. 221

Respect and tolerance Respect and tolerance are pre-conditions for all our work, and essential to working as a collaborative community.

Respect others and their capabilities and capacities. Recognise differences as a creative force: when discussed openly and without aggression, they allow us to find the best way forward.

Collaboration not control To achieve our vision we cannot work alone. Collaboration, both across our teams, the network and outside it, is central to how we operate.

Whilst we must remain mindful of our aims and values, we do not seek to control the activities of others. Our collaborative projects are often jointly-lead. Our Chapters and other groups in the network can pursue open knowledge in whatever way they see fit, without control from the International organisation (except in that we share a vision, and require that they adhere to these values).

Pragmatic not fanatic Wc are strong believers in “open” but our commitment is animated by a desire to make change, not to establish our moral superiority.

Though we will never create closed knowledge we must recognise that others may do, and that, for example, being most effective may sometimes involve the use of non-open tools.

Making & talking We value making and talking equally and thrive on their creative tension. Advocacy through thought leadership, evangelism and convening ensures open material becomes available, is valued and is effectively used by others. Direct involvement in making use of open knowledge and making change with it (for instance, by building services or analysing data) ensures we remain aware and engaged with real challenges and real needs.

Change-making We want to see change in the world and we want to make this happen today not tomorrow. We are focused on important societal problems, challenges and opportunities. Our approach may be indirect - working to improve knowledge flow and use - but it is always in the service of solving real problems and addressing real needs. 222

Appendix 12: Open Source Initiative, “The Open Source Definition”

The Open Source Definition Introduction Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

2. Source Code The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

4. Integrity of The Author’s Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

7. Distribution of License The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. 223

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program’s being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program’s license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

The Open Source Definition was originally derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). Last modified' 2007-03-22

The Open Source Definition was originally derived from the Debian free Software Guidelines (DFSG).

Last modified, 2007-03-22

Opensource.org site content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 fnternationai License.

Terms of Service 224

Appendix 13: Tim O’Reilly, “What Is Web 2.0” (Excerpt)

O’REILLY* Search

What Is Web 2.0

Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software

by Tim O'Reilly 09/30/2005

Oct. 2009: Tim O'Reilly and John Battelle answer the question of ’What's next for Web 2.0?” in Web Squared: Web 2,0 Five Years On.

The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. Many people concluded that the web was overhyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions. Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage. The pretenders are given the bum's rush, the real success stories show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other.

The concept of "Web 2.0” began with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O’Reilly VP, noted that far from having "crashed", the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What's more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born.

In the year and a half since, the term "Web 2.0" has clearly taken hold, with more than 9.5 million citations in Google. But there's still a huge amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others accepting it as the new conventional wisdom.

This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0. 225

In our initial brainstorming, we formulated our sense of Web 2.0 by example:

Web 1.0 Web 2.0 Doubleclick —> Google AdSense Ofoto „> Flickr Akamai —> BitTorrent mp3.com —> Napster Britannica Online —> Wikipedia personal websites ■**> blogging evite upcoming.org and EVDB domain name speculation —> search engine optimization page views ~> cost per click screen scraping —> web services publishing —> participation content management systems -> wikis directories (taxonomy) —> tagging ("folksonomy”) stickiness ~> syndication

The list went on and on. But what was it that made us identify one application or approach as "Web 1.0” and another as "Web 2.0"? (The question is particularly urgent because the Web 2.0 meme has become so widespread that companies are now pasting it on as a marketing buzzword, with no real understanding of just what it means. The question is particularly difficult because many of those buzzword-addicted startups are definitely not W7eb 2.0, while some of the applications we identified as Web 2.0, like Napster and BitTorrent, are not even properly web applications!) We began trying to tease out the principles that are demonstrated in one way or another by the success stories of web 1.0 and by the most interesting of the new applications.

1. The Web As Platform Like many important concepts, Web 2.0 doesn’t have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core. You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core.

Try*! ysur

Sma« Pieces Long T**i ioo9«tyJW*«d #b a% components]

/*5o*toiiT

Smtufent lfs«r Tfm Rtgfri so Rtmix Of content /•Seme r.$hts r»s*.*w3* predetermined

Figure 1 shows a "meme map" of Web 2.0 that was developed at a brainstorming session during FOO Camp, a conference at O'Reilly Media. It's very much a work in progress, but shows the many ideas that radiate out from the Web 2.0 core. 226

For example, at the first Web 2.0 conference, in October 2004, John Battelle and I listed a preliminary set of principles in our opening talk. The first of those principles was "The weh as platform." Yet that was also a rallying cry of Web 1.0 darling Netscape, which went down in flames after a heated battle with Microsoft. What’s more, two of our initial Web 1.0 exemplars, Doubleclick and Akamai, were both pioneers in treating the web as a platform. People don't often think of it as "web services", but in fact, ad serving was the first widely deployed web service, and the first widely deployed "mashup" (to use another term that has gained currency of late). Every banner ad is served as a seamless cooperation between two websites, delivering an integrated page to a reader on yet another computer. Akamai also treats the network as the platform, and at a deeper level of the stack, building a transparent caching and content delivery network that eases bandwidth congestion.

Nonetheless, these pioneers provided useful contrasts because later entrants have taken their solution to the same problem even further, understanding something deeper about the nature of the new platform. Both Doubleclick and Akamai were Web 2.0 pioneers, yet we can also see how it's possible to realize more of the possibilities by embracing additional Web 2.0 design patterns.

Let's drill down for a moment into each of these three cases, teasing out some of the essential elements of difference.

Netscape vs. Google If Netscape was the standard bearer for Web 1.0, Google is most certainly the standard bearer for Web 2.0, if only because their respective IPOs were defining events for each era. So let's start with a comparison of these two companies and their positioning. Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless carriage" framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers.

In the end, both web browsers and web servers turned out to be commodities, and value moved "up the stack" to services delivered over the w7eb platform.

Google, by contrast, began its life as a native web application, never sold or packaged, but delivered as a service, with customers paying, directly or indirectly, for the use of that service. None of the trappings of the old software industry are present. No scheduled software releases, just continuous improvement. No licensing or sale, just usage. No porting to different platforms so that customers can run the software on their own equipment, just a massively scalable collection of commodity PCs running open source operating systems plus homegrown applications and utilities that no one outside the company ever gets to see. At bottom, Google requires a competency that Netscape never needed: database management. Google isn't just a collection of software tools, it's a specialized database. Without the data, the tools are useless; without the software, the data is unmanageable. Software licensing and control over APIs—the lever of power in the previous era—is irrelevant because the software never need be distributed but only performed, and also because without the ability to collect and manage the data, the software is of little use. In fact, the value o f the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism o f the data it helps to manage. Google's service is not a server—though it is delivered by a massive collection of internet servers—nor a browser—though it is experienced by the user within the browser. Nor does its flagship search service even host the content that it enables users to find. Much like a phone call, wrhich happens not just on the phones at either end of the call, but on the network in between, Google happens in the space between browser and 227

search engine and destination content server, as an enabler or middleman betw een the user and his or her online experience.

While both Netscape and Google could be described as software companies, it's clear that Netscape belonged to the same software world as Lotus, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, and other companies that got their start in the 1980's software revolution, while Google's fellows are other internet applications like eBay, Amazon, Napster, and yes, Doubleclick and Akamai.

Doubleclick vs. Overture andAdSense Like Google, Doubleclick is a true child of the internet era. It harnesses software as a service, has a core competency in data management, and, as noted above, was a pioneer in web services long before web services even had a name. However, Doubleclick was ultimately limited by its business model. It bought into the '90s notion that the web was about publishing, not participation; that advertisers, not consumers, ought to call the shots; that size mattered, and that the internet was increasingly being dominated by the top websites as measured by MediaMetrix and other web ad scoring companies.

As a result, Doubleclick proudly cites on its website "over 2000 successful implementations" of its software. Yahoo! Search Marketing (formerly Overture) and Google AdSense, by contrast, already serve hundreds of thousands of advertisers apiece.

Overture and Google's success came from an understanding of what Chris Anderson refers to as "the long tail," the collective power of the small sites that make up the bulk of the web's content. DoubleClick's offerings require a formal sales contract, limiting their market to the few thousand largest websites. Overture and Google figured out how to enable ad placement on virtually any web page. What's more, they eschewed publisher/ad-agency friendly advertising formats such as banner ads and popups in favor of minimally intrusive, context-sensitive, consumer-friendly text advertising.

The Web 2.0 lesson: leverage customer-self sewice and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.

Not surprisingly, other web 2.0 success stories demonstrate this same behavior. eBay enables occasional transactions of only a few dollars between single individuals, acting as an automated intermediary. Napster (though shut down for legal reasons) built its network not by building a centralized song database, but by architecting a system in such a way that every downloader also became a server, and thus grew the network.

Akamai vs. BitTorrent Like Doubleclick, Akamai is optimized to do business with the head, not the tail, with the center, not the edges. While it serves the benefit of the individuals at the edge of the web by smoothing their access to the high-demand sites at the center, it collects its revenue from those central sites.

BitTorrent, like other pioneers in the P2P movement, takes a radical approach to internet decentralization. Every client is also a server; files are broken up into fragments that can be served from multiple locations, transparently harnessing the network of downloaders to provide both bandwidth and data to other users. The more popular the file, in fact, the faster it can be served, as there are more users providing bandwidth and fragments of the complete file.

BitTorrent thus demonstrates a key Web 2.0 principle: the service automatically gets better the more people use it. While Akamai must add servers to improve service, every BitTorrent consumer brings his own resources to the party. There's an implicit "architecture of participation", a built-in ethic of 228

cooperation, in which the service acts primarily as an intelligent broker, connecting the edges to each other and harnessing the power of the users themselves.

2. Harnessing Collective Intelligence The central principle behind the success of the giants bom in the Web 1.0 era who have survived to lead the Web 2.0 era appears to be this, that they have embraced the power of the web to harness collective intelligence:

• Hyperlinking is the foundation of the web. As users add new content, and new sites, it is bound in to the structure of the web by other users discovering the content and linking to it. Much as synapses form in the brain, with associations becoming stronger through repetition or intensity, the web of connections grows organically as an output of the collective activity of all web users. • Yahoo!, the first great internet success story, was bom as a catalog, or directory of links, an aggregation of the best work of thousands, then millions of web users. While Yahoo! has since moved into the business of creating many types of content, its role as a portal to the collective work of the net’s users remains the core of its value. • Google's breakthrough in search, which quickly made it the undisputed search market leader, was PageRank, a method of using the link structure of the web rather than just the characteristics of documents to provide better search results. • eBay's product is the collective activity of all its users; like the web itself, eBay grows organically in response to user activity, and the company's role is as an enabler of a context in which that user activity can happen. What's more, eBay's competitive advantage comes almost entirely from the critical mass of buyers and sellers, which makes any new entrant offering similar services significantly less attractive. • .Amazon sells the same products as competitors such as Bamesandnoble.com, and they receive the same product descriptions, cover images, and editorial content from their vendors. But Amazon has made a science of user engagement. They have an order of magnitude more user reviews, invitations to participate in varied ways on virtually every page-and even more importantly, they use user activity to produce better search results. While a Bamesandnoble.com search is likely to lead with the company's own products, or sponsored results, Amazon always leads with "most popular", a real-time computation based not only on sales but other factors that Amazon insiders call the "flow" around products. With an order of magnitude more user participation, it's no surprise that Amazon's sales also outpace competitors.

Now, innovative companies that pick up on this insight and perhaps extend it even further, are making their mark on the web:

• Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia based on the unlikely notion that an entry can be added by any web user, and edited by any other, is a radical experiment in trust, applying Eric Raymond's dictum (originally coined in the context of open source software") that "with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow," to content creation. Wikipedia is already in the top 100 websites, and many think it will be in the top ten before long. This is a profound change in the dynamics of content creation! • Sites like del.icio.us and Flickr, two companies that have received a great deal of attention of late, have pioneered a concept that some people call "folksonomv" (in contrast to taxonomy), a style of 229

collaborative categorization of sites using freely chosen keywords, often referred to as tags. Tagging allows for the kind of multiple, overlapping associations that the brain itself uses, rather than rigid categories. In the canonical example, a Flickr photo of a puppy might be tagged both "puppy” and "cute"—allowing for retrieval along natural axes generated user activity. • Collaborative spam filtering products like Cloudmark aggregate the individual decisions of email users about what is and is not spam, outperforming systems that rely on analysis of the messages themselves. • It is a truism that the greatest internet success stories don’t advertise their products. Their adoption is driven by "viral marketing"—that is, recommendations propagating directly from one user to another. You can almost make the case that if a site or product relies on advertising to get the word out, it isn't Web 2.0. • Even much of the infrastructure of the web—including the Linux, Apache, MySQL, and Perl, PHP, or Python code involved in most web servers—relies on the peer-production methods of open source, in themselves an instance of collective, net-enabled intelligence. There are more than 100,000 open source software projects listed on SourceForge.net. Anyone can add a project, anyone can download and use the code, and new projects migrate from the edges to the center as a result of users putting them to work, an organic software adoption process relying almost entirely on viral marketing.

The lesson: Network effects from user contributions are the key to market dominance in the Web 2.0 era.

Core Competencies of Web 2.0 Companies In exploring the seven principles above, we've highlighted some of the principal features of Web 2.0. Each of the examples we've explored demonstrates one or more of those key principles, but may miss others. Let's close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core competencies of Web 2.0 companies:

• Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability • Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them • Trusting users as co-developers • Harnessing collective intelligence • Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service • Software above the level of a single device • Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models

The next time a company claims that it's "Web 2.0," test their features against the list above. The more points they score, the more they are worthy of the name. Remember, though, that excellence in one area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven.

Tim O'Reilly O’Reilly Media, Inc., [email protected] President and CEO 230

Appendix 14: Richard Stallman, “The Free Encyclopedia & Learning Resource” (excerpt)

From: Richard Stallman Subject: He; Evaluation of Gcompris To: vtamaratgnu»org Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:21:47 -0700 (MST) Reply~to: rmsIgnu * org

The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource ™ Richard Stallman

The World Wide Web has the potential to develop into a universal encyclopedia covering all areas of knowledge, and a complete library of instructional courses. This outcome could happen without any special effort, if no one interferes. But corporations are mobilizing now to direct the future down a different track—one in which they control and restrict access to learning materials, so as to extract money from people who want to learn.

To ensure that the web develops toward the best and most natural outcome, where it becomes a free encyclopedia, we must make a conscious effort to prevent deliberate sequestration of the encyclopedic and educational information on the net. We cannot stop business from restricting the information it makes available; what we can do is provide an alternative. We need to launch a movement to develop a universal free encyclopedia, much as the Free Software movement gave us the free software operating system GNU/Linux. The free encyclopedia will provide an alternative to the restricted ones that media corporations will write.

The rest of this article aims to lay out what the free encyclopedia needs to do, what sort of freedoms it needs to give the public, and how we can get started on developing it.

* An encyclopedia located everywhere. In the past, encyclopedias have been written under the direction of a single organization, which made all decisions about the content, and have been published in a centralized fashion. It would not make sense to develop and publish the free encyclopedia in those ways—they fit poorly with the nature of the World Wide Web and with the resources available for writing the encyclopedia. The free encyclopedia will not be published in any one place. It will consist of all web pages that cover suitable topics, and have been made suitably available. These pages will be developed in a decentralized manner by thousands of contributors, each independently writing articles and posting them on various web servers. No one organization will be in charge, because such centralization would be incompatible with decentralized progress.

* Who will write the encyclopedia? In principle, anyone is welcome to write articles for the encyclopedia. But as we reach out for people to help, the most promising places to look are among teachers and students. Teachers generally like to teach, and writing an article a year for the encyclopedia would be an enjoyable change from their classroom duties. For students, a major school paper could become an encyclopedia article, if done especially well. 231

Appendix 15: Richard Stallman, “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software” (Excerpt)

The Free Software Foundation has planted the seeds of computer user freedom for more than three decades. Associate Members are the roots GNU Operating System sustaining this work. Join now for $10/month and help freedom thrive.

$428,856 $450,000

ABOUT GNU PHILOSOPHY LICENSES SOFTWARE DOCUMENTATION HELP GNU

Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software by Richard Stallman

When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”

These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.

Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the free GNU/Linux operating system. Most of these users, however, have never heard of the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free software community, because nowadays this system and community are more often spoken of as “open source”, attributing them to a different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.

The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' freedom since 1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems that deny freedom to their users. During the 1980s, we developed most of the essential components of the system and designed the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) to release them under—a license designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a program.

Not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the goals of the free software movement. In 1998, a part of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in the name of “open source.” The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the free software movement.

Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. 232

The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a typical example.

For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software.

“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software (or nearly sol does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of “free software.” We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters.

Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.

Second, and more important in practice, many products containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users from installing different executables; only one privileged company can make executables that can run in the device or can access its full capabilities. We call these devices “tyrants”, and the practice is called “tivoization” after the product (Tivo) where we first saw it. Even if the executable is made from free source code, the users cannot run modified versions of it, so the executable is nonfree.

The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source code. Thus, these unmodifiable executables, when made from source code such as Linux that is open source and free, are open source but not free. Many Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux.

Common Misunderstandings of “Free Softw are” and “Open Source” The term “free software” is prone to misinteipretation: an unintended meaning, “software you can get for zero price,” fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.” We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software, and by saying “Think of Tree speech,’ not ‘free beer.5” This is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if it didn't present other problems.

Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own. We've looked at many that people have suggested, but none is so clearly “right” that sw itching to it would be a good idea. (For instance, in some contexts the French and Spanish word “libre” works well, but people in India do not recognize it at all.) Every proposed replacement for “free software” has some kind of semantic problem—and this includes “open source software.” 233

The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases.

However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source.

Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term. According to writer Neal Stephenson, “Linux is ‘open source’ software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.” I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the official definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition: “Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.”

The New York Times ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term to refer to user beta testing— letting a few users try an early version and give confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers have practiced for decades. The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment that are published without a patent. Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable contributions to society, but the term “source code” does not pertain to them.

Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective for them than it is for us. The term “free software” has two natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a person who has grasped the idea of “free speech, not free beer” will not get it wrong again. But the term “open source” has only one natural meaning, which is different from the meaning its supporters intend. So there is no succinct way to explain and justify its official definition. That makes for worse confusion.

Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There are many free software licenses aside from the GNU GPL.

The term “open source” has been further stretched by its application to other activities, such as government, education, and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent. The only thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only means “participatory” or “transparent”, or less than that. At worst, it has become a vacuous buzzword. Appendix 16: The Open Definition, “The Open Definition”

Open Definition The Definition Conformant Licenses Participate

THE OPEN DEFINITION The Open Definition IN YOUR LANGUAGE (SesapycKa*.} EhMrapcKH j Catai* f Czech | Dansk f Deutsch f Eesii | JEWupnxti! English J Espaftoi j Easkara | The Open Definition sets out principles that define “openness" in relation to Sworn; | F r a n k s j Gafego J JYH3 J? f { Croaiisrs J Magyar j Indonesian | IsSensfca data and content. t ttaiiano | xaKeatmcxBjaaxK J Norsk It makes precise the meaning of "open" in the terms “open data“ and “open JbokmS!) | frohruym a j Postugues Brass tetro j Portugufc f PyccKMM { Shefnp { content1* and thereby ensures quality and encourages compatibility between Cjwkskm I Svenska! j Tur:te?e 1 different pools of open material. Y x p n a m x * 1 14 * X

It can be summed up in the statement that:

*Open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose (subject, at most, to requirements that preserve provenance and opennessj.”

Put most succinctly:

'Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose"

Read the full Open Definftiot

Open Definition is a project of O p en Knowledge International - Source Code mama m a m - Content licensed under a CC Attribution 4.0 International License Terms of m e } Privacy policy I IP Policy 235

Appendix 17: Wikipedia, “History of Wikipedia” (Excerpt)

History of Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This «s an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.126.168,176 (talk) at 01:04, 31 December 2016 ft changed 13 January 2008 to 15 January 2001 The present address (URL) is ; a permanent fink to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision. (dlff) Previous revision ! Latest revision Cdtff) I Newer revision — (diff)

Wikipedia formally began with its launch on 15 January 2001, two days after the domain was registered^ by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, its technological and conceptual underpinnings predate this; the earliest known proposal for an online encyclopedia was made by Rick Gates in 1993,^ but the concept of a free-as-in-freedom online encyclopedia (as distinct from mere open source}^ was proposed by Richard Stallman in December 2000.^

Crucially, Stallman’s concept specifically included the idea that no central organization should control editing. This characteristic was tn stark contrast to contemporary digital encyclopedias such as Microsoft Encarta, Encyclopaedia Bfftmmca, and even Bomis's Nupedia, which was Wikipedia's direct predecessor, tn 2001, the license for Nupedia was changed to GFDl. and Wales and Sanger launched Wikipedia using the concept and technology of a wiki pioneered in

1995 by Ward Cunningham Initially, Wikipedia was intended to complement Nupedia, an online encyclopedia project The English edition of Wikipedia has 53 edited solely by experts, by providing additional draft articles and ideas for it. In practice, Wikipedia quickly overtook grown to 5,366,084 articles, equivalent to Nupedia, becoming a global project in multiple languages and inspiring a wide range of other online reference projects. over 2,000 print volumes of the Encyclopaedia Bnimntca. Including ail According to Alexa Internet, Wikipedia is the world's sixth-most-popular websrte in terms of overall visitor traffic.17^ language editions, Witopedia has over Wikipedia’s total worldwide monthly readership is approximately 495 millionJ6r Worldwide in August 2015. WMF Labs 40 million articles/equivalent to over 19.000 print volumes. tallied 18 billion page views for the month According to comScore, Wikipedia receives over 117 million monthly unique visitors from the United States alone.-0’ Historical overview

Background

The concept of compiling the world's knowledge in a single location dates to the ancient Libraries of Alexandria and Pergamum, but the modern concept of a general- purpose, widely distributed, printed encyclopedia originated with Denis Diderot and the 18th-century French encyclopedists. The idea of using automated machinery beyond the printing press to build a more useful encyclopedia can be traced to Paul Otlet’s 1934 book Traitd de documentation; Otlet also founded the Mundaneum, an institution dedicated to indexing the world's knowledge, in 1910. This concept of a machine-assisted encyclopedia was further expanded in H. G. Weils’ book of essays World Brain (1938) and Vannevar Bush's future vision of the microfi!m-based Memex in his essay "As We May Think" (1945)J11’ Another milestone was Ted Nelson's hypertext design Project Xanadu, which was begun in I960.'115

Advances in information technology in the late 20th century led to changes in the form of encyclopedias. While previous encyclopedias, notably the Encyclopaedia Brrtannica, were book-based, Microsoft's Encarta, published in 1993, was available on CD-ROM and hyperlinked. The development of the World Wide Web led to many attempts to develop internet encyclopedia projects. An early proposal for a web-based encyclopedia was Interpedia in 1993 by Rick Gates;^ this project died before generating any encyclopedic content. Free software proponent Richard Stallman described the usefulness of a "Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource” in 1999. ^ His published document “aims to lay out what the free encyclopedia needs to do, what sort of freedoms it needs to give the public, and how we can get started on developing it." On Wednesday 17 January 2001, two days after the founding of Wikipedia, the Free Software Foundation's (FSF) GNUPedia project went online, competing with Nupedia j12* but today the FSF encourages people "to visit and contribute to [Wikipedia]** J13i

Formulation of the concept

Wikipedia was initially conceived as a feeder project for the Wales-founded Nupedia, an earlier project to produce a free online encyclopedia, volunteered by Bonms, a web-advertising firm owned by Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell and Michael E. Davis.*14£t5K16i Nupedia was founded upon the use of highly qualified volunteer contributors and an elaborate multi-step peer review p ro c e s s D e s p ite its mailing list of interested editors, and the presence of a full-time editor-in-chief, Larry Sanger, a graduate philosophy student hired by Walesthe writing of content for Nupedia was extremely slow, with only 12 articles written during the first y e a r j 15!

Wales and Sanger discussed various ways to create content more rapidly.^ The idea of a wiki-based complement originated from a conversation between Larry M. Sanger and Ben KovitzJtspofgij gen Kovitz was a computer programmer and regular on Ward Cunningham's revolutionary wiki "the WtkiWikiWeb'\ He explained to Sanger what wikis were, at that time a difficult concept to understand, over a dinner on Tuesday 2 January 2001 jis p o p ip ^ l Wales first stated, in October 2001, that "Larry had the idea to use Wiki software",*23< though he later stated in December 2005 that Jeremy Rosenfeld, a Bomis employee, introduced him to the concept. [24i253i26)|27] Sanger thought a wiki would be a good platform to use, and proposed on the Nupedia mailing list that a wiki based upon UseModWiki (then v. 0.90) be set up as a "feeder" project for Nupedia. Under the subject "Let's make a wiki", he wrote:

No, this is not an indecent proposal. It's an idea to add a little feature to Nupedia. Jimmy Wales thinks that many people might find the idea objectionable, but I think not... As to Nupedia's use of a wiki, this is the ULTIMATE "open" and simple format for developing content. We have occasionally bandied about ideas for simpler, more open projects to either replace or supplement Nupedia. It seems to me wikis can be implemented practically instantly, need very little maintenance, and in general are very low-risk. They're also a potentially great source for content. So there's little downside, as far as I can determine.

