Godfrey Rust - Rights.com - Linked Content Coalition 062013

Godfrey Rust Europeana Licensing © LCC/Rightscom 2013
From a parallel universe
The Linked Content Coalition - a working relationship with
Europeana?
Godfrey Rust, Rightscom/Linked Content Coalition
Europeana Licensing Workshop June 2013
www.linkedcontentcoalition.org

LCC
RDI project, Copyright Hub
LCC rights model
Future applications
LCC and Europeana?

Linked Content Coalition
LCC was established in 2012 as a project to develop building
blocks for the expression and management of rights and
licensing across all content and media types.
Membership (50+ organizations) global, but EC/US focussed.
All media types and all parts of the digital content supply chain,
some technology providers. No cultural institutions in first
phase.
Supported by EC (funding the forthcoming RDI project) and in
UK “Copyright Works” report leading to Copyright Hub.
Phase 1 completed – “LCC Framework” published April 2013.
“Digital Identifier Network” paper yet to come.
3

Source
Creator or repository
of rights data
Source
Creator or repository
of rights data
Exchange
Making rights
available to Users
Exchange
Making rights
available to Users
User
Seeking information about rights
(from Sources),
or to acquire rights (from Exchanges)
User
Seeking information about rights
(from Sources),
or to acquire rights (from Exchanges)
Scope of LCC - the Rights Data Supply Chain
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Rights data flows along the
supply chain, undergoing
transformations as needed.
This shows the flow of rights
information in the supply chain,
identifying the key roles played.
Different roles may be played by
the same party. The chain may be
of any length or complexity.
Rights data flows along the chain.
indicates a point at which
transformation (or “data
conversion”) may be needed from
one format or language to
another. The transformation may
be a task carried out by one of the
parties in the flow, or by an
intermediary acting as a
“Transformer”.
T
T

Scope of LCC
LCC definition of a Right: “A state in which a Party is entitled to
do something in relation to a Creation, as a consequence of a
law, agreement or policy”.
No core differences in data model by sector or media, or
between commercial/cultural, paid/free, owned/pd. Differences
are in vocabulary, not structure.
Covers all kinds of rights data – ownership, licences, conflicts.
Focus on automation.
Isn’t it easier to “start small”?
Content flows through all types of domain, and is fragmented,
re-purposed, adapted and aggregated in any number of ways.
You have no idea what kind of deals you will need to describe
tomorrow, and how complex they will be.
5

First deliverable - LCC Framework (April 2013)
Specification for best practice and interoperability in the digital
rights data supply chain.
Principles for identification and messaging (and, in future,
user interface/iconography) in the digital network.
Rights Reference Model (RRM) – comprehensive data model
for all types of rights in all types of content for all types of use
and control. With XML and RDF/TTL representations (“CRF” –
common rights format – development of specific
implementations of this is continuing).
RRM can be used for system/message/app design, or data
transformation for interoperability between other schemas– a
“hub” model to allow anyone to talk to anyone about rights.
6

LCC next step: standards consortium
Sufficient value seen in first LCC outputs and in creating a
cross-sector forum for LCC to continue.
LCC proposed to be a consortium of standards bodies.
The aim of the LCC will be to facilitate and expand the
legitimate use of content in the digital network through
interoperable identifier and metadata standards.
Members: organizations who create and manage identifier,
metadata and messaging standards for content of all media
type.
Any other organization or person may show their support for
the aims of the LCC by declaring themselves as an affiliate.
7

LCC consortium initial membership
June 2013 invited six organizations active in original project:
DDEX (primary content – music)
EDItEUR (primary content – text)
MovieLabs (primary content – audiovisual)
IDF (any content –strong in journals, data, av)
IPTC (primary content – news)
The Plus Coalition (primary content – images)
Further invitations will be sent to other eligible groups.
Any other types of organizations may be “Affiliates” (all LCC
phase 1 partners will be invited).
8

LCC will…
…support interoperability between the computer systems of
any and all legitimate participants in the digital network,
including creators, rightsholders, publishers, aggregators, rights
and content exchanges, retailers, consumers, cultural
institutions, (including libraries, museums and archives) and
their agents and associations.
…focus principally on rights-related data (includes content and
party identifiers and metadata).
…facilitate the legitimate use of copyright and public domain
works, under any business model or none, including "free use".
9

LCC will not…
…compete with any activities of existing standards bodies, but
will deal with matters of common interest across existing
standards bodies.
…address matters of copyright law.
10

LCC work items
Work items proposed and carried out by groups of its members,
which may result in (for example):
- common controlled vocabularies (eg “link relators“, rights
verbs)
- authorized vocabulary mappings and/or schema
transformation rules for interoperability
- specific multimedia messages/schemas/applications
- standard "icons" and other user interface elements for
rights data and services
- presenting consortium views and proposals and co-
operate with other bodies (eg schema.org, DC,
bibliographic/cultural projects)
11

LCC obligations and governance
Own and maintain the LCC Framework specifications and future
LCC standards and outputs, and make these generally available
under free use license arrangements.
Provide a real and virtual forum for discussion and consultation
among members (for example, hosting email reflectors, webinars
and real and virtual meetings).
Self-governed by a council of its members.
All projects individually funded by members, affiliates or others,
including with grant funding.
12

