Jordan S. Hatcher: “Why we can’t use the same open licensing approach for databases as we do for content and software.“

Comments welcome!

For those not familiar with this area, my big picture layman’s summary of the semantic web / linked data: Make more stuff machine readable so that we can do smarter and better things with machines.

One of the strands of developing semantic web technology deals with building out copyright (and other IP) permissions into the framework. You can find out what the rights cover what, and where to go to get copyright permissions, etc, generally through adding metadata (data about data).

Going back to my lay interpretation, this means “making copyright permissions machine readable so that machines can do smarter and better stuff when dealing with copyright permissions”.

Creative Commons for example has started this through giving each of its licenses a set of machine readable code and through developing standards around these machine readable expressions of their licenses such as ccREL. Incidentally they give their licenses out in three versions: human readable (a summary), lawyer readable (the actual license) and machine readable (the extra stuff in the copy and paste code they provide).

Incidentally, at ISWC, there was a really interesting presentation on a paper (PDF) on looking at attribution, Creative Commons, and Flickr within a semantic web framework and ways to make compliant attribution in CC licenses easier.

I’m not qualified to go into deep detail on the technical side of implementing rights into the semantic web, so I’ll leave that to others. I’m thinking more about the big picture on how you build out such a framework for copyright and what approach you take.

Where do you start when trying to describe copyright licenses for the web?

I see (and have seen presented by others) three options:

• Option 1. Start with copyright law and write out permissions based on each of the individual rights bundled up with copyright.
• Option 2. Start with what users may do with a work and then whether you grant them permission.
• Option 3. Start with current copyright licensing practice and how copyright gets bundled and used by licensors currently.

I see options 2 or 3 as the only real way to go. Starting with copyright law (Option 1), and expressing the rights – such as simply “distribution” – paints with entirely too broad a brush. To express a permission in terms of “distribution” misses the fine grained control that copyright gives rightsholders.

For example, industry practice (say in the movie industry) often break down the broad distribution right into very fine grained levels, such as:

• by geographic region – North America market versus European market
• by media type – theatrical vs satellite rights vs DVD rights
• by time – licenses last for set number of years

Option 1 – starting with copyright law – also has a further wrinkle: What copyright law do you use? Copyright consists of national rights harmonised by international treaties. The Berne Convention (or rather, Berne via TRIPs) sets a floor and not a ceiling, and member states have fairly wide variation in how the implement and enforce it. Using Berne as a “copyright law for the global internet” may be tempting but is inaccurate – 171 countries on the internet mean 171 different sets of copyright law. One specific right such as “distribution” means in one place may mean something different somewhere else, and you have to find ways to express both of those differences (though that is not to say that this can’t be done or that semantic web technologies aren’t addressing the problem of different definitions).

Options 2 and 3 admittedly aren’t too far apart from each other. Mainly I see this as a difference in tone rather than a deep divide:

• Option 2 starts with the hypothetical user and asks what could he or she possibly do with the work, versus
• Option 3 starts with industry practice in licensing and asks how do licensors typically license their works.

I think Option 3 is probably the more practical of the two, as while copyright law may allow super fine grained control at times, the key is what level of control most rightsholders usually exercise and how they bundle those rights. Mechanical rights, for example, are the name given by the industry to the right to reproduce and distribute a music CD, but aren’t a single right granted by statute.

Either way, more fine grained expressions of copyright will get built into the next generation of web technologies – indeed this has already started with ccREL and others. Starting with existing copyright practice and building out from there seems to make the most sense to me.

YMMV

UPDATE Everyone’s slides are linked to through the ISWC wiki page on our tutorial and will soon be up on the tutorial homepage.

I’m really pleased to be participating in an open data tutorial at this year’s International Semantic Web Conference in Washington DC, together with Leigh and Tom from Talis and Kaitlin from Science Commons. Thanks to Talis for helping get me over to DC for the event.