Wales set one up and put it online on Wednesday 10 January 2001 236

Appendix 18: Wikipedia, “Wiki” (Excerpt) Wiki From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is an aid revision af this page, as edited by TJRana (talk s contribs) at 07:20.1 January 2017 (Fixed grammar: Added links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision. (dtf?) +- Previous revision & Latest revision (diff) i Newer revision -* jdsff)

This article is about the type of website. For other uses, see Wiki (disambiguation}. "WikiNode" redirects here. For the WikiNode of Wikipedia. see Wikipedia.WikiNode. "Wiki form at redirects here. For the type of markup language, see Wiki markup.

A wikf (o’/wiki/ wiK-ee) is a website that provides collaborative modification of its content and structure directly from the web browser, in a typical wiki, text is written using a simplified markup language (known as "wiki markup") and often edited with the help of a rich text editor.'1 A wiki is run using wiki software, otherwise known as a wiki engine. There are dozens of dtfferent wiki engines in use, both standalone and part of other software, such as bug tracking systems. Some wiki engines are open source, whereas others are proprietary. Some permit control over different functions (levels of access); for example, editing rights may permit changing, adding or removing material. Others may permit access without enforcing access control. Other rules may also be imposed to organize content. A wiki engine is a type of content management system, but it differs Interview with Ward Cunningham, S3 from most other such systems, including blog software, in that the content is created without any defined owner or leader, and inventor of the wiki wikis have little implicit structure, allowing structure to emerge according to the needs of the users.12’

The online encyclopedia project Wikipedia is by far the most popular wiki-based website, and is in fact one of the most widely viewed sites of any kind in the world, having been ranked in the top ten since 2007J3i Wikipedia is not a single wiki but rather a collection of hundreds of wikis, one for each language. There are at least tens of thousands of other wikis in use, both public and private, including wikis functioning as knowledge management resources, notetaking tools, community websites and intranets. The English-language Wikipedia has the largest collection of articles; as of September 2016, it had over five million articles. Ward Cunningham, the developer of the first wiki software, WikiWikiWeb, originally described it as "the simplest online database that could possibly work" j4* "Wiki" {pronounced fwtki}^® 1 is a Hawaiian word meaning "quick” 237

Appendix 19: Wikipedia, “Wikipedia” (Excerpt)

Wikipedia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an ok* revision of this page, as edited by BG19bot (talk i eontribs) at 07:14, 3 January 201? (-^Dispute resolution: WP.CHECKWIKi error fix tor #61. Punctuation goes before References. Do general fixes it a problem exists, -j. The present address (URL) is a permanent Jink to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision. (dSff) Previous revision I Latest revision I Newer revision -+ (diff)

This article is about the Internet encyclopedia. For Wikipedia's home page, see Main Page. For Wikipedia's visitor introduction, see Wikipedta:About. For other uses, see Wikipedia fdisambiguation}.

This article is about the Internet encyclopedia. For Wikipedia's home page, see Main Page. For Wikipedia's visitor introduction, see Wikipedia .About. For other uses, see Wikipedia (disambiguation).

Wikipedia (« ‘/ wiks pKdiQ/ or wikip«die/ wiK->-pEE~dee-9) is a free online encyclopedia that aims to allow anyone to Wikipedia edit articles.® Wikipedia is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet— and is ranked among the ten most popular websites.’-7' Wikipedia is owned by the nonprofit Wiki media Foundation,

Wikipedia was launched on January 15,2001, by Jimmy Wales and Larry SangerJ11* Sanger coined its namejiz#13j a portmanteau of w fdm m 4> and encyclopedia. There was only the English language version initiafly, but it quickly developed similar versions in other languages, which differ in content and in editing practices. With 5,366,086 articles, the English Wikipedia is the largest of the more than 290 Wikipedia encyclopedias. Overall, Wikipedia consists of more than 40 million articles in more than 250 different languages* iss and as of February 2014, it had 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors each month.1165' W i k i p e d i A The logo of Wikipedia, a globe featuring glyphs In 2005, Nature published a peer review comparing 42 science articles from Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia, from several wrffing systems^®3 and found that Wikipedia’s level of accuracy approached Encyclopaedia 8ritanntca'sPr ‘ Criticism of Wikipedia includes Screenshot isbew] claims that it exhibits systemic bias, presents a mixture of "truths, hatf truths, and some falsehoods",^8? and that in Type of site Internet encyclopedia controversial topics, it is subject to manipulation and spini19^ Available in 292 languages 238

Appendix 20: Michael Canned, “New Online Openness Lets Museums Share Works with the World”

SljejXcUi Jlorkeimcs

km & DESKiN

New Online Openness Lets Museums Share Works With the World

feMKBmCAMmL OCR#,ass ||| Q ^ ^

In 2009 Tim Bemers-Lee, creator of the World Wide Web, told a TED conference that if cultural institutions opened their collections without limitations, they would “be used by other people to do wonderful things, in ways that they could never have imagined.” He then led the audience in a chant: “Raw data now, raw data now.”

Mr. Bemers-Lee’s call for open access has grown into a cultural movement. In museum boardrooms, unrestricted sharing is a current fixation. The new openness, loosely known as “open content,” calls for curators to put holdings online without copyright restrictions. As with open-source software, anybody can use the material, and for any purpose. Want to turn a Cezanne still life into a T-shirt or a tattoo? Come and get it.

“We hope people will use our images to enrich their lives,” said James Cuno, president and chief executive of the J. Paul Getty Trust, which shares 100,714 images from the Getty Institute and the J. Paul Getty Museum. “But they’re free to make shower curtains or stationery. We don’t care.”

The open-content museum dates to 2011, when the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam made the first of 208,000 images available for download at no cost after curators found more than 10,000 low-quality scans of one of its Vermeers online. The Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the National Gallery of Art and the Yale University Art Gallery soon followed.

Today more than 50 cultural institutions have opened their collections for unrestricted use. The number is steadily increasing as administrators come to recognize the value of circulating work to a wider audience online and inviting the public to study and use it at will.

“Most of us see it as part of a museum’s obligation in this century to make this content available in this way,” said Koven J. Smith, director of digital adaptation at the Blanton Museum of Art in Austin, Tex. “The days of art museums being reluctant to release content are drawing to a close.”

But not every museum shares that sense of obligation. Some institutions, including the French National Library, have resisted on the grounds that giving away the licensing rights erodes their authority and undercuts their control over valuable images — the most popular of which can earn essential revenue when sold for a download fee or merchandised with holiday cards and T-shirts (though the income may barely cover the administrative costs of the sales).

Inertia may also prevent museums from adopting open content. It requires no small amount of institutional will, not to mention expense, to digitize collections, post them online with identifying text and untangle the legal obstacles to open use. 239

Encyclopedic compilations like those of the British Museum or the Metropolitan Museum of Art have relatively few legal hurdles because the works have largely passed into the public realm. Contemporary-art museums, on the other hand, face the difficulty of clearing the copyrights of living artists or those of deceased artists with rights controlled by estates. The Museum of Modem Art has withheld images of its collection for just that reason. However, this year MoMA posted a spreadsheet with titles, dates and other vital statistics, known as tombstones, for 120,000 works. The tombstones can be revealing in a way that images cannot. They show, for example, that the lag between creation and acquisition has steadily diminished. And that the most common given name among these artists is John.

The most immediate beneficiaries of open content are scholars who can now efficiently search millenniums of cultural histoiy and analyze the results with scatter charts and other big data wizardry commonly applied to subjects like baseball and politics. What percentage of portraits in the Getty depict women? How many paintings at Yale contain animals? Or corpses? Or Jesus? How did yellow’s popularity wax and wane during Impressionism, Surrealism and Abstract Expressionism?

The big-picture goal of the open-content movement is to make our entire cultural heritage accessible. Fourteen art museums took a meaningful step in February by agreeing to pool their collections with linked open data, a connective tissue that allows databases to converse in a way that goes beyond simple keyword searches. When completed a year from now, the system will recognize that a doctoral candidate researching John Singer Sargent at the Dallas Museum of Art might also want to know more about 19th-century portraiture and will pull relevant texts and images from the 13 other linked museums.

“Linked open data is the bleeding edge of web technology,” said Sara Snyder, chief of media and technology at the Smithsonian American Art Museum, which organized the consortium. “It’s not the easiest starting point for most museums, but it’s potentially more powerful than anything we’ve seen so far because of the baked-in connectedness.”

The dream of open content is to put art and artifacts in the public’s hands so that it can be reprocessed in unimagined ways. “We’re trying to put content out there and see what happens,” Ms. Snyder said. “Build what you will, fellow humans! That’s where the museum field is headed.”

With that in mind, the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum last year commissioned a three- dimensional scan of its Manhattan building, a 64-room mansion built by Andrew Carnegie, and offered it free of charge. The scan has been downloaded more than 900 times so far. How it might be used is still a mystery.

“We’re open to the fact that remixing will happen,” said Caroline Baumann, director of the Cooper Hewitt. “People can place the mansion in a virtual world or use it for video games. They can change the texture of the walls, or make them glass. And that’s awesome.”

Correction: November 1,2015 An article on Page F14 this weekend about a movement to put museum holdings online without copyright restrictions misidentifies the builder of Cooper Hewitt. He was Andrew Carnegie, not Andrew Mellon.

A version of this article appears in print on November 1, 2015, on page F 14 of the New York edition with the headline: Downloading Degas. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe 240

Appendix 21: Europeana, “About Europeana Collections”

europeana Collections ~ Explore" Exhibitions" Blog ' collections

Se?um to Horrse i Weicome culture toverl

Welcome, culture lover!

Whether you came here for inspiration, to work on your research, looking for your next coffee mug design or just, to snoop around, we hope you will find what you need somewhere amongst the millions of objects we host here.

The material you find here comes from galleries, libraries, archives and muse­ ums from all over Europe that want to share their collections with a wider au­ dience, whether it is for work, learning, or just to enjoy.

For more information about the Europeana project and how to get Involved, please visit Europeana Professional.

OUR MISSION MORE INFORMATION SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

We transform the world with culture! We want to build on Eu­ About EMAIL ADDRESS rope's rich heritage and make it easier fo r people to use, Development updates whether for work, fo r learning or just fo r fun. All institutions 0 English French Become our partner Contact us FIND US ELSEWHERE:

HELP 0 0 0 - 9 Search tips Terms of use & Policies 241

Appendix 22: LACMA, “Actual Size, LACMA Collections”

VIEWS 1 2 Actual Size Edward Ruscha (United States, Nebraska, Omaha, active CaSforrsa, Los Angeles, born 1937) United States, 1962 Paintings Oil on canvas 67 1/16 x 72 1/16 in, (170,34 x 183.04 cm) Anonymous gift through the Contemporary Art Council (M.63.14) Modern Art

Currently on public view: Ahmanson Building, floor 2 MAP IT

Since gallery displays may change often., please contact us before you visit to make certain this item is on view.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Ed Ruscha: Ribbon Words. New York; Edward Tyler Hahem, 2016.

• Tuchman, Maurice. Ten Years of Contemporary Art Council Acquisitions: Inaugurating The New Contemporary Art Galleries. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1973.

More....

© Edward Ruscha

MY GALLERY COMMENT TAG ORDER PHOTOGRAPHY*

* Nearly 30,000 images of artworks the museum believes to be in the public domain are available to download on this site Other images may be protected by copyright and other mteSsctusi property rights. By using any of these Images you agree to LACMA s Terms of Use.

HOME. * MY LAC?/A • JOSS « TERMS . ACCESSIBILITY. JOIN LACMA POH FREE GENERAL ADMISSION ALL YEAR • © UNFRAMED Wl t flickr YotlCjD 242

Appendix 23: LACMA, “The Raising of Lazarus, LACMA Collections”

The Raising of Lazarus Psefe? Cimsz. Soutman {HoKsnd, Haarfem, arm 1 5 9 0-1 6 5 7 ) Jacob Louys {Handers, Antwerp, active Holland, tSSS-eBar 1644} Flanders Prints, engravings Engraving and etching Sheet 16 5/8 x 12 9/16 in. (42,23 * 31.91 cm) Gift of Bruce Dav?s {M.91.367) Prints and Drawings

Not currentiy on public view

ENLARGE MY GALLERY COMMENT TAG SHARE DOWNLOAO IMAGE*

* Nearly 20,000 images- of artworks the museum believes to be in the public domain a rt available to download on this site. Other images may be protected by copyright and other Inteiecftia! property rights. By using any of these images y m agree to LA€MA‘s Terms of Use.

HOME . MYLACMA . JO BS . IE R V S . ACCESSIBILITY. JOIN LACMA f-OR FREE GENERAL Ai>M(SSiON ALL YEAH • UNFRAMEO f ] t ftic k r 1w\ T j 243

Appendix 24: Niggemann et al., “The New Renaissance: Report of the ‘Comite Des Sages,’ Reflection Group on Bringing Europe’s Cultural Heritage Online” (Excerpt) 244

22

CHAPTER SIX: EUROPEANA

6.1 The issue

6.1.1 Europeans, Europe’s digital library, archive and museum, is probably the most ambitious cultural project ever undertaken at a European scale, bringing together cultural institutions from different sectors and from all the Member States. Europeans was launched as a prototype in 2008, giving access to some 2 million digitised objects, including books, maps, newspapers, journals, photographs, sound and video. In the span of less than two years, its collections have grown to more than 15 million digitised objects, thereby surpassing the initial target of 10 million digitised objects by the end of 2010. Currently, some 1500 cultural institutions contribute works to the site.

6.1.2 While Europeana receives strong support by the European institutions and individual Member States, it is fair to mention that contributions per Member State are still uneven. At the launch of the site, more than 50% of the objects came from French collections. Now France is still the largest contributor with 18% of the digitised objects, followed by Germany with 17% of the digitised objects. From some Member States there are only very few digitised objects accessible through the site and for many the key works defining their cultural and intellectual heritage are missing.

6.1.3 Europeana has had an important effect on discussions in the Member States on bringing cultural heritage online. The creation of the German Digital Library to be launched at the end of 2011 is for example a direct consequence of the development ot Europeana. The site has also accelerated discussions between rights holders and cultural institutions in different countries on the best ways to bring in-copyright works online.

6.1.4 The Europeana site works as a portal and aggregator that gives access to the content stored de­ cent: rally in the cultural institutions. Currently it does not host any content. The Europeana platform is based on open source software. In order to improve its services, Europeana is collaborating with a range: of innovative European partners.

6.1.6 In the coming years, Europeana intends to develop its activities on the following priorities: 1) aggregating more content, 2) supporting the cultural heritage sector through knowledge transfer, innovation and advocacy, 3) distributing cultural heritage to the users wherever they are, whenever they want it, 4) helping users engage with their cultural heritage in new ways.

6.1.5 The knowledge about Europeana amongst European citizens, teachers and other potential users is still very limited.

6.2 General considerations

6.2.1 The Comite underlines the central place of Europeana in the strategy to bring Europe’s cultural heritage online and to make cultural material available for work, education or leisure. It stresses the need to turn Europeana into th e European cultural reference point online. This requires a concentration ot financial efforts and political capital at European and at the national level for the development of the site. No parallel processes, projects or infrastructures should be funded at E uropean level. 245

23

6.2.2 The Comite contirms the orientation of Europeana as a public project giving access to a wide range of trusted content from different types of cultural institutions. The site was not conceived as a competitor for digitisation projects in the private sector. Nevertheless, Europe ana's development should be evaluated against the background of the development of a private offer based on digitised material from cultural institutions across the world.

6.2.3 In a short time, Europeana has achieved excellent results. These results should be the basis for stepping up the ambition level for Europeana and transforming it into an endeavour on an industrial scale. In this context: the Comite believes that Europeana will need to develop progressively and offer the services of an application platform rather than simply remaining a portal.

6.2.4 Furthermore, all main activities related to the digitisation and preservation of Europe’s cultural heritage should be linked to Europeana. An example is the ARROW database currently under development for orphan works which should be incorporated into the Europeana service. Europeana should also consider providing services to Member States that do not have all the tools in place.

6.3 Enhancing the Europeana service

6.3.1 The Comite commissioned an audit into the technical setup of Europeana, asking in particular whether the technologies underpinning the site and the technological development plan are adequate and future proof. The auditors concluded that the Europeana project is based on a robust technology foundation that includes open standards, architecture, and security. They suggested that Europeana looks into the possibilities of cloud computing and improves software measurement metrics, as well as the documentation of its software architecture.

6.3.2 The Comite feels that multilingualism is an essential area for development. Currently the Europeana interface is available in all the languages of the Member States. Cross-language search and automatic translation features should be incorporated in the medium term. It is also important to make translations of key works in different languages available. Furthermore there should be a clear link between works that go back to the same original, for example translations, adaptations or different editions of the same work.

6.3.3 European research and innovation projects in the area of research, multilingualism, digitisation technologies and social media should be encouraged to cluster around Europeana and contribute to the development of the site. In this way Europeana can become an important test bed for innovation and new ideas.

6.3.4 The Comite calls for a concerted effort by cultural institutions from all Member States to bring more digitised objects into Europeana. At the same time, the service should be enriched with other content such as bibliographical data, tables of content and abstracts. In this case, it should be possible for the users to differentiate in the search results. They should for example have the possibility to get only results for digitised works that are fully accessible.

6.3.5 The Comite considers that it is equally important to make in-copyright content offered by private providers against payment searchable through Europeana. This offer would complement the material freely available. Partnerships between Europeana and private companies active in online distribution (e.g. publishers) should be encouraged. Also here, the users should have the possibility 246

24

to filter the results for specific searches, if they prefer to find only the material that is fully and freely accessible,

6.4 The Europeana infrastructure

6.4.1 At the moment, Europeana does not store any material, but gives access to material stored de- centrally, It should be considered to give Europeana its own repository and archive, where it can host public domain digitised material (e.g. of institutions that have stopped their online activity). This has considerable cost implications, since storing information is expensive.

6.4.2 In the medium term, the Member States and the European Commission should consider turning Europeana into a deposit site for Europe’s digital heritage, keeping a digital copy of all digitised or bom digital material produced in the European Union. For in-copyright works Europeana could be a dark archive functioning as a safe harbour.

6.4.3 In the short term, the repositories infrastructure funded through the EU Capacities Programme (e.g. the Driver project) could be mobilised in order to ensure that there are default repositories in each Member State feeding into Europeana.

6.5 Recommendations to the Member States

6.5.1 An efficient way to strengthen Europeana’s position as th e reference point for providers of cultural content would be to channel funding for digitisation through the site. However, the Comite realises that Member States want to keep direct control over digitisation spending. The Comite is of the opinion that Member States should, as a minimum, ensure that all public funding for digitisation is conditional on the subsequent availability of the digitised material through Europeana.

6.5.2 Furtlieonore Member States should ensure that all public domain masterpieces of their cultural heritage are digitised and made available through Europeana within the coming 5 years. The Comite therefore strongly supports the ongoing development of a roadmap, undertaken jointly by the European Commission, the Member States and Europeana that will set a calendar for the Member States’ content contributions to Europeana and will help to monitor progress across Europe.

6.5.3 The Comite considers that the implementation of national aggregators feeding into Europeana is a positive step. All Member States should consider the creation of such aggregators.

6.6 Promoting Europeana

6.6.1 The Comite is of the opinion that a considerable effort is necessary to promote Europeana among the general public and in schools. To this end a specific part of the Europeana budget should be earmarked for the promotion of Europeana.

6.6.2 Tins is, however, not enough. The active promotion of Europeana is a responsibility for all, including cultural institutions, the European Commission and the Member States. In this context, the Comite notes that currently the websites of many cultural institutions which contribute content to Europeana do not link to the site. Such a link from the homepage of the website of cultural institutions is a minimum that can be expected. 247

25

6.6.3 The Comite notes that currently Europeans search results do not show up in searches in main search engines. Europeana should continue its talks with the search engines in order to rapidly overcome the barriers that are at the origin of this issue, since accessibility through the search engines will generate considerable supplementary traffic.

Key Recommendations

1) Europeana should be fijrther developed to become th e reference point for European cultural content online. This requires a concentration of financial efforts and political capital at European and at national level for the development of the Europeana site and the underlying structures.

2) Member States should ensure that all public funding for digitisation is conditional on the subsequent free accessibility of the digitised material through Europeana. They should also ensure that by 2016 they have brought all their public domain masterpieces into Europeana.

3) In the coming few years, Europeana should add to its portal an application platform, and main activities related to the digitisation and preservation oi Europe's cultural heritage should be linked to the site. In the technical development of the site particular attention should be paid to multilingual aspects. Europeana should also explore the opportunities of cloud computing in the future.

4) For the medium term, it should be considered to give Europeana a key role in the preservation of Europe’s heritage and to turn it into a European deposit site for public domain digitised cultural material and into a dark archive for in-copyright cultural material, both digitised and born digital.

5) Europeana must be actively and widely promoted by the cultural institutions, by the European Commission and by the Member States. 248

Appendix 25: Joris Pekel, “Democratising the Rijksmuseum”

Democratising the Rijksmuseum Why did the Rijksmuseum make available their highest quality material without restrictions, and what are the results?

Joris Pekel, Europeana Foundation 249

Contents

Introduction 4

The Rijksmuseum and their online presence 5

Rijksmuseum in Europeana 6

Apps4Netherlands and the Open Cultuur Data challenge 6

Quality control 8

Put the material where the users are 8

Rijksstudio 9

Out of copyright works 9

Digitising public domain works and copyright 10

Restricting access to public domain works 10

From Creative Commons to public domain 11

Different sizes for different prices 11

Sustainability of image bank 12

Public domain and business models 13

Conclusion 14

About the author 15 250

Introduction

Europeana is a trusted source for cultural heritage. Its goaf is to give everyone access to a!! of Europe’s heritage w ith as few restrictions as possible. To achieve this, Europeana believes a thriving and healthy public domain is essential and therefore advocates that digital representations of public domain works should be freely accessible. However, this is not an easy decision to make for the cultural institutions themselves, especially when they profit from the sale of these images. In 2011, the Rijksmuseum in the Netherlands started releasing images of public domain works online. In 2013, these were all made available in the highest resolution possible, without any copyright restrictions. In this paper, the different steps taken during this process are described, along with the consequent results. We hope that this case will be an inspiration for other cultural heritage institutions and encourage anyone with a cultural collection to learn from the experiences of the Rijksmuseum. This research has been done by the Europeana Foundation with the help of the Rijksmuseum and is largely based on the annual reports of the museum and personal interviews with employees.

The public domain comprises all the knowledge and information that does not have copyright protection and can be used without restriction. This includes books, pictures and audiovisual works. The public domain provides a historically developed balance to the rights of creators protected by copyright. It is essential to the cultural memory and knowledge base of our societies as it consists of almost all of humanity's intellectual output up until the very recent present. To emphasise the importance of the public domain, Europeana released the Public domain Charter2 in 2010. One of its main principles is:

'Exclusive control over public domain works cannot be re-established by claiming exclusive rights in technical reproductions of the works, or by using technical and/or contractual measures to limit access to technical reproductions of such works. Works that are in the public domain in analogue form continue to be in the public domain once they have been digitised.'

