Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell
Last updated
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Feel free to improve the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion. Find sources:"Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell"–news·newspapers·books·scholar·JSTOR%5B%5BWikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2FCanadian+Parliamentary+Motion+on+Alexander+Graham+Bell%5D%5DAFD
Alexander Graham Bell, c.1914-1919Antonio Meucci, c.1880
The symbolic motion was a response to the 107th United States Congress' earlier resolution (HRes 269) of June 11, 2002, which recognized the contributions of Antonio Meucci. Due to a misleading press release issued by U.S. Congressman Vito Fossella, this was interpreted by some as establishing priority for the invention of the telephone to Meucci.[2][4][5][6] The House of Representatives' Resolution and the Parliamentary Motion which followed were both opinions and did not carry any legal weight. The resolution also did not annul or modify any of Bell's patents for the telephone.
During the 108th Congress another almost identical resolution, SRes 223 was introduced in the United States Senate, but which was then sent to a committee where it died, unenacted.[7][8][9]
The Canadian Parliamentary Motion and Resolution HRes 269 were both widely reported by various news media at the time of their proclamations.
History
The Canadian legislative motion was a quick "tit-for-tat" response to the U.S. House of Representatives' HRes 269,[10] passed 10 days earlier by only a single Congressional body saying "that the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged", and also saying in the preamble that "if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell." The perceived attack on Bell's primacy and character did not sit well with many Canadians and their parliamentarians, in a country where the inventor-scientist is often viewed as a native son. Only days after the U.S. resolution was announced, Major Chris Friel of Brantford, Ontario near the site where Bell invented the telephone's theoretical concept, dismissed the U.S. resolution out of hand, stating ""Absolutely, the credit [for the phone] remains with [Bell]…".[11]
Responding to the House of Representative's assault on Bell, Deputy Prime MinisterSheila Copps issued a comment to the Canadian news media: "I'm sure we can come in with our own legislation".[12] After a number of in camera consultations over the next several days with members of the Conservatives, the New Democratic Party, and the Bloc Québécois in Canada's federal parliament, LiberalM.P.Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant) rose in the House on June 21, requesting that the Deputy Prime Minister advise the U.S. House of Representatives it had erred, by asking: "I am wondering if the Minister will take the time to inform the U.S. Congress that indeed, yes, Virginia, Alexander Graham Bell did invent the telephone?" [13]
After the House's formal Question Period, the Deputy Prime Minister tabled the motion in the Commons affirming Alexander Graham Bell as the inventor of the telephone. The Canadian motion made no derogatory comments of Antonio Meucci, unlike the U.S. resolution's treatment of Bell. Copps' motion asserting Bell's primacy of invention was met with the unanimous approval of all four political parties, and a copy of the legislative motion was directed to the U.S. Congress.[13]
Later, addressing the media, Deputy Prime Minister Copps commented on the House motion by stating that Bell was a "visionary" and "...an inspiring example of a Canadian inventor who, by his ingenuity and his perseverance contributed to the advancement of knowledge and the progress of humanity."[14][15]
Full text of the Parliament of Canada motion on Bell
Whereas Antonio Meucci, the great Italian inventor, had a career that was both extraordinary and tragic;
¶ 2
Whereas, upon immigrating to New York, Meucci continued to work with ceaseless vigor on a project he had begun in Havana, Cuba, an invention he later called the teletrofono, involving electronic communications;
¶ 3
Whereas Meucci set up a rudimentary communications link in his Staten Island home that connected the basement with the first floor, and later, when his wife began to suffer from crippling arthritis, he created a permanent link between his lab and his wife's second floor bedroom;
¶ 4
Whereas, having exhausted most of his life's savings in pursuing his work, Meucci was unable to commercialize his invention, though he demonstrated his invention in 1860 and had a description of it published in New York's Italian language newspaper;
¶ 5
Whereas Meucci never learned English well enough to navigate the complex American business community;
¶ 6
Whereas Meucci was unable to raise sufficient funds to pay his way through the patent application process, and thus had to settle for a caveat, a one-year renewable notice of an impending patent, which was first filed on December 28, 1871;
¶ 7
Whereas Meucci later learned that the Western Union affiliate laboratory reportedly lost his working models, and Meucci, who at this point was living on public assistance, was unable to renew the caveat after 1874;
¶ 8
Whereas in March 1876, Alexander Graham Bell, who conducted experiments in the same laboratory where Meucci's materials had been stored, was granted a patent and was thereafter credited with inventing the telephone;
¶ 9
Whereas on January 13, 1887, the Government of the United States moved to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, a case that the Supreme Court found viable and remanded for trial;
¶ 10
Whereas Meucci died in October 1889, the Bell patent expired in January 1893, and the case was discontinued as moot without ever reaching the underlying issue of the true inventor of the telephone entitled to the patent; and
¶ 11
Whereas if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell: Now, therefore, be it
¶ 12
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged.
