Managing Rights Data: Multiple Approaches, Multiple Institutions

Managing Rights Data
Multiple Approaches, Multiple Institutions

Speakers
Douglas McCarthy, Collections Engagement Manager, Europeana
Heidi Raatz, Collections Information Specialist, Minneapolis Institute of Art
Summer Shetenhelm, Digital Collections & Scholarship Librarian, Santa Clara University

What Open Access
principles do we need
for cultural heritage?
Douglas McCarthy (@CultureDoug),
Stacy Allison-Cassin & Evelin Heidel, CC BY 4.0
Managing Rights Data: Multiple Approaches, Multiple Institutions
VRA 2020, 2 June 2020

Galleries
Libraries
Archives
Museums

‘Open means anyone can freely access,
use, modify, and share for any purpose.’
(The Open Definition)
What is “open?”

The Open GLAM survey examines how GLAMs make open
access data – whether digital objects, metadata or text –
available for re-use.
‘Survey of GLAM open
access policy and
practice’ (2018-)
by Douglas McCarthy &
Dr. Andrea Wallace
bit.ly/OpenGLAMsurvey

Creative Commons PD tools
Public Domain Mark: to be used with very
old works that are believed to be in the worldwide
public domain.
Zero waiver: to release all types of copyrights
(including related rights to reproductions)
everywhere.

https://openglam.org/principles

Are the Open GLAM Principles
accurate and relevant in 2020?
What’s missing?

We did a survey.
For more information, check
out this Medium post:
https://link.medium.com/XuySnT4nT
Z

New focus areas
● Better workable definitions on what open
access means for cultural heritage institutions;
● issues concerning traditional knowledge,
ethical, privacy concerns;
● decolonization & indigenization;
● relationship with human rights & institutional
missions;
● accessibility.

Indigenous information management

Policy/Law-making Process
● (Re-)Using current international law(s)
● Voluntary adoption
● Three phases:
○ (1) White Paper + Draft Declaration
○ (2) Public Consultation Period
○ (3) Final Declaration

Schedule
● White Paper, June 2020
● Public consultation until October 2020
● Declaration release and call for endorsements:
November 2020
(all subject to COVID-19)

Curated by GLAM professionals and practitioners from
all over the world, exploring issues around openness,
from technical challenges to going open to ethical
concerns.
Contributors rotate & tweet in 2-week period. Sign up.
Share your story
@OpenGLAM

We have a space for GLAM
professionals and
practitioners to submit their
stories and news.
The publication is
multilingual and anyone
interested can participate.
https://medium.com/open-glam

Thank you
Let’s stay in touch.
E: douglas.mccarthy@europeana.eu
@CultureDoug
linkedin.com/in/douglaskmccarthy

Mia & RightsStatements.org
A user-centered data standard for
managing rights information
Heidi S. Raatz, MLIS
Collections Information Specialist, Minneapolis Institute of Art
hraatz@artsmia.org
28

Mia’s mission is to make accessible outstanding works of art
from the world’s diverse cultures.
We believe everyone should be able to engage with shared
cultural heritage online.
We want to make it easier for website users to understand what
they can do with the collection images we share.
29
Why? It’s Our Mission.

30
https://rightsstatements.org/en/

Can I use this? RightsStatements enable us to effectively and clearly
communicate what we know about the copyright and reuse status of Mia
collection images.
RightsStatements provides a standard set of user-friendly statements in
three main rights categories: In Copyright, No Copyright, and Other.
Rights data is included for every object record on Mia’s Collection website.
Using RightsStatements, Mia can clarify and standardize our Rights data
when sharing on the semantic web and with content aggregators:
Wikimedia, Minnesota Digital Library (MDL), DPLA, Artstor, and others.
31
Why RightsStatements?