On a theoretical level, this principle is endorsed by many - most people would agree that unrestricted and free access to the heritage, upon which modern society is built, is beneficial for all. But on a more practical level, this leads to many questions and

2 http://pro.europeana.eu/c/documentJibrary/get_file?uuid=d542819d-dl69-4240-9247-f96749113eaa&groupld=10602

4/15 251

Appendix 26, Rijksmuseum, “2017 International Rijksstudio Award”

Top 30 announced Rijksstudio Award 2017

This third edition of the Rijksstudio Award has attracted a diverse group of international > Tod 50 entrants. The Top 50 entries come from 14 countries including Spain, Belarus, Germany, the United States and Kyrgyzstan. Overall, entrants from a total of 62 countries took part in the * Tog 75 competition The artworks that inspired their creations range from Deiftware dishes to Vermeer's Milkmaid and from Japanese prints to an 18th-century wedding gown. The resulting creations are also highly diverse and include contact lenses, a pocket watch, car Rijksstudio windscreen sunshades and nursing bras One entrant even made it into the Top 30 twice, with two different designs. > Hake vour own Masterpiece Jury member Irma Boom; “I never cease to be amazed at how people continually come up with new and surprising concepts and designs. Deciding who stays and who goes is tough, with sometimes only a very thin line between the two * Stay informed of The Top 10 will be announced at the end of March New this year is the public voting Rijksstudio category, for which the Rijksmuseum will launch a dedicated voting page On 21 April the international jury will present the winners during the festive Rijksstudio Award presentation ceremony II tike as on Fatebook

International design competition The Rijksmuseum will be awarding the Rijksstudio Award for the third time. The Rijksmuseum invites members of the public to draw inspiration from the Rijksmuseum collection, download images from Rijksstudio and use them to create their own artwork. Anyone can take part and all art forms and interpretations are allowed, from design, decorative arts and applied arts to fashion design, photography and video. Judges The artwork will be Judged by an international panel of experts. * Irma Boom, Director of Irma Boom Office * Tony Chambers, Editor-in-Chtef at Wallpaper « Ingrid Chou, Associate Creative Director, The Museum of Modern Art * Taco Dibbfts, General Director of the Rijksmuseim (Jury President) * Ute Thon, chief Copy Editor, on - Das Kumtmogozm * Thomas Widdershoven, director and designer at Thonik

Rijksstudio Award prizes and announcement The first prize is 10,000 euro, the second 2,500 euro, and the thud 1500 euro in addition, 3 people s choice award of 1,000 euro is up for grabs tfrijksstudio Share your design for the 2017 Risks studio Award on Twitter. Instagram and Facebook using the ttrijksstudio hashtag

Rijksstudio in a nutshell With Ritksstudio everyone can use the images from the Rsjksmuseum's collection free of charge to discover, collect, share, touch, ‘like* and edit.

Thanks to our partners Rijksstudio is made possible by the Rijksstudio Fonds/Rijksmuseum Fonds and the BankGiro lottery

Contact Please e-mail any questions or comments about the Rijksstudio Award to. 253

Appendix 27: Rijksmuseum, “Rijksstudio”

Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn Johannes Vermeer Paintings RUKS MUSEUM RUKS MUSEUM R'iKS MUSEUM

Mare highlights > More artists >

Now in Rijksstudio

Browse 588,935 works of art and 324,557 Rijksstudios

Hendrick Goftzius Jesus Christ RU KS MUSEUM RUKS MUSEUM 254

Appendix 28: Rijksmuseum, “Rijksstudio - Photoservice”

Order free hi-res images Stay informed

Public domain images in Rijksstudio may be downloaded for f ree from the relevant page These jpeg images are 4500 x 4S00 pixels on average

The Rijksmuseum also provides free high-res TIFF files with colour reference for professional use. Please fill in the form below to order TIFF files.

images that are not yet available can stiff be provided for a fee Please use the same form below to request these images. For questions about ordering images please contact the image Department: [email protected]

Always the best current image

High image quality is very important for the Rijksmuseum We continually adapt our files to the latest Quality standards, so please always order the latest version and avoid reusing old files

If you use our images for publication, then we request that you acknowledge the source (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam). We would also like to receive a copy of the publication for our library.

Photoservice Form

Object number *

Title'

Maker'

Add another object Add object

Use

Deadline

Contact details Salutation Mr. Ms.

First nam e 255

Add an attachment choose Fiio No file chosen

Ttrms of u»» * J t accept the terms governing the use of websites

Explore the coiiectfory 256

Appendix 29: Nina Siegal, “Masterworks for One and All,” 2013

Masterworks for One and All By NINA SIEGAL, May 28, 2013

AMSTERDAM — Many museums post their collections online, but the Rijksmuseum here has taken the unusual step of offering downloads of high-resolution images at no cost, encouraging the public to copy and transform its artworks into stationery, T-shirts, tattoos, plates or even toilet paper.

The museum, whose collection includes masterpieces by Rembrandt, Vermeer, Mondrian and van Gogh, has already made images of 125,000 of its works available through Rijksstudio, an interactive section of its Web site. The staffs goal is to add 40,000 images a year until the entire collection of one million artworks spanning eight centuries is available, said Taco Dibbits, the director of collections at the Rijksmuseum.

“We’re a public institution, and so the art and objects we have are, in a way, everyone’s property,” Mr. Dibbits said in an interview.444 With the Internet, it’s so difficult to control your copyright or use of images that we decided we’d rather people use a very good high-resolution image of the ‘Milkmaid’ from the Rijksmuseum rather than using a veiy bad reproduction,” he said, referring to that Vermeer painting from around 1660.

Until recently, museums had been highly protective of good-quality digital versions of their artworks, making them available only upon request to members of the press or to art historians and scholars, with restrictions on how they could be used. The reasons are manifold: protecting copyrights, maintaining control over potentially lucrative museum revenues from posters or souvenirs and preventing thieves or forgers from making convincing copies.

There is also the fear, as described by the critic Walter Benjamin in his 1936 essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” that a piece can lose its aura, or authenticity, when it is reproduced so often that it becomes too familiar — cheapening the “Mona Lisa,” for instance.

In recent years, though, as the Google Art Project has begun to amass a global archive of images with the cooperation of museums and the Internet has made it impossible to stem the tide of low-quality reproductions, institutions are rethinking their strategy.

“We’ve gotten over that hurdle,” said Deborah Ziska, a spokeswoman for the National Gallery of Art in Washington. “I don’t think anyone thinks we’ve cheapened the image of the 4 Mona Lisa.’ People have gotten past that, and they still want to go to the Louvre to see the real thing. It’s a new, 21st-century way of respecting images.”

The National Gallery has so far uploaded about 25,000 works to share with the public. “Basically, this is the wave of the future for museums in the age of digital communications,” Ms. Ziska said. “Sharing is what museums need to learn to do.”

The Rijksmuseum has been able to put its works online more quickly because much of its collection predates Dutch copyright laws and its staff had an opportunity to digitize the collection when museum was closed for renovations. (It reopened last month after a 10-year makeover.) The digitization project was 257

financed by a million-euro ($1.29 million) grant from the national BankGiro lottery, which provides money for the arts and cultural groups.

“The old masters were born and died before we even had copyright law in the Netherlands,” said Paul Keller, a copyright adviser for the Amsterdam-based institute Kennisland, who advised the Rijksmuseum on the plan. “For modern art museums, what they’re doing would be largely impossible.”

Rijksstudio has logged more than 2.17 million visitors since its service went online in October, and around 200,000 people have downloaded images. As a result, the Rijksmuseum won three international “Best of the Web” awards last month in Portland, Ore., at the annual international conference known as Museums and the Web. The prizes are based on peer evaluations by museum professionals.

Rijksstudio is unusual among digital museum projects in that it provides online tools for manipulating, changing or clipping the images, said Jennifer Trant, a co-founder of Museums on the Web. The online studio asks people to refrain from commercial uses and sells images of an even higher resolution that are more suitable for that purpose.

Museum policies on the downloading of images vary from institution to institution.

At the National Gallery in London, the collection of 2,500 artworks has been digitized and made available for academic purposes, but the museum has not provided free downloads. “Everyone understands that open access is the way to go, but organizations are in different places, and we’re facing a conflicting set of challenges,” said Charlotte Sexton, the head of digital media at the museum. “On the one hand, museums are still making money from the sale of images. That income, though, has been decreasing. You have that commercial concern butting up against this desire to go for free access.”

The Smithsonian Institution in Washington has 137 million works in its coffers and has chosen 14 million of those for digitization, said a spokeswoman, Linda St. Thomas. It has made about 860,500 images, video clips, sound files, electronic journals and other resources available online, but the images of artworks are all low resolution — again, to discourage commercial use.

For the most part, Mr. Keller and Ms. Trant said, museums still tend to view their online collections as a kind of virtual catalog for the visitor rather than a bank of images that can be put to other uses.

But Mr. Dibbits of the Rijksmuseum maintains that letting the public take control of the images is crucial to encouraging people to commune with the collection. “The action of actually working with an image, clipping it out and paying attention to the very small details makes you remember it,” he said.

To inspire users, the Rijksmuseum invited the Dutch design cooperative Droog to create products based on its artworks. Its designers used part of a 17th-century flower still life by Jan Davidsz de Heem as a template for a tattoo, for example; it used a 3-D printer to create a white plastic replica of an ornate 16th-century centerpiece designed by the German silversmith Wenzel Jamnitzer and to adorn it with magnetic miniatures of items from the Rijksmuseum’s collection. .

Are there limits to how the Rijksmuseum’s masterpieces can be adapted? Not many, Mr. Dibbits suggested.

“If they want to have a Vermeer on their toilet paper, I’d rather have a very high-quality image of Vermeer on toilet paper than a veiy bad reproduction,” he said.

A version of this article appears in print on May 29, 2013, on Page Cl of the New York edition with the headline: Masterworks for One and All. 258

Appendix 30: Verwayen et al., “The Problem of the Yellow Milkmaid: A Business Model Perspective on Open Metadata,” 2011 (Excerpt)

The Problem of the Yellow Milkmaid A Business Model Perspective on Open Metadata

Authors Harry Verwayen, Europeana, The Hague (NL) Martijn Arnoldus, Kennisiand | Knov/edgeJand, Amsterdam (NL) Peter B. Kaufman, Intelligent Television, New York (US)

O 259

‘The Milkmaid’, one o f Johannes Vermeer's most famous pieces, depicts a scene o f a woman quietly pouring m ilk into a bowl During a survey the Rijksmuseum discovered that there were over 10,000 copies o f the image on the internet—mostly poor, yellowish reproductions1. As a result o f a ll o f these low-quality copies on the web, according to the Rijksmuseum, “people simply didn’t believe the postcards in our museum shop were showing the original painting. This was the trigger for us to put high-reso/ution images o f the original work with open metadata on the web ourselves. Opening up our data is our best defence against the ‘yellow Milkmaid’. ”

1. Executive Summary

Interest in open metadata is growing among policy makers, the cultural heritage sector, the research community, and software and application developers. At the European level, the Digital Agenda for Europe 2020 identifies ‘opening up public data resources for re-use’ as a key action in support of the Digital Single Market.2 The European Commission is reviewing the Directive on Re-Use of Public Sector Information. The Commission’s The New Renaissance report3, published in January 2011, emphatically endorsed open data. At the national level, for example in the UK, the higher education community has issued the Open Metadata Principles4 calling on metadata to be openly available for innovative re-use.

For the past 12 months Europeana has been exploring with its partners the issues surrounding open metadata, in the belief that openness brings benefits both to the cultural heritage sector and to the broader knowledge economy. This position is echoed by the Vice President of the Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes, who has declared: ‘I urge cultural institutions to open up control of their data...there is a wonderful opportunity to show how cultural material can contribute to innovation, how it can become a driver of new developments. Museums, archives and libraries should not miss it’ (Kroes, Neelie 2011).

It is in this context that Europeana, together with its contributing partners, has spent the last year reviewing its Data Exchange Agreement, which governs the rights under which the metadata from Europe’s cultural heritage institutions is made available in its repository. One of the most important changes in this new agreement is that it calls for a more open licence (Creative Commons CCO), which allows for the re-use of descriptive metadata in a commercial context or by commercial players. This change of agreement is necessary for the development of Europeana, which has successfully proven the value of its supply-led business model in aggregating massive data sets from all domains across 32 countries. But to be able to achieve sustainable success in the crowded content arena of the Internet, Europeana must now move to a demand-led model, positioning itself as a distributor of data and facilitator of digital

1 http://bit.lv/mRoOfD 2 http://bit.lv/k97K8c 3 http://bit.lv/tafh4T 4 http://discoverv.ac.uk/businesscase/principles/

2/25 Europeana VWiitepaper No. 2: The Problem of the Yellow Milkmaid heritage R&D in accordance with its Strategic Plan5.

Europeana’s extensive consultation with the heritage sector, including dozens of workshops, has explored in detail the risks and rewards of open data from different perspectives. The most helpful way of framing this discussion has proven to be around the business model of cultural heritage organisations. The findings in this white paper are drawn from a July 2011 workshop in which key actors from museums, libraries and archives evaluated their metadata within the context of their own business model.6. Placing metadata within their business models gave workshop participants the opportunity to assess the monetary and reputational utility of metadata to their respective cultural organisations. Participants in the July 2011 workshop in The Hague, The Netherlands

Roei Amit INA, France Martin Berendse National Archive, The Netherlands Caroline Brazier British Library, UK Mel Collier Leuven University, Belgium Jonathan Gray Open Knowledge Foundation, UK Renaldas Gudauskas National Library of Lithuania, Lithuania Lizzy Jongma Rijksmuseum, The Netherlands Peter B. Kaufman Intelligent Television, USA Caroline Kimbell The National Archives, UK Jan Muller Sound and Vision, The Netherlands Lars Svensson German National Library, Germany Helmut Trischler Deutsches Museum, Germany Bill Thompson BBC, UK

The workshop participants differentiated between three types of business models for dealing with metadata. In most cases metadata is created as part of the public mission of the institution, and it has no direct or indirect effect on the value creation and revenue streams of that organisation. Quite often, however, metadata can be seen as a key activity of the organisation as it contributes indirectly (as a marketing tool, for example) to the revenues of the organisation. A few cultural heritage institutions derive revenues directly from the creation and selling of metadata; metadata then becomes then a core value proposition of the organisation.

Differentiating between the different roles of metadata in the business model helped frame the benefits and risks associated with open licences. Opening up metadata under open licensing terms will have different effects, depending on the roles that metadata plays in these business models. In the first two cases, opening up metadata was seen to have largely positive effects (more widespread use and visibility of the content) and limited negative ones. It is when organisations earn money directly from selling metadata that there is a potential for negative effects.

A critical factor in these cost-benefit evaluations is time. Workshop participants broadly agreed that ‘over time, the benefits will no doubt outweigh the costs’. Participants also recognised the serious risk of memory organisations being sidelined as application innovations gather momentum and developers focus mainly on openly

; http://bit.lv/fCunRH 3 Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2009) Business Model Generation, New Jersey

3/25 Europeana Whitepaper No. 2: The Problem of the Yellow Milkmaid licensed datasets. If cultural heritage organisations do not expose data in ways that digital natives want to use it, they risk becoming irrelevant to the next generation.

For organisations opening up their metadata, three major advantages were identified. These were the increase in their relevance to digital society, the fulfilment of their public mission to open up access to our collective heritage, and finally the value of opening up access to new users, who are prompted to engage with the object in its digital form and subsequently with its real-world source.

We recommend that three specific issues need to be addressed:

1: Loss of Revenue/Spill-over Effects: Opening up data should be seen as an important part of the responsibility of our public cultural sector. Instead of measuring success by the amount of commercial revenue that institutions are able to secure from the market, new metrics should be developed that measure the amount of business generated (spill-over) based on data made openly available to the creative industries. This requires a change in evaluation metrics on a policy level.

2: Loss of Attribution: Heritage institutions are the gatekeepers of the quality of our collective memory, and therefore a strong connection between a cultural object and its source is felt to be desirable. There is a fear that opening up metadata will result in a loss of attribution to the memory institution, which in turn will dilute the value of the object. Investigations need to be made on the technical, legal and user levels to safeguard the integrity of this data.

3. Loss of Potential Income: A very limited number of institutions currently earn significant money selling metadata. It has been argued that the loss of this income can be averted by product differentiation: data can be made available openly in one format and marketed in another format under commercial terms. A larger issue is the fear of losing the ability to sell data in the future when data is openly available for everyone to use. This requires a change of mindset, acknowledging that, in reality, we are all invited to create new, commercial services based on open data.

Overall, the conclusion of the workshop participants was that the benefits of open sharing and open distribution would outweigh the risks. In most cases the advantages of increased visibility and relevance will be reaped in the short term. In other cases, for example where there is a risk of loss of income, the advantages will come in the longer run and short-term fixes will have to be found. All of this requires a collective change of mindset, courage to take some necessary risks and a strong commitment to the mandate of the cultural heritage sector, which is to enable society to realise the full value of the cultural legacy that is held in the public realm.

2. Introduction

Europeana is currently revising the 2009 Data Exchange Agreement that governs the way its 1,500 partners - museums, libraries, archives, holding millions of images,

4/25 Europeana VWiitepaper No. 2: The Problem of the Yellow Milkmaid 262

Appendix 31: Yale University Art Gallery, “Anthropomorphic Hacha with a Bird Headdress”

UNIVERSITY

GALLERY VISIT EXHIBITIONS PROGRAMS EDUCATION JOIN AND SUPPORT PUBLICATIONS ABOUT

Home * CoBeaicms

COLLECTIONS ART OF THE ANCIENT AMERICAS

OVEftVMEW AND HK5HUCHT5 Artist: Unknown African Art Anthropomorphic Hacha with a Bird Headdress American Decorative Arts. American Paintings anti C& A D 500-900 Sculpture \tofcanlc rack wltri traces of pigment Ancient Aft H, 37,6 cm (14 3/4 in.) Art of the Ancient Americas Gift of trie Olsen Foundation Arts of Islam 1958,15,23 Asian Art Cans and Medals Culture;' Mexico, Veracruz European Art Period: tale Classic period sndo-Padfic Art Classification: Sculpture Modem and Con temporary Art Status: On view4 Photographs Bibliography; Prints-and Drawings Handbook of the CQuestions, c a t (New Haven, Conn,,: Yate University Art, Gallery, 1992), 316,1, CONSERVATION

RESOURCES Mote: The* •ta sta m ie awDWd wm cmaiens fmm his to r* cS«sujn*oWtson Itait d o « s not B®es»8«% YaS® UnSveraity Ari O a iw y * sorapkrt® or cssm nt krscwBedge- stssai #%b in je c t Revtew and -apsJsfeg I Of 3

Photo credit Yale University Ait Gallery Pufettc domain Z Download presen tation-size image Z, Download Ml-sfze image

Yale Free and opwrs to the pubtfc £ I f I8f f£S Today's houns: Co*?yr*gbJ <0 2016 The Yate Unfvwsey Art Gsfisry. AS rights rsawveuJ. 1111 Ci^ap^ ^r»ej (at Yo?k Ssrwsr) N«w Haven, Cartracfccai 263

Appendix 32: “Yale University Art Gallery, “Red Abstract”

YALE enter pm UNIVERSITY ART

GALLERY VISIT EXHIBITIONS PROGRAMS COLLECTIONS EDUCATION )OlN AND SUPPORT PUBLICATIONS ABOUT

Home * Collections

COLLECTIONS MODERN AND CONTEMPORARY ART

OVERVIEW ANO HIGHLIGHTS Artist: Ad Reinhardt, American, 1913-1967 Afrscan Art Red Abstract American Decorative Arts American Paintings and 1962 Sculpture OS on canvas Amsent Alt 152.4 x 101.3 cm (60 x 30 7/8 In,) Aft of ft© Ancient Americas Gift of'The Woodward Foundation Arts of Islam Aslan Art 1977.49:22 Cains and Medals Culture: American European An Period: 20th century sndo-Pacrfic Art Classification: Paintings Modem and Contemporary Art Status: Not on view Photographs Prints- and Drawings Bibliography: Sequoia Miller and John Stuart Gordon, The O m nm Presence m Motfem Art: Selections from the Isxfe Leonard Scnmnger collection CONSERVATION mtdffm Yafe University Art Gallery exft, cat. (New Haven, Conn.: RESOURCES Ya^e University Art Gallery*. 201516), 64, fig. 52,

SEARCH THE COLLECTION Note; This vkfteonk} record was crested fewi hjsteRC dceumeaia&ois &>ai ttoes Photo credit Yaie University Art Gallery ro< mtsmssrif fee Yate yrtvsra% Art Gatter/s comp-M» or current te@M«dge abawi ine oS^eel Rev®-* arso ^odat-.ng of such tbcorjs ts o^gotng C 2012 Estate of Ad Reintefxi / Artists Rights Society (ars), New York Futi-size image not available for download. Please contact Rignts and Reproductions.

Yale Free and open to the puttie f iS © Today** hours: Copyright 6 2016 The VaSe UrtNarsfty Art Gaftery AJ rights reserved. 1111 Chape! Street (at YoA Street) Naw Haven, Connecticut 264

Appendix 33: Yale University Art Gallery, “Rights and Reproductions’

UNIVERSITY

GALLERY VISIT EXHIRITIONS PROGRAMS COLLECTIONS EDUCATION JOIN AND SUPPORT PUBLICATIONS

Home * About* Rights and Reproductions

ABOUT RIGHTS AND REPRODUCTIONS

DIRECTOR'S LETTER The Yale University Art Gallery is pleased to participate in Yale

ARCHITECTURE University’s open-access policy, which offers access to digital representations of works in the public domain from museum, library,

JOBS, OPPORTUNITIES. AND and archive collections on campus. Thousands of images of public- FEtLOWSHfPS domain works in the Gallery’s collection are available for immediate RIGHTS AND REPRODUCTIONS download through the Gallery’s website. Simply search the collection, COMMUNITY PARTNERS and use the download link beneath any image you would like to download. FAQ SEARCH THE COLLECTION >

PRESS ROOM

OPEN-ACCESS IMAGES

Ho permission from the Gallery is required to use these images.

For more information about using the Gallery’s images, click here. To download open-access images, simply click the download link beneath the display image in the individual object record and select either a presentation-size image or a full-size, publication-quality image. Full-size image: full page: tiff, 2 2 4 9 x 3000 px, 300 dpt, 8-bit color, 19.34MB Presentation-size image: full screen: jpeg, 1439 x 1 9 2 0 px, 110 dpi, 0 . 4 8 M B

In support of Yale’s open-access policy, we hope that students, scholars, artists, and anyone Interested in the collection w ill freely use the Gallery’s resources for presentations and publications, as well as for personal enjoyment.

PHOTOGRAPHY REQUESTS

To request images of works that are not yet available online or to request digital files in sizes and formats beyond those offered for download, please complete the Photography Request Form.

REQUEST PHOTOGRAPHY >

Contact Rights and Reproductions Department Yale University art Gallery P.O. Box 208271 New Haven, CT 06520 203.432.0630 [email protected]

Revised: October 2014 265

Appendix 34: Yale University Art Gallery, “Using Images”

Enfcr ~ UNIVERSITY

GALLERY VISIT EXHIBITIONS PROGRAMS COLLECTIONS EDUCATION |OlN AND SUPPORT PUBLICATIONS

Home * About * Rights arxJ Reproductions » Using Images

ABOUT USING IMAGES MISSION

DIRECTOR'S LETTER By accessing the Gallery’s website and images you agree to the Terms

ARCHITECTURE of Use and any additional terms below.

CONNECT

JOBS OPPORTUNITIES. AND OBTAINING IMAGES FELLOWSHIP'S

RIGHTS AND REPRODUCTIONS Thousands of images of works in the Gallery’s collection believed to be in the public

COMMUNITY PARTNERS domain are available for free download through the Gallery’s website. Under Yale University’s Open Access Policy, anyone may use the Gallery’s open-access material without further application, authorization, or fees due to the Gallery or to Yale, To download open-access images, simply click the “download* link beneath the display

PRESS ROOM image in the individual object record. To search the collection, click here. To request an image of a work that is not illustrated online, is under copyright, or to request digital files in sizes or formats beyond those offered through the website, you may submit an electronic request by completing our online Bequest for Photography form.

Identifying Open-Aeeess Works and Images

Building on Yale’s commitment to open access, if a work is believed to he in the public domain and free of other restrictions, the digital images of the work on the Gallery’s website are made freely available. For objects with images, the rights status of the work is clearly displayed under the image on each object record. To locate this information, navigate to the record for an object of interest, and locate the display image on the left* hand side of the page. The rights status or rights holder w ill be indicated by the linked text displayed immediately beneath the image. For further information on the rights status of each work and how available images of the work may be used, click on this text. If the work is in the public domain and/or images may be downloaded , a download link will appear below the image. Works and Images with Restrictions

Not every work of ait in the Gallery’s collection is in the public domain, nor is every image on the Gallery ’s site free of restrictions. The Gallery is mindful of Its responsibilities concerning the intellectual property rights of others, and the museum works to protect images of objects that are believed to be under copyright, to have content protected under rights of publicity or privacy.;, or to have other restrictions imposed by contract or policy. The copyright of a work of art itself is distinct from any rights of the photograph/digital image depicting the work (where applicable) and may be held by individuals or entities other than the Gallery, For example, the copyright of a work of art. may be held or managed by the artist or the artist’s heirs or representative(s), not by the Gallery. The Gallery makes available for download presentation sized images of artwork it has determined to be an “Orphan work”. In spite of one's best efforts, it may be difficult or impossible to locate the owner of copyright in a work, This may be because the work is anonymous, the company that owned copyright is defunct, it is impossible to trace copyright through multiple bequests and transmissions, or because the copyright owner's identity is known but the owner or the owner’s representative cannot be located. These items are commonly referred to as “Orphan works.” If you are the representative for any artist identified as an “Orphan work" please contact the Rights and Reproductions office. Thumbnail-sized images of copyrighted works are displayed under fair use. As a service to the public and the scholarly community, the Gallery may make larger images of copyrighted works available in the online collection catalogue with permission of the copyright holder. If you wish to use such images outside the online catalogue you must seek permission from the copyright holder.