Attest.
Attest: Clerk
Critical views on the Motion, Resolution and the Patent Caveat
In 2003, the distinguished Italian telecommunications inventor and Meucci book author Professor Basilio Catania (former CEO at CSELT), interviewed on the parliamentary Bell motion and the congressional Meucci resolution, first commented on Bell's record as an inventor and scientist:
"I am not the kind of man who can make statements without proofs. I did not do it with Meucci and I do not see why I should do it with Bell... ...I can, however, state that the theoretical description of the electrical transmission of speech in Bell's first patent is nearly perfect and appears to me as the first clear treatise ever written."[17]
Professor Catania later went on to note the straightforwardness of the follow-up parliamentary motion compared to the seaminess of the initial congressional resolution:
"The Canadian reaction to an unfortunate passage in Resolution No. 269 of the US House of Representatives is quite understandable. In my opinion the insinuation against the morality and scientific stature of Alexander Graham Bell, in the above resolution, was both unnecessary and unproven, though there had been suspicions that Bell might have fished something from Meucci's ideas. Personally, I would have refrained from stating anything that is not fully proven. I do, however, appreciate that, in the Canadian motion pro Bell, nothing [derogatory] is said against Antonio Meucci... "[17]
However, intellectual property law author R.B. Rockman was more critical in his view of HRes 269.[6] After first reviewing the essential details of American Bell Telephone Company v. Globe Telephone Company, Antonio Meucci, et al. (31 Fed 728 (SDNY, 1887)), where he noted major inconsistencies in Meucci's various testimonies, the paucity of direct evidence that both the Globe and Meucci brought forward in support of their defenses and the court's definitive rejection of those defenses in favour of Bell, Rockman then compares the 'Bell v. Globe and Meucci' court decision (of July 19, 1887) with HRes 269:
"I conclude that the comments of Mr. Grosvenor [who wrote a memo highly critical of HRes 269 by comparing it with Bell v. Globe] are more likely correct in comparison to the statements [within the preamble of HRes 269] by the United States House of Representatives."[6]
However, Rockman writes based on the explicit assumption that Meucci's design was not electrical; similarly Grosvenor, a grandson of Bell, has always staunchly advocated the same.[18] They follow in this the court ruling of 1887 in Bell vs. Globe; however Mike Green, although not blind to the fact that Meucci had for many years failed completely to sell his invention, finds this "quite unbelievably", and "it is hard to see that justice was correctly apportioned". An appeal was abandoned after Meucci's death in 1889.[19]
Rockman also dissects the U.S. Government's 1887 legal challenge to Bell's telephone patent, which had been brought by United States Attorney GeneralAugustus H. Garland and which is referred to in paragraph No. 9 of the resolution - although Meucci himself, or Globe, did not have anything to do with that. The Attorney General had earlier been given 500,000 shares of stock and was thus a major shareholder of the Pan-Electric Company, which was the instigator of the suit.[20] Pan-Electric sought to overturn Bell's patent in order to compete against the American Bell Telephone Co.[6][20][21][22]
It was this very court challenge that is referenced in HRes 269's preamble, in paragraph No. 9, which inferred an immoral and possibly criminal intent by Bell ("...the Government of the United States moved to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation"), to which Rockland wrote:
"The United States House of Representatives in its resolution of June 11, 2002 states merely that the government of the United States filed the lawsuit, and that the Supreme Court found the complaint viable and remanded the case for trial. The House of Representatives resolution, in my opinion, leaves out many of the salient details [of the Garland-initiated suit], and presents a disjointed and incorrect view of the invention of the telephone."[6]
Other contested facts were also found within the preamble to the HRes 269 resolution, among them were:
