-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
CH8 IP and Restitution
Gabriel Bodard edited this page Mar 11, 2021
·
15 revisions
Thursday Mar 11, 16:00 UK = 17:00 CET
Convenors: Douglas McCarthy (Europeana), Mathilde Pavis & Andrea Wallace (Exeter)
YouTube link: https://youtu.be/O-42R5lK_BI
Slides: Combined slides (PDF)
In this session we will look at issues arising from digitisation and open access around cultural heritage acquired during periods of colonisation or forced occupation. We will think about how open access and reuse of digital reproductions and research around these collections raises new questions related to ownership, power, narratives, and control. We will also consider how open access can enable new research with restitution and repatriation goals. We will discuss some specific initiatives, including the Nefertiti Hack and Cosmo Wenman’s efforts to get the museum to release the data.
- Susan Douglas and Melanie Hayes. 2019. “Giving Diligence Its Due: Accessing Digital Images in Indigenous Repatriation Efforts.” Heritage 2.2, 1260-1273. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/2/81
- Trilce Navarrete & Elena Villaespesa. 2020. “Digital Heritage Consumption: The Case of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.” magazén 1.2, 223–248. Available: http://doi.org/10.30687/mag/2724-3923/2020/02/004
- Felwine Sarr & Bénédicte Savoy (2018). "The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage: Toward a New Relational Ethics." Available: https://restitutionreport2018.com/sarr_savoy_en.pdf
- Mathilde Pavis & Andrea Wallace (2019). "Response to the 2018 Sarr-Savoy Report: Statement on Intellectual Property Rights and Open Access relevant to the digitization and restitution of African Cultural Heritage and associated materials." Available: https://zenodo.org/record/2620597
- Saima Akhtar, Morehshin Allahyari, and Roopika Risam. 2020. “Rewind, Repeat, Rehash: History, Materiality and ‘Digital Colonialism.” Panel. Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies. Available: https://youtu.be/Sd01-DCT79k
- Puawai Cairns (2018). "Decolonisation: We aren’t going to save you." Center for the Future Of Museums Dec 17, 2018. Available: https://www.aam-us.org/2018/12/17/decolonisation-we-arent-going-to-save-you/
- Exell, K., & Rico, T. (2013). "There is no heritage in Qatar’: Orientalism, colonialism and other problematic histories." World Archaeology, 45(4), 670-685. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00438243.2013.852069
- Usama Gad (2019). "Decolonizing the Troubled Archive of Egyptian Papyri" in Everyday in Orientalism. Available: https://everydayorientalism.wordpress.com/2019/08/05/decolonizing-papyrology/
- Kenneth Hamma. 2005. “Public Domain Art in an Age of Easier Mechanical Reproducibility.” D-Lib Magazine 11.11. Available: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november05/hamma/11hamma.html
- Sonia Katyal, ‘Technoheritage’ [2017] 105 California L Rev 1111–1172. Available: https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/search?p=035:[(bepress-path)californialawreview/vol105/iss4/3]
- Mark, D. M., & Turk, A. G. (2003, September). Landscape categories in Yindjibarndi: Ontology, environment, and language. In International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (pp. 28-45). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Available: https://static.aminer.org/pdf/PDF/000/116/801/landscape_categories_in_yindjibarndi_ontology_environment_and_language.pdf
- Douglas McCarthy and Andrea Wallace. 2020. "The Case for Open Access." Apollo Available: https://www.apollo-magazine.com/open-access-images-museum-mission-open-glam/
- Guy Pessach. 2008. “[Networked] Memory Institutions: Social Remembering, Privatization and its Discontents.” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 26, 71–149. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1085267
- G. Petri (2014). "The Public Domain vs. the Museum: The Limits of Copyright and Reproductions of Two-dimensional Works of Art." Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies 12(1), Art. 8. Available: http://doi.org/10.5334/jcms.1021217
- Sarah Powell, Adam Moriarty et al. (2017). "The “Open by Default” Journey of Auckland Museum’s Collections Online." Society Byte Aug 2017. Available: https://www.societybyte.swiss/2017/08/21/the-open-by-default-journey-of-auckland-museums-collections-online/
- Andrew Prescott and Lorna Hughes. 2018. “Why Do We Digitize? The Case for Slow Digitization.” Archive Journal. Available: http://www.archivejournal.net/essays/why-do-we-digitize-the-case-for-slow-digitization/