In addition, the Gallery reserves any applicable rights in the photography of its facilities, installations, events, employees, and guests created or commissioned by Gallery staff. Two commonly used rights-management agencies: AR5 Artist lights Society http://wwny.arsny.com VAGA Visual Artists and Galleries Association http://vagarights.com

Credit/Citations All the information necessary for the proper citation of the Gallery's works is available in the object records on this site. We encourage users to identify works from our collection and. to provide an image credit to the Yale University Art Gallery so that others- may find and use our resources. Apart from the above, you may not suggest or imply the Gallery’s endorsement of your publication or project, nor use the Gallery or Yale University’s trademarks without permission. If a work or a photographic image is still protected by copyright, you must cite the relevant copyright information when using the image and comply with all other terms or restrictions that may be applicable to that material Whenever possible, the Gallery provides factual information about copyright owners and related matters pertaining to its materials. Please contact the Gallery if you have more information about any such material, or, if you are the copyright owner and believe the website has not properly attributed your work or has used it without your authorization:

Rights and Reproductions Yale University Art Gallery yuagrights @yale, edu 267

Images from Other Sources

The Gallery can neither grant nor deny permission to use photographic images of works in its collection obtained from other sources (for example, scanned from a book or downloaded from another website). While use of such images may be possible under “fair use” or “fair dealing” provisions in the copyright laws of some jurisdictions, the Gallery is unable to assist in making this determination. In addition, we are unable to vouch for the accuracy or quality of images obtained from other sources. We strongly recommend the use of the Gallery’s own images of its coHection over those from other sources.

Disclaimer The Gallery cannot guarantee the availability of images for every work in our collection; works or their images may be unavailable due to condition, location, exhibition, collection priorities, copyright, or other restrictions. Any statement on the public domain status of a work is made by the Gallery in good faith. While the Gallery makes every effort to accurately determine the rights status of works and their images, this information is provided without any warranty. As an end user, you are solely responsible for the download or use of any images from the Gallery s site. It is your responsibility to verify or accept any rights information provided as well as to obtain any additional permission or clearances that may be required for works protected by copyright. If you have any questions regarding the rights status of a work of art or images on the Gallery’s website, or have any information on the rights status of a work contrary or in addition to the information in our records, please contact the Eights and Reproductions department

Revised: April 2016 268

Appendix 35: American Library Association, “DMCA”

American ALA ALA Websites Contact ALA GIveAlA Join ALA Renew- Login Library Association . . . ■ ■ .. ' ■ . •

Contact Congress Feedback

Vbu m st : ALA.org * ADVOCACY * Copyright * DMCA; The Digital Millennium Copyright Act

DMCA: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act

• introduction • DMCA and Libraries • DMCA Mandates • Legacy of DMCA • Other Information

Introduction

On October 12, 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), The law became effective in October 2000 and it has been incorporated into the Copyright Act (Title 17 of the U, S, Code). This landmark legislation updated U.S. copyright law to meet the demands of the Digital Age and to conform U.S. law to the requirements of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and treaties that the U.S. signed in 1996.

Despite the work of libraries and other partners, dedicated to preserving the traditional balance in copyright law between protecting information and affording access to it, the DMCA tilts strongly in favor of copyright holders, in addition to creating new rules for digital materials, the DMCA mandates several important studies and reports to be conducted by the U.S. Copyright Office and sets the time frames for their completion.

Divided in to five * titles,H the DMCA is a complex act that addresses a number of issues that are of concern to libraries. Among its many provision* the Act:

• imposes rules prohibiting the circumvention of technological protection measures • sets limitations on copyright infringement liability for online service providers (OSPs) • expands an existing exemption for making copies of computer programs • provides a significant updating of the rules and procedures regarding archival preservation • mandates a study of distance education activities in networked environments • mandates a study of the effects of anti-circumvention protection rules on the ‘first sale* doctrine 269

DMCA and Libraries

The following summarizes the key sections of the DMCA that relate to libraries. For more in-depth analysis of the DMCA and its impact on libraries:

Title I: New Prohibitions On Circumvention Of Protection Technologies:

• Prohibits the “circumvention" of any effective “technological protection measure ’ (e.g., a password or form of encryption) used by a copyright holder to restrict access to its material • Prohibits the manufacture of any device, or the offering of any service, primarily designed to defeat an effective 'technological protection measure" • Defers the effective date of these prohibitions for two years and 18 months, respectively • Requires that the Librarian of Congress issue a three-year waiver from the anti-circumvention prohibition when there is evidence that the new law adversely affects or may adversely affect "fair use" and other non-infringing uses of any class of work • Expressly states that many valuable activities based on the ‘fair use’ doctrine (including reverse engineering, security testing, privacy protection and encryption research) will not constitute illegal “anti-circumvention" • Makes no change to the "fair use1' doctrine or to other information user privileges and rights

Title II: Limitations On Online Service Provider Liability

• Exempts any OSP or carrier of digital information (including libraries) from copyright liability because of the content of a transmission made by a user of the provider's or carrier's system (e.g., the user of a library computer system) • Establishes a mechanism for a provider to avoid copyright infringement liability due to the storage of infringing information on an OSP's own computer system, or the use of "information location tools" and hyperlinks, if the provider acts expeditiously to remove or disable access to" infringing material identified in a formal notice by the copyright holder

Title IV: Digital Preservation

This section updates the current preservation provision of the Copyright Act (Sec. 1G8) to:

• expressly permit authorized institutions to make up to three, digital preservation copies of an eligible copyrighted work • electronically loan" those copies to other qualifying institutions • permit preservation, including by digital means, when the existing format in which the work has been stored becomes obsolete back to top

DMCA Mandates

1. The DMCA directed the U.S. Copyright Office and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NT!A) to report to Congress on the effects of the "first sale' doctrine of the DMCA and the development of electronic commerce" 1. The NTIA report was released its report in March 2001, 2. The Copyright Office issued its report on Section 104 in August 2001. 2. The DMCA directed the U.S. Copyright Office to consult with the appropriate parties and to make recommendations to Congress on how to promote distance education through digital technologies 1. The Copynght Office issued its report, Copyright and Digital Distance Education, in May 1999. 3. The DMCA delayed the effective date of the anti-circumvention provision (Section 1201) until October 23, 2000 to allow time for the Librarian of Congress to issue rules that would allow certain users to access certain ^classes of works" if they needed to circumvent in order to make "non-infringing use" of the works. The Librarian issued the Rule on Oct, 28, 2000, 270

The Legacy of DMCA

Ffve years after passage, the DMCA continues to be a controversial act with far-reaching impact that is supporting the attempts of copyright holders to control access to and downstream use of their content. The doctrine of “fair use' has never more been threatened than it is now. There have been several important court cases based on challenges to provisions in the DMCA and some new legislation is under consideration to redress the balance some believe has been undermined by this law, ALA has contributed "friends of the court" briefs in some of the legal cases (Universal v. Remeirdes, a.k.a. "the DVD case") and vigilantly tracks Congressional activities that bear on the abilities of libraries to provide service to their communities. CLICK ON: The ‘Copyright Court Cases” section in the left hand navigation tree for a link to this case,

The controversy surrounding the DMCA continues also in attempts to pass legislation that seeks to protect fair use in the digital environment and to extend the control of copyright owners. ALA carefully monitors all of these legislative activities.

pack to top

Other Information

• Section 1201: Anti-circumvention Rule Making • Section 104: Report on First Sale

back to too

Related

• DMCA & Libraries Primer • Library Preservation: Changes incorporated in the DMCA • Analysts of the DMCA bv Jonathan Band, Morrison & Foerester. LLP • OiTP intellectual Property Fact Sheet • Memo: Sec, 10B(aH3) Notice Requirements • Library Preservation: Changes to DMCA (11/12/961 • Copyright Act (U.S. C. Title 17) (pdf) • Digital Millennium Copyright Act Sect 104 DMCA Section 104 Report on Tirst Sale41 • Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Section 108: Photocopying by Libraries and Archives Section 108 of the copyright law allows libraries and archives to reproduce and distribute one copy of a work under certain circumstances. For example, libraries may photocopy journal articles, book chapters, etc. and send these copies to other libraries through interlibrary loan. This section also allows libraries to make copies for preservation purposes. The DMCA amended Section 108 in three significant ways that are described below. • Digital Millenium Copyright Act Section 1201 Section 1201 of the 1998 DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent a technological protection measure employed to restrict access to or distribution of copyrighted material. Violators of the anti-circumvention provision are subject to civil and criminal penalties. At the same time, however, the law provides that there can be exemptions from the prohibition for users of "classes of works" who would be ’adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make non-infringing uses ’ of those works. • Electronic Frontier Foundation • World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) • DMCA, U.S. Copvnght Office Summary. Dec, 1998 • Copyright Act (U.S. C. Title 17) (pdf)

Copyright Statement I Privacy Policy .I Site Heft? j VI,\A rmncanLlbfary.Assocation €> 1996-201? American Library Association 50 £ Huron St., Chicago I I 60611 11.900.£45.2433 271

Appendix 36: Artist Rights Society, “History of ARS”

ARTISTS RIGHTS SOCIETY

REQUEST TO GteAFT RIGHT'S ARS MfRdBER ARTISTS JOIN. ARS NEWS & EVENTS A B O U T A R S CONTACT OS

History Of ARS

Artists Society {AftS} is ttm preeminent copyright, flcertsmg, and monitoring organization for visual artists In the United States. Founded sn 1887, ARS represents the mtettectual property fights interests of over 8C.000 visual artists and their estates from around the wond, ■ -

ARS represents American artists who become its direct adherents and it. represents foreign artists who are members of affiliated arts organisations abroad. A complete fist of ARS' member artists m to be found here.

AjRS is also a member of CISAC ICcnf&d&ation tnmmmnafe das Soci4t4s d'Auteurs at Compositeurs), the Paris- based, umbrella orgamzation oversewng the activities of International copyright collecting societies. As part of this internatlonai network of rights organizations, ARS maintains relationships with like-minded “sister societies*' abroad. Through reciprocal agreements, AftS represents the artist repertories of its foreign sister societies in the U.S., and they in turn, represent ARS" American repertory in their territories.

A complete, current listing of alt artists represented by ARS, both American, and foreign, can be found here. A roster of most frequently sought artists may also be found in that same section.

Hermann, Hans 0 8ft>i966.\ Rising Moon, 1965. Location : Pr,vitte CoSsctien. ® 2815 estate of Hews Hoffman / Artists FBgnts Soomiy fARS|, N m York. Ffioto © .Art Hesouroe, MY,

©2015 ARTISTS RIGHTS SOCIETY 272

Appendix 37: Association of Art Museum Directors, “Guidelines for the Use of Copyrighted Materials and Works of Art by Art Museums” (Excerpt)

Art Museum Directors

Guidelines for the Use of Copyrighted Materials and Works of Art by Art Museums

June 1, 2016

This document is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or a substitution for obtaining legal advice from an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction and familiar with the specific circumstances with which you are dealing. The content of this document may not reflect current legal developments and is designed only to give general information on the issues actually covered, it is not intended to be a comprehensive summary of recent developments in the law, treat exhaustively the subjects covered, provide legal advice, or render a legal opinion.

8284040.24

120 East 56th Street Suite 520 New York, NY 10022 I: 212,754,8084 F; 212>754,8087 aamd.org 273

ASSOCIATION OF ART MUSEUM DIRECTORS

GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS AND WORKS OF ART BY ART MUSEUMS

I. Introduction.

The possession, ownership and use of copyrighted materials and works of art1 in art

museums2 involves virtually all aspects of museum operations, from the display of works of art

to the dissemination of archival material3, from the creation of exhibition catalogues to the use of

online collections. In all of these aspects and others, museums must be mindful of the rights of the creators of, and holders of copyright in, materials and works of art. At the same time, in

order to accomplish their mission of acquiring, preserving, studying and interpreting works of art that are held for the benefit of the public, art museums rely on the ability and the right to use copyrighted materials and works of art in appropriate circumstances and under conditions that

are well recognized, both legally and ethically. Museums not only use copyrighted materials and works of art, they also create such materials and even commission such works. They should - and the Association of Art Museum Directors (“AAMD”) believes do - understand and expect their copyrighted materials and works of art to be subject to the same fair use by third parties.

For many years, museums operated within a reasonably well-recognized system of legal principles, ethical guidelines and norms that guided them in their use of copyrighted materials

1 For purposes of these Guidelines, “copyrighted materials” and “materials” mean printed, manuscript or digital material such as books, articles, artists’ notes or archival material that are subject to copyright in the United States. “Works” and “works of art” mean works of the visual arts in any media—including paintings, works on paper, video, digital, sculpture and other three-dimensional media—that are subject to copyright in the United States. These Guidelines do not address materials and works of art that are not subject to copyright in the United States, commonly known as public domain works. 2 References in these Guidelines to “museums,” “art museums” or “member museums” are generally intended to refer to museums whose directors are members of the Association of Art Museum Directors (the “AAMD”). While these Guidelines are written for members of the AAMD, if museums whose directors are not members find these Guidelines to be useful, they are encouraged to adopt them. 3 While each type of copyrighted materials may have specific issues under copyright law, archives can be particularly complicated and while generally included in the definition, present special issues to be discussed in a forthcoming Section of these Guidelines.

1 8284040.24 and works of art. The explosion of electronic media, the application of digital technology, the

dissemination of information through the internet, and a more nuanced understanding of fair use,

informed by court decisions, have all changed and expanded the ways in which museums think

about their collections and their activities. The art world is no stranger to the dynamic forces of

digital information sharing and the new ways organizations communicate with the general public, scholars, researchers and others. These phenomena have evolved rapidly in just the last decade and are likely to continue at the same pace, if not an accelerated pace, in the future.

With an ever-evolving technological world and legal landscape, art museums need and want guidance with respect to how they can fulfill their missions while respecting the rights of authors, artists and copyright holders. Any such guidance should acknowledge the right to use copyrighted materials and works of art without undue restriction or limitation, so long as such uses are legally and ethically sound.

The AAMD believes that there is a need to inform the field about appropriate and normative practices in the use of copyrighted materials and works of art and the application of fair use in the context of various museum activities.4 Because the same general principles of fair use apply regardless of the nature of the museum activity, providing the guiding legal principles and precedents that dictate the fair use analysis and applying those principles to a series of examples specific to art museums makes sense. While these Guidelines are designed to inform and assist member museums generally, each museum should develop its own written policy and procedures relating to the use of copyrighted materials and works of art.

These Guidelines are designed to guide and educate the members of the AAMD, the museums of which they are directors and other museums that choose to follow them. They do

4 The AAMD commends the College Art Association for its work in creating the Code o f Best Practices in Fair Use fo r the Visual Arts which has substantially advanced the knowledge of and discussion about fair use and informed these Guidelines.

2 8284040.24 275

Appendix 38: Brooklyn Museum, “Opencollection API”

Brooklyn Museum EXHIBITIONS CALENDAR VISIT

Collection About Education Support Press Shop f t S3

Collection Menu Search the Coftecilon Advanced Search

Opencollection API

The Brooklyn Museum Collection API is a set of services that you can use to display Brooklyn Museum m Terms of Use collection images and data in your own applications. E3 Contact

GETTING STARTED METHODS

Overview /archive/collection/ Encoding /archive/set/ Requests /archive/image/ Responses /artist/ Rights /artist/{artistjd} GAi /collection/ /coHection/{col!ectionJd} /coilection/{co1lectionJd}/highlight /col!ectiori/{coliectionJd}/object /exhibition/ /exhibition/! exhibition Jd} /museum “location/ /museum 4ocation/{}ocationJd} /museum‘iocation/{iQcationJd}/objects /object/ /object/{objectJd}

/luce/case/ /iuce/case/{casejd} /luce/case/{case idVobjects/ /luce/theme/ /luce/theme/{them ejd ) /luce/theme/objects/ /luce/artist/ /geographical* location/ /geographicai-iocation/{geographicaLjocationJd} 276

Appendix 39: Tatiana Cirisano, ‘“Spotify for Art’: Museums Move to Digitize Collections,” 2015

‘Spotify for Art’: Museums move to digitize collections By Tatiana Cirisano Feb 2, 2015 12:13 AM

Behind the walls of the Smithsonian’s Freer Gallery of Art, the museum’s chief digital officer takes a rare moment of rest at her desk, which is covered with a flurry of Post-it notes and to-do lists.

Courtney O’Callaghan sits near a small table with a couple of coffee mugs, a miniature Buddha sculpture and a bottle of champagne from New Year’s Day, when the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery and Freer Gallery of Art celebrated the accomplishment of a 15-year-old goal: to make their digitized collections available online for the first time.

Last month, the museums released their entire collections of Asian and American art, which encompass over 40,000 works, including famed pieces like “The Peacock Room.” With the works online, the galleries hope to further the “democratization” of art by enabling more people than ever before to see their collections. The majority of the art that’s now available online has never reached gallery walls.

“We picked Jan. 1 and we said, ‘This is it. There’s no going back,”’ O’Callaghan said. “Whatever we had, we’d put that up on Jan. 1.”

Though O’Callaghan said the push to digitize the collections began roughly a year and a half ago, the first move came in 2000, when the Freer and Sackler switched their archiving method from analog to digital. From there, the first works were photographed and saved in digital form - pulled out every so often for use in publications or brochures.

“The first things were accidental,” O’Callaghan said. “We weren’t thinking about, ‘We’re going to digitize our entire collection.’ When we realized that we really wanted to push ahead on sharing our art and digitizing and democratizing how art is shared with the general world community, we made plans on what to shoot and when and how.”

But it was no simple project: Not only is the collection massive, but it also contains many pieces that are so old, enormous or delicate that they can be difficult to photograph.

When O’Callaghan was hired in 2013, the galleries still had thousands of images left to be carefully removed from storage, arranged, photographed and downloaded.

O’Callaghan said the project took more than 10,000 hours of work.

“It was like being handed a 3-year-old and being told, ‘Good luck,”’ she said, laughing.

The process is lengthy and tedious - sometimes requiring 12-hour workdays. But O’Callaghan said through a digital platform called Open F|S, the Freer and Sackler hope to make tens of thousands of works available to people who otherwise might never visit a gallery. 277

"For us, it means that we are starting to bring down some of the walls that exist for anyone who wants to enjoy the pieces,” O’Callaghan said. “It means we are lowering the barriers of financial constraints, educational constraints, geographic constraints.”

On the Open F|S website, users are free to download any of the 40,000 images for non-commercial purposes in the highest resolution available.

O'Callaghan, who said she sees digitization as a form of “activism,” said the online works may spur new innovations or inspire new artists.

"We don’t know what it means when people will see it. Perhaps someone will see a shard of tile and they will feel emboldened to create something that had not occurred to them before,” she said. “Perhaps it will encourage them to do so many things we just can’t even imagine.”

The Freer and Sackler are the first of the Smithsonian Institution museums - and the first Asian art museums in the world - to make their collections available online, joining a growing trend toward digitization.

The J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles released its first online collection in August 2013. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York followed suit with 400,000 online images in May 2014. In D.C., the American Museum of History released 7,000 images last May, and the National Gallery of Art’s open access program has made over 45,000 images available online since 2012. Now in its third year, open access has logged more than 1 million downloads.

Like the Freer and Sackler, the National Gallery’s images can be downloaded with a resolution of up to 4,000 pixels. But with open access, the art is free for all uses, even commercial.

Alan New7man, the head of digital imaging and visual resources at the National Gallery, said the free-use policy at open access adds another dimension to the democratization of art: the idea that, when possible, public viewing of art should not be limited due to copyright concerns.

“These are works that presume to be in the public domain. And what that means is that they belong to the people,” he said.

Like O’Callaghan, Newman thinks the digitization of art is a way to mitigate the disparity between those who have the ability to visit museums and those who do not.

“It’s not only digitization. What it really is is access,” Newman said. “If everybody has access to the same materials and is able in today’s world to publish and write about it, you have multiple voices and you do have democratization.”

The National Gallery’s head of digital imaging services, Peter Dueker, called the digital museum movement “Spotify for art.” Lie most frequently references the museum’s online archives while at his second job teaching black-and-white film photography at Catholic University.

“I know how hard it is for students and for teachers to get good quality images of works of art,” he said. “If you were learning how to paint or you’re learning the history7 of art, being able to sit at your computer and zoom in and see the brushstrokes and understand how it’s all constructed, that’s really amazing.” 278

The National Gallery has five studios where works of art are photographed for the open access website. In one of those studios last week, much of the wall was covered by a metal easel, which Dueker said is computer-controlled and used to photograph each painting in sections. Later, the sections are stitched together, a process he called “mosaic.”

At a desk in the center of the room, museum photographer Gregory Williams sat editing a recently shot photograph of Vincent Van Gogh’s “Green Wheat Fields, Auvers,” which he said he photographed in nine sections.

On the computer screen, the image served as an exact replica of the actual painting. Zooming into the photo, Williams pointed to microscopic cracks that sliced through the aging paint, and the curve of each brushstroke swelled on the screen, as if the artist had just completed the more than century -old painting. “You want to go into the gallery and you want to study the art, so you’re standing in front of it and you can get to it in a certain extent,” Dueker said. “But [the digital version] allows you to look at it in a different way, so it’s all complementary ”

For both the National Galleiy and the Freer and Sackler, these first digitized collections represent the beginning of an ongoing project.

Almost a month after the museum’s Jan. 1 release, O’Callaghan has yet to take more than a day off. Though the museum no longer has a 40,000-object backlog, O’Callaghan hopes to continue digitizing as the museum acquires new pieces, and to someday add 360-degree and three-dimensional views to the website.

“Anything we have that we have written, collected or done should really be out there for people to use and understand,” she said. “Our goal is increasing and diffusing knowledge throughout the world, and if that is your goal, this is at this moment the best way to do it.”

This article appeared in the February 2. 2015 issue of the Hatchet. 279

Appendix 40: College Art Association, “Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for the Visual Arts” (Excerpt)

■Hfe

■ H r 4 m m m When displayed, images should be accompanied by attribution of the original work as is customary in the field, to the extent possible. Images and other items in a reference collection should be augmented with appropriate and reasonably available metadata. Access to an institutional reference collection should be limited to persons affiliated with the institution and its partner institutions, such as students, faculty, and authorized researchers, subject to a requirement that items in the collection should be used only for legitimate purposes.

For centuries, artists have incorporated the work of others as part of their creative practice. Today, many artists occasionally or routinely reference and incorporate artworks and other cultural productions in their own creations. Such quotation is part of the construction of new culture, which necessarily builds on existing culture. It often provides a new interpretation of existing works, and may (or may not) be deliberately confrontational. Increasingly, artists employ digital tools to incorporate existing (including digital) works into their own, making uses that range from pastiche and collage (remix), to the creation of new soundscapes and lightscapes. Sometimes this copying is of a kind that might infringe copyright, and sometimes not But whatever the technique, and whatever may be used (from motifs or themes to specific images, text, or sounds), new art can be generated.

Artists may invoke fair use to incorporate copyrighted material into new artworks in any medium, subject to certain limitations:

Artists should avoid uses of existing copyrighted material that do not generate new artistic meaning, being aware that a change of medium, without more, may not meet this standard. The use of a preexisting work, whether in part or in whole, should be justified by the artistic objective, and artists who deliberately repurpose copyrighted works should be prepared to explain their rationales both for doing so and for the extent of their uses. Artists should avoid suggesting that incorporated elements are original to them, unless that suggestion is integral to the meaning of the new work. W hen copying another’s work, an artist should cite the source, whether in the new work or elsewhere (by means such as labeling or embedding), unless there is an articulable aesthetic basis for not doing so.

