- From: Michael Steidl \(IPTC\) <mdirector@iptc.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 12:44:26 +0200
- To: "'ODRL Community Group \(Contrib\)'" <public-odrl-contrib@w3.org>
I had a discussion with a lawyer who is an expert in copyright and licensing last week and she pointed at that: - most copyright laws define as default scenario: the copyright owner owns all rights and if this copyright owner explicitly grants a specific action to another party this means that only this action is granted and nothing else. - ... but we should be careful: globally only "most" and not "all" copyright laws set this as default = the ODRL community should not rely on a globally consistent setting of this context. - ODRL is apparently open to use cases beyond granting rights regarding a copyright protected works. In such a case this scenario above "if a specific action is granted all other actions are not granted" does *not* apply based on most national laws. (There may be a few laws which define this but that's not a global trend.) Therefore I think ODRL has to write down an explicit specification: - option 1: any action which is not explicitly permitted is not permitted. (And we should not include into this specification action vocabularies: as ODRL is open to using any other action than those defined in the ODRL action vocabulary an undefined set of different actions could be used by an ODRL policy.) - option 2: any action, even all those not explicitly permitted, are permitted, to constrain this a prohibition defining "all actions except those permitted by this policy are prohibited" must be included into a policy. Re Renato's comment below: I feel this is a more a Best Practice than a specification issue - in fact there are two (or more) valid syntax options to express a constrained action. And to add to the example below: in our RightsML examples we recommend a third syntax options for "action X is permitted everywhere expect in country B" - http://dev.iptc.org/RightsML-Simple-Example-Geographic - Permission = action X + Constraint = spatial "notEqual" to country B Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Renato Iannella [mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com] > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 3:43 AM > To: ODRL Community Group (Contrib) > Subject: Re: Generic permissions and prohibitions > > [This opens a massive can of worms...8-] > > Looking back, we discussed this issue when the V2 Model was being created > (back in Feb 2005 [1], and the original requirement [2]) > > But, it looks like we did not answer/resolve the question. (eg should > Perms/Prohib be mutually exclusive). > > I think we opted to be silent, as whatever we would have decided, some > community may have wanted to interpret their polices differently. > (the perils of being a high-level framework) > > I can certainly see some scenarios where Perms/Prohibs work well > together.... > For example; > Permission = Sell > Prohibition = Sell + Constraint = (Spatial = Australia) > So, when asked can I sell asset X, the answer is "yes, but not in Australia" > > Now, you can also model that as: > Permission = Sell + Constraint = (Spatial = (Australia + Angola + Antartica + > Brazil + Canada + Denmark + England + ........)) > But the former is cleaner and less likely to be mis-interpreted. > > > Cheers... > Renato Iannella > Semantic Identity > http://semanticidentity.com > Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206 > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/2.0/odrl-version2004- > 2007/2005-February/000038.html > [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/2.0/issues/issueslist- > 1_7.html
Received on Monday, 9 June 2014 10:44:58 UTC