Content uploaded by Lydia Hearn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lydia Hearn on Dec 01, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rint20
Internet Histories
Digital Technology, Culture and Society
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rint20
How “open” are Australian museums? A review
through the lens of copyright governance
Paul Longley Arthur, Lydia Hearn, Isabel Smith & Nikos Koutras
To cite this article: Paul Longley Arthur, Lydia Hearn, Isabel Smith & Nikos Koutras (10
Nov 2023): How “open” are Australian museums? A review through the lens of copyright
governance, Internet Histories, DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2023.2268375
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2023.2268375
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 10 Nov 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 87
View related articles
View Crossmark data
INTERNET HISTORIES
How “open” are Australian museums? A review through
the lens of copyright governance
Paul Longley Arthura, Lydia Hearna, Isabel Smitha and Nikos Koutrasb
aSchool of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia; bCurtin Law School, Curtin
University, Perth, Australia
ABSTRACT
Museums are increasingly employing innovative digital techniques
to curate, link, and market collections, enabling new kinds of pub-
lic engagement to better connect with popular culture. By embrac-
ing contemporary modes of delivery to open access to their
collections, museums are signalling a drive toward greater democ-
ratisation of knowledge and information through increased interac-
tion and accessibility. Yet with this has come a series of copyright
and legal complexities. This paper reviews current copyright barri-
ers for museums in Australia and examines how international
examples offer potential models and ways forward. The authors
conclude that recent copyright modernisation reviews offer the
museum sector an opportunity to restructure its strategies. As
online formats evolve, there is an urgent need to explore how
amendments to copyright laws in some countries have allowed for
more fair and flexible use of cultural artefacts and orphan works.
Introduction
Digital technologies and networks have dramatically changed the ways we find, dis-
seminate, and use information. This has impacted access to research and new ideas
as well as public assets including museum objects and cultural collections. By digi-
talising collections, galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAMs) have expanded
access to cultural works through the use of online databases that can be reached far
beyond their physical locations (Coad, 2019). Opening access to these collections can
connect more diverse audiences to collection items, enable contributions to data by
a broader range of people, and offer virtual display of objects otherwise inaccessible
due to physical barriers such as limited space or conservation concerns.
The Rijksmuseum was a pioneer in the move toward open or unrestricted access
to digital surrogates in the cultural heritage sector—sometimes referred to as the
OpenGLAM movement. From 2011 the museum digitalised thousands of high quality
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Paul Longley Arthur paul.arthur@ecu.edu.au School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University,
2 Bradford St, Mt Lawley, WA 6050, Australia.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2023.2268375
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository
by the author(s) or with their consent.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 17 February
2023
Revised 18 August 2023
Accepted 3 October
2023
KEYWORDS
Open access; open data;
copyright laws;
museums; digitalisation;
barriers
2 P. L. ARTHUR ETAL.
copies of artworks, making images openly available to anyone for download and use
without limitations (Terras, 2015; Valeonti et al., 2019). Since then, numerous digital
tools, software, infrastructure, and social media platforms have been designed. Projects
such as Europeana and Google Arts & Culture have been developed to provide virtual
views of renowned institutions including the New York Museum of Modern Art, the
Louvre, and the Tate galleries.
Fundamental to the open access movement has been a call for greater social inclusion.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) promotes
international laws that guarantee all individuals the right to participate freely in cultural
life; engage in forms of cultural expression; have access to arts, humanities and cultural
heritage; and acquire cultural knowledge (UNESCO, 2017; United Nations General Assembly,
1948). By enhancing visibility and unlocking access to digital repositories of books, art-
works, photographs, music, diaries, letters, maps and other artefacts, the GLAM sector
has the capacity to empower individuals and groups to preserve, document and share
material culture, enriching communities through diverse cultural exchange (Tennant etal.,
2016). Efforts to democratise access to and engagement with collections can also encour-
age a sense of public ownership and belonging (Arthur, 2018; Navarrete, 2020). Expectations
around social inclusion are particularly pronounced in publicly funded and run spaces.
In Australia, most cultural institutions are almost wholly funded through public investment
and as such have a duty to provide open access to their work for the broader community
wherever possible for public benefit. As this paper explores the case of Australia, its
primary focus will be on these public institutions, though future research might broaden
the scope to examine private collections.
Although open access to GLAM material is increasingly considered central for a
more democratic society, many collections are still siloed across discrete institutions
and remain largely inaccessible to many. Moreover, neither the GLAM sector nor
national or international legislative bodies could have anticipated the impact of
COVID-19 and its sudden move to make online services the norm. These rapid changes
have highlighted numerous barriers to opening access, including the inadequacies of
current copyright laws and the need for more flexible licensing systems (Australian
Libraries Copyright Committee, 2020). GLAM materials face a series of copyright lim-
itations, with current laws ill-adapted to an ever-changing environment in which
digital collections can be instantly found, obtained, modified, mixed and re-used.
This paper begins with the history of copyright law, and in particular its implica-
tions for, and contradictions to, national and international calls for greater democra-
tisation of open access to knowledge and government data. The authors analyse
international regulations that have been developed to unify access to and preservation
of living and cultural heritage, including new international charters and conventions,
or “soft” laws, around digital resources. They then review current Australian copyright
law that protects and accredits the creators and curators of artefacts, and critique
how this is creating a “permission culture” among the Australian museum sector and
limiting public access and digital advances. By looking at what can be learnt from
successful international examples, this paper points to models for the Australian GLAM
sector. Specifically, it recommends recognising and building on recent reviews to
modernise the Copyright Amendment Bill, and providing linked digital resources
aimed at enhancing the usability and value of artefacts, opening new possibilities for
INTERNET HISTORIES 3
education, interpretation, and participation in presenting cultural heritage. Throughout
this article the term GLAM is used broadly, but our observations focus primarily on
public memory institutions and museums that collect, store, capture, exhibit and
share human knowledge and cultural heritage.