Paragraphs Nos. 7 & 8 implied that Bell had access to Meucci's works prior to patenting the telephone ("….Meucci later learned that the Western Union affiliate laboratory reportedly lost his working models", followed by: "Alexander Graham Bell, who conducted experiments in the same laboratory where Meucci's materials had been stored was granted a patent…. with inventing the telephone").[18] The same inference in the resolution was also described by Rockman.[6] Grosvenor claims that there is no record of Bell ever working in that laboratory.[24] Research by Professor Catania himself showed that Meucci's samples were reportedly lost at a laboratory of American District Telegraph (ADT) of New York, but ADT was an independent company and did not become a subsidiary of Western Union until 1901.[25][26] Writer and publisher (and Bell's great-great-grandson) Edwin S. Grosvenor also noted that with Bell living and working in the Boston and Brantford areas, and with Meucci living and working in the Staten Island, New York area, there was no overlap where Bell would have had access to Meucci's works prior to Bell's patent application. Grosvenor further pointed out that in 1878, two years after Bell received his patent, the American Bell Telephone Company, not Bell, was awarded a Western Electric laboratory as part of a patent infringement settlement with the Western Union Telegraph Company. With Bell never having worked in that laboratory, the timing of the 1878 transfer made it irrelevant in any event to Bell's patent application in February 1876.[18] Additionally, the American Bell Telephone Company and Western Union were both competitors to each other and did not share facilities both prior to, and subsequent to the patent lawsuit settlement.
However these arguments of Grosvenor may all be irrelevant because they happened after the invention had taken off; while the chance for Bell to see Meucci's work was obviously before that, in 1975, during Bell's visit to a New York American District Telegraph laboratory, which was affiliated with Western Union.[27]
Paragraph No. 11 stated that "…if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain [his] caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell". However Grosvenor noted in a memo that Bell had succeeded in building a telephone based on a sound knowledge and understanding of its principles, whereas Meucci had been found by the court not to have understood the basics of the electric telephone's operation, with that court case having been conducted some 10 years after Bell was awarded his patent. Since Meucci's caveat didn't describe any of the principles of electric telephony,[5] it would therefore have been irrelevant to Bell's application even had the caveat been renewed.[18]
In total Grosvenor, a grandson of Bell, listed 10 errors in detail found within the congressional Meucci resolution, and was highly critical of both its intent and accuracy.[18] He also asked two salient questions in Section "C" of the same report: "1) Should Congress overrule the US courts and its own committee, which looked at evidence extensively, and without reviewing any evidence in the matter?", and "2) Should [the U.S.] Congress pass resolutions on historical facts without checking with legitimate historians or their own library?" The same document also noted that HRes 269 contradicted the findings of its own Congressional committee's investigation, which had, in 1886, produced a report of 1,278 printed pages.[18] Grosvenor concluded that: "The historical "facts" stated in HR 269 were obtained from highly biased sources, and [were] based on shoddy, cursory research."[18]
Reception
The motion was widely reported across Canada over the next three weeks. Canadian news sources detailed the motion's birth and its underlying historical dispute.[14] One notable review was in an Edmonton Journal opinion piece which admonished politicians for legislating 'truth by decree'.[28][29] A Vancouver Sun editorial also asked: "But since when are the minutiae of history a matter for the attention of our legislators?"[30] Several reports wrote that the motion, like the U.S. "historical jingoism" which preceded it,[31] was only an expression of opinion by a legislative body which did not carry any legal weight. However "…many saw the [American] declaration as an… attempt to rewrite history".[28][32] The motion was prominent on all major Canadian television news, with lead stories typically stating "Ottawa rose to the defense of Bell after the US Congress passed a resolution..... "[33]
