search

DigitalLibraryofTennessee / DLTN_XSLT

XSL Transformations for DLTN Partner Metadata
4 stars 6 forks source link

Use Cases for Having Both a Nonstandard and Standard Rights Statement #17

Open markpbaggett opened 7 years ago

markpbaggett commented 7 years ago

Why are You Reporting an Issue

New Set(s) / Reingest Existing Set

N/A

Problem with Set or Transform

This sort of thing really doesn't fit in the template, but I think it's a good use of issues and discussion.

In regards to our question about whether or not it was okay to have a standardized and nonstandardized rights statement, Gretchen responded with:

Yes it is okay to have both under two conditions. One, like you guessed is that they don't contradict each other. The other is that they aren't redundant. I recognize that this one is going to be harder to implement since a lot of places probably have a statement that blends something like their own name as a contact or some blanket fair use statement with something like a copyright statement. We'd want them to actually work on making the two statements completely distinct (or entirely remove the local one if the information is vague) rather than have the duplication. We'd rather wait to implement the statements until those situations are cleared up than have redundant statements show up in the interim.

So, to help us move forward, I told her we'd gather some use cases. If you have a use case where you'd like to have a standard and nonstandard use case, could you share it here as a comment? We're specifically looking to make sure these aren't cases where we'd have redundant or contradicting statements. This also would help us understand what transformation we'd have.

Thank you all for your help here.

Interested Parties

@bonefas @carolynfrunyon @jrandlestsla @stevendshelton @CanOfBees

carolynfrunyon commented 7 years ago

So, I think this is what we'll do at UTC.

The local statement might be instructions to physically access the material. I reckon as long as we harvest/aggregate QDC and consistently map to the above fields, we should be OK.

The issue I have the DPLA MAP 4.0 is that it doesn't require that we use RightsStatements.org statements or URIs. So, UTC could still use LC Copyright Status as CV for this field and not be in violation of the guidelines, which would cause UTK to have to crosswalk the data. It would be nice if they used stronger language so that we can compel partners to use rightstatements.org. As far as I can tell, there's nothing to stop folks from developing their own local CVs for edm:rights.rightsStatement.

markpbaggett commented 7 years ago

@carolynfrunyon thanks for your input.

That's an interesting point for edm:right. I honestly wonder if they'd map this though. Technically, they map everything to MAP 4 from our source metadata.

I think we (DLTN) should just say out right that the only controlled vocabulary we use for standardized rights is rightsstatements.org, and everything else will be treated as nonstandard. I know that's weird for CC. I'll ask what others are doing.

One other weird thing I just notice in the MAP 4 docs on page 20: Standardized Rights Statements are required?

markpbaggett commented 7 years ago

Updating this. Gretchen confirmed the MAP 4 docs are wrong. I also talked to her about the question regarding 2 standardized rights statements; 2 things that map to edm:rights even though only 1 is allowed (use case: something with a rights statement.org uri and a creative commons uri). She was stumped. She suggested contacting Emily Gore with this use case. Can someone add a use case / user story that describes a situation where you own the copyright and provide a cc license and also want to attach a rights statement.

I know others have said this is common, but we never have copyright transferred to us so I'm struggling to describe.

bonefas commented 7 years ago

Upon further reflection and conversations with partners, I think I can say that all our cases will be either/or. It was good to clarify with them. However, Ken may be in this situation with his materials.

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Mark Baggett notifications@github.com wrote:

Updating this. Gretchen confirmed the MAP 4 docs are wrong. I also talked to her about the question regarding 2 standardized rights statements; 2 things that map to edm:rights even though only 1 is allowed (use case: something with a rights statement.org uri and a creative commons uri). She was stumped. She suggested contacting Emily Gore with this use case. Can someone add a use case / user story that describes a situation where you own the copyright and provide a cc license and also want to attach a rights statement.

I know others have said this is common, but we never have copyright transferred to us so I'm struggling to describe.

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

carolynfrunyon commented 7 years ago

Our Deed of Gift, available for download and review from http://www.utc.edu/library/special-collections/about/gifts-and-donations.php, transfers legal title, copyright, and literary property rights to the contents in as far as they are held by the donor to the parent institution, in this case, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. This means, for much of the collection acquired through donation using this Deed of Gift, we have a substantial number of items for which the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga holds the copyright, but for which we'd like to license using Creative Commons. To me, having a combination of rights statements and licenses is the most accurate way to describe and make these available. It doesn't mean that we can't use rightsstatments.org URIs to populate edm:rights, but it's not the full picture. Even though we might use In Copyright (http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/) to accurately describe the rights, we might choose to license the digital object as Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), thus the need to accommodate a rights statements AND and license to encourage use of copyrighted materials.

carolynfrunyon commented 7 years ago

Actually, the Queens Library Deed of Gift offers the option for the donor to retain copyright but license the work.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kBZ2GurTAkZXNVX3RoRmIxRmM/view

In time, I'm hoping to follow their lead and give our donors the opportunity to choose their own CC license.

markpbaggett commented 7 years ago

@bonefas and @carolynfrunyon , thanks again for your responses! This is exactly what I needed. I'm going to forward this to Gretchen and Emily for comment.

carolynfrunyon commented 7 years ago

Thanks for moving this forward! I'm looking forward to DPLA's response.

carolynfrunyon commented 7 years ago

Here's a QDC OAI feed for metadata records using rightsstatements.org and CC URIs: http://cdm16877.contentdm.oclc.org/oai/oai.php?verb=ListRecords&metadataPrefix=oai_qdc&set=p16877coll22

markpbaggett commented 7 years ago

A couple of quick answers from DPLA regarding rights statements and licenses:

I followed up with Emily on this and she agrees with me. The intention of the standardized statements is that they are not to be used with a license. The biggest issue she saw was that the implication of the rights statement (in copyright, for example) might be confusing in the case where the license was actually pretty permissive. I can see intellectually why the two don't necessarily cancel each other out or anything, but from the practical point of view, we definitely only want one or the other.

If they really want to do this on their end, at their home institution, then I think you would need to make sure that only one of the statements ended up in the @type="use and reproduction" and that the other is either out of the record, or clearly marked so that we can exclude it.

Also:

Typically when people use Creative Commons licenses they don't also use the rights statement. The license implies the copyright status. We are very comfortable with taking a CC license instead of a rights statement. So I first just want to clarify, does the provider think we are requiring the rights statement? Or is it that she wants to use both? I can certainly see how maybe some of the language about this so far might be confusing, so it would be good to know if that is the case.

I'll talk with Emily about this regardless, but I think our stance would be that we would just want the record to have the CC license, so we may need to work out a slightly different mapping. Let me know the clarification regarding the issue in the above paragraph and then let's figure out what to do from there.

I think this all sounds reasonable. Let me know if you all have other thoughts before we close.

carolynfrunyon commented 7 years ago

Copyright and licensing are different! I found a pretty concise statement on Linux Journal (http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/1297).

"A copyright safeguards the ownership of an intellectual property. If you hold copyright to some intellectual property, you have several rights regarding that property, and you can assign (sell or give) some or all of those rights to others. A license, on the other hand, is a document lets someone use your intellectual property."

The problem I have is that copyright and licenses are NOT interchangeable. UTC may hold copyright and have a permissive license. They are not mutually exclusive. Similarly, we have some collections for which UTC does not hold copyright and therefore cannot assign a CC licenses. So a record for which UTC holds copyright might looks like this:

A record for which UTC does not hold copyright might look like this:

Whenever we have a CC license, this applied to our IR as well as our digital library, we use a rights statements AND and CC license to make it very clear who is giving the end user permission to use the material.