LCC and the “Digital Identifier Network”€¦ · URI2 URI7 URI1 URI20 URI4 URI8 URI21 URI14...
Transcript of LCC and the “Digital Identifier Network”€¦ · URI2 URI7 URI1 URI20 URI4 URI8 URI21 URI14...
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
LCC and the “Digital Identifier Network”
Godfrey Rust, Rightscom/Linked Content Coalition
Presentation to the “Licenses for Europe – WG2: User Generated Content”
April 2013
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Context: the digital content explosion
The number of new and adapted works of all media types
(text, image, audio, audivisual) now loaded or created on
the internet each day is greater than the total number of
books, audio and audiovisual recordings published in
physical form in the history of civilisation.
This figure was negligible ten years ago. The result is an
unimaginable number of new daily digital orphans –
content whose identity and rights are inaccessible to users
or service providers in any automatable way.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
This presentation…
Summary of LCC and the RDI project
Brief description of the Digital Identifier Network which as
the context of rights management for the future (using the
LCC’s rights model to describe it)
Suggestion of Web Content Declaration of interest – an
approach LCC is considering for addressing the digital orphan
issue.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Linked Content Coalition (LCC)
LCC was established in 2012 to develop building blocks for the expression and management of rights and licensing across all content and media types.
Membership global: all media types and all parts of the digital content supply chain.
Supported by EC (funding RDI project) and UK “Copyright Works” report leading to Copyright Hub.
Phase 1 completed – “LCC Framework” published last week.
Phase 2 in planning.
LCC to be a consortium of standards bodies?
4
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
LCC Vision
Use technology to benefit media supply chain participants, not to their detriment.
5
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
LCC Role
To be a catalyst to encourage the automated management of content rights in the digital network.
6
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
An LCC assumption
Rights data management is broadly the same in all media –differences of emphasis, not of fundamentals.
7
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
LCC is not…
…advocating automation where it isn’t appropriate
…about replacing existing standards
…about copyright law
…biased to any sector or business model
8
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Potential benefits
Easier discovery of rights ownership will increase market size for
rightsholders and decrease infringement.
Increasing automation will reduce cost and increase profitability for
all supply chain participants.
More standardisation will lower system development costs,
encouraging transformative innovation and increasing market size
for all supply chain participants.
9
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
First deliverable - LCC Framework (April 2013)
Specification for best practice and interoperability in the digital rights data supply chain.
Specs for Identifiers and Messages (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.
RRM can be used for system/message design or data transformation for interoperability between other schemas (whether standard or proprietary) – a “hub” model to allow anyone to talk to anyone about rights.
10
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
RDI (“Rights Data Integration”) project
Beginning (May?) 2013, for two years, EC funded.
An exemplary 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 integrated using an implementation of the RRM.
Also show how new standards can be implemented to fill gaps (in
image sector).
11
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
mEDRA
RDI participants
12
IFRRO
(Pearson)
Axel Springer
(IPTC)
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
Picscou
t Album
Rights
Direct
Users Brackets denote contributing partner which is not a member of the consortium
PLUS (Capture)/ (BL)
Album
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
UK Copyright Hub
LCC endorsed by Hooper “Copyright Works Report”.
Hub working groups reviewing LCC Rights Reference Model with a view
to recommending it as the data architecture for the Hub.
13
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
The Digital Identifier Network (“DIN”)
The rest of this talk will use the RRM to present a vision
of the present and future of the rights supply chain as a
network of digitally resolvable identifiers.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
The LCC Rights Reference Model (RRM)
A comprehensive data model for all media and right
types. Based on much previous work and best data
modelling practise.
Designed to cover scope of all known existing rights
standards and more. Extensible, flexible, optimizable.
Tested with use cases.
Data modelling is not rocket science: it is about
describing the reality you want your system to deal
with. A model should make sense to anyone who has
some understanding of that reality. If it doesn’t, your
system will cause you trouble.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
The RRM demystifies rights data management
All multi-media rights data, however complex, can be aggregated
and expressed in common and relatively simple ways.