The evolution of copyright law
Successive waves of political, economic and social revolution have significantly shaped
thinking around the use and ownership of material culture (Vrdoljak, 2006). Throughout
much of their history, museums have housed and safeguarded artefacts in private
collections available only to the wealthy and privileged. During the Renaissance period,
museums became more open to the public for the wider sharing of knowledge, aligning
with a growing drive toward technical and scientific inventions for social advancement.
With this came mounting concerns around legal ownership and protection of new
inventions. The first modern copyright laws were introduced in England in 1710, under
the Statute of Anne, named after Queen Anne (Eve & Gray, 2020). These laws sought
to grant authors of books and other writings the sole right to decide and consent to
whether and by whom their work could be printed, re-printed or published (Deazley,
2006). Known as An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, this statute gave authors this
right for 14 years, and 21 years for the protection of those writings already in print, after
which time the work would enter into the public domain. This was seen as a legally
binding agreement for the protection of authors’ works while also encouraging the
advancement and spread of knowledge and new ideas.
Building on this English copyright law, the Berne Convention for the Protection of
Literary and Artistic Works of 1886 (hereafter referred to as the Berne Convention) was
introduced to Europe and their North American partners for the protection of literary
and artistic works. This was followed by the Universal Copyright Convention of 1952,
which sought to incorporate a greater number of countries into the international
“copyright community.” Today these copyright laws, with minor changes, are enforced
by countries that are signatories to the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
(TRIPS) Agreement, under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and
are overseen by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the World Intellectual
Property Organisation (WIPO). These laws seek to protect ownership and promote
the progress of science and arts by securing their work for a limited time. The Berne
Convention stipulates that copyright protection lasts for 50 years after the death of
the author or producer, although this varies from country to country—for example
in Australia it is life plus 70 years. This law applies to both published and unpublished
works and automatically covers literary works; music and lyrics, dramatic works and
music; pantomimes and choreographic works; photographs, graphics, paintings and
sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; video games and
computer software; audio recordings; and architectural works.
International cultural heritage conventions
Although forms of legal protection for cultural heritage have existed since the
Renaissance period, it was following World War II and with it the looting, destruction
4 P. L. ARTHUR ETAL.
and theft of antiquities and cultural artefacts that led to the creation of UNESCO in
1945. Since then, a plethora of international cultural heritage conventions for the
protection of artefacts have been developed under the auspices of UNESCO. The
Hague Convention 1954 was the first and most comprehensive multilateral treaty
dedicated exclusively to the protection of cultural heritage in times of peace as well
as during armed conflict. This was followed by the World Heritage Convention 1972, a
landmark for the protection of the world’s cultural and natural heritage considered
to be of outstanding value to humanity. These conventions outlined a series of obli-
gations that states should undertake to protect and safeguard cultural heritage
(Lixinski, 2019). They represented both an expression of decolonisation and the right
of the nation-state to protect its own culture, together with that of “cultural interna-
tionalism,” or the right of the international community to protect components of
common human culture, past and present (Burri, 2014).
These early international conventions focused on tangible cultural materials that
could be moveable or immovable. But as cultural heritage can also be characterised
through oral traditions, practices, performances, and representations of a nonphysical
character, the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage was
introduced in 2003. This recognised intangible cultural heritage as representations,
expressions, knowledge, and skills transmitted through generations which:
is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their
interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and
continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity (UNESCO,
2013).
These treaties have highlighted the links between cultural heritage and human
rights, mutual respect and sustainable development, and the importance of safe-
guarding living cultures by ensuring the right of access to cultural materials
(Lixinski, 2019). For example, the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of
the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2007) defines concepts and principles around
human rights for the protection of cultural diversity and the multiplicity of cultural
and artistic expressions of diverse people—especially cultural minorities and
Indigenous people—to counterbalance powerful forces of economic globalisation
and colonisation, including return of cultural artefacts to their countries of origin
(Spitra, 2020).
These conventions have also traced a shift in emphasis from “property” to “heritage,”
with the focus moving beyond the protection of physical sites, objects, and artefacts,
to the protection of the relationships that these represent. As such, cultural heritage
is now defined as belonging to the whole of humankind, and hence something to be
protected for those communities more connected to it, as opposed to individuals in
possession of material items (Lixinski, 2019). Yet in practice, questions remain around
what constitutes heritage, what is worthy of being protected, how it should be pro-
tected, and for whom. Moreover, many of these conventions have involved “soft” laws,
which include legal instruments set out for each state but without legally binding
obligations. Thus, while these international treaties play a fundamental role in the
development of legal principles that provide customary rules and guidance, they require
refining to ensure compliance and to better serve the global public good (Burri, 2014).
INTERNET HISTORIES 5
Arguably the most significant barriers to international heritage laws stem from
nation states’ diverse and often conflicting views on trade, culture, media, intellectual
property (IP) and human rights (Burri, 2014). Although UNESCO has promoted laws
that foster greater social inclusion, IP enforcement and protection standards introduced
in 2005 by the WTO and WIPO have distorted the balance in copyright law on matters
of trade and protection, limiting open access to information and culture (Broad, 2013).
The constraints of these international treaties on the IP rights of GLAM materials have
led museums to focus more on “hard” national laws, with growing calls for changes
to the drafting of domestic exemptions, especially for cultural works (Wallace &
Euler, 2020).
