RE: News industry requirement: action "license"

Francis,

 

to clarify: I proposed to *add* a term "license" and to keep "sell
untouched.

 

If the IPTC creates a term in the RightsML namespace this will be license
and not sell.

 

Michael

 

 

From: Francis Cave [mailto:francis@franciscave.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 1:57 PM
To: 'Renato Iannella'; 'Michael Steidl'
Cc: 'ODRL Community Group'
Subject: RE: News industry requirement: action "license"

 

I'm uncertain as to the wisdom of changing the ODRL definition of "sell". I
think we have to face the fact that "sell" means different things in
different markets, and the only way you can be certain that the correct
meaning is conveyed is to have a unique identifier for the particular
version of the term "sell" that applies. As has already been suggested, an
obvious way of doing this is to specify the namespace, so that "odrl:sell"
and "rightsML:sell" can then mean different things.

 

If you change the ODRL meaning of "sell" to satisfy to Michael's Central
European case, the term is no longer applicable to e-books, for example,
where the term "sell" would be used in much the same way as it is for
printed books, i.e. there is actually only a limited granting of rights to
the buyer.

 

Francis Cave

 

 

 

From: Renato Iannella [mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com] 
Sent: 13 November 2012 11:50
To: Michael Steidl
Cc: 'ODRL Community Group'
Subject: Re: News industry requirement: action "license"

 

 

On 13 Nov 2012, at 19:29, Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org> wrote:

 

-          As I have also some practical business experience with news
exchange in Central Europe I know that law, or at least the courts, in this
region make a clear difference between selling a good and licensing a good -
as explained in my initial email: selling = all of the good, regardless if
tangible or intangible, and all related rights are transferred from one
party to another, a 1:1 transfer; while "licensing" = a copy of the tangible
manifestation of the good and only limited rights to use it are transferred,
if this is not an exclusive license (as for most real-world cases) it could
be a 1:n transfer. (Aside: a key dispute was about software: what Microsoft
etc. did was not understood as selling but as licensing.)

 

Thanks for that...

 

So the recommendation is that we update the "sell" definition to mean the
transfer of all rights (and the actual asset, no copy), and add a "license"
action that means a copy of the asset and a limited set of rights (that may
be expressed in nextRights?)

 

 

 

Cheers...

Renato Iannella

Semantic Identity

http://semanticidentity.com

Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206