Godfrey Rust - Rights.com - Linked Content Coalition 062013

Godfrey Rust Europeana Licensing Workshop June 2013

© 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



SourceCreator or repository

of rights data

SourceCreator or repository

of rights data

ExchangeMaking rights

available to Users

ExchangeMaking rights

available to Users

UserSeeking information about rights

(from Sources),or to acquire rights (from Exchanges)

UserSeeking information about rights

(from Sources),or to acquire rights (from Exchanges)

Scope of LCC - the Rights Data Supply Chain

TT

TT

TT

TT

TT

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”.

TT



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 imagesPPL

EMI Music Publishing

CI

MusicFremantleMedia

Danish Producers

Association

AV

CINECA

Rightscom

NTUA

EdiserSources

Transformer/ mapping

Exchanges

Kobalt Music

CEPIC Getty

age fotostock/THP

Getty/ Picscout/PLUS

Rights Direct

UsersBrackets 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

LinkLink

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

examplexyz:RightTypexyz:Play

Type Value

NameTypeDesignation

PartPart

examplelcc:Name“John Smith”ReferenceName“Smith, John”, Indexed“John”, NamesBeforeKeyName“Smith”, KeyName

Type Mode

ProximityValue

Unit

examplexyz:FileSizelcc:SingleQuantitylcc:NotMoreThan10xyz:MB

DescriptorA Name, Identifier or Annotation of an Entity in the form of an uncontrolled or partially controlled data value

Type Mode

ProximityFrom

ProximityTo

examplexyz:ValidPeriodlcc:Periodlcc:Exactly2012-01-01lcc:NotAfter2013-12-31

LinkTypeEntity1

Entity1RoleEntity2

Entity2Role

examplelcc:Creation_PartyA123 (=“Moby Dick”)

B987 (=“Herman Melville”)xyz:Author

Note: Some element names are abbreviated because of space

CategoryA categorization of of an Entity with a fully controlled data value

QuantityA measure of some aspect of an Entity

TimeA point or period of time associated with an Entity

LinkA typed relationship between two Entities



RRM Entity and Link Types

CreationParty

RightsConflict

Assertion

RightsAssignment

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

RelatedParty0-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

[email protected]

www.linkedcontentcoalition.org

Education

Godfrey Rust - Rights.com - Linked Content Coalition 062013