Open digital access for GLAMs
The digital revolution of the second half of the twentieth century provided a remark-
able scenario for the future of free, open, global access to and preservation of art-
works, history, archives, manuscripts, and all forms of knowledge (Schnapp & Battles,
2014). With the mass production of personal computers from the 1970s, the devel-
opment of worldwide telecommunications systems connected through networked
infrastructure, and the birth of the Internet in the 1990s, it became possible to
communicate, search for and use information quickly and in real time over much
greater distances, allowing individuals to draw on digital content to generate new
ideas and distribute them to ever-wider audiences. Aligned with this was the emer-
gence of the open access movement: a range of initiatives offering in digital format
immediate, online, free-of-charge access to information, data, content, and materials,
also free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
An important precursor to the open access movement was the Free Software
Movement (Stallman, 2002). This led to Creative Commons, established in 2001 by
Lawrence Lessig as a non-profit organisation aimed at providing the legal tools to
make a range of creative works available to others (Anderson, 2018; Tennant et al.,
2020). Creative Commons licenses gave authors and creators rights to designate and
communicate to users how their work could be used or shared, and allowed authors
to grant more or less freedom of use of their works by the public (Eve, 2014). It has
sought to counter what was considered an increasingly powerful and restrictive per-
mission culture (Lessig, 2004).
Numerous groups and organisations have played a central role in the open access
movement, but arguably it was the Budapest Open Access Initiative in February 2002
that cemented the drive for a more collaborative international move to align rules
and regulations around open digital access. Policies soon emerged to make public
sector information more openly available (Suber, 2012; Willensky, 2006), followed by
steps to capitalise on software development systems to preserve and share data,
content and outputs in more Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR)
ways (Wilkinson et al., 2016). While many early initiatives were focused primarily on
the sciences and academia, open access to cultural heritage soon became part of
this broader open access movement (Valeonti etal., 2019). GLAM leaders were called
upon to put “high-resolution digital files of works of art in their collection online, for
use by anyone, for any purpose” (Kelly, 2013, 4).
6 P. L. ARTHUR ETAL.
The role of museums and cultural heritage institutions is to identify, collect, and
preserve past and contemporary experiences, knowledge and ideas to engage the
public with collections for curiosity, education and enjoyment (Hamilton & Saunderson,
2017). By digitalising their collections, GLAMs can open access to the enormous trove
of information in the public domain, enabling wider and deeper engagement with
existing materials, fostering cultural understanding and connection, and eroding
physical barriers (Sanderhoff, 1970; Terras, 2015). This includes sharing collection
content and communicating with audiences via websites, email and social media.
Online tools are being used to display digital objects in collections, and enable the
sharing and linking of data across collections and projects.
Despite these benefits, some warn of uncritically embracing the digitisation of GLAM
materials. The transformation of the physical museum collection into a digital database
is not a neutral process of democratising content (Pepi, 2014). Databases are not culturally
autonomous or free of ideologies but built on the biases of their architects. Therefore
the digitisation of museum materials, if not done carefully and through early collaboration
of diverse groups, can perpetuate colonialist structures and power inequalities rather than
resolve them (Kaiser et al., 2023). Certain materials may require special privacy consider-
ations or may not be appropriate for digitisation and open access. Differing cultural values,
language issues and methodological challenges can mean that for certain individuals and
groups, standard methods of digitisation create more harm than good (Kugara &
Mokgoatšana, 2022). What is more, digitisation of collections does not necessarily translate
to access for all audiences. Political and material inequalities manifest through the “digital
divide,” including unequal access to resources such as computers, Internet, and digital
education (Gibson & Turner, 2012). These challenges and considerations around open
access inform some of the recommendations made at the end of the paper.
Copyright laws in Australia
While it has become easier to digitalise and share cultural works to preserve and
promote access, numerous overlapping copyrights are triggered as users download,
copy, reproduce, print, adapt, re-use, and re-mix content (Dunn, 2020; Garvin, 2018).
In this environment, national laws have played a central role in limiting the uptake
of open policies. Australia is one such case.
The first Australian copyright statute enacted at the federal level was the Copyright
Act 1905, which formed part of the British Imperial Copyright Act 1911. Yet it is the
Copyright Act 1968 that pertains today, with minor amendments. The first amendment
to this law was introduced in line with the signing of the Australia-US Free Trade
Agreement in 2004 to accord with the IP standards of the WTO and the WIPO. As a
signatory of the WTO international treaties, the Australian Government agreed to
comply with bilateral and multilateral obligations, including the Berne three-step test.
This resulted in stronger enforcement and protection standards, which curbed access
to and use of copyright works of national collections for public interest (Broad, 2013).
To offer “specific case” exceptions, section 200AB of the Copyright Amendment Act
2006 outlined “fair dealing” exceptions, allowing some copyright materials “to be used
for certain socially beneficial purposes, while remaining consistent with Australia’s
obligations under international copyright treaties.”
INTERNET HISTORIES 7
Copyright in Australia is automatic; in other words, the author or creator does not
need to publish or register their work for copyright—instead it is protected from the
time it is first written down or recorded in some way. Copyright protects a range of
materials and expires after 50 years in the case of broadcasts, and 70 years for artistic,
literary, musical and dramatic works, and film and sound recordings (see Australian
Copyright Council Information Sheet, February 2014 https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/
uploads/2019/01/Galleries_and_Museums_-_Intro_to_Copyright_G068v0.pdf). Under
fair dealing exceptions, the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 allows the use of some of
these materials without a license for the purposes of research or study, criticism or
review, library and archival copying, among other intentions that serve the public
interest (The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), sections 40, 41, 48–53). While this implies
museums and galleries could put copyright material online for public benefits, and
that the public could use these materials for copying, digitising, uploading to a web-
site or emailing, in practice users need to gain permission from the owner and the
museums unless copyright has expired or the user has a special exemption (Hudson
& Kenyon, 2007). Although a further Copyright Amendment (Disability and Other
Measures) Act 2017 introduced changes regarding unpublished works, this had limited
influence on access to and use of museum materials.
