Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Metadata Ownership & Metadata Rights
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Metadata Ownership & Metadata Rights


Published on

Co-presented for the course INLS 720: Metadata Architectures and Applications at UNC SILS. Subsequently, we also presented at the February 2013 meeting of the UNC Scholarly Communications Working …

Co-presented for the course INLS 720: Metadata Architectures and Applications at UNC SILS. Subsequently, we also presented at the February 2013 meeting of the UNC Scholarly Communications Working Group. This presentation covered copyright in the context of metadata re-use, plus two case studies (one examining Duke University Press and the other examining open bibliographic data).

  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Metadata Ownership & Metadata Rights Introduction by Jane GreenbergTim Elfenbein, Will Midgeley, Emily Roscoe, Chelcie Rowell, & Jessica Wood UNC Scholarly Communications Working Group 13 February 2013
  • 2. Overview ➡ Will Midgley (presented by Jane Greenberg) Copyright 101 ➡ Emily Roscoe Metadata & Policy ➡ Jessica Wood (presented by Chelcie Rowell) Case Study: Duke University Press ➡ Tim ElfenbeinCase Study: Open Bibliographic Data ➡ Chelcie Rowell
  • 3. Overview ➡ Jane Greenberg
  • 4. IntroductionCan (or when) may metadata be considered acommodity, product, or intellectual creation?Who owns metadata? What are the rightsissues that surround metadata? How, why, orwhen, might rights issues apply?
  • 5. What is metadata?Author, number of pages, etc. or somethinglarger?
  • 6. What is copyrightable expression?• Google PageRank?• Netflix "suggestions for you" algorithm?• WorldCat record?• Flickr tags?
  • 7. Metadata as Intellectual Property• Intellectual property made possible through legal rights for creators of intellectual products: copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, etc. Purpose: “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”• Can’t own facts, however
  • 8. Is Metadata Copyrightable?• In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, Supreme Court rejected “sweat of the brow” doctrine  Result: collections of facts are not copyrightable; intellectual product must contain modicum of creativity for protection  Copyright section of U.S. Code also states that “compilations” can be sufficiently original to secure copyright
  • 9. Who Owns Metadata?• Producers of metadata are often taxpayer- funded (e.g. Library of Congress, individual libraries uploading their records to OCLCs WorldCat, informatics staff at government agencies and lab)• Can metadata be “owned”? Is it more like a fact about the world, or a creative expression?
  • 10. When Might Rights Issues Apply toMetadata? SkyRiver v. OCLC• SkyRiver is a for-profit company providing bibliographic services.• Sued OCLC for overcharging libraries who switched to SkyRiver for cataloging• SkyRiver’s catalog is made up of LoC records (public domain), British Library, member libraries, etc.• Suit mostly about pricing, but SkyRiver wants access to OCLC database
  • 11. When Might Rights Issues Apply toMetadata? OCLC v. Library Hotel• Library Hotel ( used Dewey Decimal Classification theme• DDC owned (trademarked and partially copyrighted) by OCLC• OCLC sued over trademark infringement• Issue here was more over metadata’s “brand” than the actual scheme itself
  • 12. Drawbacks of Open Metadata• "Loss of potential attribution" and "loss of potential income" (Oomen and Baltussen)  OCLC v. Library Hotel an example of first  SkyRiver v. OCLC an example of second
  • 13. Benefits of Open Metadata• Driving users to your content• Stimulating collaboration• Enabling new scholarship that can only be done with open data• Allowing creation of new services for discovery• "increas[ing] relevance to digital society" (Oomen and Baltussen)
  • 14. Copyright 101 ➡ Emily Roscoe
  • 15. Provided Protections• Title 17, United States Code (U.S.C.)• Protects authors of “original works of authorship” (published and unpublished) to do and authorize others to do the following:  Reproduce  Distribute copies  Perform (audio works)  Display (visual works)  Prepare derivative works