Across-the-board interoperability is achievable: “our domain is
special” is not true.
Differences can all be accommodated by identifier and vocabulary
management.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
0-n 1-n
1
1
0-n
0-n 0-n
Link
LCC Entity Model: Attribute Model
Entity
Category
Entity
LCC Entity Model This 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
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
RRM EntityTypes and principal Links
Right
Creation Party
Rights Conflict
Assertion
Rights Assignment
Rightsholder
Controlled Creation
Contributor
Assigner
AssignedRight
SubjectOfAssertion
Asserter
Context
Condition
ExcludedRight
SourceRight
Place
ValidPlace
Assignee
ConflictedRight
ValidContext
This diagram shows the eight EntityTypes of the RRM, and the main links between them.
RRM Entities and principal Links What the reality looks like
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
ID5
ID6 ID3
ID2
ID7
ID1 ID4
ID8
Type1
Type2
Type4
Type3
Type6 Type7 Type8
Type9
Type10
Type11
Type12
Type13
Type5
What this looks like to a computer
RRM Entities and principal Links Each of the Entities is an Identifier and each of the Links is defined by a Type (a term from a controlled vocabulary). The computer has no idea what it means. It only works if IDs and Types are in a form that it can process. It can recognise if an ID or a Type is the same as another – that is how it is able to pass information from one model to another.
Type14
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
URI5
URI6 URI3
URI2
URI7
URI1 URI4
URI8
URI20
URI21
URI14
URI19
URI16 URI17 URI18
URI9
URI10
URI11
URI12
URI13
URI15
What this looks like (ideally) on the Web
The Linked Identifier Network On the Web, each ID and Type is best represented as a URI. That enables connections to be made using standard Web protocol. This is creating the Linked Identifier Network on which digital commerce relies. Rights, money, content, searches, piracy and anti-piracy actions all flow along this network.
URI22
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
URI5
URI6 URI3
URI4
URI8
URI20
URI14
URI17 URI10
URI13
What this looks like (actually) on the Web
The Linked Identifier Network Where there are gaps in the network, the Network is broken.
URI22
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
The network is broken
The Linked Identifier Network is seriously broken
(or rather, not yet built) in many places, and some
of these get in the way of good content and rights
management.
Either
- IDs and Types are missing, or
- IDs and Types are not mapped to each other
where they represent the same things, or
- they are not yet usable as URIs
That sums up what LCC wants to see done.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Provisos
Not all links are public. The network will always be
confidential or inaccessible in some places for
good reasons.
Not all parts of the network are worth the cost of
building and maintaining them.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Two key developments which shape the solution
• Digital content identification
• “Direct-to-web” publishing.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Digital content identification
There is plenty of technology now for identifying digital
items, for example:
• Digimarc Guardian (Attributor) - text
• Getty PicScout – images
• Soundmouse - audio
• YouTube Content ID - audio visual
These mean that content items can be tracked for any
purpose.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
“Mapped”, not just standard, identifiers
The same identifier standards do not need to be used
everywhere – different standards can be “mapped” to one
another so that systems can translate automatically.
This is the basis of the ISNI Party identifier currently being
implemented.
This is also how different controlled vocabularies can be
interoperated (RDI will greatly expand the Vocabulary
Mapping Framework).
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
“Direct-to-web” publishing
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.
There may now be more than a billion “web content
publishers”.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
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 identifiers) or authorized. It is captured as
free text or proprietary IDs. Unlike data in a public registry, for
example, it cannot
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Simply stated…
…most web content publishers have no way of declaring
who they are
what their content it
what content it is derived from (if any)
and
what rights they control or grant
in a form that is authorized, and can be discovered automatically
by anyone who wants or needs to know.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Digital content IDs are dumb
Digital content IDs enable a high level of automated
identification – but they only recognise the content.
Digital content IDs must be linked at some point to “human”
authorized party, content and rights identification.