Though fair dealing does offer exceptions to copyright restrictions and permission
to use copyright materials, it has been critiqued for using overly detailed and pre-
scriptive rules (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2013). In contrast, Europe, the
United States, and many other jurisdictions have introduced a “fair use” test, which
sets out principles to judge against infringement rather than specifying particular
uses. The fair use test has the aim of keeping pace with technological change and
the creative opportunities this brings, allowing new and resourceful uses of materials
as long as they have no adverse effect on the market for the copyright material
(Deloitte Access Economics, 2018). Several European and US court cases have illus-
trated how reasonable personal use of digital works has been allowed under their
fair use laws (Garvin, 2018; McCutcheon, 2017; Petri, 2014), which would not necessarily
have been permitted under Australia’s fair dealing laws (McCutcheon, 2017). The
narrow scope of fair dealing provisions in Australia has meant new digital uses of
copyright material must occur outside of any clear legal framework, thus limiting the
transformative uses of creative materials such as via text and data mining, and digital
remixing. This has made public institutions including museums open to litigation, and
hindered innovation and creativity (Deloitte Access Economics, 2018). The terms fair
and flexible use of resources have also caused confusion (Australian Libraries Copyright
Committee, 2018).
To address the narrow scope of the fair dealing provisions, in 2013 the Australian
Law Reform Commission released a report entitled Copyright and the Digital Economy.
This recognised that one of the main shortcomings of cultural institutions in fulfilling
their public service mission was the provision of public access to their materials
(Australian Law Reform Commission, 2013). This was followed by the Productivity
Commission’s inquiry into Australia’s Intellectual Property Arrangements, which along-
side the Australian Law Review Committees’ Digital Economic Review recommended
substantial changes to increase the flexibility and adaptability of copyright law to
better meet Australia’s digital needs, suggesting “Australia’s exceptions are too narrow
8 P. L. ARTHUR ETAL.
and prescriptive, do not reflect the way people today consume and use content, and
do not readily accommodate new legitimate uses of copyright material” (Commonwealth
of Australia, 2017). In response to these recommendations, the Copyright Modernisation
Review was launched in 2018. This called for consultations to develop a more effec-
tive, efficient and accountable system, acknowledging that fair dealings need to keep
pace with their international counterparts and adapt to future changes (Commonwealth
of Australia, 2018).
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the mandatory closure of Australian museums’
physical facilities resulted in skyrocketing demand for online services, encouraging
cultural institutions to advocate for copyright reform which would give them greater
freedom to engage in the digital delivery of public assets (Australian Libraries Copyright
Committee, 2020). Perhaps most recognised was the Australian Virtual Storytime
agreement that gave temporary permission to stream children’s books online—an
approach recognised and replicated internationally (see ALIA Negotiates Special
Agreement on Copyright, 18 March 2020, http://alia.org.au/copyright-during-covid-19).
Yet despite efforts to modernise the Copyright Act to allow more flexible exemptions
for the preservation of data, few changes have been made to allow remote access
to collections (Australian Libraries Copyright Committee, 2018).
Today, galleries and museums globally are digitalising significant collections of
cultural and heritage materials, providing deep mapping, language and translation
technologies, data visualisation and modelling, and many other applications, to make
information more widely accessible (Arthur, 2018). In addition to storing or archiving
data for the museum’s primary use, free open access is allowing the wider public to
copy, use, re-use, and transform existing works in a variety of ways, blurring the
boundaries between purpose and use and making it difficult to specify the precise
reach of the fair dealing exceptions. This creates uncertainty for all involved in the
production, distribution and preservation of cultural materials (Deloitte Access
Economics, 2018). In an era of rapid digital change, fair dealing has constrained the
digital delivery of public assets that do not fall readily within existing exceptions
(Australian Libraries Copyright Committee, 2020). Text and data mining are an import-
ant case in point—this area remains in legal limbo in Australia, as there are no specific
provisions around it under Australia’s fair dealing exceptions (Deloitte Access
Economics, 2018).
Confusion regarding copyright law, concerns around litigation, and the constraints
of fair dealing have given rise to a permission culture in Australian GLAMs. A study
of five state art galleries in Australia illustrated the institutions’ perceived entitlement
to exclusive copyright and their misconceptions around control of access to their
digital collections, including digital surrogates (McCutcheon, 2017). While museum
directors and curators are keen to protect the integrity of their collections, receive
recognition for their works, and encourage researchers and communities to attend
their exhibitions, the guarding of cultural works and the overcontrol of digital col-
lections can have a negative effect on public access and engagement. Despite sig-
nificant government resources dedicated to encouraging the broadest possible open
access to Australia’s national collections, particularly through digitisation projects such
as Trove and the GLAM Peak initiative, the ability of the public to use or creatively
engage with museum resources remains limited. As stated by Universities Australia,
INTERNET HISTORIES 9
Australia cannot hope to achieve world-leading status as an innovative nation when it is
not legally safe, for example, to operate a search engine; when cloud computing, text and
data mining, and machine learning technologies are at the mercy of inexible and anti-
quated copyright exceptions (Universities Australia, 2018, 7).
Copyright barriers for GLAMs
Digitisation is offering significant new pathways and support for the documentation
and safeguarding of cultural heritage, the systematic collation and linking of data,
and the dissemination of heritage artefacts and sites (Hou et al., 2022). In addition
to online repositories, increasingly powerful, accessible and useful 3D reconstruction,
visualisation and augmentation of cultural works are opening up new frontiers for
GLAMs. Yet while the GLAM sector views digitalisation as a priority, most museums
have only a small percentage of their collections openly available online for general
use (Benhamou & Ferland, 2022). Even today as museums try to expose their col-
lections, many still do not fully abide by their open access principles, allowing only
a small part of their collection to be accessible for re-use (Valeonti et al., 2019;
Wallace & Euler, 2020). Legal issues—including acquisition, copyright, ownership
rights, authenticity, access, use and re-use—are seen as the primary obstacles (Dunn,
2020; Garvin, 2018).