We’re really excited as it’s a half day on the topic, which means that we get to cover it in depth. I’ll cover the legal bits, while Tom and Leigh do the semantic end of the spectrum and Kaitlin the social aspects. Slides and more info, closer to time.

I’ll be staying through most of the conference, so if you are planning on being there and want to chat open data, please give me a shout.

Also, for those of you that can’t make it, we’re doing a workshop in London on 13th November: Open Data and the Semantic Web.

Also a heads up that I’m really pleased to be participating in an open data tutorial at this year’s International Semantic Web Conference in Washington DC. The full tutorial description is now up – more to come, including slides and more on linked data and the law, closer to time.

By mgilbir – CC-BY at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mgilbir/3716465898/

I had a great time and really enjoyed getting to meet many of you. We raised 175 pounds and my total expenses ended up being:

• €124 for return train travel Reading, UK to Amsterdam (savings of €35 from projected 159 €)
• €301 for 2 nights hotel (and breakfast) (€21 over the projected 280€)
• €0 for bicycle rental at Damstraat (savings from the projected €32 – the hotel was closer to the venue than originally planned)
• €45 (15/day) for incidentals and food while traveling (a savings of €30 from the projected 75€ at 25/day).
• 0 Community Passport registration at SOTM (a savings of €100 due to the kindness of SoTM — thanks everyone!)

New Total 470 Euros or 403 pounds (Was 646€ a savings of 176).

We’re still short £223, so please donate.

At SoTM, I presented on who Open Data Commons and the Open Knowledge Foundation are, how the project came about, and where we are going. I also covered in detail how the Open Database License works in practice, and answered lots of questions, both on stage and in great conversations with all of you. I also got to have great chats with many commercial users and supporters, including Yahoo! and Lonely Planet.

Thanks again to everyone that contributed to the development of the license, especially the OSM legal working group and OSMF’s legal counsel.

Public Service data and content play an increasingly important role in the digital economy. The Government has embraced the vision of the Power of Information Task Force and, in respect of important data sources for innovation, such as geospatial data, agencies are significantly improving access to data and clearer licensing pathways from innovation to large scale commercial use.

Pretty powerful stuff and I wholeheartedly agree that data provided by government can play a huge role in spurring further innovation, but particularly so if offered as free both as in cost and as in liberty. And from what I saw at this year’s OpenTech, I know that some in government definitely agree with this sentiment.

In particular for geospatial data however, I would like to point out that an alternative source from the UK government that is free in both senses does exist…

…which is about a quarter of the way there towards funding my trip to speak. Thanks again to everyone who has donated so far and looking forward to putting some names to faces at the event.

Throughout co-founding Open Data Commons and drafting the Open Database Licence (ODbL), I’ve spent several hundred hours of attorney time, all donated pro bono. While I’m more than happy to donate more time to come speak at SOTM (including a day off work and about 2 days of prep time), I don’t want to be out of pocket on any of my expenses. Even though the licence may be free as in beer and free as in liberty, it isn’t free to travel from the UK to Amsterdam and stay two nights, especially in high season.

I’ve tried to travel and stay as economically as I can, and so I’m only asking for about 554£ to cover my expenses, which include:

– 159 € for return train travel Reading, UK to Amsterdam

– 280€ for 2 nights hotel

– 32 € for bicycle rental at Damstraat

– 75€ = 25 €/day for incidentals and food while traveling

– 100€ Community Passport registration at SOTM

Total 646€ (about 554£)

All money donated in excess of the costs of travel will go towards the goals of the Open Knowledge Foundation, a non-profit promoting open knowledge: that’s any kind of information – sonnets to statistics, genes to geodata – that can be freely used, reused, and redistributed. OKFN organizes events like OKCon, run projects like Open Shakespeare, and develop tools like CKAN and KnowledgeForge to help people create, find and share open material.

Please go to

http://okfn.org/support/donate/

.. to donate via PayPal and mark your donation “SOTM”

I also would very much like your suggestions on what I should cover in my talk – and if I don’t get a chance to address it feel free to come up and find me!