Phantoms of the Digital Opera:
The need for long term preservation of born-digital actors and multimedia objects
using methods that permit ongoing new creations
Dena L. Strong
Technology Services
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, IL 61820
dlstrong@illinois.edu

ABSTRACT
While the rapid improvement in computing power anddigital tools have offered a vast new realm of creativity tomore independent creators than ever before, that same
rapidly changing pace also offers a unique threat to thosedigital creators: What can you do when the length of time
you need to finish your project is longer than the length oftime your computer’s OS or software is supported? How
can a small creative or research group best ensure that theirwork can still be actively worked with in five years – ortwenty-five years?
In this paper, I’ve assessed digital preservation
recommendations over time, discussing the gap between
the recommendations for preserving a completed work anddigital creators’ ongoing needs to be able to create further
work. I have three case studies created from longitudinalinterviews with digital creators to determine how their own
creative ecosystems have held up to the pressure of time,
where their systems have begun to degrade, and how they
continue their digital work across years or decades.
Currently, either maintaining an aging system or recreating
entire worlds with different, newer systems are the best
available options for the digital creators I interviewed,
though neither is optimal. Hardware and software vendors’
intentional dropping of backwards compatibility prohibits
accurate forward migration for many digital media creators.
The Pericles model seems promising, but Pericles itself is
not open to individuals. Future improvements in emulation,
including cloud-based virtualization, may offer a pathforward if these services can improve their user friendlinessand resolve the version compatibility issues that create
obstacles today.

Keywords
Long term digital preservation, digital video creation,
digital animation, translation, version compatibility,emulation, digital lifecycle

1. INTRODUCTION
In 2016, Makoto Shinkai made waves throughout thedigital animation world by releasing a record-breaking
feature film called Kimi no Na wa (Your Name); he was the
director, the writer, the cinematographer, and the editor,

and it became Japan’s highest-grossing animation title andfourth-highest grossing film of all time [28].
In many ways, those waves originated 14 years earlier,with Shinkai’s Hoshi no Koe (Voices of a Distant Star), a
short film for which he had personally created everything
but the soundtrack. And he did it with what now sounds
like an antique: A 400 Mhz Mac G4 with 1 Gb memory anda 300 Gb hard drive, along with Lightwave 3d 6.5,
Photoshop 5, and AfterEffects 4.1[31].
In the years since, digital technology has opened doors
for creators worldwide by allowing them to create acomplete work single-handed. But digital creators are also
at the mercy of the software and hardware upgrade cycle inways physical creators aren’t. A sequel to Hoshi no Koe
would likely need to rebuild the entire digital world, unable
to reuse any of the character or scenery models or
animations involved in its original creation.
I’ve interviewed three digital creators with similar longterm digital media projects ranging from six to twenty
years in duration. All the artists I interviewed have thesame problem: The working lifespan of their projects issignificantly longer than that of their digital creative
infrastructure.
Physical arts can be recreated and extended after amulti-year gap, but when the film production is born
digital, the passage of time can destroy the digital video
creators’ entire artistic infrastructure – and sometimes it
only takes a year or two if a key component fails.
Shinkai’s Hoshi no Koe was only 25 minutes long, and hecould fnish it within a year. Award-winning animator Nina
Paley also creates feature-length films by herself, but thefive to ten years a project takes her can encompass multiple
digital generations. [26],[22].
Digitally creative professionals working on long term
projects need to maintain their own personally-managed
creation-capable digital preservation systems without aclear set of best practices, because (for the most part) the
long-term preservation best practices are determined bylibrary and archive professionals, not digital media
creators.
Digital creators need preservationists’ help in order tokeep their own works alive – but preservationists’ usual
goals often don’t encompass creators’ needs.
Libraries and archives emphasize read-only formats topreserve authenticity and provenance, as well as to ensurethat content is available to end users in the future. In
general, creators and researchers who are still amid thecreative process are not considered the target audience for
digital preservation. Creators and researchers are usually
directed toward storage instead, but the problem they faceis both larger and more enduring than file storage.
Preservationists are accustomed to considering how tostore the equivalent of a completed roll of film, not theequivalent of an entire opera house with a full prop andcostume department, lights, sound, rigging, and actors. But
digital creators and researchers need to maintain the entire
opera house – and the smaller their team is, the longer the
span of time they’ll need it available, because that small
team plays every role in the production one at a time.
In this paper, I’ll assess what the professionals in thefield consider(ed) to be the best solutions at various points
in time, and contrast that with three longitudinal andqualitative case studies of individual media creators whose
works span years or decades of development.
If the digital preservation ‘state of the art’ could bemade more inclusive of individual creators’ and small
working groups’ needs, we could support the ongoing useof the creation suite (the digital opera house), not just asingle static production (the roll of film).
When a digital actor can’t continue to make newinteractions with its digital environment, then that actor iseffectively dead, and the only remnants are its completed
works stored in a read only format – a phantom cast on thescreen in static form, not a dynamic and living being in an
active creative space with continued potential.
If the preservation field can’t provide this creative
sustenance across digital generations, who else could?