Digitalisation of cultural heritage works involves making direct and indirect copies
or replicas of an object or material, giving the museum copyright to the reproduc-
tions and enabling them to engage in a number exclusive economic rights (Coad,
2019). Yet similarly the replication, sharing and dissemination of these assets online
can result in “mass, centralized infringement” of copyright, patent, trademark and
customary laws (Dunn, 2020). One of the challenges now faced is that users around
the world often access and use digital information without seeking permission or
full information about copyright ownership. Data and metadata can become detached
or replaced, and works become “orphaned” or separated from their owners, with
multiple interpretations and meanings (Dunn, 2020; Garvin, 2018). Moreover, digital
objects may have intrinsic and financial value in their own right, with uncertainty
around whether they are “surrogates” for or “enhancements” of the original object
(Bayne et al., 2009, 111). Misinterpretation of digital creation and re-use creates
copyright challenges for museums to clarify ownership. Maintaining the balance
between open access and control in the online environment is difficult, and even
with Creative Commons and trademark licences, the enforcement of these rights in
the virtual world is extremely costly and time-consuming for museums (Dunn, 2020;
Pessach, 2007).
In Australia and many other countries, copyright exemptions are limited to the
copying of museum archives for research, education, and archival preservation, and
even then, only a “reasonable proportion” may be copied. Most current laws are not
sufficiently broad to encompass full open access, with mass digitalisation falling out-
side the scope of these copyright exemptions. For example, artistic works, photographs,
sculptures, and literary works require direct copying, or identical reproduction, and
cannot be made available to the public without permission. Similarly, the digitalisation
of films, music, and sound recordings involves indirect copying and cannot be played
10 P. L. ARTHUR ETAL.
without consent (Coad, 2019). Thus, when digitalising their collections, curators and
collection managers must identify the copyright status of each item. Providing open
access to digitalised cultural heritage materials depends on who these primary sources
belong to, as although they may reside in museums they may be owned by others
or form part of private collections. Museums must therefore seek authorisation for a
large percentage of their works if they are to make them open to the public domain,
and this can be difficult especially with archival materials, including diaries, photo-
graphs and maps or orphan works, where the authors cannot be found or contacted.
To deal with this, GLAM institutions are increasingly obtaining non-exclusive licences
from copyright owners to cover themselves while digitalising material and making it
openly accessible. But obtaining these can be costly as it requires time and resources to
locate the owners, negotiate acceptable fees, and deal with disputes that may arise
(Hudson & Kenyon, 2007). The resources required can vary significantly across different
institutions. For example, the copyright fees faced by galleries to display and reproduce
images of renowned artworks can be extremely high, compared to the costs of repro-
ducing images of mass-produced items held in museums. On the other hand, museums
may hold more unprovenanced items that demand much greater time spent tracing the
original owners. Many GLAM institutions avoid digitalising orphan works to minimise risk
(Coad, 2019). Another complicating factor is the growing presence of commercial groups
that manage GLAM databases. While such groups can assist in the digitisation of collection
items, they can also obtain long-term and exclusive IP rights (Pessach, 2007). The involve-
ment of these third parties creates additional layers of copyright between institutions
and original owners of materials, and raises new sets of questions and negotiations when
determining the current and future management of public collections.
In addition, GLAMs often have to adopt protective measures, for example by
inserting digital watermarks on their copies, publishing with low-resolution images,
requiring forms to be filled in, or adding downloading buttons and tracking func-
tionalities (Valeonti etal., 2019). Moreover, the digitalising of cultural works is arduous
and the maintenance of these through new information management systems requires
running costs and ongoing staff training (Coad, 2019). Thus, despite all their benefits,
digitisation and open access have required museum and gallery management to find
new sources of revenue and expertise at a time when financial support for the cultural
heritage sector has steadily declined (Arthur, 2018).
While museum practices are seeking innovative participatory approaches and initiatives
to open up their data, barriers to this are manifold. Fears of copyright infringement skew
museums’ choices of works to digitalise (Coad, 2019). Though copyright remains governed
by national laws, the online environment is global. Copies are spread across borders, and
collections can be located across multiple museums. While international conventions
provide principles and rules, and in Europe moves are underway for the alignment of
copyright laws, these tend to favour control rather than open access to digital public
domain works (Dunn, 2020). As long as the safeguarding of cultural heritage remains
within the exclusive domain of the state, the incentive for adopting international laws
for the sharing of information will be restricted (Lixinski, 2019). Currently legal issues
represent a major operational tension for cultural heritage institutions. Digitisation and
open access requires institutions to take on new commitments and acquire new expertise
at a time when finding new funding sources is limited (Wallace & Euler, 2020).
INTERNET HISTORIES 11
Ways forward in managing copyright
Motivated by national and international calls for greater open access, many museums
have consciously moved from a restrictive approach toward one that empowers the
global public to visit museums online. Major funding bodies have supported this
shift, for instance the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation supporting research into the
issues faced by museums when creating open access to images (Kelly, 2013). Museum
mission statements have moved in line with broader calls for social inclusion, empha-
sising their role not merely to preserve and illustrate the plural realities of commu-
nities, but also to provide greater public access to and engagement with digital works
in their collections (Coad, 2019). The National Gallery of Art, Washington; the Yale
Center for British Art; the Rijksmuseum; and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art
offer immediate downloads of high-resolution images that can be used for any pur-
pose (Kelly, 2013; Valeonti et al., 2019). Others, like the British Museum and the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, provide rapid downloads for personal, scholarly, and
academic purposes only but charge for commercial use (Kelly, 2013). Although many
of these museums still claim copyrights for some materials, they request merely an
acknowledgement for reproductions or further use.