User-friendly Statements in 3 Main
Categories
In Copyright
In Copyright
In Copyright—Educational Use
In Copyright—Non-Commercial Use
In Copyright—Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable
No Copyright
Public Domain
No Copyright—United States
No Copyright—Contractual Restrictions
No Copyright—Other Known Legal Restrictions
Other
No Known Copyright
Undetermined
Copyright Not Evaluated
32

Rights data clearly displayed with every Collection object
33
https://collections.artsmia.org/art/1369/portrait-of-our-nurse-margaret-burgess-florine-stettheimer

Mia encourages users to engage with our web content by combining RightsStatements
with clear Copyright and Image Access & Use policies.
https://new.artsmia.org/copyright-and-image-access/
RightsStatement + copyright status of the Work determines how website users may
▪ view images (display size and zoom)
▪ use images
▪ directly download images
▪ socially share images
Works in the Public Domain (50,000+ Works in Mia’s collection) carry the Public Domain
Mark and are free from ALL restrictions on use.
34
Added clarity regarding rights for users of Mia website content

35
Rights Management—Rights & Reproduction data in CMS & DAMS
https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-
EDU/1.0/?language=en

36
Source: https://rightsstatements.org/page/1.0/?language=en

Rights Management—workflow enhancement
37
Source: https://rightsstatements.org/page/1.0/?language=en

38
US Copyright Duration and the Public Domain
https://rightsstatements.org/page/NoC-US/1.0/?language=en
No Copyright–United States (NoC–
US)
Works which Minneapolis Institute of Art (Mia)
has determined are free of copyright restrictions
under the Copyright Law of the United States
(U.S. Code Title 17). Such Works are in the
public domain under the laws of the United
States, but their copyright status under the
copyright laws of other countries may differ.
Works in Mia’s collection which meet this
definition are assigned the Object Rights Type
No Copyright–United States (NoC-US).

39
RightsStatements Resources
MDL, Rights Review: An approach to applying Rights Statements from RightsStatements.org
http://hdl.handle.net/11299/201539 MDL, Rights Statements Quick Reference https://mndigital.org/sites/default/files/rights/quick-ref.pdf

40
What about works in the Public Domain?
What about Creative Commons?
https://rightsstatements.org/page/1.0/?language=en#collection-
nc

“No Rights Reserved”
OR
"No Known Copyright“
41

42
CC0 Public Domain Dedication
“No Rights Reserved”
Use this universal tool if you are a holder of copyright or database rights,
and you wish to waive all your interests that may exist in your work
worldwide. Because copyright laws differ around the world, you may use
this tool even though you may not have copyright in your jurisdiction but
want to be sure to eliminate any copyrights you may have in other
jurisdictions.
Public Domain Mark (or CC PDM)
"No Known Copyright“
Use this tool if you have identified a work that is free of known copyright
restrictions. Creative Commons does not recommend this tool for works
that are restricted by copyright laws in one or more jurisdictions.
https://twitter.com/creativecommons/status/1197242227640033280?s=03

43
BUT WAIT … THIS JUST IN!
“… cultural organisations using Sketchfab can now
dedicate their 3D scans and models to the Public
Domain using the Creative Commons (CC) 0
Public Domain Dedication. This newly supported
dedication allows museums and similar
organisations to share their 3D data more openly,
adding amazing 3D models to the Public Domain,
many for the first time. This update also makes it
even easier for 3D creators to download and
reuse, re-imagine, and remix incredible ancient
and modern artifacts, objects, and scenes.”
—Sketchfab.com 25 February 2020
https://twitter.com/nebulousflynn/status/1232385057823887362?s=20

▪ User-centered, user-friendly: engagement with shared online cultural
heritage for Everyone
▪ An international standard: meaningful vocabulary for copyright and
related rights with a technical and governance infrastructure to support
the development, adoption, and relevance of the standard
▪ Simple and standardized terms to summarize copyright status and
effectively communicate how the works/digital objects can be used
▪ Granularity, nuance, and rights management workflow enhancement
▪ Provision for works in the Public Domain / Public Domain dedication
▪ Seamless contribution to digital aggregators; capacity to expand and
make our collections freely and readily accessible and reusable online
44
Summary

links & resources
https://collections.artsmia.org/
https://new.artsmia.org/copyright-and-image-access/
https://rightsstatements.org/en/
https://mndigital.org/standards-best-practices/rights-
statements-resources
FINIS

