Description
Imagine the following scenario: A digital, 3D recreation of Merrion Square Dublin is made available by a private company on the Metaverse. This hyper-realistic recreation includes the famous bust of Michael Collins located in the Merrion Square Park. Like its physical-world counterpart, this virtual version of Merrion Square becomes an important space for discourse in the digital public sphere. However, it’s peacefulness is shattered when a user decides to adorn the (digitized) bust of Michael Collins with the crown worn by the British Monarch and a Union Jack around his shoulders. This act gives rise to a contentious public debate. Members of the public who frequent this virtual space are polarized: some condemn this act as being disrespectful to the memory of Michael Collins and to the history of the Irish struggle for independence, others see this as a legitimate act of protest and even as artistic expression (a parody of Irish history.) A compromise seems far out of reach, so who should decide on the bust to stay or go?The proliferation of social media and the advent of virtual and augmented reality (including the Metaverse) has shifted our public sphere from the physical to the virtual. Ensuring that virtual public spaces remain open and inclusive with low barriers to entry (i.e., accessible) while safeguarding the public's freedom and autonomy to engage in rational, critical public discourse (i.e., protection). This presentation will explore the implications of such (mis?)use of cultural heritage artifacts for fostering accessible and protected public spaces online.
The presentation will focus on the following aspects. The first is the difficulty of current legislative definition on what constitutes a public space. The Dutch law defines it as one where there is no barrier to entry. The Metaverse often requires sign-up and sign-in practices. Thus raising the question of whether the Metaverse is still considered a public space. The public law legislation concerning freedom of expression are therefore not directly applicable. Especially because the worlds are often provided by private companies. Thus raising the question of whether there are private law alternatives to settle the matter. Are existing private law legal and regulatory mechanisms in for governing public spaces in the physical-world suitable and adequate for regulating digital public spaces with a view to ensuring their accessibility and protection? Is it appropriate or desirable to have recourse to private law mechanisms such as copyright law (e.g., the panorama exception, the parody exception) to regulate these spaces, when existing public law mechanisms fall-short? Finally, do we need to re-think our regulatory strategies to make them workable in the virtual sphere? Or should society accept that holocaust memorials can be virtually decorated with poison gas Pokémons? (real-life example)
| Period | 19 Apr 2024 |
|---|---|
| Event title | BILETA Annual Conference 2024 |
| Event type | Conference |
| Location | Dublin, IrelandShow on map |
| Degree of Recognition | International |