The Canadian Motion was also reported by media in several other countries, where the response was described as providing "heavy condemnation" of the U.S. resolution.[34] Asked his opinion on the Canadian 'tit-for-tat' legislative motion,[10]Italiantelecommunications researcher and Meucci author Professor Basilio Catania stated on several occasions that the Canadian response was provoked by "unfortunate passages" directed at Bell, and as such was "quite understandable".[17][35] Professor Catania, who had worked with U.S. House Representative Vito Fossella to bring about HRes 269, was declined a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps to discuss the motion.[35] Many Italian Canadians were upset by the motion due to long held beliefs that Meucci was the telephone's inventor, according to the Italian-language weekly L'Ora Di Ottawa.[36]
The motion was still referred to years after its passage, in reference to Bell's primacy in the invention of the telephone.[10][37] In an article on author Charlotte Gray's new book Reluctant Genius, the Ottawa Citizen noted "…Bell invented the telephone company… [and] thanks to a 2002 motion, the Parliament of Canada continues to recognize Bell as the [telephone's] inventor".[36]
Alexander Graham Bell was a Scottish-born American inventor, scientist, and engineer who is credited with inventing and patenting the first practical telephone. He also co-founded the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) in 1885.
A telephone, or phone, is a telecommunications device that permits two or more users to conduct a conversation when they are too far apart to be heard directly. A telephone converts sound, typically and most efficiently the human voice, into electronic signals that are transmitted via cables and other communication channels to another telephone which reproduces the sound to the receiving user.
The photophone is a telecommunications device that allows transmission of speech on a beam of light. It was invented jointly by Alexander Graham Bell and his assistant Charles Sumner Tainter on February 19, 1880, at Bell's laboratory at 1325 L Street in Washington, D.C. Both were later to become full associates in the Volta Laboratory Association, created and financed by Bell.
Johann Philipp Reis was a self-taught German scientist and inventor. In 1861, he constructed the first make-and-break telephone, today called the Reis telephone.
Antonio Santi Giuseppe Meucci was an Italian inventor and an associate of Giuseppe Garibaldi, a major political figure in the history of Italy. Meucci is best known for developing a voice-communication apparatus that several sources credit as the first telephone.
Elisha Gray was an American electrical engineer who co-founded the Western Electric Manufacturing Company. Gray is best known for his development of a telephone prototype in 1876 in Highland Park, Illinois. Some recent authors have argued that Gray should be considered the true inventor of the telephone because Alexander Graham Bell allegedly stole the idea of the liquid transmitter from him. Although Gray had been using liquid transmitters in his telephone experiments for more than two years previously, Bell's telephone patent was upheld in numerous court decisions.
This timeline of the telephone covers landline, radio, and cellular telephony technologies and provides many important dates in the history of the telephone.
The invention of the telephone, although generally credited to Alexander Bell, was the culmination of work done by many individuals, and led to an array of lawsuits relating to the patent claims of several individuals and numerous companies.
Gardiner Greene Hubbard was an American lawyer, financier, and community leader.
Innocenzo Vincenzo Bartolomeo Luigi Carlo Manzetti was an Italian inventor born in Aosta. Following his primary school studies he went to the Jesuit-run Saint Bénin Boarding School and then on to Turin where he was awarded a diploma in land surveying before returning to Aosta.
The Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell controversy concerns the question of whether Gray and Bell invented the telephone independently. This issue is narrower than the question of who deserves credit for inventing the telephone, for which there are several claimants.
This history of the telephone chronicles the development of the electrical telephone, and includes a brief review of its predecessors.
Mabel Gardiner Hubbard, was an American businesswoman, and the daughter of Boston lawyer Gardiner Greene Hubbard. As the wife of Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the first practical telephone, she took the married name Mabel Bell.
Marcellus Bailey was an American patent attorney who, with Anthony Pollok, helped prepare Alexander Graham Bell's patents for the telephone and related inventions.
