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 “Textile fragment with pattern of chrysanthemums on hexagonal lattice (Kikkō)” — 58 records examined, 3 dropped by the rights gate.
Archives queried 2026-09-03 05:20 UTC · fetched live for this request
isPublicDomain field is true for this object.metadata_usage.access reads CC0 — a waiver, not an expired term.
Textile fragment with pattern of chrysanthemums on hexagonal lattice (Kikkō)
Artist not stated in the record · 18th–19th century
Fragment
Artist not stated in the record · 16th–17th century
Fragments of a Carpet with Lattice and Blossom Pattern
Artist not stated in the record · ca. 1650
Fragment
Christopher Dresser, Scottish, 1834–1904 · 1873
Velvet with Figural Imagery
Artist not stated in the record · mid-16th century
Ocean Wave Hexagons
Artist not stated in the record · mid 18th - early 19th century
Textile Fragment
Artist not stated in the record · mid-16th century
Fragment
Artist not stated in the record · 17th century
Inrō with Geometric Pattern
Artist not stated in the record · first half of the19th century
Fragments
Artist not stated in the record · 16th century
Corner Block from a Frieze with a Meander Pattern of Lines and Rosettes
Artist not stated in the record · 6th century
Fragment
Artist not stated in the record · 19th century
Ribbon Lattice with Pinecone (?)
Artist not stated in the record · 8th–9th century
Fragments
Artist not stated in the record · 16th century
Textile Fragment with Vine Lattice and Birds
Artist not stated in the record · 6th–9th century
Fragment
Artist not stated in the record · 16th–17th century
Noh Robe (Karaori) with Pattern of Bamboo and Young Pines on Bands of Red and White
Artist not stated in the record · first half 19th century
Fragment
Artist not stated in the record · late 17th–early 18th century
Textile fragment with repeating pattern of cranes and chrysanthemums
Artist not stated in the record · 18th–19th century
Fragment
Artist not stated in the record · 15th–16th century
Fragmentary Loom Width with Ogival Pattern
Artist not stated in the record · ca. 1570–80
Carpet fragment
Artist not stated in the record · ca. 1870
"Rosette Bearing the Names and Titles of Shah Jahan", Folio from the Shah Jahan Album
Artist not stated in the record · recto: ca. 1645; verso: ca. 1630–40
Fragment
Artist not stated in the record · late 17th–early 18th century
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. 18 matched · 18 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. 3050708 matched · 40 examined · 3 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 2026-09-03 05:20 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.