Next: RDI (“Rights Data Integration”) project
Beginning June 2013 (?), for 27 months, EC funded (under ICT
PSP 6th
call 2012).
An implementation of the RRM as a “hub” .
Real businesses dealing with real data and hoping for real
long-term business opportunities from RDI.
A range of data flows across the supply chain to show that
different rights expressions (licenses and rightsholding claims)
from all media types can be integrate.
Hub to be built by CINECA (also run ARROW). Using MINT for
schema mapping. VMF for vocabulary mapping.
Also show how new standards can be implemented to fill gaps
(identifiers and registries in image sector – CEPIC/
Getty/Album/PLUS Coalition).
13

mEDRA
RDI participants (initial – others may be added)
14
IFRRO/IPTC member(s)
Pearson
Axel Springer
ARROW
Publishing Still images
PPL
EMI Music
Publishing
CI
Music
FremantleMedia
Danish
Producers
Association
AV
CINECA
Rightscom
NTUA
Ediser
Sources
Transformer/
mapping
Exchanges
Kobalt Music
CEPIC Getty
age fotostock/THP
Getty/
Picscout/PLUS
Rights
Direct
Users
Brackets denote contributing partner
which is not a member of the consortium
PLUS
Capture/
British Library
Album

Next: Copyright Hub
Outcome of UK government “Copyright Works” report.
Supports LCC as its data Framework.
Starting with pilot portal July 1 2013.
Goals: enable users to discover who owns rights and to
acquire licenses (including supporting “orphan works”
registry). Later to enable registration/declaration.
All media sectors, CMOs and major content publishers
involved.
Though UK based, international in scope.
Focus is the “long tail” of unlicensed, low value use.
Phase 1 just a portal linking to websites. Phase 2 (2014)
federated search. Phase 3, support License transactions?
15

LCC Rights Model - structure
Abstract – can be expressed in any language or schema (LCC
uses XML and RDF et present).
Two parts: general Entity Model, then specific Rights Reference
Model (“RRM”) – a “profile” of the Entity Model using 8
specialized types of Entity.
Two levels: “Full” model, which provides the richest possible
model for mapping and integrating any data – this is being
used in the RDI “Hub”. Very expressive, but verbose and not
ideal for more targetted applications.
“Flattened” models, which are optimized “fragments” using
specific vocabularies for specific purposes, but can be
automatically expanded back to “Full”.
16

0-n1-n
1
1
0-n
0-n 0-n
Link
Link
LCC Entity Model: Attribute Model
Entity
Category
Entity
LCC Entity ModelThis diagram shows the common
structure for each Entity in the RRM
(and other models which LCC may
specify in future).
Each Entity is built in a modular way
from combinations of five types of
Attribute, each of which has a
different “micro-model” structure,
exemplified here. Each Attribute is
an Entity in its own right and may
have Attributes of its own.
Type
Value
example
xyz:RightType
xyz:Play
Type
Value
NameType
Designation
Part
Part
example
lcc:Name
“John Smith”
ReferenceName
“Smith, John”, Indexed
“John”, NamesBeforeKeyName
“Smith”, KeyName
Type
Mode
Proximity
Value
Unit
example
xyz:FileSize
lcc:SingleQuantity
lcc:NotMoreThan
10
xyz:MB
Descriptor
A Name, Identifier
or Annotation of an
Entity in the form of
an uncontrolled or
partially controlled
data value
Type
Mode
Proximity
From
Proximity
To
example
xyz:ValidPeriod
lcc:Period
lcc:Exactly
2012-01-01
lcc:NotAfter
2013-12-31
LinkType
Entity1
Entity1Role
Entity2
Entity2Role
example
lcc:Creation_Party
A123 (=“Moby Dick”)
B987 (=“Herman Melville”)
xyz:Author
Note: Some element names are abbreviated because of space
Category
A categorization of
of an Entity with a
fully controlled
data value
Quantity
A measure of
some aspect of an
Entity
Time
A point or
period of
time
associated
with an
Entity
Link
A typed
relationship
between
two Entities

RRM Entity and Link Types
CreationParty
Rights
Conflict
Assertion
Rights
Assignment
Context Place
Right

0-n
0-n
0-1
0-n
1-n
0-1
RRM Right
Right
Party
=Right ContextType
=Context EntityType
1-n Territory
1-n ValidPeriod
PercentageShare
RelatedParty
0-n
Creation
RelatedCreation
Context
1-n RightType
0-n ToolType
0-n MaterialType
0-n OutputCreationType
0-n HostCreationType
NumberOfUses
Place
0-n ValidContextType
1 IsExclusive
RelatedContext
RelatedPlace
Like all LCC Contexts, a Right inherits the
attributes of the Context Entity. In any
implementation of the RRM, a Right may have
other specialized Attributes modelled according
to the LCC Entity Model and constrained by rules.
RelatedRight