  • 16. Limitations on Author RightsExemptions for copyright liability • Fair Use  The purpose and character of the use  The nature of the copyrighted work  The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole  The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work • Compulsory License
  • 17. Copyright Points to Remember• Copyright secured automatically, though registration provides added protection• Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship are NOT protected by copyright• Copyright protection expires
  • 18. Who is Author?In the case of works made for hire, theemployer and not the employee is consideredto be the author. Section 101 of the copyrightlaw defines a “work made for hire” as: • a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or • a work specially ordered or commissioned for use
  • 19. Case Law: Claims of Meta[data]Rights ViolationsTrademark violation claims in meta tags (HTML) • PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES INC v. WELLES (279 F3d 796 (2002))  "Nominative use"Copyright violation claims in page number use • Matthew Bender & Co Inc v. West Publishing Co (158 F. 3d 674 (1998))
  • 20. Metadata & Policy ➡ Chelcie Rowell
  • 21. Survey of Metadata Reuse Policies• University of Pittsburgh institutional repository• University of Edinburgh institutional repository• University of Surrey institutional repository• National Estuarine Research Reserve System• IMLS Digital Collections & Content project
  • 22. Common Features of MetadataReuse PoliciesAccess:• Anyone has right to access metadataRe-use:• Non-profit users have unrestricted permission• For-profit users must request permission In both cases of re-use, metadata creator must receive an attribution.
  • 23. OCLCs "Community Norms"• Based on Open Data Commons Attribution License• Established through collective process among OCLC member institutions• Adopted by Harvard Library and others• Includes recommended language for contracts with outside IT vendors Policy rationale regarding use of WorldCat bibliographic data: "to encourage the widespread use of WorldCat bibliographic data while also supporting the ongoing and long-term viability and utility of WorldCat and of WorldCat-based services"
  • 24. OCLC Community Norms: Acceptable Usesof WorldCat Metadata• Incorporating into local library catalogs• Supporting patron research, facilitating resource discovery• Verifying bibliographic data on local holdings• Granting access to non-OCLC members for personal, scientific, or institutional research/re-use• Transferring WorldCat data on local holdings to outside vendors providing services to the ones local institution These norms were established by the OCLC Cooperative, last updated on June 2, 2010.
  • 25. OCLC Community Norms: DiscouragedUses of WorldCat Metadata• unauthorized distribution of OCLC log-ins, passwords• mass downloads of WorldCat records w/o prior permission from OCLC• mass distribution of data directly from WorldCat to non- members w/o prior permission from OCLC Significant violations of the Community Norms, if reported, will be sent to the Global Council and the OCLC Board of Trustees for arbitration. (OCLC 2012-2013 Board of Trustees)
  • 26. Case Study: Duke University Press ➡ Tim Elfenbein
  • 27. Duke University PressNon-Profit Scholarly PublisherMedium-sized university press digitizing its book and journal backlist, as well as producing new digital contentWishes to integrate journal and book content on a common platform, and improve findability and searchabilityHuge influx of newly digitized content with little metadata
  • 28. Taxonomy StrategiesCommercial Metadata ServicesJoseph Busch: Ex-President of ASIS, Ex-Board Member of Dublin Core Metadata InitiativeServices: Taxonomy construction, workshops, training, and project definition (taxonomy governance)Proposal: Review of DUP content, stakeholder interviews, identify priority content metadata and controlled vocabulary, develop and test content taxonomy, establish governance guidelines, provide trainingCost: Mid-five figures
  • 29. TEMISSemantic Content Enrichment PlatformMetadata extraction, semantic annotation, classificationand clustering, facet and filter builder, etc. Uses existing orcreates new/enhanced domain taxonomies.