Museums regularly curate and organize temporary or permanent (i.e., long-term) exhibitions, which include works from their own, other institutional, and private collections. Exhibitions can generate new artistic and scholarly insights and attract and enhance the experience of museum visitors. Frequently, exhibitions may enhance or confirm the reputations of the artists whose work is included. Museums also routinely prepare print and graphic materials associated with exhibitions, including wall panels that display text and reproductions of related images; make available brochures and educational guides; publish catalogues; and offer related lectures and other public programs. Many museums also offer various kinds of guides (including publicly accessible databases) that reproduce images for many or all of the works in their permanent collections. Increasingly, they are doing all these things using digital and other new technologies. For example, visitors may access electronic information about exhibitions and collections with their own or a museum-supplied portable device, which may be networked. Teachers and students may access exhibition- and collection-related educational or curricular materials (text, mixed media, and video) on the museum’s website and social media channels, or through third parties, including for-profit and nonprofit publishers. Physical exhibitions may be complemented by virtual counterparts or online enhancements so that remote visitors can virtually “walk through” the galleries, appreciate the curatorial narrative, and, if desired, focus their attention on particular works. Similarly, online documentation of collections (including collection catalogues and databases of images and metadata) can help to place individual artworks in a larger institutional or cultural context and provides some of the benefits of a physical visit to the museum, as well as providing access to material not currendv on display. Such documentation also may prepare the members of the public to interact more fully with art when they visit the museum in person.

Museums and their staffs may invoke fair use in using copyrighted works, including images and text as well as time-based and bom-digital material, in furtherance of their core missions, subject to certain limitations:

When copyrighted works are used in connection with physical or virtual exhibitions, the use should be justified by the curatorial objective, and the user should be prepared to articulate that justification. The amount of a work used in museum publications, the size and resolution of published reproductions, and the level of fidelity of those reproductions should be appropriate to the analytic or educational purpose. Downloadable images made available online should be suitable in size for full-screen projection or display on a personal computer or mobile device, but generally not larger. When image details and support for “close looking” are offered online through large or high-resolution images, downloading should not be facilitated unless a special justification is present. Images provided to the public should be accompanied by attribution of the original work as is customary in the field, to the extent possible. Images and other documentation of museum collections should be associated with all appropriate and reasonably available metadata. Images and documentation of museum collections should honor institutional policies designed to protect noncopyright interests of third parties, including the privacy of individuals and the cultural sensitivities of communities.

Many institutions, including academic libraries, art schools, museums, archives, and study centers, maintain collections of art-related documentation, including the sketches and studies, manuscripts, financial records, personal photographs, and book collections of artists, collectors, dealers, and others. Unless subject to use restrictions, including those imposed by donation agreements, these memory institutions typically make such documentation available for study and personal copying by scholars and members of the public. Much of this valuable and often unique study material—some unpublished and some difficult to trace to rights holders—may be under copyright. Online access resulting from digitization of these collections greatly expands their utility for scholars, students, artists, and the public; it also contributes to the protection of the information they contain against theft, disaster, and decay.

Memory institutions and their staffs may invoke fair use to create digital preservation copies and to enable digital access to copyrighted materials in their collections and to make those collections available online, with appropriate search tools, subject to the following limitations:

Material made available online should be redacted to protect the privacy and other noncopyright interests of third parties, in accordance with prevailing professional standards. Visitors to the site should be informed that the materials they access are provided for their personal and/or scholarly use, and that they are responsible for obtaining any copyright permissions that may be required for their own further uses of that material. Institutions should prominently offer such users a point of contact for further information and correspondence and they should respond prompdy to user complaints, corrections, and questions. When provided, downloadable images provided online should be suitable in size and resolution for full-screen projection or display on a personal computer or mobile device, but generally not larger. Materials made available should be accompanied by attribution as is customary in the field, to the extent possible. « Items should be augmented with all appropriate and reasonably available metadata. 283

Appendix 41: Creative Commons, “CCO 1.0 Universal: Public Domain Dedication”

Help us build a vibrant, collaborative global commons

Creative Commons > Share your work > Public domain > Public Domain Mark In this section ► Licensing considerations ► Licensing types Public Domain Mark ► Public domain ► CCO r,No Known Copyright’* ► Public Domain Mark ► Understanding Free Cultural Our Public Domain Mark enables works that are no longer restricted by copyright to Works be marked as such in a standard and simple way, making them easily discoverable ► Places to share and available to others. Many cultural heritage institutions including museums, libraries and other * For developers curators are knowledgeable about the copyright status of paintings, books and manuscripts, photographs and other works in their collections, many of which are old and no longer under copyright. The Public Domain Mark operates as a tag or a label, allowing institutions like those as CONNECT WITH CREATIVE well as others with such knowledge to communicate that a work is no longer restricted by COMMONS copyright and can be freely used by others. The mark can also be an important source of information, allowing others to verify a work's copyright status and learn more about the work.

Sign up to Our Newsiettes Recommended Uses of the Public Domain Mark

The Public Domain Mark is recommended for works that are free of known copyright around the

^ work may have limited or “ hybrid” public domain status for several reasons. Some jurisdictions lave unusually long copyright terms, which may mean that a work free from copyright restrictions nost everywhere in the world could still be protected by the copyright laws of that particular :ountry. Sometimes a work is no longer restricted by copyright in a jurisdiction because the author Dr owner failed to comply with local formalities such as renewal, where those formalities apply. It :ould also be the case for works that are deemed not protected by copyright by operation of law in 3 particular jurisdiction, but that are afforded protection under the copyright laws of other urisdictions.

ZC does not recommend the Public Domain Mark for works with limited, hybr id public domain status at this time, though we will be exploring means for doing so in 2014.

. Learn more about the Public Domain Mark

* Use the Public Domain Mark to label public domain works 284

Appendix 42: Creative Commons, “Licensing Considerations”

Creative Commons > Share your work > Licensing considerations in this section ► licensing considerations ► Compatible Licenses Licensing considerations ► What’s New in 4.0 ► Licensing types What our licenses do ► Public domain ► Places to share The Creative Commons copyright licenses and tools forge a balance inside the traditional

License design and rationale

Ail Creative Commons licenses have many important features in common. Every license helps creators — we call them licensors if they use our tools — retain copyright while allowing others to copy, distribute, and make some uses of their work — at least non-commercialiy, Every Creative Commons license also ensures licensors get the credit for their work they deserve. Every Creative Commons license works around the world and lasts as long as applicable copyright lasts (because they are built on copyright). These common features serve as the baseline, on top of which licensors can choose to grant additional permissions when deciding how they want their work to be used.

A Creative Commons licensor answers a few simple questions on the path to choosing a license — first, do I want to allow commercial use or not, and then second, do I want to allow derivative works or not? If a licensor decides to allow derivative works, she may also choose to require that anyone who uses the work — we call them licensees — to make that new work available under the same license terms. We call this idea ‘'ShareAtike*’ and it is one of the mechanisms that (if chosen) helps the digital commons grow over time. ShareAlike is inspired by the GNU General Public License, used by many free and open source software projects. Our licenses do not affect freedoms that the law grants to users of creative works otherwise protected by copyright, such as exceptions and limitations to copyright law like fair dealing. Creative Commons licenses require licensees to get permission to do any of the things w ith a work that the law reserves exclusively to a licensor and that the license does not expressly allow, licensees must credit the licensor, keep copyright notices intact on ati copies of the work, and link to the license from copies of the work. Licensees cannot use technological measures to restrict access to the work by others.

Try out our simple License Chooser.

Three “Layers” Of Licenses

Our public copyright licenses incorporate a unique and innovative '‘three-layer1' design. Each license begins as a traditional legal tool, in the kind of language and text formats that most lawyers know and love. We call this the Legal Code layer of each license.

But since most creators, educators, and scientists are not in fact lawyers, we also make the licenses available in a format that normal people can read — the Commons Deed {also known as the ‘ Human readable” version of the license). The Commons Deed is a handy reference for licensors and licensees, summarizing and expressing some of the most important terms and conditions. Think of the Commons Deed as a user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath, although the Deed itself is not a license, and its contents are not part of the Legal Code itself.

The final layer of the license design recognizes that software, from search engines to office productivity to music editing, plays an enormous role in the creation, copying, discovery, and distribution of works. In order to make it easy for the Web to know when a work is available under a Creative Commons license, we provide a “machine readable version of the license — a summary of the key freedoms and obligations written into a format that software systems, search engines, and other kinds of technology can understand. We developed a standardized way to describe licenses that software can understand called CC Rights Expression language (CC REL) to accomplish this.

Searching for open content is an important function enabled by our approach. You can use Google to search for Creative Commons content, look for pictures at Fiickr, albums at Jamendo, and general media at spinxpress. The Wikimedia Commons, the multimedia repository of Wikipedia, is a core user of our licenses as well.

Taken together, these three layers of licenses ensure that the spectrum of rights isn't just a legal concept. It’s something that the creators of works can understand, their users can understand, and even the Web itself can understand. 286

Free and non-free licenses

There's no right or wrong Creative Commons license. That said, some licenses are more appropriate for some applications than others-for example, only the free licenses (CCO, BY, BY-SA) should be used for public sector information. Sometimes licensors mistakenly think that the license they’re using allows types of reuse that it actually restricts, or vice versa. For more information on this problem, see our page on the differences between free and non free licenses.

When deciding which license to apply to your work, ask yourself what types of reuse you'd like to encourage, and license accordingly.

We’d love to hear from you! /O creative Creative Commom ^commons PO Box 1 sm : Mountai.ft View, CA M042

Contact , Pnvacy PoJides Terms Frequently Asked Questions 287

Appendix 43: Creative Commons, “What We Do: What is Creative Commons?” (Excerpt)

Creative Commons » What vve do In this section ► FAQ ► Get involved What we do ► History ► Team What is Creative Commons? ► Downloads ► Global Affiliate Network Creative Commons helps you legally share your knowledge and creativity to build a more ► Creative Commons Platforms equitable, accessible, and innovative world. We unlock the full potential of the internet to drive a ► Mission and Vision new era of development, growth and productivity. ► Program areas ► Videos With a network of staff, board, and affiliates around the world, Creative Commons provides free, ► Store easy-to-use copyright licenses to make a simple and standardized way to give the public ► Contact permission to share and use your creative work-on conditions of your choice.

CONNECT WITH CREATIVE Learn more about our programs COMMONS Check out our public reports and financials Your email

Sign up to Our Newsletter

^n&kv, i s ^ a* ie i&i milmmk md wW rm t i '■ ov'». xwui? tfmptimbprn vmwwfa*

■;: : ■ : ; : , ;■:' : ■ r 288

Appendix 44: Kenneth D. Crews, “Permissions and Licensing’

& COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES • ■*

OFFICE HOURS C o p y r ig h t a d v is o r y o f f ic e TUESDAYS lOAM-NOON Co lu m b ia U M v tR sirv community

* TyeiKtay M W # 1*Si, 281?

ASKING FOR PERMISSION ' - G&pmom fccvtscsFY efcncs

• This page prowdes an overview of procedures for contacting and requesting permission from a copyright CONTACT I owner to use a copyrighted work, If you already know exactly what you want, and are in communication with i the copyright owner, you may go directly to one of the permission forms found at the end of this section. 5070 Sutler Library 535 West 114th Street Procedures for Secunn® Permission New York, NY 10027 Phone: (212) 854-7309 : Permission is not always required to use a work, depending on the work you choose or on your intended use, ; You may need to secure permission if you determine that the work you have selected to- use is protected by E-mat: cepyrightftaolumbia.edu ;. 1 copyright not in the public domain), your use is not a fair use, and there are no other statutory exceptions : apply* ff you are just beginning the process, you. may need to cafeWSy consider the steps for securing / Map: Libraries Map :» \ perrmssksn, as defied bekwK

Copyright Quick Guide Step 1: Contact the Copyright Owner Fatr Use Checklist Step 2: Secure Permission and Write an Effective Letter Fair Use Step 3: Keep a Record Asking For Permission Mode! Permission Letters Special Cases

STEP 1: CONTACT THE COPYRIGHT OWNER Once 'you have identified the owner or owners, contact them to request permission. Pubfrshers often have websites that prescribe a method for contacting the copyright owner, so search the website for a permissions department or contact person. Be sure to confirm the exact name and address of the addressee, and cail the person or publishing house to confirm the copyright ownership. Various collective rights organizations are sometimes able to facilitate granting permissions on behalf of owners For a list of these organizations and mors information, see Resources at the end of this section. ff the copyright owner is an individual, you need to do the usual internet and telephone searches to find the person. Be ready to introduce yourself and io explain careful what you are seetong. Tips: * The copyright owner may prefer or require that permission requests be made using a certain medium (i.e. fax, mail, web form, etc.). If you do not follow instructions, you may net get a reply. * Telephone cafe may be the quickest method for getting a response from the owner, but they should be followed up with a letter or e-mail in order to document the exact scope of the permission. E-mail permissions are legally acceptable in most cases, but getting a genuine signature is usually best. * The request should be sent to the individual copyright holder (when applicable) or permissions department of the publisher in Question. Be sure to include your return address, telephone and fax numbers, e-maii address, and the date at the top of your letter or message, if you send the permission request fay mail, include a self-addressed, stamped return envelope. * Make the process easy for the copyright owner. The iess effort the owner has to put forth, the more likely you wtS get the permission you neea. If you are using conventional ma$, include a second copy of your request for the owner's records. « Stale cteariy who you am., your Institutional affrlalSon (e.g., Columbia University), and the general nature of your project. Do not send permissions letters to afi possible rightshofders slmuftaneousfy. Taking the time to find the person who most likely hoids the copyright will better yidd success. If you do no? have much information about who actually owns the copyright, be honest with your contacts, and they may be able io help you find the right person, STEP 2: SECURE PERMISSION AND WRITE AN EFFECTIVE LETTER A “nonexclusive" permission may be granted by telephone or handshake, but an "exclusive" permission or a transfer of the copyright must be in writing and signed by the copyright owner. In all cases, a dearly written document with a signature is useful to confirm exactly what is permitted. Some copyright owners furnish their own permission form that may be downloaded from a website. H the copyright owner (toes not provide a pemwssion agreement form, you may use one of the forms listed at the end of this section under Resources, and follow these important pointers when drafting your own permission letter. The Letter 289

A meet effective letter wifi include detailed information concerning your request for permission to use the work. Be sure to include foltewing pertinent information; Who: Introduce yourself, Teii who you are and perhaps include a brief summary of your credentials. For example: 1 am 3 professor of history at Colombia University and am the author of several books on American history,* What Be as specific as possible when you cite and describe the work you wish to use. If you plan to use the entire work, say so. If you need only part, give the detasis. For example: i would Nke permission to reproduce pages 113 through 142 of [fuli citation to book].” You may need to be more detailed or include copies of the material, especially H you are using photographic images or sound or film clips. How: Tell how you plan to use the work. Specify whether your use is commercial or nonprofit, for classroom learning or distance education, for research and publication, etc, Remember, the permission you obtain is limited by its own terms. For example, if you secure permission to indude a video clip in a multimedia project for your own classroom teaching, the permission may not include sharing the project with colleagues, posting it to your website, or selling copies at a conference. ft you want those rights, be sure to indude them in the permission request When: State how Song you plan to use the work, whether one semester or indefinitely. Some owners may be wary 0? granting permission for extended periods of time .or for dates far in the-Mure, but if that Is what you need, go ahead and ask. Where and Mow: Include information about how and where the work will be used, Such uses may invoke classroom copies, reserves, coursepacks, password protected online displays, etc. include the exact or estimated number of copies that you wish to make or the number of uses intended. Why: T08 why you are contacting that person or entity for permission. For example' 1 am writing to you, because I believe your company acquired the company that originally published the book.* Another example: "I believe that you are the grandson of the original writes', and therefore may have inherited the copyright to the letters and diaries* If you are using materials from a library or archives, do not assume that the institution holds the copyrights. You need to investigate and ask. Results Sometimes you need to be patient and persistent, and sometimes the owner responds Quickly. In any event, the reply can take any number of possibilities' Permission Granted, Great news. Move to Step 3. Permission Denied, Find out why. Maybe you can negotiate a better result. In any event, you may need to change your plans or look for alternative materials, Permission Granted, but at a Cost. The copyright owner may charge a fee tor the permission. You might obtain a lower fee if you change your plans, e.g., by copying fewer pages from the bock or making fewer copies of the work. Sometimes copyright owners require their own permission form. Read H carefully The form may impose limits or include legal constraints {“You agree to be bound by the law of Mfinois*) that are not acceptable to you. The decision to accept vM be up to you, you? counsel or supervisors, and your budget.

STEP 3; KEEP A RECORD Keep a copy of everything. If you successfully obtain permission, keep a copy of ail correspondence and forms. Also, keep a detailed record of your quest to identify and locate the copyright owner, Why keep these records? In the unlikely event that your use of the work is ever challenged, you win need to demonstrate your good efforts. That challenge could arise far in the future, so keep a permanent file of the records. Moreover, you might need to contact that same copyright owner again for a later use of the work arid your notes from the past wii! make the task easier. What If I Reach a "Dead End*? What can you do If you come to a “dead end” in your quest for obtaining permission for the use of a particular work? ff you cannot find the owner or you are getting no reply your work may be an “orphan work."' See Special Cases.

BB This page is licensed by a Creative Commons Attribution License with attribution to its author Dr. Kenneth 0. Crews (formerly of Columbia University} Creative Commons license

535 West ?14thSt,NawYbrk,NY 100?? Mepbcr*: !2t2>, 854-7309 Fax £212) 8S4-9099 OopyrtaM' 1 Pafiete f Suggsafiers & Psatteack f Cmixt Us f About Us □ ii ti 2 □ 290

Appendix 45: Victoria Gorski, “What Causes a Corrupt File?”

ft Techwalla AROUND THE HOME FAMILY PRODUCT REVIEWS ONE COOL THING

What Causes a Corrupt File? By Victoria Gorski

Corrupt files can be caused by a number of system errors. Normally, when a file becomes corrupt, it cannot be accessed or some data in the file is lost. In some cases data from a corrupt file is retrievable, such as in some Microsoft Office programs which have a "recovery mode" for automatically saved data.

Bad Sectors Sectors are divisions of a hard disk. When a user tries to save a file, the computer searches for a sector on the hard disk to save the data. If the computer saves a file to a "bad sector," the file is likely to become corrupt or inaccessible. Bad sectors can be caused by physical damage (i.e., the hard disk losing magnetism and hence its ability to store data) or bad parity checks on the disk. A computer does not know which sectors are bad or unstable, so the user must scan hard disks (such as the C Drive) to check for bad sectors. This can be done by right-clicking on the drive from "My Computer," selecting "Properties," "Tools" and selecting "Check Now" under the heading "Error-checking."

Cross-Linked Files or Lost Clusters In computer systems, a "cluster" is the smallest amount of disk space needed to store a file. Files are allocated individual clusters, which can range from one sector (512 bytes) to 128 sectors (64 kilobytes). A cross-linked file occurs when two or more files have been allocated the same cluster, which will corrupt all files saved to the same cluster. Lost clusters may also cause corrupt files; when a file is deleted from the computer's directory listing, but the File Allocation Table (FAT) still shows clusters allocated to that file, the clusters become "lost" and data which is saved to this cluster will show as "cross-linked," even if the directory listing has already been deleted.

Infected Files and Viruses Viruses can delete files, infect the computer registry, change volume labels, mark sectors as bad on the drive, mark clusters as bad in the FAT, create cross-linked files or create new partitions on the disk drive. A virus can easily change how files are saved and read on a computer, causing corrupt files to occur even if no problem exists with a hard drive. Viruses can, for example, mark sectors as bad when they are functioning normally, and cause all files to become corrupt or inaccessible for the user in that sector.

System Crashes System crashes can be caused by various factors on a computer system. Logical crashes (i.e., complete shut down, or the "Blue Screen of Death" for Windows users) occur when programs use conflicting memory, or when new hardware is corrupt. Programs are normally allocated memory from the system and cannot share a portion of memory; if one program accesses another program’s allocated memory, a crash may occur. If programs using kernel memory (trusted programs, such as the operating aystem or hardware drivers) access another kernel program's memory, a system crash/shutdown will occur. In both cases, if a file is being saved, accessed or sometimes open, the file may become corrupt from a sudden shutdown. 291

Appendix 46: Peter B. Hirtle, “Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States” (Excerpt)

Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States l January 20171

Never Published, Never Registered Works2

Type of Work Copyright Term What was in the public domain in the U.S. as o f 1 January 2017 -

Unpublished Life of the author + 70 years Works from authors

works who died before 1947

Unpublished 120 years from date of creation Works created before

anonymous 1897

and

pseudonymous

works, and

works made for

hire (corporate

authorship)

Unpublished 120 years from date of creation^ Works created before

works when 1897- the death date

of the author is

not known-

Works Registered or First Published in the U.S. 1

Date of Conditions- Copyright Termi^ Publication£

Before 1923 None None. In the public

domain due to

copyright expiration

1923 through Published without a copyright notice None. In the public

1977 domain due to failure

to comply with required

formalities 292

1978 to 1 Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years None. In the public

March 1989 domain due to failure

to comply with required

formalities

1978 to 1 Published without notice, but with subsequent registration within 5 years 70 years after the

March 1989 death of author. If a

work of corporate

authorship, 95 years

from publication or 120

years from creation,

whichever expires first

1923 through Published with notice but copyright was not renewed^ None. In the public 1963 domain due to

copyright expiration

1923 through Published with notice and the copyright was renewed^ 95 years after 1963 publication date

1964 through Published with notice 95 years after

1977 publication date

1978 to 1 Created after 1977 and published with notice 70 years after the

March 1989 death of author. If a

work of corporate

authorship, 95 years

from publication or 120

years from creation,

whichever expires first

1978 to 1 Created before 1978 and first published with notice in the specified period The greater of the term

March 1989 specified in the

previous entry or 31

December 2047

From 1 March Created after 1977 70 years after the

1989 through death of author. If a

2002 work of corporate

authorship, 95 years

from publication or 120 293

years from creation,

whichever expires first

From 1 March Created before 1978 and first published in this period The greater of the term

1989 through specified in the

2002 previous entry or 31

December 2047

After 2002 None 70 years after the

death of author. If a

work of corporate

authorship, 95 years

from publication or 120

years from creation,

whichever expires first

Anytime Works prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of None. In the public

that person's official duties. 21 domain in the United States (17 U.SC. §

IQS)

Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad9

Date of Conditions Copyright Term in Publication the United States

Before 1923 None In the public

domain (But see first

special case below)

Works Published Abroad Before 1978—

1923 through Published without compliance with US formalities, and in the public domain in its source In the public domain

1977 country as of 1 January 1996 (but see special cases) —

1923 through Published in compliance with all US formalities 95 years after

1977 (i.e., notice, renewal)!^ publication date

1923 through Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the 95 years after

1977 US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996 (but see publication date

special cases) 294

1923 through Published in the US less than 30 days after publication abroad Use the US publication

1977 chart to determine

duration

1923 through Published in the US more than 30 days after publication abroad, without compliance 95 years after

1977 with US formalities, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January publication date

1996 (but see special cases)

Works Published Abroad After l January 1978

1978 to 2002 Created before 1978 and first published in a country that is a signatory to the Beme The greater of 70 Convention or other 17 USC § 104A(h)(3) treaties ^ years after the death of author (or if work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication) or 31 December 2047

2003- Created before 1978 and first published after 2002 in a country that is a signatory to the 70 years after the Beme Convention or other 17 USC § 104A(h)(3) treaties 22 death of the author, or if work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication

1 January 1978 Published without copyright notice, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 In the public domain

- 1 March 1989 January 1996 (but see special cases)^

1 January 1978 Published without copyright notice in a country that is a signatory to the Beme 70 years after the death of author, or if - 1 March 1989 Convention or other 17 USC § 104A(h)(3) treaties and is not in the public domain in its work of corporate authorship, 95 years source country as of 1 January 1996 (but see special cases) ^ from publication

1 January 1978 Published with copyright notice in a country that has copyright relations with the US (but 70 years after the see special cases) — death of author, or if -1 March 1989 work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication

^ After 1 March Published in a country that has copyright relations with the US —1 70 years after the death of author, or if 1989 work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication

After 1 March Published in a country with which the United States does not have copyright relations In the public domain

1989 under a treaty

Special Cases

1 July 1909 In Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Treat as an through 1978 Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands ONLY. Published in a language other than unpublished work until

English, and without subsequent republication with a copyright n o t ic e ^ such date as first 295

US-compliant

publication occurred

Anytime Created by a resident of Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, or San Marino, and Not protected by US

published in one of these c o u n tr ie s ^ copyright law until they become party to

bilateral or

international copyright

agreements

Anytime Works whose copyright was once owned or administered by the Alien Property Not protected by US

Custodian, and whose copyright, if restored, would as of January 1,1996, be owned by copyright law

a government—

Anytime If published in one of the following countries, the 1 January 1996 date given above is

replaced by the date of the country's membership in the Beme Convention or the World

Trade Organization, whichever is earlier:

Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bhutan, Cambodia, Cape

Verde, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Haiti, Jersey, Jordan, Democratic

People's Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Malaysia, Micronesia, Mongolia,

Montenegro, Nepal, Niue, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Samoa, SSo

Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan,

Tonga, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen

Sound Recordings (Note: The following information applies only to the sound recording itself, and not to any copyrights in underlying compositions or texts.)