2. LITERATURE REVIEWIn the scholarly literature surrounding digitalpreservation, preserving digital creation and editing
capacity ranges from a secondary consideration that may
be an acceptable loss [11, 12] to actively prevented byconverting from editable formats to read-only formats [19,32].
One school of preservation thought emphasizes
mechanically comparing a migrated file is to its original [8,9], and another emphasizes migration to new formats on
demand [18], but most of the approaches to either
emulation or migration assume that the original is a fixed
item that is not to be modified. The Pericles project[1, 5–7,
14] is an exception, but it’s restricted to specific content
from European agencies and not structured to support
independent creators’ ongoing active-use needs.
While there are quite a few papers discussing thepreservation of digital playback formats, not many discuss
the preservation of creation formats. The history of digitalpreservation recommendations for other multimedia andnon-multimedia formats shows that the best guesses madeare not always correct.

Looking back at 2000, while assessing the long-termpreservation risk of several digital formats, Lawrence et alconsidered Lotus 1-2-3 an important enough format toinclude it in their project, but no current spreadsheet system
offers the ability to read its file format. However, they
considered TIFF at similar risk, but versions of TIFF still
appear in recommendation standards fifteen years later [19,32]. We can’t rely on our own current format
recommendations remaining viable decades into the future;
we can’t know if our guesses today will be any better thanLawrence’s were in his time.
While Lawrence and his collaborators consideredleaving a file unchanged less risky than migration, Mellor
et al. considered migration the best possible solution todigital preservation [18]. Their recommendation course wasto preserve originals in various formats and devote the bulkof their work to a type of ‘skeleton key’ master-conversion
system that could migrate content to new formats on
demand.
The concept seems simple, but it also makes
assumptions that others haven’t supported. One is that it’seasy to keep the source format’s bitstream intact tocontinue to make copies; another is that migration is anunequivocally good solution to the problem. All of thedigital creators I interviewed would love to migrate theirworks to a newer format – but the software and hardware
vendors have made accurate forward migration of editableworking copies impossible for them.
Becker and Rauber wrote multiple papers on
languages used in verification of files that were migrated toother formats, and are much more reticent about the valueof migration on demand than Mellor et al. In the XCLlanguage paper, Becker and Rauber present the primary
options as emulation or migration, and consider emulation
at least as viable as migration. Migration presents serious
concerns for them, even when converting static formats, as
the requirements for conversion are dependent on context.
In addition, they didn’t consider continued editing
capability an unacceptable loss. But for working
multimedia creators, I posit that the ability to edit files is anunacceptable loss. Here again, we see the difference
between the perspectives of creators of repositories andcreators of dynamic content.
One of the most closely related fields of study is
digital game preservation, which also addresses thepreservation of born-digital dynamic content with specifichardware and software requirements. There’s still a gap
between preservationists’ and practitioners’ perspectives inthis realm, though. In Bettivia’s paper, she notes that“significant properties” of a game are often interpreted bypreservationists to mean “metadata,” but computerscientists and gamers find other properties like the game
experience itself more significant. [10]Still, the Preserving Virtual Worlds focus doesn’tquite match this paper’s focus either. Their focus is on theplayers of the games and the re-creation of theirexperiences, not on the game creators, except when re-creation on a different platform is considered as apreservation strategy[10, 17]. This may be a viable option,and in some cases may be the only one available [10, 17,33], but isn’t optimal. Time a digital media creator spends
in re-creating an existing work on a new platform can’t bespent creating new works.
