PREMIS Rights implementation at University of California San ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

PREMIS Rights implementation at University of California San ...

on

  • 981 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
981
Views on SlideShare
981
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Describe a project for using PREMIS rights elements to manage rights and access for digital objects stored in the UCSD Digital Asset Management System. Development of the UCSD Digital Asset Management System has been under development for more than five years. During that time it has grown to include more than 250K objects representing a broad range of content, file formats, and sources. Up until the beginning of management of rights data was largely ad hoc nature. For programming convenience, rights was typically assigned at a collection level and independent of what was indicated in the rights data in the object. As a consequence, access was restricted to some objects when it should not have been and provided for others when it should not. Also, rights information recorded only at the collection level was not transmitted with the objects. Fortunately objects were typically transferred to one of two preservation repositories and not a point were the public might gain access. Also the number of objects in the database with restrictions imposed by rights holders was increasing dramatically. Some of these were materials in a collection sharing the same term of restriction. But others were electronic theses and dissertations, few of then with the same restrictions term. It was immediately clear that we had no procedure for managing the expiration of these restrictions except manually logging, reviewing, and modifying the restriction data regularly, and it was even more clear that we could not afford the resources need for such manual intervention. Finally, as we began to contemplate how to provide the public access to some of the objects stored in the DAMS, we concluded the rights management procedure would need to be revamped substantially if we our DAMS environment was to support a harvesting service responsible to the rights properties of any object.
  • Implement object-based metadata practice: For each object record its basic rights metadata as part of the object’s metadata package. We chose PREMIS rights elements for encoding this information. We had been using METSrights for expressing copyright, but we switched to PREMIS rights elements because we though it provided a better vehicle for expressing the complete rights situation of an object, not only copyrights but license and statute rights and the permissions or restrictions associated with each. Another reason for choosing PREMIS was that in consolidated our metadata practice, as several years earlier we had settled on using PREMIS elements for encoding basic technical metadata for all files. Determine access status Use the copyright information and any associated permissions and / or restrictions to decide if the object shall be made available to the public or not. Enable over-ride of access status HathiTrust uses the concept of over-ride for any access decision differing from that supported by copyright information. Thus, permission from the rights holder allowing limited access to an object is, for them an over-ride of what the copyright information would permit. In the UCSD DAMS environment, over-ride refers to an act by a UCSD agent to either permit or revoke access in contradiction to the access determination based on all the rights data—be it copyright, license or restrictions. We expect that UCSD administrators will decide the risk of providing access to some copyrighted materials is minimal and thus will do so. And we know that UCSD curators may choose to restrict some materials which are in the public domain or which we have permission to provide because of the culturally sensitive nature of the material’s content. Automate updating of metadata Phased implementation: We decided to address more simpler and needed things first, such using copyright, permissions, and restrictions to decide what objects could be provided to the general public and what objects had to be denied, as well as manage restrictions imposed on materials by their rights holders. We anticipate addressing more complex issues in upcoming development cycles of the DAMS. These will include increasing the number of groups and actions accommodated in the system. But even supporting only the action of display and the groups of library staff and general public, we believe this approach to rights management holds several benefits. It increases our confidence that we are not providing materials to the public that unwittingly increases risk to the university, or that we are unduly denying materials to the public . It will decrease our costs of managing rights and access. Fewer manual interventions will be necessary as access status and updating of rights metadata becomes more automated. Finally, it will help users understand how they can use an object. As Maureen Whalen has noted, “…identifying, locating, and retrieving a digital images is not helpful if permission is necessary to use the work as intended and not rights holder information is provided with the image.”
  • Copyright status Copyright Jurisdiction Copyright note for naming rights holder Copyright note for intended use Copyright note for limits on use Copyright Under copyright us Rights Holder(s): Heirs of Roger M. Keesing Use: This work is available from the UC San Diego Libraries. This digital copy of the work is intended to support research, teaching, and private study. Constraint(s) on Use: This work is protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). Use of this work beyond that allowed by “fair use” requires written permission of the copyright holder(s). Responsibility for obtaining permissions and any use and distribution of this work rests exclusively with the user and not the UC San Diego Libraries. Inquiries can be made to the UC San Diego Libraries department having custody of the work (http://libraries.ucsd.edu/locations/mscl/) .
  • Act Restriction Start date End date License Display Display currently prohibited. Please contact Mandeville Special Collections Library for access. 2009-01-01 2059-01-01 We currently do not encode information about legal statues since none apply to objects in the UCSD DAMS. We anticipate this will change as we we acquire more “born-digital” collections of university records and data sets for medical and social sciences.
  • RESULTS: This should result in two groups of materials: 1a) A group of materials that is not publicly accessible (accessPermitted=”False”) as determined by the presence of premis/restriction=”Display currently prohibited”, premis/copyrightStatus=”Under copyright”, or premis/copyrightStatus=”Unknown”. 1b) A group of materials that is public accessible (accessPermitted=”True”) as determined by the presence of premis/rightsGranted/act=”Display”, premis/copyrightStatus=”Copyright UC Regents”, or premis/copyrightStatus=”Public Domain” AND premis/restriction does not =”Display currently prohibited” (either NULL or absent) NOTE: An object containing premis/restriction=”Display currently prohibited” will also contain premis/rightsGranted/act=”Display”. In such cases, only premis/restriction=”Display currently prohibited” should be used for assessing an object’s access status.
  • “ Over-ride” means to ignore, even contradict , the access status calculation and stipulate a different action. Cases warranting over-ride: Fair use assessment in which it is decided the risk of providing copyrighted material is tolerable. Culturally sensitive material in which it is decided offensive or not in good taste to provide content.
  • Updating AUTOMATICALLY as part of the process, and not as manual addition or revision of rights metadata in the object metadata record.