Clarity of Copyright in
Plains to Peaks Collective
Digital Collections
Summer Shetenhelm
sshetenhelm@scu.edu
Digital Collections and Scholarship Librarian, Santa Clara University
MLIS, University of Denver, June 2019
@snarkives

Quick Overview
● Misunderstandings around digitization practices and how they
affect copyright can arise (Hirtle, Hudson, and Kenyon, 2009)
● Can lead to the misrepresentation of rights to users
● Ambiguities about copyright status limit users’ understanding
of what can be done with digital objects.
48

So how do users reuse digital objects?
● Digital collections hosted by other institutions or
documentaries (Thomson et al., 2018)
● Share on social media (Kelly, 2018; Reilly and Thompson,
2017; Thompson et al., 2018)
● Create online tutorials or open educational resources (OERs)
(Anderson and Leachman, 2019; Terras, 2015)
● Include in academic projects (Matusiak, Harper, and
Heinbach, 2019)
49

If digital libraries exist to
● support the research needs of users (Borgman, 1999),
● meet the needs of communities (Calhoun, 2014, p. 18),
● And “ideally…allow new types of use when digitised”
(Jordan, 2006, p. 27),
then a clear knowledge of how information resources
can be reused is essential to creating an effective digital
collection.

Research Questions
● What copyright statements are included in Plains to Peaks
Collective (PTPC)* records that have been ingested by DPLA?
● What dates are included for public domain PTPC items?
● What creation dates are included for PTPC items?
*The Plains to Peaks Collective is a partnership of the Colorado and Wyoming State Libraries
that recently (late 2018) introduced over 181,000 items into the Digital Public Library of
America (DPLA).

Method
● Descriptive research method
○ Examined records already ingested into DPLA
● Searched collections by three keywords & sorted by
relevance (fort, horse, and mountain)
● Made list of every other object with DPLA list feature &
exported some metadata (titles, dates, links, institution)
● Manually collected rights information for each object
52

Method cont.
● Focused on three institutions that contributed 77.5% of
Plains to Peaks records
● Sample size for 95% confidence and 5% margin of error
● Split sample size into relative size of contribution per
institution
53

Objects Contributed and Sample Sizes
54
Institution Name # Objects in
DPLA
Relative % for
Sample
# Objects
Sampled
Institution A 93,043 66.2% 254
Institution B 37,530 26.7% 103
Institution C 9,936 7.1% 27
TOTAL 140,509 100% 384

Results
56
89Objects with
conflicting rights
information
(23.2% of sample)
27Objects with no
rights
information
(7% of sample)

Institution B Local Rights Statements
57
Copyright Statement in B Local Rights Metadata Field # Objects
“The works contained in this collection are copyrighted by [Institution B] and other
creators. To purchase copies of images and/or obtain permission to publish or exhibit
them, contact [Institution B].”
81
(Local rights field not included) 14
“[Institution B]” 4
(URL to copyright statement saying [Institution B] retains copyright but also explaining
Fair Use and providing contact information for commercial use inquiries.)
4
TOTAL 103

Results
58
79Objects with no date or
date range that covers
both in copyright and
public domain dates
(~20.6% of sample)
The lack of a clear date
of creation makes it
difficult for users (and
institutions!) to
determine the copyright
status of an object.

Public Domain Objects* and Statements
59
Institution Name # Objects
Sampled
# Objects with public
domain dates
# Objects with public
domain rights information
Institution A 254 53 0
Institution B 103 0 0
Institution C 27 3 0
TOTAL 384 56 0
* These are objects with a creation date of 1899 or earlier, which is the public domain date for unpublished works.
14.5% of works are public domain, but none have public domain
statements.