In addition to the philosophical approaches topreservation, the difference in scale between small creative
groups and the larger industry is a key consideration. Most
profitable film or game companies employ a large enoughstaff to pay for a dedicated digital preservationist, but
independent media creators rarely have these resources.
Schumacher et al. surveyed a group of library
professionals from smaller Illinois universities, and notes,“Practitioners at smaller institutions often do not have time
to stay abreast of the frequent developments in the field ofdigital preservation, may not have the expertise or technicalinfrastructure necessary to install and maintain complex
software solutions, and frequently lack the funds to pay forcomplete, ready-to-use solutions that may exist.” [21] (p. 45)
Schumacher’s statement could apply to researchers,
digital media and content creators, independent video
professionals, and other groups not traditionally consideredfull “digital repositories”, but editable-repository needs are
critical to many of them. The ability to reuse files andenvironments saves time and effort that can be applied tocreating new works.
Schumacher’s team takes nearly the opposite approachfrom Mellor’s. Rather than using limited resources building
and maintaining a single tool, Schumacher’s teamleveraged tools built by others to focus on preserving thematerials unique to their institutions. In the process, they
concluded that digital preservation is a continually shifting
gradient scale, and a solution ‘good enough for now’ fits
their needs better than a perfect solution in the future.
They investigated seventy tools, and their top
recommendations for end-to-end preservation tools
included Archivematica, DuraCloud, and Preservica. They
concluded there was no clear one-stop solution, but
provided a range of recommendations for different-sized
institutions.
Their assessment of the needs of very small institutions
came close to addressing the situation of independent
digital media creators; still, their focus was on preserving
read-only rather than editable files, they didn’t address
unique hardware preservation, and the prices of all thesystems but Archivematica would put them out of reach of
the digital creators I interviewed.
In some cases, expansive research gathered over alonger time than a hardware or software generation faces
similar issues, particularly for preserving data. Smit et al.
undertook a project called PARSE.insight to assess thestate of preservation among major publishers; they foundthat the publishers are fairly well positioned to preserve
their own published papers, but that the research behindthose papers is much more precarious, with 69% of

publishers not offering any research preservation options[24]. Authors would like to be able to digitally preserve
their research along with the publications, but there isdebate over whose responsibility it is, due to the larger,
more varied, and less-standardized nature of the data [24].
This gap is very similar to the digital media creators’. If
the goal of digital preservation is purely defined asreadability, the content distribution formats would be
sufficient – but researchers need content creation formats
to be able to add to research data that has been generated
over years or decades.
A digital preservation strategy for content consumers
is very different than one for active content creators andmaintainers. I was glad to see references to the need to talkto a system’s user community in several papers [5, 8, 10,11]. But the ability to preserve content changes -- let alone
maintaining a specialized environment to continue making
new creations on an old system – is often given short shrift.
The Pericles project is a notable exception, looking atdigital preservation methods for dynamic digital creations
for both artists and researchers[5–7, 33], but has drawbacks
here and now. First, it only preserves content from
European space agencies [1]. Second, it’s still underdevelopment. Third, even if it were opened to independent
media creators, there’s no way to estimate participation
costs. Fourth, the Pericles model is complex, multilayered, and not reproducible by an independent creator.
So, while Pericles’ theoretical approach could help
independent creators over the long term, they can’t benefit
from it today.

