[Crm-sig] Rights model

Robert Sanderson RSanderson at getty.edu
Thu Mar 2 00:58:36 EET 2017


Thanks Martin, Simon!

Here are our use cases, which are not at all new, but we had difficulty modeling with the current ontology:

As data providers, and curators of art works, we would like to say that

• we have not evaluated copyright for the object, by reference to http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/ or that there is no known copyright with CNK
• the object IS under copyright and we are the holder of it, until such and such date
• an image IS under copyright, and we are the holder of it, and that anyone can use it according to the Creative Commons Zero or CC-BY license
• the object was under copyright and is now in the public domain

Currently I think we need to simply put in a blank node Right, that is P2 to the appropriate license or rights statement without an associated actor. And then have a copyright Right which we possess, and a P2 through to the AAT term for copyright. It’s not very satisfying as it means Right is used in two different ways.

Other than the lack of a “period of ownership” for provenance tracking, we haven’t really seen a need to track ownership or custody as a Right, as Acquisition and Transfer of Custody are already good, events based tools for that.

Rob

On 3/1/17, 1:36 PM, "Crm-sig on behalf of martin" <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr on behalf of martin at ics.forth.gr> wrote:

    Dear All,
    
    I more or less agree with all of you. The rights model in the CRM is based on evidence from museum documentation so far. It is highly simplified. It is an attempt to achieve a reasonable recall where to look for rights holders. The temporal validity is undefined,
     and could be sought in the property, which does, as all CRM properties, not specify a validity time, but in principle could. If we accept that the "right holding" is the property, then the right itself is an expression of a sort of a contract. Right holders
     on museum objects may require very idiosyncratic conditions. Therefore we did not analyze the structure in more detail.
    
    Modelling the legal world has not been an explicit scope of the CRM so far. I would not at all argue against it, but if their is enough interest in doing it seriously, we would need a relevant use case and scope to limit the effort and someone willing to work
     on a proper extension. 
    
    My opinion is, that rights and laws can be perceived as plans that are activated by event patterns. Event patterns are ugly to model.
    
    There are laws regulating rights, and laws egulating laws about rights. There is a lot of literature about rights ontologies,
    
    here one from my lab: 
    http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-04346-8_32 <http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-04346-8_32> 
    
    Any serious volunteers?
    
    Otherwise, by a change of interpretation we could assign the temporality to the E30 Right, and then link the contract itself to this entity. If that solves the relevant questions in the domains we are interested in, that could be a straightforward issue proposal. 
    
    
    All the best,
    
    Martin
    
    On 1/3/2017 10:34 μμ, Simon Spero wrote:
    
    
    On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Robert Sanderson 
    <RSanderson at getty.edu> wrote:
    
    
    Can I then transfer ownership of an E30 Right? No, as you transfer ownership of Physical Things (E18), not of Propositional (E89), Conceptual (E28), Man-Made (E71), Things (E70).
    
    
    
    
    Such a limitation would not really match the way the law thinks of "Rights". "Rights" can be transferred separately from ownership of a physical thing. 
    For example, if you rent an apartment, the lease is a transfer of the "right" to occupy the premises from the landlord to you, without giving you ownership of the property. 
    
    
    I do agree that treating rights as propositions is somewhat problematic, as in order to be transferable, they would have in some sense to be self-referential, which can be the first step on the road to paradox (No offense intended to the Cretans on the
     list).
    
    
    If we treat 'that' as a proposition forming operator, an alienable right r to reproduce a work w might be expressed as:
    
    
    
    
    
    r = that[∀x.possess(x,r) → ◇reproduce(x,w)]
    
    
    
    
    [where ◇ is the deontic handwaving operator]. This formulation does not express the ability to further transfer the right;  contexts can make things easier to express. 
     
    
    
    
    Simon
    
    
    
    
     
    _______________________________________________
    Crm-sig mailing list
    Crm-sig at ics.forth.grhttp://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
    
    
    
    
    -- 
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
     Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
     Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                                   |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
                                                                 |        
                   Center for Cultural Informatics               |
                   Information Systems Laboratory                |
                    Institute of Computer Science                |
       Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
                                                                 |
                   N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,             |
                    GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece               |
                                                                 |
                 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl           |
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    
    




More information about the Crm-sig mailing list