These operational changes have been supported through new digital tools offered
by groups like Europeana, Art UK and OpenGLAM. By enabling museums to promote
and provide access to their collections on shared global platforms beyond the bound-
aries of their individual websites, these groups are creating a collaborative interface or
“safe harbour,” which is helping reshape the contours of copyright laws within the GLAM
sector and easing copyright liability in favour of public good (Coad, 2019). Although
they do not provide full copyright immunity, safe harbours offer a balance between
the interests and goals of museums sharing their collections and the rights of owners
to be protected (Coad, 2019). In doing so, they create legal mass access to materials
(Pluszyńska, 2021). Moreover, in today’s environment where financial support for muse-
ums is dwindling, safe harbours offer a sustainable approach for copyright management
through the sharing of resources and solutions across GLAM networks (Pluszyńska, 2021).
With safe harbour systems addressing some of the obstacles to online accessibility,
GLAMs have the opportunity to work together to develop policy and management
plans (Benhamou & Ferland, 2022; Pluszyńska, 2021). This work would benefit from
a number of principles:
• Revise and clarify the overall mission of museums, recognising the importance
of greater social inclusion and aligning with international laws that guarantee
individuals the right to freely participate in and have access to cultural life (United
Nations General Assembly, 1948). Museums have traditionally had as their core
mission the preservation, interpretation and protection of artefacts. By declaring
their mission to be fostering the right for everyone to participate freely in cultural
knowledge regardless of their physical location, museums can inuence reshaping
of the boundaries of traditional copyright laws that have focused primarily on
protection to include human rights (Hudson & Kenyon, 2007).
• Promote the importance of open access. Changing the permission culture and
encouraging cultural institutions to relax restrictions over collections requires
12 P. L. ARTHUR ETAL.
education and training around copyright and free licencing. Consultation with
key stakeholders in the eld of open access to navigate digital IP issues is
central to formulate a carefully considered, coordinated copyright management
strategy for museum resources, such as an open data policy statement (Bayrou,
2022; Pluszyńska, 2021). This includes clarifying which acts of reproduction
conducted as part of a museum’s public interest mission do not infringe copy-
right and how. In the absence of clear legal exceptions permitting the repro-
duction of copyrighted works, safe harbours can facilitate eective collective
licensing of rights, through for example an extended collective licensing system
(Bayrou, 2022).
• Clarify principles, laws, and codes of conduct for safe harbouring. The scope
and practices of safe harbouring should be formulated around clear codes of
conduct for sustainable and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable,
Reproducible) sharing of materials and data (Wilkinson et al., 2016). The foun-
dations underlying these principles are mostly agreed, but the pathway to
implementing them is still being developed, and systems for classifying and
organising the vast and growing materials and data must also be established
(ALLEA, 2020; Champion & Rahaman, 2020).
• Embed regulations of cultural care, agency and exibility in open access
policies. As part of ongoing eorts to decolonise museums, open access and
digitisation policies must represent and respect the diering needs and values
of diverse cultures. Rather than being unilaterally developed by authorities
who often represent ongoing colonial ideologies and Eurocentric views, these
policies must be developed and open to revision through deep exchanges
between different cultural representatives. The CARE (Collective benefit,
Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) principles oer one framework
to guide the sharing of Indigenous data, whereby the sovereignty and gover-
nance of data is held with and determined by Indigenous custodians (Gupta
et al., 2023).
• Include opt-out policies and ongoing protection. Rather than a one-size-ts-all
solution, there may be cases where copyright could violate understandings
around human rights, such as sacred rights in the case of Aboriginal paintings
and artefacts (Lixinski, 2019). Creating an opt-out mechanism allows exibility
for copyright owners to exit the safe harbour, placing the responsibility on
copyright owners to object to their work being made openly available (Coad,
2019).
• Adopt a collaborative extended collective licensing model. By working together,
museums can develop a collaborative “extended collective licensing” (ECL)
model as a channel to ease the digitisation of all categories of copyrighted
works. This involves working with collective rights management organisations
(CMOs) to negotiate terms for open digital access with copyright owners. In
the case of orphan works, protections are qualied once a diligent search has
been conducted in good faith to locate the lost rights holder (Coad, 2019). To
be supportive, the ECL must include at least the three categories of copyrighted
works (orphan works, out-of-print works and out-of-commerce works, published
and unpublished), and cover all rights relevant to mass digitisation
INTERNET HISTORIES 13
internationally, with any remuneration fee being adapted to the category of
materials and their users (Bayrou, 2022). While the endorsement of ECL is being
considered under legislation in the European Union, this model is still new to
most other parts of the world, therefore collaborative eorts among GLAM
safe harbours are imperative.
• Develop clear legal guidelines to relieve lawyers who serve cultural institutions.
By developing an overarching legal framework spelling out the copyright norms
of the safe harbour, with a checklist of all the important IP-related considerations,
it is possible to alleviate the responsibility on museum directors and lawyers by
instead providing them with legal exibility around the use of orphan works
and access to collections (Bayrou, 2022). For example, the Digital Public Library
of America and Europeana provide a statement outlining a set of standardised
rights that can be used to communicate the copyright and re-use status to the
broader public (https://rightsstatements.org/). Formalising these statements
ensures users are also aware of any copyright protection that may exist.
• Introduce international agreements and harmonisation. In addition to the
modernisation of national copyright laws, there is a need to develop interna-
tional agreements to allow the harmonisation of laws, including recommenda-
tions, resolutions, declarations, guidelines and treaties. This should include the
development of an international framework supported by international organ-
isations like the International Council of Museums (ICOM), UNESCO and WIPO,
outlining which materials fall within a museum’s primary mission of public
inclusion, which fall into “commercial merchandising,” and which fall into clear
exceptions under the safe harbour rights statements (Bayrou, 2022).
• Work with all stakeholders to help coordinate support for open access eorts.
These include groups like Creative Commons, Europeana, Internet Archive,
Wikimedia Commons and others promoting worldwide open access initiatives.
Together they can support eorts to improve open standards by introducing
international law and regulations to unify access and change copyright pro-
tection and IP regimes, aligning these with the governance frameworks of
open access repositories (Arthur & Hearn, 2021).
