Why rights and not license?

[peterdesmet]

I notice the rights term is used in AC rather than its subproperty license (which is used in Darwin Core): https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/#http://purl.org/dc/terms/license

A legal document giving official permission to do something with the resource.

Recommended practice is to identify the license document with a URI. If this is not possible or feasible, a literal value that identifies the license may be provided.

Wouldn't the license property more useful to end users?

[edwbaker]

I would think so (but I don't know the background), there is also xmpRights:WebStatement in AC. I'll add it to the list of things to discuss in the next meeting.

[magpiedin]

Including license makes sense to me, too

I think it would also help to keep rights, though -- with clarification about usage to distinguish it from license & follow the Dublin Core recommendations for http://purl.org/dc/terms/rights -- e.g.:

• recommend rights term to indicate where media has a particular copyright status using for RightsStatements.org. This could help describe a lot of historical orphan media where rights are unknown but it's otherwise ok or necessary to share.
• potentially also recommend it for TK (provenance) labels to indicate related cultural authority/rights-types for a given media resource. Or is another term more appropriate for that?
• point data-publishers towards the license term to indicate Creative Commons or other licenses.

FMNH in Chicago may have one of the first two situations in the future, and we often bump into confusion about the third.