Developing a Rights Metadata Dictionary for Digital Surrogates

Abstract

Rights metadata provide users with intellectual property information about a work including information about copyright, trademarks, and privacy and publicity rights. Models for rights metadata developed to date generally recommend the capture of the same basic rights information; however, confusion as to specific terminology and definitions for both the names of the fields and the data values used to complete them still abounds. This article presents a model for a rights metadata dictionary including recommendations and the rationales for data content and data values. Its purpose is to offer an example of how one institution grappled with the challenge of developing an easy-to-use rights metadata dictionary and the solution it adopted. The goal is to provide a tool that can be used by libraries facing similar questions.

KEYWORDS:

• rights metadata
• rights metadata dictionary

Notes

1. While rights metadata will not inform one as to whether the use of the copyright-protected work is a fair use or one that requires permission, the rights information should provide the user with enough information to make a reasoned judgment on the time it may take to seek and receive permission from the rights holder.

2. The creator table includes the following fields: “Creator Name,” “Creator Role,” “Creator Dates,” and “Creator Nationality.” Only the “Creator Name” is a priority field.

3. The DAMS is probably not capable of handling all the details of reproduction licenses, some of which may be broad while others may be limited to specific uses. It is important that users know where to go to find out what rights have been granted by the license and for how long, etc.

4. The “slavish reproduction” argument was part of the Bridgeman Art Library decision in 1998 in which a photographic reproduction of a public domain two-dimensional work of art was deemed to lack sufficient originality to be protected by copyright law (Bridgeman Art Library, 1998, 1999).

5. The Society of American Archivists (SAA) released its “Orphan Works: Statement of Best Practices,” on January 12, 2009, followed by Rev. on June 17, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009 from http://www.archivists.org/standards/index.asp. This document may be helpful to institutions trying to determine what constitutes a reasonably diligent search for the rights holder.

6. “‘Publication’ is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication” (17 U.S.C. 101).

7. For more information on restoration of copyrights, see U.S. Copyright Office (2006) and Twin Books v. Walt Disney Co., (1996).

8. Creator Dates are distinguished from the date(s) the core work was created. The Getty's DAMS system already captured the creation date(s) when making the digital surrogate, so it was not necessary to establish a new field for this purpose. That said, the creation dates are important to copyright analysis for works-made-for-hire, anonymous, and pseudonymous works (17 U.S.C. 302(c)).

9. If the core work was subsequently published in another media or format, it would be helpful for rights-use analysis to know the creator's nationality at the time of publication. This information may be recorded in the “Special Notes” field.