• Develop initiatives to broaden open access to new and more diverse audi-
ences. As part of developing open access policies, GLAMs might also establish
tangible means to ensure this access reaches diverse audiences. For example,
by establishing physical Internet resource centres in remote communities
(Gibson & Turner, 2012).
• Develop international alternative dispute resolution processes for museums.
As digital technologies continue to evolve and change, so too will new disputes
around ownership and copyright. By developing an international alternative
dispute resolution for museums (such as arbitration, mediation, negotiation,
and conciliation), the GLAM sector can share the economic and intellectual
costs of IP challenges. Disparities in museum resources across jurisdictions may
severely impact their ability to become and remain relevant in the global
digital environment. Through membership to an international alternative dispute
resolution entity, public museums around the world could better access legal
frameworks supporting digital development (Bayrou, 2022).
14 P. L. ARTHUR ETAL.
Conclusion
With rapid advances in digital and online content and engagement, it is easier for
the public to access, appreciate, and participate in cultural heritage. However, national
and international copyright laws around ownership have created much ambiguity
around making collections freely accessible on digital platforms. Fears among some
curators and museum managers relating to re-use and modification, loss of intellectual
control, lack of acknowledgement, commercialisation through alteration, and adapta-
tions posted on social media have created tensions, resulting in a culture where public
users must request authorisation to reproduce, modify or re-use materials (Aufderheide
et al., 2016). The lack of clear management plans and policies for copyright and
licensing of digital assets has led to concerns around the re-use or enhancement of
surrogates, and requests for permission limited to the use of any materials (Aufderheide
et al., 2016).
Museums have an opportunity to address tensions between the ongoing evolution
of digitalisation and this permission culture, as well as uncertainty about policies on
licensing, how many digital objects can and should be made openly available, and
which should be protected (Aufderheide etal., 2016; Conway etal., 2016). By address-
ing concerns around copyright laws and becoming more flexible and open, museums
can make their collections significantly more valuable to the public. This will require
working together with all key stakeholders to develop safe harbours and explicit
policies around open data, standardisation and licencing needs. Ideally such work will
allow for more fair and diverse use of cultural materials, and the participation of
much wider audiences.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
ALLEA. (2020). Sustainable and FAIR data sharing in the humanities.
Anderson, R. (2018). Scholarly communication: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University
Press.
Arthur, P. L. (2018). Engaging collections and communities: Technology and interactivity in museums.
Paper presented at the Digital Humanities in the Nordic Countries, 3rd Conference, Helsinki,
Finland. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2084/
Arthur, P., Ensor, J., van Faassen, M., Hoekstra, R., & Peters, N. (2018). Migrating people, migrat-
ing data: Digital approaches to migrant heritage. Journal of the Japanese Association for Digital
Humanities, 3(1), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.17928/jjadh.3.1_98
Arthur, P. L., & Hearn, L. (2021). Toward open research: A narrative review of the challenges
and opportunities for open humanities. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 827–853. https://
doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab028
Aufderheide, P., Milosevic, T., & Bello, B. (2016). The impact of copyright permissions culture on
the US visual arts community: The consequences of fear of fair use. New Media & Society,
18(9), 2012–2027. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815575018
Australian Law Reform Commission. (2013). Copyright and the digital economy: Final report (Vol.
ALRC: Report 122, 2013). Australian Government.
INTERNET HISTORIES 15
Australian Libraries Copyright Committee. (2018). Copyright modernisation review. https://alacc.
org.au/wp-content/uploads/mp/les/posts/les/alcc-submission-modernisation-review-nal.pdf
Australian Libraries Copyright Committee. (2020). Senate Select Committee on th Australian
Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. https://alacc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/
mp/les/posts/les/alcc-covid-19-submission-nal.pdf
Bayne, S., Ross, J., & Williamson, Z. (2009). Objects, subjects, bits and bytes: Learning from the
digital collections of the National Museums. Museum and Society, 7(2), 110–124. https://
journals.le.ac.uk/ojs1/index.php/mas/article/view/136
Bayrou, A. (2022). Digitization of museum collections and copyright – report on the interna-
tional conference ‘when museums go online’, University of Geneva, 11 December 2020. GRUR
International, 71(5), 439–443. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikab178
Benhamou, Y., & Ferland, J. (2022). Digitization of GLAM collections and copyright: Policy paper.
GRUR International, 71(5), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikac024
Broad, E. M. (2013). Update from Australia: The copyright cloud hanging over our national collec-
tions. Interlending & Document Supply, 41(3), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILDS-06-2013-0018
Burri, M. (2014). Global cultural law and policy in the age of ubiquitous internet. International
Journal of Cultural Property, 21(3), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739114000137
Champion, E., & Rahaman, H. (2020). Survey of 3D digital heritage repositories and platforms.
Virtual Archaeology Review, 11(23), 1. https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2020.13226
Coad, S. (2019). Digitisation, copyright and the GLAM sector: Constructing a t-for-purpose safe
harbour regime. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 50(1), 1–32. https://doi.
org/10.26686/vuwlr.v50i1.5551
Commonwealth of Australia. (2017). Australian government response to the productivity commission
inquiry into intellectual property arrangements. https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/
government-response-productivity-commission-inquiry-into-intellectual-property-arrangements
Commonwealth of Australia. (2018). Copyright modernisation consultation paper. https://www.
infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/les/documents/copyright-modernisation-consultation-paper.pdf
Conway, M., Cliord, N., & Deines, N. (2016). Open content at the Getty: Three years later, some
lessons learned. In The Iris: Behind the Scenes at the Getty.
Deazley, R. (2006). Rethinking copyright: History, theory, language. : Edward Elgar Publishing.
Deloitte Access Economics. (2018). Copyright in a digital age. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/
dam/Deloitte/nz/Documents/Economics/dae-nz-copyright-fair-use.pdf
Dunn, C. (2020). Scanning cultural heritage: The implications for intellectual property and
cultural institutions. Art Antiquity & Law, 25(1), 25–55.