- Laura Sydell. 2018. “3D Scans Help Preserve History, But Who Should Own Them?” Podcast. All Things Considered, National Public Radio. Available: https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/05/21/609084578/3d-scans-help-preserve-history-but-who-should-own-them
- Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang (2012). “Decolonization is not a metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1.1 (2012), 1–40. Available: https://www.latrobe.edu.au/staff-profiles/data/docs/fjcollins.pdf
- Hrag Vartanian and Morehshin Allahyari. 2019. “Talking Digital Colonialism with Morehshin Allahyari.” Podcast. Hyperallergic / Art Movements. Available: https://hyperallergic.simplecast.com/episodes/digital-colonialism-morehshin-allahyari-d_5WncWg
- Brigitte Vézina and Alexis Muscat. 2020. "Sharing Indigenous Cultural Heritage Online: An Overview of GLAM Policies." Creative Commons. Available: https://creativecommons.org/2020/08/08/sharing-indigenous-cultural-heritage-online-an-overview-of-glam-policies/
- Andrea Wallace, ‘Mona Lisa’ in Claudy Op den Kamp and Dan Hunter (eds), A History of Intellectual Property in 50 Objects (CUP 2019) 24–39. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3575795
- Andrea Wallace and Ronan Deazley. 2016. “Introduction” and “Exhibition Methodology” in Andrea Wallace and Ronan Deazley (eds), Display At Your Own Risk: An experimental exhibition of digital cultural heritage, 1–27. Available: https://displayatyourownrisk.org/publications/
- Nora Al-Badri & Jan Nikolai Nelles. 2017. "The Other Nefertiti." Available: https://aksioma.org/the.other.nefertiti/
- Charly Wilder. 2016. “Swiping a Priceless Antiquity … With a Scanner and a 3-D Printer.” The New York Times. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/arts/design/other-nefertiti-3d-printer.html
- Cosmo Wenman. 2016. “The Nefertiti 3D Heist Is A Hoax.” Available: https://cosmowenman.com/2016/03/08/the-nefertiti-3d-scan-heist-is-a-hoax/
- Charly Wilder. 2016. “Nefertiti 3-D Scanning Project in Germany Raises Doubts.” The New York Times. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/arts/design/nefertiti-3-d-scanning-project-in-germany-raises-doubts.html
- Annalee Newitz. 2016. “One of the greatest art heists of our time was actually a data hack.” ArsTechinca. Available: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/one-of-the-greatest-art-heists-of-our-time-was-actually-a-data-hack/
- Cosmo Wenman. 2019. "Nefertiti 3D Scan FOIA." Available: https://cosmowenman.com/nefertiti-3d-scan-foia-project/
- Claudio Ruiz & Scann (2019). "Reproductions of Public Domain Works Should Remain in the Public Domain." Creative Commons. Available: https://creativecommons.org/2019/11/20/reproductions-of-public-domain-works/
Exercise: In recent years, a number of ‘bespoke’ licences have emerged to counter the effects of content commercialisation in areas where it may be improper and reinforce historic power inequities and wealth extraction from vulnerable communities.
- Draft a licence (see examples below) and think about the ways you can design a tool that enables you to release materials in a way that conform to your personal ideas of how others should ethically reuse your content. (Remember, you can only apply a licence to materials you have created yourself. This licence cannot be applied to materials in which you do not own the rights.)
- Consider the following examples: The Anti-Capitalist Software license “exists to release software that empower individuals, collectives, worker-owned cooperatives, and nonprofits, while denying usage to those that exploit labor for profit.” It actively resists an open source status by prohibiting any reuse that aids or entrenches established powers and by allowing permitted users to release their own works and source code however they like, rather than under the same terms. Other licenses with similar goals include the Non-Violent Public License, the CoopCycle License, the Cooperative Software License, the Peer Production License, and the ACAB license. Another example, the Kaitiakitanga license, prioritises stewardship of materials and access by the community connected to it. The licence is designed to protect written and spoken languages to counter the commercial practice of buying up language media and knowledge and designing language programs that then charge those communities to (re)learn the language.
- Think in particular about what harms you feel are important to prevent in relation to your content or in relation to your general expectations about how your content will be used.
- Now consider the downsides of releasing your content under this licence. What desirable activity might it deter? Are there other options out there that achieve a similar goal without reinventing the wheel?
(If you have any technical problems with this exercise, you may ask for help in this forum thread)