3. METHODS
To explore the digital preservation needs of media
creators over a span of time, I performed a literature review
including scholastic publications about digital preservation.
I also conducted personal, qualitative interviews with three
local digital media creators across a span of decades to see
whether and, if so, how their creative processes andenvironments had changed.
I interviewed digital 2D animator and filmmaker Nina
Paley, digital 3D animator and filmmaker Shaun Mills, andmultilingual translator David Fleming. In Paley’s case, ourformal interviews began in 2014. In the case of Mills andFleming, I’ve been learning about their digital creations
and working infrastructure since we first met in 1997, and I
performed formal interviews with them in 2014. I followed
up in 2017 to see whether and how the passage of years
have changed their working environments.
I chose a small group of known interviewees to follow
up with the same people across years and see whether theirown assessments of their best available options held true
over time.

4. FINDINGS

Interviews with the digital creators and findings havebeen trimmed for length. More information is available at
http://go.illinois.edu/digitaloperasupplements.

4.1 Nina Paley, digital and stop-motion
filmmaker, Sita Sings the Blues, ThisLand is Mine, and more
Paley has the most urgent digital preservation needs ofthe three creative professionals I interviewed, since she has
no other collaborators for her most enduring projects.
From her perspective, “computer hardware reallyreached its best level of price-to-functionality in about
2010, and software in about 2005” (personal conversation,2014). Changes Adobe made when acquiring Flash in 2005
and that Apple made to Final Cut Pro in 2011 removed
both functionality and backwards compatibility, leaving her
and many other creators with the choice of updating at thecost of recreating their previous work, or not updating andfacing increased obsolescence and difficulty inconsultation.
Because Paley was a studio of one, she had originallydecided to stay with her old tools. In 2014, Paley didn’t see
an alternative to preserving the old hardware and software.
But by 2017 she had split her digital “opera house” in half.
For her own decade-long projects, she depends on aging
versions of software released by companies with no interestin releasing open source versions, and which might sue
those that do. But to earn money and work withcollaborators on commercial projects, some of her newer
work is done in an entirely different and newer
environment, capable of 4K output but incompatible with
her ten-year project and the rest of her creative works.

4.2 Shaun Mills, integrated live action and
CGI filmmaker
Shaun Mills is an independent filmmaker with a degree
in film production. He’s been working on completing his
own science fiction movie, The Gatherers, since 2009.
He’s already captured the actors’ footage and has spent thepast several years creating digital effects.
Mills has been unable to find a working video content
preservation system that fits his needs; he hasn’t been able
to find a version control system that would capture theinteractions between Lightwave and AfterEffects files,
rough cut footage, and digitally manipulated .PNG files
needed to assemble the final frames.
After losing hundreds of hours of work because the 3D
rendering and video effect files he created in AfterEffects
in 2009 were no longer usable after a software update
dropped backwards compatibility five years later, he’s
created his own “brute force” digital preservation method:
He exports every single frame of his two-hour movie to
PNG, requiring 24 separate files for each second of film,
then re-importing the PNGs for the next rendering pass. It
takes a long time to render a scene, to the point where he’s
considering reducing his paid work hours to have moretime to work on his film (personal conversation, 2014).
Follow-up in 2017 reveals that he’s still using his frame byframe approach; he’s kept his own backwards
compatibility, but at the price of excruciatingly slow
progress.

