W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > August 2010

Re: [LC Comment ONT] copyright/policy suggestions

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:41:28 +0200
To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Cc: Renato Iannella <renato@iannella.it>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, public-media-annotation@w3.org, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Marco Casassa Mont <marco_casassa-mont@hp.com>
Message-Id: <201008171441.35666.rigo@w3.org>
From a legal perspective, this sounds strange. Information is free by default. 
If you identify an author, by default and unified globally by the Bern 
Convention and the WIPO Treaties, you can't use that anymore as there is some 
copyright or droit d'auteur. 
So identifying a copyright is already by itself policy information as without 
further allowances (e.g. also unspoken and out of the context), it would be 
illegal to copy or perform the work. (also copy into RAM)

The only argument one can make was made by David Singer IMHO: Usability. 
People expect the "© Year name place" thing, especially in the US. Despite the 
fact that this is not needed anymore since the WIPO Treaty in the nineties. 

So if "ma:copyright" is maintained, there should be a clear definition that 
this only addresses the copyright notification thingy described above (C year 
name place)

But it would be confusing to also include the author's email address (to ask 
for licensing conditions e.g.) etc in the "ma:copyright" field because the 
distinction on what goes where is going to be much less intuitive. This 
information should go clearly into another field, e.g. the dublin core fields 
or the suggested policy fields. The policy field suggestions would open an 
easy way to connect the "ma" ontology to creative commons and other rights 
expression languages.

To conclude I still favor Renato's solution as it would be much more 
consistent. But I see David's usability argument. Usability would mean here 
that people expect a "copyright" field. Against this usability argument is the 
argument that a separate ma:copyright would add more confusion than it 
improves usability by expectation.

BTW, whether you match EXIF or XMP data against ma:policy or ma:copyright, as 
long as you need matching, it doesn't really matter. ma:policy would allow for 
a better scalability as it would allow for a deeper level of detail if needed. 

Best, 

Rigo

On Tuesday 17 August 2010 09:05:58 Felix Sasaki wrote:
> Although I think the working group is
> tending to agree that r14 should be implementet, but probably not if that
> means combining policy informatinon and identification of copyright.
> 

Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 12:42:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 August 2010 12:42:20 GMT