Alexander Graham Bell honors and tributes include honors bestowed upon him and awards named for him.
The Volta Laboratory and the Volta Bureau were created in Georgetown, Washington, D.C. by Alexander Graham Bell.
The Telephone Cases, 126 U.S. 1 (1888), were a series of U.S. court cases in the 1870s and 1880s related to the invention of the telephone, which culminated in the 1888 decision of the United States Supreme Court upholding the priority of the patents belonging to Alexander Graham Bell. Those telephone patents were relied on by the American Bell Telephone Company and the Bell System—although they had also acquired critical microphone patents from Emile Berliner.
The 107th United States Congress resolution of June 11, 2002, recognized the contributions of Antonio Meucci. This was interpreted by some as establishing priority for the invention of the telephone to Meucci, and indeed its preamble said that "if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee ..., no patent could have been issued to Bell" and contained other pointed remarks about Bell and a legal dispute of the late 1800s over the invention priority. However, the House of Representatives' resolution did not annul or modify the status of any of Bell's patents for the telephone or have any other legal effect.
Dr. Mabel Harlakenden Grosvenor was a Canadian-born American pediatrician, and a granddaughter and secretary to the scientist and telephone inventor Alexander Graham Bell. She lived in both Beinn Bhreagh, Nova Scotia and Washington, D.C.
The Bell Homestead National Historic Site, located in Brantford, Ontario, Canada, also known by the name of its principal structure, Melville House, was the first North American home of Professor Alexander Melville Bell and his family, including his last surviving son, scientist Alexander Graham Bell. The younger Bell conducted his earliest experiments in North America there, and later invented the telephone at the Homestead in July 1874. In a 1906 speech to the Brantford Board of Trade, Bell made the following comment, "the telephone problem was solved, and it was solved at my father's home".
↑ Fox, Jim, "Bell's Legacy Rings Out at his Homes", Globe and Mail, 2002-08-17;
↑ "Rep. Fossella's Resolution Honoring True Inventor of Telephone To Pass House Tonight. Antonio Meucci Receives Recognition 113 Years After His Death". Office of Congressman Vito J. Fossella. June 11, 2002. Archived from the original on January 24, 2005. Retrieved 2011-02-26. Resolution's sponsor Vito J. Fossella's press release quote: Antonio Meucci never received the recognition he deserved during his lifetime, but this evening – 113 years after his death – the House of Representatives is expected to pass a Resolution honoring his contributions and recognizing him as the true inventor of the telephone. The Resolution was authored by Congressman Vito Fossella (R-NY13).
1 2 Estreich, Bob. Antonio Meucci: (section) The Resolution. Retrieved from BobsOldPhones.net website, February 25, 2011. Quote: "the text of the Resolution DOES NOT acknowledge Meucci as the inventor of the telephone. It does acknowledge his early work on the telephone, but even this is open to question."
↑ U.S. Senate. "SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - September 10, 2003)", U.S. Congress Thomas Website, Page: S11349, September 10, 2003.
1 2 3 Bethune, Brian. "Did Bell Steal The Idea For The Phone?", Maclean's Magazine, February 4, 2008.
↑ "Brantford's Favourite Son Defended", The Globe and Mail, June 20, 2002. pg. A11.
↑ Malbon, Joy; CTV Television Network staff. "Disputing Alexander Graham Bell's Claim To Fame (transcript)", Toronto: CTV Television, June 20, 2002. Proquest Document ID: 438947501.
1 2 Mofina, Rick. House Of Commons Backs Bell As Telephone Inventor, National Post, June 22, 2002, pg. A4.
1 2 Cape Breton Post. "Copps Rallies To Bell's Defense: Controversy Over Telephone Inventor Hits Ottawa", Cape Breton Post, June 22, 2002, pg. B4, eLibrary: March 5, 2011.