LCC Rights Model – background and testing
Developed from indecs Framework work in 2000. Underlying
model used in many proprietary and standard applications (eg
DDEX, DOI, ONIX) and maps well to CIDOC (museum/archive)
and FRBR (bibliographic) reference models, though LCC is more
generic and comprehensive.
Use cases from existing rights languages/messages (eg ODRL,
RightsML, Creative Commons, ONIX-PL, Plus Coalition) mapped.
Examples will be published soon in LCC “Common Rights
Format” XML and RDF. No significant issues.
More exhaustive proof will be done in RDI.
20

LCC Rights Model – profiles
An RRM “profile” is defined by a set of constraint rules which
depend on Categories, and may be written in any schema or
language. For example:
In a PermittedRight in an XYZ License:
- there may be no more than one RightType, from Code List B
- the Rightsholder must be an Organization of
OrganizationType=Library
- There may be any number of Conditions which are Payments or
UsageReportingEvents.
The structure of the RRM allows for any level of complexity of
such rules without the need for extending the model or
schema.
21

Future applications of model – (1) Hubs
Full model being piloted in RDI (as described), then Copyright
Hub.
Other discussions under way.
22

Future applications of model – (2) “WCDs”
“Web Content Declaration of Interest” .
Most items of content are now published first in digital form on
the web. Much of this content is of some commercial value (or
potential commercial value).
Much is “self-published” by individuals or by organizations who
are not primarily publishers, but primary publishers also now
release a great deal of content through websites, blogs and file-
sharing services.
The total number of new and adapted works newly published on
the web each day is now much greater than the total published
print output of books of civilisation.
There may now be more than a billion “web content publishers”.

WCD format
Machine-interpretable declarations of content and rights made
at the point of first publication of digital content on the
web.
Using (and supplementing) existing identifier and metadata
standards and registries wherever possible.
Link digital IDs (“fingerprints”) to authoritative metadata for
content and rights.
Using mapped controlled vocabularies.
Declarations should be integrated with content loading systems,
but web content aggregators are not expected to be registries –
Apps and APIs to provide links to registries.
Content publishers can set up “profiles” which will automate
much of the process.

The identifier gap
Most direct-to-web publishing captures metadata –
who is the creator / rightsholder
what is the content
and sometimes
what rights are available
but much of it is not machine-interpretable (that is – not
captured as shared or standard identifiers) or authorized. It is
captured as free text or proprietary IDs.

use case: a music video (but could be any content)
Performer “Ebony Day”
Creation “Kiss You - One Direction (Ebony Day Live
Cover)”
This is a version of: Music video by One Direction
performing Kiss You. (c) 2013 Simco Limited under
exclusive licence to Sony Music Entertainment UK
Limited
Rights No information published.

As a Web Content Declaration of Interest
ContentID 0101010101010101 IDType=AcmeFingerprint
Performer ID=00000001 IDType=ISNI
Creation ID=1234567890 IDType=ISRC
Type=ddex:MusicalWorkVideo (etc)
LinkTo ID=987654321 IDType=ISRC
LinkType=lcc:VideoCoverOf
LinkTo ID=55555555 IDType=ISWC
LinkType=lcc:RecordedPerformanceOf
Rights ID=123456789 IDType=LccOwnershipClaim
Asserter ID=00000002 IDType=ISNI
Most WCD data can be stored as a default “profile” and created
automatically as part of the content publication process.

A WCD in URIs – the goal (can be Linked Data)
ContentID 0101010101010101 IDType=[URI]
Performer [URI]
Creation [URI]
Type=[URI]
LinkTo=[URI]
LinkType=[URI]
LinkTo=[URI]
LinkType=[URI]
Rights [URI]
Asserter [URI]

WCD summary
Different profiles of WCDs for different situations. Can be as
simple or complex as required.
Based on the LCC models and existing, mapped vocabularies,
so fully extensible.
Support simple text metadata, existing standard/proprietary
schemas (which can include Europeana), and new generic LCC
schemas to fill gaps.
Customised for specific content and services using Apps and
APIs.

Where might LCC and Europeana work together?
Data modelling: issues outlined for next period of Euorpean
are the same that LCC has already to deal with.
Common and mapped vocabularies.
Work with CC (LCC and CC have begun dialogue). Create a full
common rights expression language?
PK: “Explore the ability to move rights statements to a
namespace that can be shared with similar projects”.
Identifiers and Assertions for Rights Statements – “who sez?”
Is there any Europeana use case for a WCD?
What points of integration of data and use are there from the
commercial and Europeana sectors? Should Europeana be on
the Copyright Hub?

From a parallel universe
The Linked Content Coalition - a working relationship with
Europeana?
Godfrey Rust, Rightscom/Linked Content Coalition
godfrey.rust@rightscom.com
www.linkedcontentcoalition.org

Godfrey Rust - Rights.com - Linked Content Coalition 062013

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (8)

Semelhante a Godfrey Rust - Rights.com - Linked Content Coalition 062013

Semelhante a Godfrey Rust - Rights.com - Linked Content Coalition 062013 (20)

Mais de Europeana Licensing

Mais de Europeana Licensing (15)

Último

Último (20)

Godfrey Rust - Rights.com - Linked Content Coalition 062013