  • 30. DUP’s Options for Metadata DevelopmentCreate and maintain our own taxonomy • Pros – Best fit for content, possible competitive edge • Cons – Expensive and time-consuming, not interoperable, only first stepOpt-in to semantic tagging initiative with other publishershosted by HighWire • Pros – Access to larger corpus for taxonomy development, interoperable metadata formats, off-loading labor • Cons – Expensive, loss of DUP focus and control, could get squished by the needs of bigger players
  • 31. Case Study: Open Bibliographic Data ➡ Chelcie Rowell
  • 32. Open Knowledge Foundation:Principles of Open Bibliographic DataExplicit and robust license statementRecognized waiver or licenseDefined by the Open DefinitionExplicitly placed in the Public Domain via ODC-PDDL or CC0
  • 33. JISC Open Bibliographic Data GuideOne of the possibilities that open bibliographic dataoffers is the chance for libraries and indeed anyone toreuse the data to build innovative services forresearchers, teachers, students and librarians.—Andy McGregor, JISC Programme Manager
  • 34. JISC Open Bibliographic Data Guide:Building Business CasesWHY? Core rationale is about discoverabilityand gaining in credibility the more ourresources are discovered from ‘out there’(through such as Google) and not from ‘in here’(through the local OPAC).HOW? Cost effectively and while maintainingcontrol at the point of release of data.
  • 35. JISC Open Bibliographic Data Guide:Pathways to Added Value
  • 36. JISC Open Bibliographic Data Guide:Pathways to added value
  • 37. Richard Wallis Reflects on OCLCsRelease of WorldCat as Linked Data1. Hundreds of millions of items2. Used vocabulary3. Human-readable and machine-readable (RDFa) on WorldCat.org4. OCLC cooperating with other communities to extend for libraries5. Open Data Commons license (ODC-BY)6. First step in an ongoing process!
  • 38. WorldCat Record for Harry Potterand the Deathly Hallows
  • 39. Summary of ODC-BY License Terms
  • 40. Harvard Bibliographic Data Set"The accessibility of the entire set of data foreach item will, we hope, spur imaginative usesthat will find new value in what libraries know."Mary Lee KennedySenior Associate Provost for the Harvard Library
  • 41. Within hours of release, one userdeveloped his own search interface
  • 42. Another user shared a parser forMARC21 data on GitHub
  • 43. Still another user documented hisefforts to "massage" the data
  • 44. Harvard Bibliographic Data Exposedvia Digital Public Library of America
  • 45. Open Bibliographic Data in Balance Benefits Drawbacks in line with mission to  no going back – once disseminate knowledge data is released difficult & enable innovation to withdraw or re- publicity & status for first release with more movers stringent terms creates opportunities for  open-ended third parties to develop commitment of time & services that may drive resources traffic back to library and library holdings
  • 46. Questions?
  • 47. ReferencesBueno, Carlos. A parser for the Harvard Library Bibliographic Dataset. API query for items contributed by Harvard., Alf. Working With the Harvard Library Bibliographic Data Set. HubLog., Jonathan. Europeana opens up data on 20 million cultural items. Guardian DataBlog. europeana-cultural-heritage-library-europe.Harvard Library Bibliographic Dataset. Digital Collections and Content Project. Metadata Reuse Policy. Open Bibliographic Data Guide. Estuarine Research Reserve System Centralized Data Management Office. NOAA Ocean and Coastal Resource Management Policy for the NERRS National Monitoring Program.
  • 48. ReferencesOpen Bibliographic Working Group of the Open Knowledge Foundation. Principles on Open Bibliographic Data. Data Commons Attribution License. Use Policy Council. WorldCat Rights and Responsibilities for the OCLC Cooperative., Meredith. Harvard releases metadata into public domain. The Digital Shift. public-domain/.Shieber, Stuart. The new Harvard Library open metadata policy. The Occasional Pamphlet on Scholarly Communication. metadata-policy/.University of Edinburgh. DataShare data policy for full-text and other full data items and metadata policy for information describing items in the repository. support/data-library/data-repository/service-policies/data-metadata-policy.
  • 49. ReferencesUniversity of Pittsburgh. D-Scholarsip@Pitt metadata policy for information describing items in the repository. of Surrey. Surrey Research Insight (SRI) Open Access metadata policy for information describing items in the repository and access and reuse policy for full-text and other full data items., Richard. OCLC WorldCat Linked Data Release – Significant in Many Ways. Data Liberate. -significant-in-many-ways/."What Does One Do With Millions of MARC records?" does-one-do-with-millions-of-marc-records/.WorldCat Record for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.