↑ Press, Canadian. "Alexander Graham Bell Invented Telephone, Canadian MPs Tell Americans", Truro Daily News, June 22, 2002, pg. A1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Grosvenor, Edwin S. "Memo on Misstatements of Fact in House Resolution 269 and Facts Relating to Antonio Meucci and the Invention of the Telephone." alecbell.org website, June 30, 2002.
↑ Green, Mike "The Nearly Men. A chronicle of scientific failure" 2007, 26-27.
↑ "Augustus Hill Garland (1832–1899)".Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture website. Retrieved: May 1, 2009. Note: according to this article: "Garland soon found himself embroiled in scandal. While Garland was in the Senate, he had become a stockholder in, and attorney for, the Pan-Electric Telephone Company, which was organized to form regional telephone companies using equipment developed by J. Harris Rogers. The equipment was similar to the Bell telephone, and that company soon brought suit for patent infringement. Soon after he became attorney general, Garland was asked to bring suit in the name of the United States to invalidate the Bell patent. He refused...." However, in Rockman (2004), there is no mention of Garland refusing to do so, and moreover Garland had been given his shares in Pan-Electric by the company, for free.
↑ "Augustus Hill Garland (1874-1877)"Archived 2004-06-18 at the Wayback Machine , Old Statehouse Museum website. Retrieved: May 1, 2009. Note: According to this biography: "He did, however, suffer scandal involving the patent for the telephone. The Attorney General's office was intervening in a lawsuit attempting to break Bell's monopoly of telephone technology, but it had come out that Garland owned stock in one of the companies that stood to benefit. This congressional investigation received public attention for nearly a year, and caused his work as attorney general to suffer."
↑ Green, Mike "The Nearly Men. A chronicle of scientific failure" 2007, 13-37.
↑ Leader, Jessica. "U.S. 'Assault' On Bell Riles Hometowns: Brantford And Baddeck: Suggestion He Stole Idea For Telephone 'Just Appalling,' Great-Grandson Says", National Post, June 21, 2002, pg. A3. Proquest document No. 330091638.
↑ "Legislator's Strange New Busy Signal", Edmonton Journal, June 26, 2002, pg. A14. Derived from:
Southam Publications.
↑ Cape Breton Post. "Conspirators Assail History: Nova Scotia Ensnarled In Attacks On Heirlooms Of Popular History". Cape Breton Post, June 24, 2002, pg.A6, eLibrary March 5, 2011.
↑ Fitzgerald, Tony. "Brantford Mayor Wants To Right History", Hamilton Spectator, July 4, 2002, pg. A9.
↑ Kelly, Mark; CBC staff. "House Of Commons Affirms Bell As Inventor Of Telephone (transcript)", Toronto: The National, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, June 21, 2002. Proquest Document ID: 439602621.
↑ Telecom Asia. "History: The U.S. Government Passed A Resolution Last Month (Backpage Briefing)", Telecom Asian, July 2002, Vol.13, Iss.7, pg.48(1). Gale CENTRAGE Article # A90427810.
1 2 Basilio, Catania; Gaspari, Franco; Gucciardo, Franco. Canada Greets Meucci!. Retrieved from ChezBasilio.org website March 3, 2011.
1 2 Hutchinson, Alex. What's The Big Idea?: Who Invented The Telephone? You Make The Call", Ottawa Citizen. September 17, 2006, pg. B2
↑ Black, Peter. "Bras To BlackBerrys – Canadian Inventions", Plattsburgh, NY: Press-Republican, December 23, 2005.
Bibliography
Bruce, Robert V. Bell: Alexander Bell and the Conquest of Solitude. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1990. ISBN0-8014-9691-8.
Evenson, A. Edward. "The Telephone Patent Conspiracy of 1876: The Elisha Gray - Alexander Bell Controversy. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland Publishing, 2000. ISBN0-7864-0138-9.
Gray, Charlotte. Reluctant Genius: Alexander Graham Bell and the Passion for Invention. New York: Arcade Publishing, 2006. ISBN1-55970-809-3.
Dr. Basilio Catania Website (website of a telecommunications researcher and historian with an extensive collection of Meucci documentation, including The Proofs Of Meucci's Priority)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