This set of identifiers might be called the authorized key
metadata.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Declaration “at point of first publication”
The obvious solution is to issue the authorized key metadata
at the point at which a digital item first enters the web.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
“Web Content Declaration of interest” (WCD)
This could be a standardised but flexible declaration of
interest of any kind (contributor or rightsholder) in an item of
digital content published on the web.
The WCD would include:
• a digital content ID (automatically generated)
• party ID(s) for the interested party(s)
• creation ID(s) for the content item and linked items
• rights assignments
• other metadata using mapped controlled vocabularie
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
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.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
As a Web Content Declaration of interest
ContentID 0101010101010101010
Performer ISNI 123456789
Creation ISRC 234567890
ddex:MusicalWorkVideo (etc)
xyz:cover of: ISRC 987654321
Rights ABC Rights Assignment 123456789 (etc)
Asserter ISNI 987654321 date 01-01-2015
Most WCD data can be stored as a default “profile” and created automatically as part of the content publication process.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
“Web Content Declaration of interest” (WCD)
Based on the LCC models.
Customised for specific content and services using Apps and
APIs.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Some health warnings
Any systems must be voluntary and opt-in.
Not all rights management can be automated.
This approach is not “legal deposit” (though could be
integrated with legal deposit where that exists).
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
How to get IDs?
Web content publishers need to be able to acquire IDs
automatically.
Existing identifier registries (eg ISRC, ISNI, ISBN, ISWC, EIDR, DOI
etc) can allow web content publishers to acquire IDs directly (a
challenge in volume, cost or authorization for some of them)
and/or
new identifiers and registries will emerge to provide
identification services. These will feed into established registries
where appropriate.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Where to put WCD data?
Content aggregators and service providers would not be
expected to accept any responsibility for the data (unless they
want to).
WCD data can go to existing
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
“Web Content Declaration of Interest”
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.
Declarations to link digital content IDs to authoritative party,
creation and rights identifiers and metadata.
Declarations should be integrated with content loading systems,
but web content aggregators not expected to be registries –
Apps and APIs to provide links.
May be supplemented of course
(user default patterms) (wrks that are registered)
Currently no place to decare rights control
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Rights expressions in WCDs
The LCC model supports the simplest or most complex rights
expressions, using any controlled vocabularies.
Other rights languages such as ODRL, RightsML or ONIX-PL can be
used for licenses.
The model can be used to express public domain and orphan works
and any specific provisions or exceptions for specific jurisdictions.
Rights claims can be made at any time after first publication by
association.
Conflicting claims will be a significant issue for WCDs, as they are
for collective rights registries now.
.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Controlled vocabularies
The LCC RRM supports the simplest or most complex rights
expressions, using any controlled vocabularies.
kfkfk
.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Impact on licensing
The LCC RRM supports the simplest or most complex rights
expressions, using any controlled vocabularies.
Kfkfk
.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
“Digital orphans”
If metadata is not machine-interpretable, an item of content
maybe called a digital orphan – it requires human
intervention to complete a chain of transaction.
The problem of new digital orphans is far larger than the
problem of “historical orphans”: billions of digital orphans are
being created daily.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
“Rights” in the LCC model
A Right is “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”.
A Rights Assignment is “a decision which results in the
existence of a Right” and so covers any kind of agreement
(including licences), law or policy which grants rights.
Offers and requests can be expressed in the same structure as
“proposed rights assignments”.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Assertions and conflicts
Digital
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
The missing link(s)
Digital content identification
“Direct-to-web” publishing.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
The future of the Digital Identifier Network
Five things I expect to happen, and which LCC will be
trying to facilitate:
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
The future DIN: Party IDs – first in the chain
Party IDs are the starting point – and the blind spot in
several sectors.
eg CISAC’s great success story – the CAE/IP number.
eg ISNI (and IDs which link to it)
When Creations or Rights are being identified, the
Rightsholders must first be identified if licensing is to be
automated.