Eve, M. P. (2014). Open access and the humanities: Contexts, controversies and the future. Cambridge
University Press.
Eve, M. P., & Gray, J. (2020). Reassembling scholarly communications: Histories, infrastructures, and
global politics of open access. MIT Press.
Garvin, K. M. (2018). Reclaiming our domain: Digitization of museum collections and copyright
overreach. IDEA, 59, 455.
Gibson, L. K., & Turner, H. (2012). Facilitating inclusivity: The politics of access and digitisation
in a South African and Canadian museum. The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum,
4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-2014/CGP/v04i01/44364
Gupta, N., Martindale, A., Supernant, K., & Elvidge, M. (2023). The CARE principles and the
reuse, sharing, and curation of Indigenous data in Canadian archaeology. Advances in
Archaeological Practice, 11(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2022.33
Hamilton, G., & Saunderson, F. (2017). Open licensing for cultural heritage. Facet Publishing.
Hou, Y., Kenderdine, S., Picca, D., Eglo, M., & Adamou, A. (2022). Digitizing intangible cultural
heritage embodied: State of the art. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 15(3), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3494837
Hudson, E., & Kenyon, A. T. (2007). Digital access: The impact of copyright on digitisation prac-
tices in Australian museums, galleries, libraries and archives. University of New South Wales
Law Journal, 30(1), 12–52.
16 P. L. ARTHUR ETAL.
Kaiser, K., Heumann, I., Nadim, T., Keysar, H., Petersen, M., Korun, M., & Berger, F. (2023). Promises
of mass digitisation and the colonial realities of natural history collections. Journal of Natural
Science Collections, 11, 13–25.
Kelly, K. (2013). Images of works of art in museum collections: The experience of open access; a
study of 11 museums (978-1-932326-45-1). https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/artdok/4998/1/
Kelly_Images_of_works_of_art_in_museum_collections_2013.pdf
Kugara, S. L., & Mokgoatšana, S. (2022). Challenges presented by digitisation of VhaVenda oral
tradition: An African indigenous knowledge systems perspective. HTS Theological Studies,
78(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v78i3.7428
Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture. Penguin Press.
Lixinski, L. (2019). International heritage law for communities: Exclusion and re-imagination. Oxford
University Press.
McCutcheon, J. (2017). Digital access to culture: Copyright in photographs of two-dimensional
art under Australian copyright law. Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 7(4), 416–443.
https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2017.04.02
Navarrete, T. (2020). Crowdsourcing the digital transformation of heritage. In Marta Massi,
Marilena Vecco, and Yi Lin (Eds.), Digital transformation in the cultural and creative industries
(pp. 99–116). Routledge.
Pepi, M. (2014). Is a museum a database?: Institutional conditions in net utopia. e-Flux Journal, 60.
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/60/61026/is-a-museum-a-database-institutional
-conditions-in-net-utopia/
Pessach, G. (2007). Museums, digitization and copyright law: Taking stock and looking ahead.
Journal of International Media & Entertainment Law, 1(2), 253–280.
Petri, G. (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), 8. https://
doi.org/10.5334/jcms.1021217
Pluszyńska, A. (2021). Copyright management in museums: Expediency or necessity? Museum
International, 73(3–4), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/13500775.2021.2016281
Sanderho, M. (1970). Open Images. Risk or opportunity for art collections in the digital age?
Nordisk Museologi, (2), 131–131. https://doi.org/10.5617/nm.3083
Schnapp, J. T., & Battles, M. (2014). The library beyond the book. Harvard University Press.
Spitra, S. M. (2020). Civilisation, protection, restitution: A critical history of international cultural
heritage law in the 19th and 20th century. Journal of the History of International Law / Revue
D’histoire du Droit International, 22(2–3), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718050-12340154
Stallman, R. (2002). Free software, free society: Selected essays of Richard M. Stallman. Free Software
Foundation.
Suber, P. (2012). Open access. MIT Press.
Tennant, J., Agarwal, R., Baždarić, K., Brassard, D., Crick, T., Dunleavy, D. J., … Graziotin, D. (2020).
A tale of two ‘opens’: intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open
Scholarship.
Tennant, J., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2016).
The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review.
F1000Research, 5, 632–632. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3
Terras, M. (2015). Opening access to collections: The making and using of open digitised cul-
tural content. Online Information Review, 39(5), 733–752. https://doi.org/10.1108/
OIR-06-2015-0193
UNESCO. (2013). Text of the convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage.
https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention
UNESCO. (2017). Safeguarding the memory of the world – UNESCO recommendation concerning
the preservation of, access to, documentary heritage in the digital era. https://en.unesco.org/
memoryoftheworld/recommendation2015
United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. UN General
Assembly, 302(2), 14–25. http://www.verklaringwarenatuur.org/Downloads_les/Universal%20
Declaration%20of%20Human%20Rights.pdf
INTERNET HISTORIES 17
Universities Australia. (2018). Universities Australia Submission to Copyright Modernisation
Consultation. https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/
universities_australia_1.pdf
Valeonti, F., Terras, M., & Hudson-Smith, A. (2019). How open is OpenGLAM? Identifying barriers
to commercial and non-commercial reuse of digitised art images. Journal of Documentation,
76(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2019-0109
Vrdoljak, A. F. (2006). International law, museums and the return of cultural objects. Cambridge
University Press.
Wallace, A., & Euler, E. (2020). Revisiting access to cultural heritage in the public domain: EU
and international developments. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition
Law, 51(7), 823–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00961-8
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg,
N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T.,
Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., … Mons, B. (2016). The
FAIR Guiding Principles for scientic data management and stewardship. Scientic Data, 3(1),
160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
Willensky, J. (2006). The access principle: The case for open access research and scholarship. MIT
Press.