Date of Conditions What was in the Fixation/Publication public domain in the U.S. as of 1 January 2016&

Unpublished Sound Recordings, Domestic and Foreign

Prior to 15 Feb. 1972 Indeterminate Subject to state

common law

protection. Enters the

public domain on 15

Feb. 2067 296

Appendix 47: Institute of Museum and Library Services, “Status of Technology and Digitization in the Nation’s Museums and Libraries” (Excerpt)

* ** ****** -INSTITUTE o f Status of Technology and Digitization mUSeUmandLlbrary in the Nation's Museums and Libraries ' S f * SERVICES ** * I January 2006

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... — .——______— — ______l

Cortex roes ...... _....______„ __ ....___ _ 4 Key Findings ------5 Techrology Use « « « » _ * „ ___...... _____ 5 Dtg& 2atior Activities ...... &. Background and Methodology...... _____— 9 Background to me Study ...... ,...... 9 Purpose Off the Sun.ey ard Survey Develoo^ert ...... _...... „ ...... 9 Sanding Methods...... 10 Conducting the Survey . _____ „______.____ ...11 Response Hate and Valdty ...... ___ .______12

M use urns...... „. . ._____ 14 1. Museum Overview ______...______....__._____ ,______14 1 1 Techno?ogy overview __ ..______,____._,__14 1 2 D gitizatsor ovefvie* ___ lb 2. Museum Size Analyses _____ .____.____ ....______.______.______16 2.1 Demographics ______.______17 2.2 Technoiosgy ______-___ ...... ____-______,______IS 2.3 Digitization______...______23 3. Comparisons of the 2001 and the 2004 Survey Findings . ... , _____ .„___ __ 32 3.1 Overve* ...... _...... ______.__ 32 3.2 Top Techf'olog^es Used...______33 3.3 fu n d in g ^ Technology arc Digitization ...... 34 3.4 Sou roes of Fu rating 1m Technology ___ , 3.5 Sources of Fvrdtrgtor Dgjtizatior *ct»v.t*s ___ ,__ _ » 3b 3.6 Qsgrtization Polices .______.36 3.7 Top Goas for Dtgrttzaton Projects __ ..______...... -AT Chapter 1 Public Libraries^.. . ______-_____ -__...._____ ^__ 3a

1. Public Library Overview...... 3” 11 Technology Overview—.. .38 1.2 D«grtizat«>r Overview___ ..39 2. Public library size analyses . ..41 2.1 Demographics ...... 41 2.2 Technology___ ..43 2.3 Digitization ______4 1 3. Comparisons of the 2001 anc the 2004 survey findings...... 3.1 Overview.... _ *...... 3.2 Top Technologies Used ___ ...____ ...___...... 3.3 ^undirgtor Tec'J^olog* ard Dtgitizat-or....______...... *& 3.4 Sources of Funding for Technology _____...... ft? 3.b Sources of Furdirg for O^tizat^of Activites ______*7 3.6 Digitization Polices...... m 3.7 Top Goa s for Digitization Projects __ „S9 297

Key Findings

Technology Use

Small museums and public libraries have made dramatic progress, although they still lag behind their larger counterparts.

The extent of implementation and use of technologies in museums, public libraries, academic libraries, and all state library administrative agencies increased from the 2001 survey to the one conducted in 2004. The most dramatic increases are in small museums and public libraries, more of which have implemented basic office technologies and Web sites. Archives, which were not surveyed in 2001, report high percentages of basic and some advanced technologies in use.

• The use of essential office technologies (e-mail, office productivity software, and desktop computers) is pervasive among state library administrative agencies, large archives, museums, public libraries, and academic libraries. Small museums and public libraries have expanded their use of basic technologies since the 2001 survey, but still lag behind the larger institutions. • Internet connectivity is pervasive among all groups, with broadband connections predominant over modem connections, except among smaller institutions. Institutional Web sites are prevalent among institutions in all groups. Use of institutional Web sites has increased in small museums and public libraries since the 2001 survey, but these institutions still lag behind medium and large institutions.

Libraries and museums are putting services and activities online to manage their institutions and provide enhanced public service.

Newer technologies that use Internet-based and other kinds of online services and activities are being widely implemented among all groups.

• New technologies include broadband Internet connections, which are easing out modem Internet connections; online catalogs of collections and holdings; local area networks (LANs); intranets; wireless networks; meta- or federated searching in online collections and catalogs; and software to manage public access computers and printing.

Insufficient funding and staff time are barriers to implementing technology.

Lack of sufficient funding and staff time limit the ability of institutions in all groups to implement technologies that will enable them to fully meet their missions.

• Technology funds were available to at least a majority of the members of each group over the last 12 months. When asked about the percentage of technology needs that are met by current technology funding, at least a majority of archives, academic libraries,

5 298

public libraries, and state library administrative agencies report that they have adequate funding. However, almost two-thirds of museums, 31 percent of archives, 50 percent of large academic libraries, and the majority of small public libraries say their technology is less than adequately funded. • Institutions among all groups report that they can maintain technologies currently in use, but they have less confidence in their ability to add new technologies to meet evolving needs. • Technology capacity (equipment, software, connectivity, skills and expertise) to meet institutional missions is more prevalent among state library administrative agencies, public libraries, and academic libraries. The majority of museums and archives report that they have the technology capacity to meet or almost meet their mission. However, more than two-thirds of institutions among all the groups reported that they do not have enough skilled staff to accomplish their technology objectives.

Assessment of user and visitor needs is strongest among academic libraries and state library administrative agencies and weak among other groups.

• Almost half of academic libraries and state library administrative agencies conduct assessments of user and visitor needs. • The percentage of public libraries, archives, and museums that conduct them is 25 percent or less.

Digitization Activities

Digitization activities have increased for all groups, with state library administrative agencies and archives leading the way.

Between 2001 and 2004, digitization activities increased in museums, academic libraries, state library administrative agencies, and public libraries. State library administrative agencies and archives reported more digitization activity in 2004 than other groups.

• Institutions in all of the groups are digitizing materials and objects, though some groups are more active than others. When asked about materials and images digitized over the past 12 months, archives were the most active in terms of the percentage that digitized. Large numbers of museums and state library administrative agencies also digitized materials during that period. Nearly half of academic libraries were engaged in digitization, as were about one-third of large public libraries. No digitization activities took place in one-fifth of state library administrative agencies and museums, more than one-third of academic libraries, and more than three-quarters of small and medium public libraries.

While more institutions have digitization policies in place than was the case in 2001, many institutions that are digitizing do not have digitization policies.

6 299

Appendix 48: Max Kutner, “Museums Are Now Able to Digitize Thousands of Artifacts in Just Hours”

SUBSCRIBE RENEW GIVE A GIFT Smithsonian .C.com <*©©©©© Q

SMARTNEWS HISTORY SCIENCE INNOVATION ARTS & CULTURE TRAVEL AT THE SMITHSONIAN PHOTOS VIDEOS & PODCASTS GAMES GUBSCRiBE SHOP

VISIT EXHIBITIONS NEW RESEARCH FROM THE COLLECTIONS CURATORS'CORNER ASK SMITHSONIAN PODCASTS VIDEO LODGING NEWSLETTER

» %

Museums Arc Now Able to Digitize Thou­ sands of Artifacts in Just Hours At the American History Museum, a collection of rarely seen historic currency proofs are being made ready for a public debut

By Max Kutner SMITHSONIAN.COM

JANUARY 14, 2015

Cl 2?kQ 426 S3 ° © 15 H 24 23 f 3 3.6K 0

In the age of credit cards, Bitcoin and mobile payments, it's hard to believe that the proofs once used to create paper money can be as significant as priceless works of art. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, American states issued their own bank notes, made from metal plates engraved by hand. For immigrants at the time, the money in their pockets meant more than just opportunity; the scenes printed on them, such as Benjamin Franklin flying his famous kite, taught them about American history.

As the Smithsonian works to digitize its collection of 137 million items, the Digitization Program Office has turned to the National Numismatic Collection housed at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History along with other legal tender such as bank notes, tax stamps and war bonds. The 250,000 pieces of paper will become the Institution’s first full-production “rapid capture” digitization project. The project team, made up of 20 people hailing from a handful of departments across the Institution, began its pilot effort last February and moved forward in October, around Columbus Day. That’s fitting, because 300

some of the proofs depict Columbus discovering America. “This is a lost art form,” says Jennifer Locke Jones, chair and curator of the Division of Armed Forces History. (Even Jones admits she no longer carries cash.)

Last summer, the Digitization Office captured the bumblebees at the National Museum of Natural History. Earlier this month, the Freer and Sackler galleries made their entire collections of 40,000 works available digitally, the first Smithsonian museums to do so. The term “rapid capture” refers to the speed of the workflow. Before this process was in place, digitizing a single sheet could take as much as 15 minutes, at a cost of $10 per sheet. Now, the team works through 3,500 sheets a day, at less than $1 per sheet.

The process uses a conveyor belt and a custom-designed 80 megapixel imaging system, making details available to the world that had only ever been seen by a select few. (By contrast, the new iPhone camera has only eight megapixels.) The conveyor belt resembles the ones used by security at airports. Markings on the belt guide team members in placing the sheets. The belt advances when the sheet at the end has been removed. Such equipment has never before been used in the United States.

Before such state of the art technology, digitizing that daily amount would have taken years, says Ken Rahaim, the Smithsonian's digitization program officer. “Prior to this,” Rahaim says, “nobody ever thought in terms of seconds per objects.”

Rahaim says the project is on schedule to conclude in March. Transcribing the information from the sheets into the online system must be done sheet by sheet, and will continue after digitizing has wrapped. The Institution has asked the public to help transcribe through its Smithsonian Transcription Center. For this project, transcribers have completed 6,561 pages, each with information about what bank and city the sheet is from, what date the original plate was made, and other numismatic details.

The quarter-million sheets, each unique, were used to print money from 1863 to 1930. They entered the Smithsonian’s collections from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing between the 1960s and 1980s, and because the original engraved plates no longer exist, these sheets are the only surviving record and essential to the country’s monetary history. “People have never seen this collection. Most numismatists have no idea what’s here,” Jones says. Some of the designs even came from works of art, including paintings now hanging in the nation’s Capitol.

Aside from the occasional sheets stuck together, which causes a few seconds of delay, things have moved smoothly. “There’s a large element of human checking that still needs to happen at every point in the process,” Jones says.

“We have unlocked the ability to do this efficiently and at a price that was unheard of before,” Rahaim adds. “Digitizing a whole collection, it was an abstract concept, but these processes are now making that a reality.” 301

Appendix 49: Museum of Modern Art, “The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) Collection on Github”

o Features Explore Pricing This repository • Sign in or Sign up

0 MuseumofModernArt/ collection o w atch 72 ★ s ta r 743 y to rw 111

OCode ■ Issues 5 Pull requests 0 Projects 0 ' Pulse Graphs

The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) collection data

t j) 34 commits p 3 branches *v 19 releases 11 2 contributors fija CC0-1.0

B ranch: m aster - 5; ■; Clofi® of dowvdoid ■§§

orgadmin Automatic monthly update. Latest commit 3de86?i 23 days ago

M ay 18th u pda te; m ov ing da tase ts to large Isle storage; a dd ed d om a in ....^{attributes May 18th update; moving datasets to large Isle storage; added domain ....^{attributes 10 months ago

(| Artfsts.csv Automatic monthly update, 23 days ago

P i Artists json Automatic monthly update. 23 days ago

t*i Artworks, csv Automatic monthly update. 23 days ago

i,: Artworks.json Automatic monthly update. 28 days ago

1 LIC E N S E Initial commit 2 years ago

© README.md Automatic monthly update. 23 days ago

The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) Collection

The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) acquired its first artworks in 1929, the year it was established. Today, the Museum’s evolving collection contains almost 200,000 works from around the world spanning the last 150 years. The collection includes an ever-expanding range of visual expression, including painting, sculpture, printmaking, drawing, photography, architecture, design, film, and media and performance art.

MoMA is committed to helping everyone understand, enjoy, and use our collection. The Museum’s website features 72,918 artworks from 20,984 artists. This research dataset contains 130,409 records, representing all of the works that have been accessioned into MoMA’s collection and cataloged in our database. It includes basic metadata for each work, including title, artist, date made, medium, dimensions, and date acquired by the Museum. Some of these records have incomplete information and are noted as “not Curator Approved."

The Artists dataset contains 15,131 records, representing all the artists who have work in MoMA*s collection and have been cataloged in our database. It includes basic metadata for each artist, including name, nationality, gender, birth year, death year, Wiki QID, and Getty ULAN ID.

At this time, both datasets are available in CSV format, encoded in UTF-8. While UTF-8 is the standard for multilingual character encodings, it is not correctly interpreted by Excel on a Mac. Users of Excel on a Mac can convert the UTF-8 to UTF-16 so the file can be imported correctly. The datasets are also available in JSON,

This datasets are placed in the public domain using a CCO License. 302

For a roundup of how people have used our data so far, visit our Medium post. We love adding to the list, so please email us at [email protected] if you'd like to be included.

Additional usage guidelines

Images not included

Images are not included and are not part of the dataset. To license images of works of art in MoMA’s collection please contact Art Resource (North America} or Scala Archives (outside North America),

Research in progress

This data is provided “as is" for research purposes and you use this data at your own risk. Much of the information included in this dataset is not complete and has not been curatorially approved. MoMA offers the datasets as-is and makes no representations or warranties of any kind.

We plan to update the datasets with new and revised information on a regular basis. You are advised to regularly update your copy of the datasets to ensure you are using the best available information.

Pull requests

Because these datasets are generated from our internal database, we do not accept pull requests. If you have identified errors or have extra information to share, please email us at [email protected] and we will forward to the appropriate department for review.

Give attribution to MoMA

MoMA requests that you actively acknowledge and give attribution to MoMA wherever possible. If you use one or both of the datasets for a publication, please cite it using the digital object identifier Attribution supports efforts to release other data. It also reduces the amount of “orphaned data,” helping retain links to authoritative sources.

Do not misrepresent the dataset

Do not mislead others or misrepresent the datasets or their source. You must not use MoMA’s trademarks or otherwise claim or imply that MoMA endorses you or your use of the dataset.

Whenever you transform, translate or otherwise modify the dataset, you must make it clear that the resulting information has been modified. If you enrich or otherwise modify the dataset, consider publishing the derived dataset without reuse restrictions.

The writers of these guidelines thank the Tate, Cooper-Hewitt, and Europeana. 303

Appendix 50: National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage, “The NINCH Guide to Good Practice in the Digital Representation and Management of Cultural Heritage Materials” (Excerpt)

NATIONAL INITIATIVE FOR A NETWORKED ♦ # CULTURAL

The NINCH Guide to Good Practice in the Digital Representation and Management of Cultural Heritage Materials

by the Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute, University of Glasgow

and the National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage

http://www.nyu.edu/its/humanities/ninchguide/ 304

NINCH Guide to Good Practice

Art Museum, Gunther Waibel considers the move from taking transparent film surrogates of the Museum’s collections to taking surrogates with a digital camera to be a critical one. The digital objects become ‘mission critical institutional assets’ that require management strategies similar to those already in place for the Museum’s existing collections (Waibel 2000). Digital Asset Management allows organizations to maximize the use of these resources, ensuring that their value is maintained, while generating institutional savings.

Digital Asset Management (DAM) involves:

• Creating an efficient archive that can hold digital resources (such as images, audio and text) and the metadata that describe them;

• Implementing an infrastructure to ensure that these electronic data are managed and preserved in such a fashion that they will not become obsolete;

• Implementing search facilities that enable users to identify, locate and retrieve a digital object.

The benefits of implementing DAM include:

• Centralizing discovery and access;

• Coordinating disparate projects as part of a coherent whole;

• Centralizing authorization, security, and tracking systems;

• Unifying organizational solutions to managing copyright and IPR;

Reducing duplication of effort and resources;

Saving time for the creators and users through organizational structure and centralization o f data.

Digital Asset Management Systems

DAM systems provide the means to manage digital assets from creation to publication and archiving. In some cases, systems can automatically take the data from the scanning, assign the image a network space, depending on the metadata that the creator assigns to it, and then store the digital object and metadata in a database. A DAM system may be as simple as a directory of files on a hard disk, each file containing a digital asset, with an accompanying database that stores descriptive and administrative metadata for each of the files. Each database record contains metadata that can be used to find and understand the asset, including the name of the file and probably information about its content, format, history and usage. A simple asset management system can be purpose-built from

190 305

NINCH Guide to Good Practice

an off-the-shelf database management system, such as Filemaker Pro, Microsoft Access or one of the larger SQL database systems, like MySQL or Oracle.

Many cultural heritage institutions have computer systems that automate traditional functions. For instance, museums often have collection management systems for managing records of their artifact collections internally. Libraries usually have an online public access catalog for patrons searching the collection. DAM systems are a new addition to this family of computer systems. Once an institution has created a repository of reusable digital content (images of artifacts, video of public talks, etc), it will need to manage this new resource as a type of documentation collection, but one with special management needs. DAMs help the institution to manage these digital assets, and include information about the original artifact or event that the digital content relates to, as well as technical information about the digital resource, intellectual property rights to the digital resource (not the original artifact), and other types of relevant metatada that enable the institution to preserve and re-use these digital assets. Such a system can be used to administer a collection of assets, ensuring that each can be found and used by searching the data and locating the information about how to find the file. Usually, the system is intended to provide access for more than just simple management of the assets themselves, such as providing public access to the collection through a web site or using the assets to support the day-to-day activities of a museum or archive. However, delivery and asset management systems can be separate. It is also important to remember that a complete digital asset management strategy must start with the creation or acquisition of the assets. Tools that support the preparation of the data, particularly for processing batches of assets, are a very important part of the package.

In practice, such systems are almost always more complex than the simple one described above. There is usually more than one version of an asset to be tracked. For example, a primary image that is either digitized from a photograph or created directly with a digital camera may be processed manually to create a collection master; that master can then be mechanically manipulated to create derivative assets for specific purposes, such as a thumbnail and screen-sized version of the image for delivery on a web site. The result in this scenario is that there are four assets that all share an image content description, but each has its own administrative and technical description, and each may have different restrictions on its use. This example can be further complicated by considering a collection of digital images of objects or sites. There may be multiple photographs of the same object or site, each o f which has a family of digital assets derived from it; the photographs share some description of the object or place and each photograph has some specific content description, all of which is inherited by each of the appropriate derivatives. While it is possible to exploit the relational database systems mentioned above to build a DAM system to handle more complicated situations, the technical expertise required is significant.

Unless the uniqueness of the project at hand requires a custom solution, it is probably better to use software already developed for digital asset management where possible, whether by purchasing a proprietary system or reusing a system developed at another institution. There are a number of proprietary products on the market that can be some

191 306

Appendix 51: PC Magazine, “Definition of: API’

REVIEWS BEST PICKS HOW TO NEWS TIPS BUSINESS EXPLORE COUPONS

« PC Mag Picks #NintendoSwitch #TagHeuer #MicrosoftTeams #GalaxyS8

Home / How-To / Encyclopedia /

// ENCYCLOPEDIA

A*B*C*D*E*F*G*H*l*J*K*L*M*N*0*P*Q*R*S*T*U*V*W*X*Y*Z* 0-9 • MISC

Definition of: API

AP!

(Application Programming Interface) A language and message format used by an application program to communicate with the operating system or some other control program such as a database management system (DBMS) or communications protocol. AP.s are implemented by writing function calls in the program, which provide the linkage to the required subroutine for execution. Thus, an AP? implies that a driver or program module is available in the computer to perform the operation or that software must be linked into the existing program to perform the tasks.

Plenty of API Programming Is Done Understanding an AP! is a major part of what a programmer does. Except for writing the business logic that performs the actual data processing, all the rest of the programming is writing the code to communicate with the functions in the operating system and other system software

The APIs for operating systems can be daunting, especially the calls to the user interface routines to display contents on the screen. There are more than a thousand API calls in a full-blown operating system such as Windows, Mac or Unix. See function and interface. 307

/

S 1 —r- if f .'

PROGRAMS TALK TO EACH OTHER!

the communications interface. S e eO S / mode) 308

Appendix 52: Oliver Roeder, “A Nerd’s Guide to the 2,229 Paintings at MoMA” (Excerpt)

FiveThirtyEight

Politics Sports Science & Heaith Economics Culture

MIG, 28, 2015 AT 0:11 m A Nerd's Guide To The 2,229 Paintings At MoMA

3y Oliver Boeder

Filed under Art

NEW YORK — Through the lobby thronged with tourists, the line for tickets, the line for the cloakroom, and the line for the ticket taker, up the narrow escalators, past the cafe and bookshop on the second floor, the photographs and drawings on the third, and the installations in progress on the fourth, we finally arrive at the fifth floor of The Museum of Modem Art.

This is where they keep the really good stuff — the paintings reproduced in framed prints and on postcards in the gift shop — giants of impressionism, post-impressionism, abstract expressionism, Fauvism, cubism and color field.

Step off the escalator, and we’re greeted by our first painting: Jean-Michel Basquiat’s “Glenn.” Press on. To the right is Balthus’s “The Street.” Hang one more left, and we’ve really arrived: Gallery 1. Staring at you or, more accurately, staring at the floor right in front of you, is Paul Cezanne’s “The Bather.” And just feet away, somewhere through that knot of cell-phone-camera-wielding museumgoers and just to the side of that hyper-vigilant security guard, is an image you’ll surely recognize: Vincent van Gogh’s “The Starry Night.”

The picture, of the view from van Gogh’s room in a French asylum to which he’d committed himself after mutilating his own ear, may well be van Gogh’s highest achievement. But “The Starry Night” — that instantly recognizable image, pulsating with the energy of nature — also goes by another, icier name: ObjectID 79802.

On GitHub, an online data and code hosting service, sits the entire MoMA collection: 123,919 pieces, including 1,656 sculptures, 28,411 photographs, 11,420 drawings, 1,936 films and — most important for our tour today — 2,229 paintings. One of the rows in this giant spreadsheet: ObjectID 79802. For each piece, the database tells us the work’s title, some brief biographical information about the artist, the year of creation, the medium and dimensions, and how and when MoMA acquired it. These aren’t exactly trade secrets: It’s basically the data printed on the placards posted next to each painting. But, in MoMA’s case, it’s assembled in one place, comprehensive, easy to use, and recent. The museum made the database freely available online last month. 309

At the museum today, we’re armed not only with our love of art, but also with this big pile of data. We’ll appreciate the beauty, to be sure. But if you have questions, I’ll also turn to the hard numbers for answers. The technical hallmark of “The Starry Night,” as you’ve surely noticed, is its exaggerated brushwork — “a thick, emphatic plasma of paint,” wrote the late, great art critic Robert Hughes. The painting is, emphatically, oil on canvas.

And our data can shed some light on this painting’s most striking feature. “Is this combination of materials typical in modem art?” you ask. Great question — we’re going to have fun! Indeed, oil on canvas is the dominant medium for MoMA’s paintings; nearly half of them use those materials. Synthetic polymer paint on canvas is a distant second. Oil painting, around for some 900 years, still dominates in the modem era.

MEDIUM PAINTINGS SHARE O f COLLECTION Oil on canvas 1,059 47,5% Synthetic poiymer paint on canvas 119 5.3 Oil on composition board 56 2.5 Casein tempera on hardboard 30 1.3 Ink and stamps on postcard 27 1.2 Oil on wood 21 0.9 Oil on linen 17 0.8 Casein and wax on mahogany 12 0 . 5 Oil on canvas, two panels 12 0.5 Paint on wood 12 0.5

Let’s keep walking, past three examples of Georges Seurat’s pointillism and another van Gogh, past Henri Rousseau’s haunting “The Dream” and “The Sleeping Gypsy.” Look to your right, and you'll see my personal favorite painting in the collection: “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon.”

“Les Demoiselles” is Pablo Picasso’s imposing, proto-cubist masterpiece. It wasn’t easily accepted in its day. The painting puts the viewer on the client’s couch in a brothel, facing five naked prostitutes. When painting it, Picasso was “drinking turpentine and spitting fire,” imagined his contemporary and fellow cubist Georges Braque. Henri Matisse thought the painting was ridiculing modernism itself. In 2007, Newsweek declared it the most important work of art of the previous 100 years.