All Rightsholders who want them will have IDs (like ISNI,
or an ID mapped to ISNI) which enable them to register
content and rights. They will be able to get them quite
easily.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
The future DIN: Creation IDs - “Digital declaration”
Automated content identification is already common in
images (eg PicScout and YouTube) and audio.
Growing use in text world (eg Digimarc Guardian).
Allows a party to declare a reference copy – so a copy
supplied to (eg) YouTube or PicScout allows service
providers to offer discovery or monitor pirate usage.
At present this process is ad hoc and driven by specific
business requirements (such as take-down).
Digital declaration will become the key to the
authoritative “once for all” declaration of works and
associated Rights throughout the digital network.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
The future DIN: Rights IDs
Rights data needs to be shared automatically much
more than it currently is in the supply chain (volume,
multi-media, re-purposing explosion).
Policies and Rights will have IDs issued at the point at
which they are to enable resolution.
eg PLUS Coalition
Much but not all of this will be proprietary “behind
closed doors”.
Assertions (“who says”?) and Conflicts will become
critically important in managing distributed Rights data.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
The future DIN: Controlled vocabularies (“Category
IDs”)
Already well established and widely used, these will be
mapped through services like the Vocabulary Mapping
Framework (VMF) and schema.org.
Apps will access Category IDs automatically and
transform them seamlessly for different domains as
required.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
The future DIN: Resolvable IDs
Creation and License/Rights IDs will allow people and
systems to resolve automatically to different services –
such as content, rights metadata or licensing systems,
eg DOI/Handle already offers “multiple resolution”.
IDs will be embedded with content or in web pages, but
metadata increasingly stored remotely – especially for
rights.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
“Declaration” vs “registration”
This presentation talks about “declaration” rather
than “registration” of digital content, to avoid a
common misunderstanding.
“Registration” has several meanings, and is
sometimes used to describe an act which establishes
the existence of copyright in a creation.
“Declaration” here simply means providing a
definitive, accessible copy of a creation along with
metadata for the purposes of authoritative
identification regardless of its copyright status (for
example, ”declaration” may also apply to works in
the public domain).
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
The future of content and rights declaration (1)
A person or organization with content and rights will
be able to upload a Creation onto a digital service
and:
- identify themselves and their roles (with IDs)
- identify their Creation(s) and links (with IDs)
- identify the rights they control and are willing to
grant (with IDs)
- this process may apply to self-publishers or major
corporations
- this process may apply to single works or complete
repertoires
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
The future of content and rights declaration (2)
The IDs they use may be standard or proprietary but
will be “shared” with the network.
Controlled vocabularies from different namespaces
will be interoperable.
Services will use apps and APIs so that for the user
the process can be more or less automatic, using a
set of default preferences.
With the RRM underpinning the standards it can be
as simple or complex (and extensible) as it needs to
be.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
The future of content and rights declaration (3)
Similar “ID at the point of activity” processes will
support the issuing of licenses and usage reporting
and monitoring.
There are no technical barriers to this – all the
individual processes involved are commonplace and
“big data” is no longer an obstacle.
The digital explosion described at the beginning
makes this both necessary and inevitable.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
Who manages the Digital Identifier Network?
Like internet, all the participants.
Threat or opportunity for IFRRO members?
New services and intermediaries will appear, some
of them growing very rapidly.
Your legacy data and systems can be an asset or a
liability.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
LCC – the next step
LCC proposes to become a consortium of
standards groups (eg Editeur, DDEX, IPTC, CC,
PLUS Coalition, W3C, DOI, other ISO identifier
agencies).
Enough of these already engaged with LCC to
secure continuity.
Anyone else (eg IFRRO) may be affiliated and
participate in, propose and/or fund projects.
Project to facilitate “digital declaration at the point
of activity” will be top of the agenda.
© LCC/Rightscom 2013 Godfrey Rust Licenses for Europe March 2013
www.linkedcontentcoalition.org
Thank you for your time and attention.