PREMIS Rights implementation at University of California San ... PREMIS Rights implementation at University of California San ... Presentation Transcript

  • USING PREMIS TO AUTOMATE RIGHTS MANAGEMENT Bradley D. Westbrook Head, Metadata Analysis and Specification Unit Digital Preservation Workshop, 15 October 2009 The UC San Diego Libraries Digital Asset Management Coordination Group is collectively responsible for the work described in this presentation. Members are: Robin Chandler, Matt Critchlow, Declan Fleming, Chris Frymann, Cristela Garcia-Spitz, Rob Joyce, Gabriela Montoya, Joy Sargis, and Steve Wieda.
    • UCSD Digital Asset Management System
      • 250K+ objects
      • Heterogeneous content, formats, and sources
    • Ad hoc management of rights data
      • Rights assigned frequently at collection level and independent of object level metadata
        • Some objects unduly restricted
        • Not all rights data transmitted with objects
      • No procedure for managing expiration of restrictions
      • Not reliable for supporting a harvesting service
    • Problem Summary
    Oct. 7, 2009 PREMIS Implementation Workshop
    • Implement object-based metadata practice
    • Determine access status
    • Enable override of access status
    • Automate updating metadata
    • Phased implementation
    • Targeted Solution
    Oct. 7, 2009 PREMIS Implementation Workshop
    • Required for each digital object
      • Copyright status
      • Copyright jurisdiction
      • Copyright note for naming rights holder
      • Copyright note for intended use
      • Copyright note for limits on use
    • Copyright information
    Oct. 7, 2009 PREMIS Implementation Workshop
    • Required when applicable
      • Act
      • Restriction
      • Start date
      • End date
    • License information
    Oct. 7, 2009 PREMIS Implementation Workshop
    • IF premis/restriction =”Display currently prohibited” THEN accessPermitted=”False”
    • ELSE IF premis/rightsGranted/act=”Display” THEN accessPermitted=”True”
    • ELSE IF premis/copyrightStatus=”Under copyright” | “Unknown” THEN accessPermitted=”False”
    • ELSE IF premis/copyrightStatus=”Copyright UC Regents” | “Public Domain” THEN accessPermitted=”True”
    • Results in two data caches: “Access Denied” & “Access Provided”
      • accessPermitted “Yes | No”
      • accessDateAssessed
    • Access Status Determination
    Oct. 7, 2009 PREMIS Implementation Workshop
    • Confirms results of first step
    • IF premis/restriction=”Display currently prohibited” THEN access permitted changed to “FALSE” and object removed from Access provided group
    • IF premis/copyrightStatus=”Under copyright” | “Unknown” THEN access permitted changed to “FALSE” and object removed from Access provided group
    • Any objects for which access was errantly permitted will be flagged and access status will be corrected. At conclusion of process Group A2 should not include any objects for which access is not permitted as determined by rights status of the object.
    • Access Status Check
    Oct. 7, 2009 PREMIS Implementation Workshop
    • Access status override
    • Access approving agent
    • Access status override date
    • Access status override note
    • Overriding Access Status
    Oct. 7, 2009 PREMIS Implementation Workshop
    • Restriction:
      • IF premis/restriction = "Display currently prohibited"
      • AND premis/dateEND is < Current Date,
      • THEN change accessPermitted from &quot;False&quot; to &quot;True&quot;
      • AND delete premis/restriction, premis/beginDate, premis/endDate (OR notify DLP that restriction's for identified objects have expired and request that metadata be updated).
    • Copyright ( Rules to be developed )
    • Updating Rights Metadata
    Oct. 7, 2009 PREMIS Implementation Workshop
    • Periodic application:
      • Updates
      • Access status determination
      • Access status check
      • Record access status
      • Add overrides (manual)
    • Reports
      • Tally of objects at start of process
        • “ N” DAMS objects assessed for access status on YYYY-MM-DD
      • Tally of objects assessed as being publicly accessible
        • “ N” DAMS objects were determined to be public accessible on YYYY-MM-DD
      • Tally of objects corrected from publicly accessible to not publicly accessible
        • “ N” DAMS objects had access status corrected to “False” on YYYY-MM-DD
        • List objects by ARKs
    • Access Status Process
    Oct. 7, 2009 PREMIS Implementation Workshop
  • QUESTIONS?