OpenTwo archives, queried live.
Every record below comes from The Met or Smithsonian Open Access and was filtered on that archive’s own rights field before it reached this page. 24 shown for “Inlay fragment, collar design” — 64 records examined, 12 dropped by the rights gate.
Archives queried 2026-08-27 21:06 UTC · fetched live for this request
isPublicDomain field is true for this object.metadata_usage.access reads CC0 — a waiver, not an expired term.
Inlay fragment, collar design
Artist not stated in the record · 100 BCE–100 CE
Collar fragment
Artist not stated in the record · early 17th century
Inlay fragment, net design
Artist not stated in the record · ca. 1st–3rd century CE
Collar fragment
Artist not stated in the record · 17th–18th century
Inlay fragment, feather design
Artist not stated in the record · ca. 200 BCE–CE 100
Waistcoat fragments
Artist not stated in the record · late 18th century
Inlay fragment, feather(?) design
Artist not stated in the record · ca. 1st–3rd century CE
Collar
Artist not stated in the record · 19th century
Inlay fragment, rosette
Artist not stated in the record · ca. 200 BCE–CE 100
Fragment of an inlay with a floral design
Artist not stated in the record · 305 BCE-14 CE
Inlay fragment, rekhyt birds
Artist not stated in the record · 100 BCE–100 CE
Fragment of an inlay plate, with a floral design
Artist not stated in the record · 305 BCE-14 CE
Vase fragment, conventional floral design
Artist not stated in the record · ca. 1st–3rd century CE
Fragment of an inlay with fish design
Artist not stated in the record · 305 BCE-19 CE
Inlay fragment, border pattern of feather design
Artist not stated in the record · 100 BCE–100 CE
Fragment of an inlay with a floral design
Artist not stated in the record · 305 BCE-14 CE
Inlay fragment, ankh and was scepters
Artist not stated in the record · 100 BCE–100 CE
Fragment of an inlay with fish design
Artist not stated in the record · 305 BCE-19 CE
Inlay fragment, network pattern with centers
Artist not stated in the record · 100 BCE–100 CE
Fragment of an inlay with fish design
Artist not stated in the record · 305 BCE-19 CE
Inlay fragment, conventional floral pattern
Artist not stated in the record · ca. 1st–3rd century CE
Fragment of an inlay with floral design
Artist not stated in the record · 305 BCE-14 CE
Inlay fragment, rows of zigzag lines
Artist not stated in the record · ca. 200 BCE–CE 100
Fragment of an inlay with fish design
Artist not stated in the record · 305 BCE-19 CE
Where these records came from.
Two archives are wired, and only two. Each one is filtered on its own rights field — never on a title match, and never on the presence of an image file.
- The Met Collection API (Open Access)Rights field:
isPublicDomain. 76 matched · 24 examined · 0 dropped by the rights gate. Kept only where isPublicDomain === true and a file URL was published.12 shown - Smithsonian Open Access API (api.si.edu)Rights field:
content.descriptiveNonRepeating.metadata_usage.access. 139041 matched · 40 examined · 12 dropped by the rights gate. Kept only where metadata_usage.access === "CC0" and an image resource was published.12 shown
These figures describe the pass run at 2026-08-27 21:06 UTC, during this request. A completed pass is kept for 24 hours and replayed for an identical search, which is what keeps repeated queries inside Smithsonian’s 30-requests-per-hour allowance. A pass in which either archive failed to answer is never kept — an outage must not be replayed as though it were a finding about the catalogue.
Wikimedia Commons and the Library of Congress are deliberately not wired. Wikimedia was confirmed, on a live query, to return CC-BY material inside the same result set as genuine public domain works, and filtering it safely has not been designed yet. loc.gov was blocked by bot detection during the source evaluation, so its rights vocabulary has never been observed — and nothing here is built on a field nobody has read.
An image file is a rights claim. It never travels without its field.