4.3 David Fleming, professional film, game,and anime translator
David Fleming, a professional translator working in the
media translation industry since 1997, has faced the digitalpreservation dilemma many times. When a long-runningseries he’s translated 10 to 20 years earlier is be released ina new edition or format, if he can’t access his earlier digitalmaterials because of version incompatibility, then he has toreproduce hundreds of hours of work for each season of aseries.
Many of the files he works with are provided to himfrom international sources in compressed formats that don’t
fit US media authoring standards, meaning that much of his
billable work time is spent in reformatting video, in
addition to translating and subtitle timing. He storesterabytes worth of working video footage on a home-built
RAID server.
Changes to hardware and software have required
Fleming to retain outdated versions of operating systems tocontinue to use his open source and custom commissioned
tools; the modern corporate alternatives would block his
backwards compatibility and cost tens of thousands ofdollars, prohibitive for an individual freelance worker. In
the mid-2000s, Fleming hired programmer Keith Hays towrite a customized Excel plugin that would make itpossible for Fleming to use open software packages
VirtualDub and SubStation Alpha to capture subtitle timing
information in an Excel spreadsheet. Hays’ plugin worked
with Excel 2003, but wasn’t compatible with later versions,and Hays has been unable to create an updated version thatworks precisely enough for Fleming’s split-second subtitle
timing needs.

5. DISCUSSION
I agree most with the approach taken by Schumacher’s[21] group, looking for inexpensive “good enough”
solutions for the moment, while acknowledging that they
may not be sufficient in the future. Lawrence et al. [16]follow the same principle. Mellor’s [18] monolithic
solution seems unlikely to be viable for small andindependent users.
The Pericles project, seems to be a larger-scale versionof Schumacher’s approach – their scenarios involveassessing individual projects’ needs and customizing thesolutions with the aid of digital toolkits [14, 33].
Cost and suitability continue to be a prohibitive factor
for most of the available solutions. Pericles has potential,
but isn’t available to independent creators yet, and under its
current focus may never be.

Of the specific systems explored by Schumacher et al,
three have price points of thousands of dollars per year, andthe fourth requires technical knowledge and produces readoriented packages. By comparison, online retailers offer
considerable storage space for under $1000. Neither
solution solves the problem of software compatibility.
On the video creation side, no good answer has beenoffered for Paley and Fleming’s frequent issues withvendor-planned obsolescence. Mills’ manual approach isless version-dependent, but at the cost of a considerable
time investment that prevents him from making progress at
sufficient speed to be financially supported by his work. A
free, open-source equivalent of their tools would makelong-term access safer from planned obsolescence, but theywould require open source versions of many software
packages. Corporations have little motivation to create
open alternatives to their products, and independent media
creators tend to focus more on making their art than on
learning to program new tools for themselves. (Fleming, by
far the most technical of the creators I interviewed, stillchose to hire a programmer for the Excel plugin – and an
Excel plugin is vastly simpler than a video manipulation
program like AfterEffects.)
Currently, either maintaining the older system orrecreating their works in a newer system are the best
available options for the digital creators I interviewed.
Neither emulation nor forward-migration have offered them
viable options.
In a future where emulation will become more accurate
and less expensive, that may become a more viable option
to extend the lifespan of digital environments. However,thus far hardware-specific and graphic card-specific version
incompatibilities have prevented emulation frommaintaining an aging digital environment for any of thecreators I interviewed.
Cloud infrastructure offerings like Amazon Web
Services provide tantalizing glimpses of effectively
hardware-independent emulation and scalability, but as ofthis writing, effective use of AWS needs more technicalskill and cloud-development-specific dedication than thedigital creators I interviewed have available.
In theory, it sounds ideal – a major company likeAmazon lends its vast pool of expertise to the business of
hosting systems for thousands of large and small companies
and organizations already, and the “container-based” modelof thinking is designed to be more portable than many otherdevelopment types.
If an individual creator could simply replicate his or her
own creative environment in a platform-independentcontainer, charged by usage, not charged when idle, andscaled to meet his or her needs, then they could preserve
their digital worlds for as long as they were needed.
Unfortunately, we’re not at the stage where AWS
containers offer the ease of installation, use, andmaintenance or the solution for hardware-specificrequirements that digital creators need. In my department,even system administrators with decades of experienceneed help adapting to AWS in time-and-cost-effective
ways, and they want to keep their systems as well patchedand secured as possible. Amazon doesn’t yet offer anything
like a walled garden for secure use of out of dateenvironments, out of date software, and specific graphic
card emulation – but, conceivably, they could.