“Les Demoiselles,” finished in 1907, would help usher in the cubist revolution — and spur a productive competition between Picasso and Braque. So, in such an oft-shifting century for art, how does MoMA maintain a collection representative of all modem art has to offer, both the earlier works and the contemporary? The figure below shows the paintings MoMA has added to its collection each year and when the additions were painted. The red regression line shows the “modernizing” of MoMA’s collection — how quickly the museum has moved toward acquiring recent paintings. 310

Appendix 53: Julie Taboh, “American Museum First to Digitize Entire Art Collection”

\ m \ f O €-• (" tj LANGUAGES

HOME WORLD v EDITOR'S PICKS TECHNOLOGY SCIENCE & HEALTH US POLITICS SOUTH CHINA SEA STUDENT UNION BLOC @ LISTEN v ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT American A • Museum /r -rFirst -, • , ,to TDigitize - x • • , • T^i*Entire Art Collection

One of the world’s most important holdings of Asian and American art is now online, giving anyone with an Internet connection unprecedented access to the entire collection of the Arthur M. Sackler and Freer Galleries of Art.

The vast majority of the works in the Smithsonian Institution's National Museums of Asian Art has never been seen by the public before, and can now be downloaded - in many cases for free - with some of the most popular images available for download as free mobile backgrounds, desktop wallpapers and social media headers.

Art Outside the Box It took 15 years to photograph and digitize the more than 40,000 objects that have been released online. They include Chinese ceramics and Islamic art, masterworks from Persia, objects from Egypt and around Asia - and even works of art by American-born artist James McNeill Whistler.

The objects have deep cultural and historical significance, according to Courtney O’ Callaghan, chief digital officer at the Freer and Sackler Galleries. She says it was very important to the museum that they be accessible to anyone who wants to see them.

“Small children, kids doing homework assignments, scholars who are unable to come to the Smithsonian, artists who are looking for inspiration,” are among the examples of people who could benefit from viewing art online she pointed out.

“The digital really helps democratize the art and allows people from around the world to enjoy it,” she added.

Benefits of digital art Jan Stuart, Melvin. R. Seiden curator of Chinese art at the Freer and Sackler Galleries, agrees, calling the project to digitize the entire collection "absolutely, overwhelmingly wonderful.”

“Because what it means is that any person, whether they are simply an art lover or they are actually doing research for any kind of project - it could be an academic project or it could be research because you’re an interior designer and you’re trying to look for patterns - it means that this resource that we hold here, is available,” she explained.

“It's starting something that’s going to accelerate research as well as just please everybody who loves beauty, who’s interested in history, who’s interested in civilization.”

O'Callaghan points to another benefit of digitizing the collection: conservation of the delicate treasures. 311

“It allowed us to gather these beautiful, high resolution images of objects so that we don’t have to bring them out again,” she said. “We don’t have to touch them.”

Those high resolution images can also bring hidden details to light. When viewed in person for example, it’s difficult to closely examine the intricate artwork on display in James McNeill Whistler’s famed Peacock Room due to the low lighting conditions that help preserve the exhibit.

But in a digital panoramic view, the room is seen with highlights of the more than 250 ceramics that museum founder Charles Lang Freer collected on his travels to Egypt, Iran, Japan, China and Korea.

The museum also captured objects in three dimensions, from every angle.

Pointing to a revered Chinese sculpture called Cosmic Buddha, O'Callaghan explained, "Here is an amazing sculpture that has very detailed relief pattern on it that is very hard to see with the naked eye, and with using 3-D not only are people able to see all around this object, but they’re able to change the lighting and change the color and actually see things that are almost impossible to see in real life.”

“In fact, our 3-D of the Cosmic Buddha has really helped scholars better understand the stories on it, and that was not something we expected to get out of this,” she added.

O’Callaghan believes making art accessible online will be a growing trend for museums, and says the galleries plan to digitize every work of art added to the collection in the coming years. 312

Appendix 54: United States Copyright Office, “The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998: U.S. Copyright Office Summary” (Excerpt)

T h e D ig ita l M i l l e n n iu m C o p y r ig h t A c t o f 1998 U.S. Copyright Office Summary

December 1998

I ntroduction

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)1 was signed into law by President Clinton on October 28, 1998. The legislation implements two 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The DMCA also addresses a number of other significant copyright-related issues.

The DMCA is divided into five titles:

• Title I, the “WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998,” implements the WIPO treaties. • Title II, the “Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act,” creates limitations on the liability o f online service providers for copyright infringement when engaging in certain types of activities. • Title III, the “Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act,” creates an exemption for making a copy o f a computer program by activating a computer for purposes of maintenance or repair. • Title IV contains six miscellaneous provisions, relating to the functions of the Copyright Office, distance education, the exceptions in the Copyright Act for libraries and for making ephemeral recordings, “webcasting” of sound recordings on the Internet, and the applicability of collective bargaining agreement obligations in the case of transfers of rights in motion pictures. • Title V, the “Vessel Hull Design Protection Act,” creates a new form of protection for the design of vessel hulls.

This memorandum summarizes briefly each title of the DMCA. It provides merely an overview of the law’s provisions; for purposes of length and readability a significant amount of detail has been omitted. A complete understanding of any provision of the DMCA requires reference to the text of the legislation itself.

!Pub. L. No. 105-304,112 Stat. 2860 (Oct. 28,1998).

Copyright Office Summary December 1998 313

Appendix 55: United States Copyright Office, “Report on Orphan Works; A Report of the Register of Copyrights” (Excerpt)

Report on Orphan Works

A Report of the Register of Copyrights • January 2006

C o p y r i g hUnited t States Copyright Office

Library of Congress U.S. Copyright Office 101 independence Avenue SE Washington, DC 205596000 314

UNITED STATES C OPYRIGHT OFFICE______REPORT ON ORPHAN WORKS

I. Executive Summary A. Introduction and Background This Report addresses the issue of “orphan works,” a term used to describe the situation where the owner of a copyrighted work cannot be identified and located by someone who wishes to make use of the work in a manner that requires permission of the copyright owner. Even where the user has made a reasonably diligent effort to find the owner, if the owner is not found, the user faces uncertainty - she cannot determine whether or under what conditions the owner would permit use. Where the proposed use goes beyond an exemption or limitation to copyright, the user cannot reduce the risk of copyright liability for such use, because there is always a possibility, however remote, that a copyright owner could bring an infringement action after that use has begun. Concerns have been raised that in such a situation, a productive and beneficial use of the work is forestalled - not because the copyright owner has asserted his exclusive rights in the work, or because the user and owner cannot agree on the terms of a license - but merely because the user cannot locate the owner. Many users of copyrighted works have indicated that the risk of liability for copyright infringement, however remote, is enough to prompt them not to make use of the work. Such an outcome is not in the public interest, particularly where the copyright owner is not locatable because he no longer exists or otherwise does not care to restrain the use of his work. The Copyright Office has long shared these concerns, and has considered the issue of orphan works to be worthy of further study. The Office was pleased that on January 5, 2005 Senators Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy asked the Register of Copyrights to study the orphan works issue in detail, and to provide a report with her recommendations. Also in January 2005, Representatives Lamar Smith and Howard Berman expressed interest in the issue and supported the undertaking of this study. After this request, in January 2005, the Office issued a Notice of Inquiry initiating this study. We received over 850 written initial and reply comments from the public, and held three days of roundtable discussions in late July in Washington, D.C. and Berkeley, California. The Office subsequently met informally with various organizations separately, in a effort to explore more specific issues raised in the comments and

PonA 1 315

Appendix 56: United States Copyright Office, “Copyright Basics” (Excerpt)

Copyright Basics

What Is Copyright?

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: • reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords • prepare derivative works based upon the work • distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending • perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audio­ visual works • display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work • perform the work publicly (in the case of sound recordings*) by means of a digital audio transmission

In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribu­ tion and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, see Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts. It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 122 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of “fair use,” which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a “compulsory license” under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further infor­ mation about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.

*n o t e i Sound recordings are defined In the law as “works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work.” Common 316

Copyright Basics • 4

A further discussion of the definition of “publication” can contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still be found in the legislative history of the 1976 Copyright relevant to the copyright status of older works. Act. The legislative reports define “to the public” as distri­ Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This bution to persons under no explicit or implicit restrictions requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered with respect to disclosure of the contents. The reports state to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989. Although that the definition makes it clear that the sale of phonore- works published without notice before that date could have cords constitutes publication of the underlying work, for entered the public domain in the United States, the Uruguay example, the musical, dramatic, or literary work embodied Round Agreements Act (URAA) restores copyright in certain in a phonorecord. The reports also state that it is clear that foreign works originally published without notice. For fur­ any form o f dissemination in which the material object does ther information about copyright amendments in the URAA, not change hands, for example, performances or displays on see Circular 38b. television, is not a publication no matter how many people The Copyright Office does not take a position on whether are exposed to the work. However, when copies or phono- copies of works first published with notice before March 1, records are offered for sale or lease to a group of wholesalers, 1989, which are distributed on or after March 1, 1989, must broadcasters, or motion picture theaters, publication does bear the copyright notice. take place if the purpose is further distribution, public per­ Use of the notice may be important because it informs formance, or public display. the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies Publication is an important concept in the copyright law the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. for several reasons: Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper • Works that are published in the United States are subject notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to to mandatory deposit with the Library of Congress. See which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, discussion on “Mandatory Deposit for Works Published then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposi­ in the United States” on page 10. tion of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in section • Publication of a work can affect the limitations on the 504(cX2) of the copyright law. Innocent infringement occurs exclusive rights of the copyright owner that are set forth when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected. in sections 107 through 122 of the law. The use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the • The year of publication may determine the duration of copyright owner and does not require advance permission copyright protection for anonymous and pseudonymous from, or registration with, the Copyright Office. works (when the author’s identity is not revealed in the records of the Copyright Office) and for works made for Form of Notice for Visually Perceptible Copies hire. The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all • Deposit requirements for registration of published works the following three elements: differ from those for registration of unpublished works. 1 The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word See discussion on “Registration Procedures” on page 7. “Copyright,” or the abbreviation “Copr”; and • When a work is published, it may bear a notice of copy­ 2 The year of first publication of the work. In the case of right to identify the year of publication and the name of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously the copyright owner and to inform the public that the published material, the year date of first publication of work is protected by copyright. Copies of works pub­ the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year lished before March 1, 1989, must bear the notice or risk date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculp­ loss of copyright protection. See discussion on “Notice of tural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is Copyright” below. reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful article; and

3 The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an Notice of Copyright abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner. The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under Example: © 2011 John Doe U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did 317

Appendix 57: United States Copyright Office, “Orphan Works and Mass Digitization: A Report of the Register of Copyrights” (Excerpt)

UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE

O r p h a n W o r k s a n d M a s s D igitization

A REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS JUNE 2015 318

U.S. Copyright Office Orphan Works and Mass Digitization

While the fundamental aspects of orphan works and mass digitization have remained unchanged since the Office's prior reviews, a number of important domestic and international developments have affected the legal landscape. In the United States, it is difficult to separate the issue of mass digitization from two lawsuits arising out of the Google Books project, in which authors and book publishers have asserted violations of their exclusive rights and Google and libraries have asserted fair use.4 Recent decisions in these cases have magnified the public debate surrounding the costs and benefits arising from digitization projects more generally, and how best to license, except, or otherwise regulate them under the law.

Meanwhile, a growing number of countries have adopted legislative responses to both orphan works and mass digitization, ranging from calibrated exceptions to government licenses to extended collective licensing. And, private entities have developed innovative new copyright information registries and other resources to more efficiently bring rightsholders together with those seeking to use their works.

These combined developments - all of which will have substantial ramifications for U.S. copyright stakeholders - strongly suggest that it is time to revisit potential solutions in the United States. The goal in doing so is not to interfere with jurisprudence, but rather to ensure that the rules are clear and that all parties are on equal footing. Indeed, with so many equities at stake, the complexity and breadth of the issues make them well suited for legislative action.5 While the Office has addressed these issues together in this Report, we recommend separate solutions.

Orphan Works

The Office's current review of orphan works focuses on the challenges that users face when attempting to make use of individual works on a case-by-case basis. The Office concludes, as it did previously, that the orphan works problem is widespread and significant. As a broad spectrum of participants in this study noted, anyone using an orphan work does so under a legal cloud, as there is always the possibility that the copyright owner could emerge after the use has commenced and seek substantial infringement damages, an injunction, and/or attorneys' fees. While some users certainly may have viable defenses on fair use or other grounds, many will choose to forego use of the work entirely rather than risk the prospect of expensive litigation.

4 The book publishers settled their claims against Google in 2012. The terms are confidential.

5 See Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. (Google I), 770 F. Supp. 2d 666, 677 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ("The questions of who should be entrusted with guardianship over orphan books, under what terms, and with what safeguards are matters more appropriately decided by Congress than through an agreement among private, self- interested parties.").

2 319

U.S. Copyright Office Orphan Works and Mass Digitization

The Report noted that the orphan works problem was exacerbated by a series of changes in U.S. copyright law over the past thirty-plus years.13 Those changes gradually but steadily relaxed the obligations of copyright owners to assert and manage their rights and removed formalities in the law that had provided users with readily accessible copyright information. Significant among those changes were the elimination of the registration and notice requirements, which resulted in less accurate and incomplete identifying information on works, and the automatic renewal of copyrighted works that were registered before the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act.14

Subsequent amendments, such as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, extended the duration of copyright and thus increased the likelihood that some copyright owners would become unlocatable.15 The Copyright Office has long asserted that Congress amended the law for sound reasons, primarily to protect authors from technical traps in the law and to ensure U.S. compliance with international conventions.16 However, "the net result of these amendments has been that more and more copyright owners may go missing."17

13 Id. at 41-44.

14 See Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-553, § 408(a), 90 Stat. 2541, 2580 (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. § 408(a)) (making registration permissive); Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-568, § 7(a)-(b), 102 Stat. 2853, 2857-58 (codified at 17 U.S.C. §§ 401(a), 402(a)) (making notice permissive); Copyright Amendments Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-307, § 102(a), 106 Stat. 264, 264 (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. § 304(a)) (adding automatic renewal term for works in their first term on January 1, 1978).

15 Pub. L. No. 105-298,112 Stat. 2827.

16 Marybeth Peters, The Importance of Orphan Works Legislation, U.S. C o p y r ig h t O f f ic e (Sept. 25, 2008), http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/OWLegislation/. With the 1976 Act, the United States took several important steps toward assuming a more prominent role in the international copyright community. These changes harmonized U.S. copyright law with prevailing international copyright norms and moved the U.S. closer to compliance with the Berne Convention. See Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works art. 5(2), Sept. 9,1886, as revised July 24,1971, and as amended Sept. 28,1979,102 Stat. 2853, 1161 U.N.T.S. 3 ("Berne Convention") ("The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality ...."). Berne's "no formalities" requirement has been followed by several modern treaties addressing copyright. See WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights art. 9.1, Apr. 15,1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 33 LL.M. 81 (1994) ("TRIPS Agreement"); WIPO Copyright Treaty art. 3, Dec. 20, 1996, 36 I.L.M. 65 ("WCT"); WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty art. 20, Dec. 20,1996, 36 I.L.M. 76 ("WPPT"); WIPO Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances art. 17, June 24, 2012, WIPO Doc. AVP/DC/20.

17 Peters, supra note 16.

1 0 320

Appendix 58: United States Copyright Office, “Definitions (FAQ)”

Copyright gov About Us News Law and Guidance Policy tesoes Contact Us Search Q

,. Mem® :; PAD's . ' De^-nsiions

Definitions

Who is an author? Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher. In cases of works made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author. See Circular 9, Work-Made-For-Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act.

What is a deposit? A deposit is usually one copy (if unpublished) or two copies (if published) of the work to be registered for copyright. In certain cases such as works of the visual arts, identifying material such as a photograph may be used instead. See Circular 40a, Deposit Requirements for Registration of Claims to Copyright in Visual Arts Material. The deposit is sent with the application and fee and becomes the property of the Library of Congress.

What is publication? Publication has a technical meaning in copyright law. According to the statute. “Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication/' Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public. For further information see Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Publication".

What is a copyright notice? Mow do I put a copyright notice on my work? A copyright notice is an identifier placed on copies of the work to inform the world of copyright ownership. The copyright notice generally consists of the symbol or word “copyright (or copr.)," the name of the copyright owner, and the year of first publication, e.g., ©2008 John Doe. While use of a copyright notice was once required as a condition of copyright protection, it is now optional. Use of the notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office. See Circular 3, Copyright Notice, for requirements for works published before March 1, 1989, and for more information on the form and position of the copyright notice.

What is copyright Infringement? As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

What Is peer-to-peer (P2P) networking? A type of network where computers communicate directly with each other, rather than through a central server. Often referred to simply as peer-to- peer, or abbreviated P2P, a type of network in wtiich each workstation has equivalent capabilities and responsibilities in contrast to client/server architectures, in which some computers are dedicated to serving the other computers. A ‘ network" is a group of two or more computer systems linked together by various methods. In recent usage, peer-to-peer has come to describe applications in which users can use the Internet to exchange files with each other directly or through a mediating server.

Where Is the public domain? The public domain is not a place. A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copynght protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.

What is mandatory deposit? Copies of all works under copyright protection that have been published in the United States are required to be deposited with the Copyright Office within three months of the date of first publication. See Circular 7ti, Mandatory Deposit of Copies or Phonorecords for the Library of Congress, and the Deposit Regulation 202,19. 321

What is a work made for hire? Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, there is an exception to that principle. The exception is a work made for hire, which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer, or commissioning party, is considered to be the author. See Circular 9, Work-Made-For-Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act.

What Is a Library of Congress number? The Library of Congress Control Number is assigned by the Library at its discretion to assist librarians in acquiring and cataloging works. For further information, go to the Cataloging in Publication program website at www.loc.gov/publish/cip/.

What is an ISBN number? The International Standard Book Number is administered by the R.R. Sowker Company. The ISBN is a numerical identifier intended to assist the international community in identifying and ordering certain publications.

What is an ISBN number? The International Standard Book Number is administered by the R.R. Bowker Company. The ISBN is a numerical identifier intended to assist the international community in identifying and ordering certain publications.

What are some other terms commonly used by the U.S. Copyright Office? Please see our list of U.S. Copyright Office Definitions.

- : - - Subscribe ( fto ftta r j Stag } Tfcke our Survey ■. ; •.. . ■". . . ; ■ .

About U« News Law and Guidance Policy Issues

Overview Federal Register Copyright Law Po8cy Studies Leadership Notices Regulations Leg*sat?ve Resources and NewsNet Rusemakings Developments Education Compendium Congressional Hearings U.S. Copyright Office Academic Partnership® International issue® Forms 101 Independence Ave. S.E- internships C ira ia ra Registers Speeches Washington, D.C. 20559-6000 Kaminstein Program Contact Us 0202) 707-3000 or 1 (877) 476-0778 (toll free) Ringer Fellowship

Webmaster

Library of Congress j Congress.gov j USA gov j FOJA j IP/DMCA f Privacy Policy 322

Appendix 59: United States Copyright Office, “More Information on Fair Use’

Gopyright’ov Law and Guidance Policy Issues

Home U.S. fsi? O s* fndta* Msx* Matmti&rk m Fair Us® U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index

Mom Information on Fair Use Mom information on Fair Use Read Announcement

Search Cases index last updated January 2017

Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses-such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research - as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use. Section 107 calls for consideration of the following four factors in evaluating a question of fair use:

Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that ail nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative" uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.

Nature of the copyrighted work-. This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyhght’s purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.

Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part—or the ’‘heart"-of the work. 323

Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work, in assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantia! harm if it were to become widespread.

In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. This means that there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission.

Please note that the Copyright Office is unable to provide specific legal advice to individual members of the public about questions of fair use. See 37 C.F.R. 201 2(a)(3).

In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. This means that there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission.

Please note that the Copyright Off«ce is unable to provide specific legal advice to individual members of the public about questions of fair use. See 37 C.F.R. 2 0 1 .2(a)(3).

Subscribe j TWftter { Blog [ Take our Survey

About U* News Law and Guidance Publications

Oversew Federal Register Copyright Law Poicy Studies Leadership Notices Regulators LagWattve Newsf&st Resources tnd RuferriaWngs Devetapmens Education Congress* octal Hearings Compencfium U.S. Copyright Office Acadamk: partnerships Forms International issues Internship® 101 Independence Ave. S.E. Circulars Register's Speeches Washington, D.C. 20559-6000 Kamm tein Program Contact Us (202) 707-3000 or 1 (877) 476-0778 (toll free) Rtnger FefiowsNp

Webmaster

Library of Congress | Congress, gov j USA.gov j FOJA j IP/DMCA f Privacy Poflcy 324

Appendix 60: VAGA, “General Information and Services”

E3 @ Q E !

VAGA is most valuable to visual artists and rights holders whose works are frequently reproduced by publishers, museums, advertisers, authors, television and movie producers, product manufacturers, etc. VAGA works closely with our members to ensure that all reproductions are licensed to their satisfaction, appropriate royalties are collected, and accurate bibliographic records are kept.

Rights Clearance & Licensing When a publisher, museum, television or movie producer, advertiser, author or any type of image user seeks to reproduce a work of art by one of our members, VAGA issues a license document, which details and limits the rights granted, contains clauses protecting the integrity of the licensed work, and ensures payment of a fee commensurate with the nature of the use.

Foreign Rights Clearance & Licensing A VAGA member’s rights are protected worldwide. When image users are located outside the U.S., VAGA’s network of sister societies acts on our behalf to clear these rights in accordance with the applicable laws in the foreign jurisdiction. These sister organizations also collect fees for Secondary and Collective Rights, which are too difficult, if not impossible, to be collected on an individual basis.

Rights Protection/Infringement Unfortunately, it is a common occurrence for visual artists’ works to be reproduced without permission. VAGA’s collective power creates systems to discourage copyright infringement and, if necessary, VAGA pursues unauthorized uses.

Lobbying VAGA works to improve artists’ rights through consultation with the U.S. Copyright Office and by lobbying Congress for improved rights legislation.

CISAC VAGA is a member of CISAC - The International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers, which comprises over 200 copyright collectives worldwide representing creators in music, literature, and the visual arts. All members of CISAC are mandated to protect and enhance the rights of creators.

CIAGP VAGA is a member of CIAGP - The International Council of Creators of Graphic, Plastic, and Photographic Arts. CIAGP is a subgroup of CISAC, specializing in protecting and increasing the rights of visual artists. 325

Appendix 61: Effie Kapsalis, “The Impact of Open Access on Galleries, Libraries, Museums & Archives” (Excerpt)

The Impact of Open Access on Galleries, Libraries, Museums, & Archives

Effie Kapsalis Smithsonian Emerging Leaders Development Program

April 27, 2016

Executive Summary For the purpose of this document, “open access” is defined as making public domain materials open for use without any restrictions, and making copyrighted materials available under the provisions of fair use (non­ commercial, educational).

More than 50 institutions have, to varying degrees, pursued open access over the last decade, removing technical and copyright barriers to their digitized collections and resources. A strengthened institutional brand, increased use and dissemination of collections, and increased funding opportunities have been some of the benefits associated with open-access initiatives.

A recent Andrew W. Mellon Foundation study, “Images of Works of Art in Museum Collections: The Experience of Open Access, a Study of 11 Museums,” found that among the museums studied, none that enforced copyright restrictions made any significant surplus or profit against their expenditures. It concluded, “real and perceived gains far outweigh the real and perceived losses for every museum in the study that has made a transition to an open access approach.”

Recently, several funders, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Ford Foundation, and William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, have made open access either a requirement for gift recipients or a factor in assessing potential gifts.