Significance
● Without clear and accurate rights statements, users can’t
confidently reuse digital objects
○ If institutions can’t establish copyright, should at least
provide enough info to empower users to make their
own search (Coyle, 2005)
● Institutions who claim ownership over public domain
objects are committing “copyfraud” (Mazzone, 2006)
○ Misrepresents freedoms of reuse available to users
○ Results in users paying for public domain objects or
not reusing objects because don’t want to or can’t pay
61

Limitations
● Every other object examined
○ Future studies should use systematic sampling
● Breaking of DPLA list feature
○ Should be able to include 50 objects; “broke” after 35
■ Made record collection more time-intensive
● Server error after accessing [Institution A] too many times
○ Had to switch between browsers and machines to
collect rights information for all objects
63

Conclusion
● Many digital objects contributed to DPLA by the Plains to
Peaks Collective include inaccurate or conflicting rights
info
● Users can’t confidently reuse these objects
● Institutions should include accurate rights information so
users know what they can freely use to contribute to new
scholarship!
○ Use RightsStatements.org language
○ Incorporate rights investigations into workflows
○ Create reuse sets 65

References
Anderson, T., & Leachman, C. (2019). Strategies for supporting OER adoption through faculty and
instructor use of a federated search tool. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication,
7(General Issue), eP2279. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2279
Borgman, C.L. (1999). What are digital libraries? Competing visions. Information Processing &
Management, 38(3), 227-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00059-4
Calhoun, K. (2014). Exploring digital libraries: Foundations, practice, prospects. Chicago: Neal-Schuman.
Coyle, K. (2005). Descriptive metadata for copyright status. First Monday, 10(10). Retrieved from
http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1282
Hirtle, Hudson, & Kenyon. (2009). Copyright and cultural institutions: Guidelines for digitization for U.S.
libraries, archives, and museums. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1813/14142
Jordan, M. (2006). Putting content online: a practical guide for libraries. Oxford: Elsevier.
Kelly, E. J. (2018). Content analysis of google alerts for cultural heritage institutions. Journal of Web
Librarianship, 12(1), 28-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2017.1369374
66

References
Matusiak, K. K., Harper, A., & Heinbach, C. (2019). Use and Reuse of Visual Resources in Student Papers
and Presentations. The Electronic Library. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-09-2018-0185
Mazzone, J. (2006). Copyfraud. New York University Law Review, 81, 1026–1100. Retrieved from
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/nylr81&i=1042
Reilly, M., & Thompson, S. (2017). Reverse image lookup: Assessing digital library users and reuses.
Journal of Web Librarianship, 11(1), 56-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2016.1223573
Terras, M. (2015). Opening access to collections: The making and using of open digitised cultural
content. Online Information Review, 39(5), 733-752. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0193
Thompson, S., O’Gara, G., Kelly, E. J., Kenfield, A. S., Muglia, C., & Woolcott, L. (2018, June 25). “Assessing
for digital library reuse: Initial findings from the Measuring Reuse Project”, presentation at the
American Library Association (ALA) Annual Conference, New Orleans. doi:
https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/m46bc
67

68
Thanks!
Summer Shetenhelm
Digital Collections & Scholarship Librarian, Santa Clara University
MLIS, University of Denver, June 2019
sshetenhelm@scu.edu
@snarkives

Questions & Answers
Douglas McCarthy, Collections Engagement Manager, Europeana
Heidi Raatz, Collections Information Specialist, Minneapolis Institute of Art
Summer Shetenhelm, Digital Collections & Scholarship Librarian, Santa Clara University

Managing Rights Data: Multiple Approaches, Multiple Institutions

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Managing Rights Data: Multiple Approaches, Multiple Institutions

Ähnlich wie Managing Rights Data: Multiple Approaches, Multiple Institutions (20)

Mehr von Visual Resources Association

Mehr von Visual Resources Association (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Managing Rights Data: Multiple Approaches, Multiple Institutions