6. CONCLUSIONSOver the fifteen years since Makoto Shinkai’s Hoshi noKoe, many more independent digital creators have begun tofollow in his footsteps -- and a very specific irony stands
out in conversations with them.
Shinkai’s first film considered the personal effects oftime dilation on two human lives that are out of sync witheach other, an artifact of light-years of intervening space,with increasing gaps of time between any communications
from the past to the present and the future.
Fifteen years later, the greatest threat to each of these
new creators’ works is the personal effects of timecompression across digital environments that are out ofsync with their creators’ human lives, an artifact of a digital
generation gap across the technical equivalent of lightyears’ hardware, software, and encoding differences thatoffers fewer and fewer points of creative compatibility
between past, present, and future.
Right now, we simply don’t have a good option forpreserving the digital opera houses – but we haven’t had
nearly as much time to solve the problem as the people whowork in physical preservation. Truly effective and simpleto-implement emulation could offer aging systems a newlease on life, but we’re not there yet.
Still, user-friendly cloud-based emulation is an area
where digital preservation, computer science, and digitalcreativity could merge to offer a new world. I can imagine
a future where preservationists and developers have worked
together to offer cloud-based emulation of a range ofhistoric and modern systems and software, easy for digitalcreators to access and use, without depending on thespecific Final Cut Pro version and Matrox graphics card avideo creator’s used since their project’s inception. We
haven’t reached that easy emulation world yet. But maybe,
by Hoshi no Koe’s 20th anniversary, we could.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank David Fleming, Shaun Mills, and Nina
Paley for sharing their time and their experiences with meover the course of several years’ investigative
conversations; Rhiannon Bettivia for her support andinsight on previous drafts; and Heidi Imker, Dan Tracy,
Elise Dunham, and Doug Atkinson for their encouragement
and help in structuring and formatting this paper.

8. REFERENCES[1]
About | Pericles project: 2017.
project.eu/page/about. Accessed: 2017-03-04.
[2]

http://pericles-

Anthony Willis’s answer to Video Editing: What’s a

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]
[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]

[21]

[22]