Furthermore, President Barack Obama’s Open Government Initiative, launched in 2009, has built an increasing expectation from the public that all government entities will move towards practices that are more open, which places federal entities at risk for public perception of not pursuing best practices. Finally, as crowdsourcing initiatives gain traction in the cultural heritage space, it is the organizations that prioritize openness and sharing that are reaping the most benefits. 326

Appendix 62: Kristin Kelly, “Images of Works of Art in Museum Collections: The Experience of Open Access” (Excerpt) Images of Works of Art in Museum Collections: The Experience of Open Access A Study of 11 Museums

Prepared for The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation by Kristin Kelly June 2013

Council on L ib r a r y a n d Information Resources Contents About the A u th o r...... iv Acknowledgments...... iv

Executive Summary...... 1 Introduction...... 2 Study Rationale...... 3 Prior Studies...... 3 Current State of Discussion and Practice...... 5 Practices at Museums in the Study...... 7 Los Angeles County Museum of A rt...... 9 National Gallery of A rt...... 10 Yale University Art M useu m s...... 11 Metropolitan M useum of A r t ...... 14 The British Museum and the Victoria and Albert M useum ...... 14 Walters Art M useum ...... 16 Indianapolis Museum of A rt...... 18 Morgan Library and M useum ...... 19 J. Paul Getty M useum ...... 20 Museum Experiences with Open Access...... 20 C atalysts...... 20 Process and Decision M aking...... 22 Overcoming Concerns...... 23 O utcom es...... 24 Key Findings...... 25 Bibliography...... 30 Works Cited ...... 30 Further Readings...... 31 Appendix A: Survey Q uestionnaire...... 32 Appendix B: List of Participating Museums and Summaries of Their Terms and Conditions of Image U se ...... 34 328

Appendix 63: Adrian Kingston & Philip Edgar, “A Review of a Year of Open Access Images at Te Papa” (Excerpt)

r a

A review of a year of open access images at Te Papa

Adrian Kingston, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongariswa, New Zealand, P hip Edgar, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarevva, Now Zealand

Abstract Te Papa has been providing open access to more than 45,000 high-resolution images for over a year. This session will address what a year’s worth of downloads looks like from user, data, financial, creative, and museum perspectives. How do our numbers stack up against others internationally, and was it worth it? And of course, do we keep doing it? Keywords: open access, high resolution, reuse, collections, analysis, openglam, impact, ugly graphs, bad visualisations

1. Introduction In June 2014, the Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa, made available to the public more than 30,000 high- resolution images of its collection to download and reuse. The images were made available with No Known Copyright Restriction (NKCR) statements (17,000 images) or Creative Commons attribution, non­ commercial, no derivatives BY-NC-ND licenses (14,000 images) through Te Papa’s collections website, Collections Online (www.collections.tepapa.govt.nz). This paper describes Te Papa’s open access program with an emphasis on the results of the program after one year of activity.

The paper is divided into three parts. Part One details the reasons why Te Papa developed an open access program, describing what we hoped might happen if we made our collection images available for reuse; and exploring the international, New Zealand, and organisational contexts within which the decision to support an open access program was made. Part Two explains Te Papa’s open access program in more depth, documenting what we put in place to deliver downloadable images and describing the initial response we received after launch. Part Three explores the results of the program one year on, describing the extent—and ways—to which Te Papa’s collection images have been used; and compares this activity with similar open access programs internationally. 329

Appendix 64: Simon Tanner, “Reproduction Charging Models and Rights Policy for Digital Images in American Art Museums: A Mellon Foundation Study” (Excerpt)

Reproduction charging models & rights policy for digital images in American art museums A Mellon Foundation study

Simon Tanner

King's D igital Consultancy Services

KDCS Com u Iran cry

www.kd, ac.uk/kdcs/ Simon Tanner www.kcl.ac.uk/kdcs/

1 Introduction

This study explores the cost and policy models adopted by art museums in the USA in arriving at pricing structures for delivering surrogates of unique or rare artworks and artefacts as digital objects. This study aims to examine the new market-based sensibilities and issues art museums face due to the transition towards digitized collections.

The transition to digitized collections provides cultural institutions with a new set of opportunities to share, aggregate and link content across institutional boundaries. As most collections represent only part of the corpus of any single artist, subject area or era, the need to pull together cultural resources from across many institutions has always been an intellectual imperative for those studying or researching art and culture. The transition to digital representation makes this aggregation and linking easier to achieve in a technical sense, and there is a demonstrable consumer desire for resources to be gathered together in a coherent and logical fashion that is not bounded by any single institution. However, there are barriers that have sometimes prevented this from happening easily, such as perceived loss of revenue or ownership, licensing issues and museum policy. This study aims to examine the new market realities and opportunities cultural institutions face due to the transition to digitized collections. Further, it aims to discover the key factors that affect the willingness to collaborate and enable digital content to be shared.

There is much theoretical information and opinion written about these issues in the abstract. However, there are few published resources that explore the current state of art museum imaging and rights provision and motivation. The 2003-4 RARIN Rights and Reproductions Survey2 provides excellent survey- based information on prices charged in the marketplace. This study does not seek to repeat or challenge the RARIN Surveys findings, but to explore deeper into the underlying museum policy and service objectives that motivate the pricing schedules.

This study explores the thresholds that determine the point when an organization charges for the sale of content and other rights and the reasons given for such charges. The study further investigates the proportion of commercial to non-commercial licensing and the differentials between these activities. Further research is presented into the motivating factors behind such charging policies and the state of the marketplace.

This study provides the following information:

► The various factors - institutional, market and technical - that affect the cost of service provision, the price charged and the revenue received. Evidence that the ownership/gatekeeper function is very important to museums and information upon the application of copyright and rights management. ► The primary driving forces behind imaging and rights service existence. * How museums derive costs for imaging and rights service delivery. ► How museums define and set prices for asset and rights fees. ► The way revenue is assigned affects the investment and development of the services provided.

► The driving forces behind digital content creation.

2 http://www.Danix.com/~SQuiQle/rarin/RARINSurvevannounce.html

August 2004 5 ©Tanner 2004 Digital Consultancy 331

Simon Tanner www .kcl.ac.uk/kdcs/

► There are not enough resources and staff - is time consuming ► Lack of understanding of copyright within museum staff in general

► Acting as agents or intermediaries for artists is demanding and it is important to maintain a good relationship with the artists ► Quote: "have to be cleaner than clean as seen as a rich target for litigation"

► The high levels of antagonism experienced from clients

► An assumption that museums should provide images for free - even for commercial uses

► Making legal judgements are demanding ► Quality of use - if the museum is not happy with the quality of publication reproduction then may have to refuse permission and this is never popular

► Artists and their estates can be very aggressive and commercially minded. Mostly this is not a problem but occasionally dealing with artists' estates is very demanding, difficult and time consuming. One interviewee was so frustrated by these issues they stated, "there are three types of artists - the alive, the dead and the good and dead". One museum made a statement which encompasses many of the sentiments expressed by other museums:

Copyright law is complicated and sometimes conflicting and in many museums licensing is the responsibility of staff (like me) who have no prior knowledge of these issues and are learning as they go. The prevailing view at our museum for many years was that because we owned the artwork, we also own the copyright. Although our overall attitude has changed, it is still difficult to get other staff members to understand and take copyright seriously.

5.3.2 Fair Use

Fair use is obviously a contentious issue and remains one with some leeway as to its definition and application. The interviewees were asked whether the museum would chase unauthorized educational use of public domain works or is this "fair use".

90% + of respondents felt that it is probably fair use as long as the museum is properly credited. All would defend educational use as a good thing, but many interviewees were concerned about losing control over the way the artwork might be depicted and also losing the credit line. All felt that text book uses are commercial use and thus not fair use in any circumstances. One museum stated that they do not chase unauthorized educational use but feel it is definitely not fair use. Another museum stated that if used in a publication then it doesn't matter if it is educational or not; they would be chased and would not be considered fair use.

5.3.3 Barriers to imaging and rights service provision

The museums reported a wide range of barriers and downsides to providing imaging and right services over and above those mentioned previously: ► Lack of staff and resources

► Lack of investment in equipment and infrastructure

► Creating, managing and storing digital images is extremely demanding

August 2004 31 KDCS ©Tanner 2004 Digital Consultancy Simon Tanner www.kcl.ac.uk/kdcs/

6 Final Analysis and Conclusions

6.1 Motivations and objectives

It is clear from the results of this study that the level of revenue raised by museums through imaging and rights is small relative to the overall revenue earning capacity of the museum from retail, ticket sales, membership and fundraising. A museum does not carry out image creation or rights and reproduction activity because of its profitability. These services exist because of the internal need for image creation and rights clearance matching up with an external desire to publish and use museum images. The need to promote the museum collections, to gain appropriate credit and to honour the artist and their work are the real driving factors that underlie these services.

Most of these services are sunk costs to their museums that exist on budgets set according to the internal need for services and augmented with some external commercial and non-profit based usage. There are notable exceptions, but these museums do not represent the norm found in the survey or the interviews; and even here the success of the rights revenue is often based upon a small number (between 10 and 50) works which are iconic either to art history or the public sensibility. The main financial goal of all the services interviewed is to make enough money to offset direct and visible costs like materials and new photography. However tempting it is for museums to look upon colleagues with 6 figure revenues with envy this would be a mistake. All those interviewed were spending as much or more money to provide services as they received in revenue and a high revenue generally represents large numbers of transactions or new imaging. If museums wish to compete in this market they should aim for more transactions that recoup a higher level of service costs as a measure of success not necessarily more illusory profit.

6.2 Centralizing the rights function

The rights function has much leeway to make decisions, set prices and negotiate for the museum. The job functions that were discovered in the survey and interview for the rights activity were many and various and are generally found on a lower tier of the remuneration and management scale. The activity seems highly distributed with responsibility for image production, management and sales usually handled by different departments, each with different goals and objectives, and ultimately, each answering to different upper level management directives. For example, photography often is associated with collections and curatorial, while merchandising falls under the umbrella of marketing and public relations, while rights and licensing might fall under the legal council's domain or publications. In many of the museums interviewed any or all of the above departments would feel it was within their remit to cede rights for external use or believe they didn't have to clear rights for their internal purposes. Without some type of faceted, collective vision, the situation will continue to function within the chaotic fashion it currently exists. This exposes the museum to a large and continued risk of litigation and loss of artists' good will if 3rd party rights are not respected or misunderstood in this haphazard model.

The imaging and rights functions in some museums feel they are a Cinderella service - essential but not especially valued for what they achieve. There is a clear reason for this in analysing the museums key audiences in relation to the imaging or rights function. The museums' core audience is generally the local

August 2004 40 KDCS ©Tanner 2004 Digital Consultancy 333

Appendix 65: American Alliance of Museums, “Accredited Museums”

... _ , , Login Search Connect f t American Alliance of ill,tjJ Museums About Us Events Resources Membership About Museums Advocacy

Home > Assessment Programs > Accreditation > Accredited Museums

Museums Committed to Excellence

The following institutions are part of the Continuum of Excellence, They have committed to operating according to national standards and best practices in a variety of ways.

Use this search tool to find museums that have:

* Taken the Redge of Excellence

* Participated In MAP (since 2002)

* Completed Core Documents Verification

* Achieved Accreditation

Search by museum name or designation. All museums on this list have taken the Pledge of Excellence.

Want to add your museum to this list? team how,

M Accredited Museum 8 Core Documents Verified Museum S§ MAP Museum

■ Accredited Museum-on probation

|

3 Search by state Q Accredited Museums 0 Core Documents Verified MAP O Accredited Museum-on Probation

3337 institutions have taken the Pledge of Excellence

American AiSanoe of Museums Law us Contact Us Copyright Statement 2451 Crystal Drive s Suite 1005, ArfSngtar VA 22202 FoSowus Donate Privacy Foftcy t 202-289-1818 Join us Advertise Terms of Use 334

Appendix 66: American Alliance of Museums, “Assessment Programs’

f f American Alliance of '//y Museums About Us Events Resources Membership About Museums Advocacy

Home > Assessment Programs

Continuum of Excellence

supporting and celebrating your museum’s commitment to sta

demonstration m»fk of distinction

MAP, StEPS and CAP roadmaps - ••?**«*}•«¥»

Museum Membership • Pledge of Excellence * Museum Assessment Program ■ Core Documents Verification * Accreditation

What is the Continuum of Excellence?

The Continuum is a pathway of standartis-based programs from AAM and other organizations that nurtures a culture of excellence, It supports, motivates and recognizes your museum's ongoing commitment to professionalism, standards and best practices,

Learn about one museum's Continuum of Excellence journey and Accreditation experience

Why Strive for Excellence?

Commit to a culture of excellence your museum wilt:

• Be a stronger asset for its community

» Demonstrate it is worthy of support and public trust

* Ensure sound stewardship of its collections

• Enhance funding opportunities

« Raise the quality of its operations

• leverage change

* Improve staff and board skills

* Distinguish itself among peers

The Continuum of Excellence helps your museum get there. Whether taking the first step in its professional journey or already accredited, your museum can benefit from the Continuum of Excellence 335

How Does the Continuum Help?

* ft’s Flexible: There are a variety of program options to fit your institution’s goals and available time and resources. You choose the program that's right for your museum and decide sf and when to move to the next step,

* It’s Accessible Programs are open to museums of all sizes and types. You'll find multiple entry points so you can choose the program that works best for youf museum.

* It's Efficient: The various levels of assessment, feedback and recognition build on one another Cooperative partnerships with other organizations reduce the time and steps needed to become accredited

* It Offers Recognition: Your museum gets national recognition for each step it takes, enhancing Its credibility, exposure, community standing and positioning for funding.

* It Provides Standards Education and Resources team about standards and best practices, and benchmark your museum against them through sample documents, online training, peer experts, self-assessment and third-party vetting processes.

Museum Membership

The Alliance's institutional membership is your museum's first step on the Continuum of Excellence, As a member you and your staff gain access to resources that your museum needs to excel, including: standards and best practices, online Seaming opportunities and informative publications. The Alliance embraces all museums from "A to Z,’ art museums to zoos and everything in between Three membership tiers, beginning with a “pay what you can’ option, allow you to self-select your ideal level of benefits

Pledge of Excellence

Show your museum's commitment to ethics, standards ana best practices by taking the Pledge online or by email.

*My museum pledges that, in fulfillment of its educational mission. It will strive to operate according to national standards and best practices to the best of its abilities and in accordance with its resources.*

The Pledge is an easy and achievable step along your museum's path to excellence. Showcase your museum’s commitment to the field by joining a public list of museums whose staff and leadership have pledged to strive to operate according to field-wide standards and best practices,

Museum Assessment Program (MAP)

Benchmark your museum 's practices to standards and strengthen operations through self-assessment and expert peer consultation.

The Museum Assessment Program (MAP) is a powerful tool designed to support your museum at any point along the Continuum of Excellence, Through a one-year process of self-assessment, institutional activities and consultative peer review, your museum emerges with an analysis of its strengths, weaknesses and opportunities; and a prioritized roadmap for improving operations and meeting standards.

Small Museums Accreditation Academy (SMAA)

Engage your staff and board in a one-year accreditation readiness program .

The Academy is a guided online experience that combines live sessions, mentoring and collaborative activities for board and staff. When you finish, your museum's will have its Core Documents ready to be verified, have a stronger culture of excellence and be poised to apply for Accreditation.

Core Documents Verification

Receive recognition and validation that your museum’s mission and core policies meet standards for professional museums.

Build on your museum's accomplishments with a document review program that verifies that your Institution’s educational mission, strategic plan, emergency plan, code of ethics, and collections management policy meet the standards for professional museums. Use Core Documents Verification as a launching pad for accreditation, as part of the implementation of MAP recommendations or for third-party vetting of documents created as part of earning StEPs certificates,

Accreditation

Earn recognition for your museum 's commitment to, and demonstration of, the professional standards for education, public service a n d collections care.

As the museum field's mark of distinction, accreditation offers high profile, peer-based validation of your museum's operations and impact Accreditation increases your museum's credibility and value to funders, policy makers, community and peers. Accreditation is a powerful tool to leverage change and helps facilitate loans between institutions. The recently streamlined process maintains the same high standards while significantly reducing the time needed for completion.

For more than 40 years, the Accreditation Program has been recognized as the “gold standard* of museum excellence. With its mix of self-assessment, peer review and public recognition, AAM Accreditation helps to ensure the integrity and accessibility of museum collections, reinforce the education and public service roles of museums and promote good governance practices and ethical behavior. 336

Getting Started

Step 1: Join the Alliance today. Complete a membership enrollment form at aam-us.org/join to begin receiving benefits Immediately, including a free PDF copy of National Standards and Best Practices for U S Museums

Step 2: Access online resources. The Alliance website (aam-us.org) has free resources on ethics, standards and best practices, and an Excellence Diagnostic Tool to help you determine which program ts nghi for your museum Sample documents are available to Tier 3 members.

Step 3: Start a conversation with your staff and board. Make a commitment; set a goal The Affiance has resources to help you ever/ step of the way.

1 Amartean Alliance of Museums n Like os Contact Us Copyright Statement o o c ) w D 2451 Crystal Drtv®, Sate 1005 ArSngtoo, VA 22202 Follow us Donate Prtvacy Poftcy # v \r 202-289-1818 {£. Join us Advertise Terms of Use 337

Appendix 67: American Alliance of Museums, “Find a Museum’

Find a Member Museum

Use our member directory to find a museum in your dty or start planning your vacation. You can search by a single field or multiple fields.

Incorrect information for a museum? Contact our membership staff. if you are staff of a member museum, you can update information in the organizational tab of your online profile.

Search by M useum

Museum Name

Museum Acronym

Search by Location

City

State

Country (except US) United States

Search by Type Museum Type 3

V American AJSanoe of Museums , Like us Contact Us Copyright Statement f j 2451 Crystal Drwe, Suite 1005 Arifcrgtor, VA 22202 Follow m Donate Privacy Poicy uf 202-289-1818 S3 •**» us Advertise Terms of Use 338

Appendix 68: Tim Berners-Lee, “The Year Open Data Went Worldwide”

TED Ideas worth SpresdiHQ watch discover atteno participate about log in Q

The year open data

went worldwide Fwortte

iguages "'j Vfamr •act;v« transe?

Last year here at TED i asked you to give me your data, to put your data on the web, on the basis that if people put data onto the web — government data, scientific data, community data, whatever it is — it will be used by other people to do wonderful things, in ways that they never could have imagined,

So, today i’m back just to show you a few things, to show you, in fact, there is an open data movement afoot, now, around the world. The cry of "Raw data now!" which I made people make in the auditorium, was heard around the world. So, let's roil the video.

A classic story, the first one which lots of people picked up, was when in March — on March 10th in fact, soon after TED Paul Clarke, in the U.K. government, blogged, ’Oh, i’ve just got some raw data, Here it is, it's about bicycle accidents,48 Two days it took the Times Online to make a map, a mashabie map ~ we call these things mash-ups — a mashed-up user interface that allows you to go in there and have a look and find out whether your bicycle route to work was affected.

Here's more data, traffic survey data, again, put out by the U.K. government, and because they put it up using the Linked Data standards, then a user could just make a map, just by clicking.

1 28 Does this data affect things? Well, iet‘s get back to 2008. Look at Zanesville, Ohio, Here's a map a lawyer made. He put on It the water plant, and which houses are there, which houses have been connected to the water, And he got, from other data sources, information to show which houses are occupied by whtte people. Well, there was too much of a correlation, he felt, between which houses were occupied by white people and which houses had water, and the judge was not impressed either. The judge was not impressed to the tune of 10,9 million dollars. That's the power of taking one piece of data, another piece of data, putting rt together, and showing the result.

. Let’s look at some data from the U.K. now. This is U.K. government data, a completely independent site, Where Does My Money Go. it allows anybody to go there and burrow down. You can burrow down by a particular type of spending, or you can go through ail the different regions and compare them, So. that s happening m the U.K. with U.K. government data. 339

Yes, certainly you can do it over here. Here's a site which allows you to look at recovery spending in California. Take an arbitrary example, Long Beach, California, you can go and have a look at what recovery money they've been spending on different things such as energy,

fn fact, this is the graph of the number of data sets in the repositories of data.gov, and data.gov.uk. And !‘m delighted to see a great competition between the U.K. in blue, and the U.S. in red.

How can you use this stuff? Well, for example, if you have lots of data about places you can take, from a postcode — which is like a zip plus four — for a specific group of houses, you can make paper, print off a paper which has got very, very specific things about the bus stops, the things specifically near you.

. ‘ ■ On a larger scale, this is a mash-up of the data which was released about the Afghan elections. It allows you to set your own criteria for what sort of things you want to look at. The red circles are polling stations, selected by your criteria. And then you can select also other things on the map to see what other factors, like the threat level So, that was government data.

I also talked about community-generated data — in fact I edited some. This is the wiki map, this is the Open Street Map. "Terrace Theater” 1 actually put on the map because it wasn't on the map before TED fast year I was not the only person editing the open street map. Each flash on this visualization - put together by ITO World — shows an edit in 2009 made to the Open Street Map. Let‘s now spin the world during the same year. Every flash is an edit. Somebody somewhere looking at the Open Street Map, and realizing it could be better You can see Europe is ablaze with updates. Some places, perhaps not as much as they should be.

Here focusing in on Haiti. The map of Port au-Prsnce at the end of 2009 was not all it could be, not as good as the map of California. Fortunately, just after the earthquake, GeoEye, a commercial company, released satellite imagery with a license, which allowed the open-source community to use it. This is January, in time lapse, of people editing ... that's the earthquake. After the earthquake, immediately, people all over the world, mappers who wanted to help, and could, looked at that imagery, built the map. quickly building it up.

We re focusing now on Port-au-Prince. The light blue is refugee camps these volunteers had spotted from the (satellite images]. So, now we have, immediately, a real-time map showing where there are refugee camps — rapidly became the best map to use if you’re doing relief work in Port-au-Prince. Witness the fact that it's here on this Garmm device being used by rescue team in Haiti.

a z2 There's the map showing, on the left-hand side, that hospital — actually that's a hospital ship. This is a real-time map that shows blocked roads, damaged buildings, refugee camps — ft shows things that are needed [for rescue and relief work].

So, if you've been involved in that at all, 1 just wanted to say: Whatever you've been doing, whether you‘ve just been chanting, ‘Raw data now!" or you’ve been putting government or scientific data online, i just wanted to take this opportunity to say: Thank you very much, and we have only just started! (Applause) 340

Appendex 69: Loic Tallon, “Introducing Open Access at the Met”

Introducing Open Access at The Met

February 7, 2017 Loic Tallon. Chief Digital Officer

As of today, all images of public domain works in The Met collection are available under Creative Commons Zero (CCOV So whether you're an artist or a designer, an educator or a student, a professional or a hobbyist, you now have more than 375,000 images of artworks from our collection to use, share, and remix—without restriction. This policy change to Open Access is an exciting milestone in The Met’s digital evolution, and a strong statement about increasing access to the collection and how to best fulfill the Museum’s mission in a digital age.

The Met has an incredible encyclopedic collection: 1.5 million objects spanning 5,000 years of culture from around the globe. Since our audience is really the three billion internet-connected individuals around the world, we need to think big about how to reach these viewers, and increase our focus on those digital tactics that have the greatest impact. Open Access is one of those tactics.

The images we’re making available under a CC0 license relate to 200,000 public domain artworks in our collection that the Museum has already digitally catalogued. This represents an incredible body of work by curators, conservators, photographers, librarians, cataloguers, interns, and technologists over the past 147 years of the institution’s history. This is work that is always ongoing: just last year we added 21,000 new images to the online collection, 18,000 of which relate to works in the public domain. To help find these images on our website, we’ve added a feature that allows users to filter searches to only those works that we believe are public domain; all of these Open Access images are marked with the CC0 logo on their respective object page.

Alongside the images, we’re also making available under CC0 each artwork’s key information, otherwise known as tombstone data—title, maker, date, culture, medium, and dimensions—on all 440,000 artworks that the Museum has digitized to date; this data is now available as a downloadable file on GitHub. By making this information available in a clear, machine-readable format, we are making it easier for the 341

world to search for, play with, and explore the breadth and depth of the Museum's collection. (We don’t yet have an API, but we’re working on it!)

Enabled by the Museum’s move to open access, we also announced today a series of major new partnerships—with Creative Commons, the Wikimedia community, Artstor. the Digital Public Library of America, and Pinterest. We'll be blogging about these partnerships in the coming weeks, but one aspect I’m particularly excited about is that we currently have a Wikimedian-in-Residence, Richard Knipel. Over the coming months he will be collaborating with fellow Wikimedians to help "Wikify The Met, and Metify the Wiki." Richard will also help host our first events for the Wikimedia community.

We expect these partnerships to become an ever-larger component of the Digital Department's work. We're privileged to serve over 30 million visitors on our website each year, which we see as the canonical source for information about the collection; but if we want to connect the collection to three billion individuals around the world, we know that they're never all going to come to metmuseum.org.

To make the Museum as accessible as possible, we need to ensure that the collection exists in those online locations where people already go for doses of creativity, knowledge, and ideas. That's why these types of partnerships are so important to the Museum, and why, by enabling these partnerships, the Open Access policy change is such an exciting milestone for digital at The Met.

For more information, please see metmuseum.org/openaccess.

The Met's Open Access initiative is made possible through the continued generous support of Bloomberg Philanthropies.

Thank you to those institutions that have blazed the trail on Open Access, and from whom we have learned, including: Statens Museum for Kunst (Denmark); Rijksmuseum (The Netherlands); The National Gallery of Art (U.S.); The Walters Art Museum (U.S.); Cooper-Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum (U.S.); and the Museum of Modem Art (U.S.).