great free or opensource alternative to Final Cut Pro on
MacOS? - Quora: 2012. https://www.quora.com/VideoEditing/Video-Editing-Whats-a-great-free-oropensource-alternative-to-Final-Cut-Pro-onMacOS/answer/Anthony-Willis. Accessed: 2017-03-04.
Apple’s New Final Cut Pro X Software Is Getting
Trashed
By
App
Store
Reviewers:
2011.
http://www.businessinsider.com/final-cut-pro-x-reviews2011-6. Accessed: 2017-03-04.
Apple launching Final Cut Pro X campaign to win backskeptical professional users | 9to5Mac: 2013.
https://9to5mac.com/2013/03/28/apple-launching-finalcut-pro-x-campaign-to-win-back-skeptical-professionalusers/. Accessed: 2017-03-04.
Art & Media - Born Digital Archive Scenario: 2014.
http://pericles-project.eu/bresources/post/born%2C
digital%2C archive%2C scenario. Accessed: 2017-0304.
Art & Media - Media Production Scenario: 2014.
http://pericles-project.eu/bresources/post/media
production%2C scenario. Accessed: 2017-03-04.
Art &amp; Media - Digital Video Art Scenario: 2014.
http://pericles-project.eu/bresources/post/digital%2C
video%2C art%2C scenario. Accessed: 2017-03-04.
Becker, C. et al. 2008. Systematic Characterisation of
Objects in Digital Preservation: The eXtensible
Characterisation Languages. Journal of Universal
Computer Science. 14, 18 (2008), 2936–2952.
Becker, C. and Rauber, A. 2011. Decision Criteria in
Digital Preservation: What to Measure and How. Journalof the American Society for Information Science andTechnology. 62, 6 (2011), 1009–1028.
Bettivia, R.S. Mapping Significance of Video Games in
OAIS. iPres Proceeedings (2016).
Conway, E. et al. 2011. Curating Scientific Research
Data for the Long Term: A Preservation Analysis
Method in Context. International Journal of Digital
Curation. 6, 2 (Oct. 2011), 38–52.
Doorn, P. and Roorda, D. 2010. The ecology of
longevity: the relevance of evolutionary theory for
digital preservation. Digital Humanities. 128, (2010).
HOSHI NO KOE (The voices of a distant star) - Special
Achievement Award - 2002 [6th]: http://archive.jmediaarts.jp/en/festival/2002/achievement/06sp_The_voi
ces_of_a_distant/. Accessed: 2017-03-01.
Introductory text to combined scenario summaries: 2014.
http://pericles-project.eu/bresources/post/scenario%2C
summaries. Accessed: 2017-03-04.
Is Apple’s Final Cut Pro X first rate or a big mistake? An
Academy Award-winning editor weighs in: 2011.
http://ew.com/article/2011/06/30/final-cut-pro-xcontroversy/. Accessed: 2017-03-04.
Lawrence, G.W. et al. 2000. Risk Management of Digital
Information: A File Format Investigation.
McDonough, J.P. et al. 2010. Preserving Virtual Worlds
Final Report. (2010).
Mellor, P. et al. 2002. Migration on Request, a Practical
Technique for Preservation. 516–526.
Motyka, L. 2008. Recommended Data Formats for
Digital Preservation in the Florida Digital Archive.
Paley,
N.
2015.
Quilting.
http://blog.ninapaley.com/category/quilting/. Accessed:
2017-03-04.
Schumacher, J. et al. 2014. From Theory to Action:“Good Enough” Digital Preservation Solutions for
Under-Resourced Cultural Heritage Institutions - A
Digital POWRR White Paper for the Institute of Museumand Library Services.
Paley, N. 2010. Sita Sings the Blues - FAQ.
http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html.
Accessed:

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

2017-03-04.
Sita
sings
the
copyright
blues:
2009.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090321090724/http:/www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/03/17/f-sita-sings-theblues.html. Accessed: 2017-03-01.
Smit, E. et al. 2011. Avoiding a Digital Dark Age for
data: why publishers should care about digitalpreservation. Learned Publishing. 24, 1 (Jan. 2011), 35–
49.
The Prophet (2014) - Full Cast &amp; Crew - IMDb:
2014.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640718/fullcredits?ref_=tts
pec_sa_1. Accessed: 2017-03-01.
This
Land
Is
Mine:
2012.
http://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/.
Accessed: 2017-03-04.
Voices of a Distant Star (2003) - Full Cast & Crew IMDb:
2003.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0370754/fullcredits?ref_=tt_
ov_st_sm. Accessed: 2017-03-01.
Your Name (2016) - Full Cast & Crew - IMDb: 2016.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5311514/fullcredits?ref_=tt_
cl_sm#cast. Accessed: 2017-03-01.
アーカイブ | アニメーション神戸 (Animation Kobe
Archive):
http://www.city.kobe.lg.jp/information/project/innovation/animation/archive.html. Accessed: 2017-03-04.
星雲賞受賞作・参考候補作一覧1-47回｜文学賞の世
界 [List of the Seiun Award winners and candidates]:
2017.
http://prizesworld.com/prizes/sf/siun.htm.
Accessed: 2017-03-04.
遠い声- 「ほしのこえ」のビジュアル表現 (Other
Voices - Hoshi no Koe’s Visual Display): 2002.
http://www2.odn.ne.jp/~ccs50140/stars/visual.html.
Accessed: 2017-03-01.
State Archives of North Carolina. 2012. File Format
Guidelines for Management and Long-term Retention ofElectronic Records.
The Pericles Project. Taking a long-term perspective:
Maintaining digital assets by managing their evolving
digitalecosystems.
https://www.prestocentre.org/system/files/library/resourc
e/av_insider_rd_publication.pdf.