Agreements

[Sally Morris <smorris@wiley.co.uk>]

I've been comparing some papers by John Erickson, Godfrey Rust, Martin
Roscheisen (FIRM) and Mark Stefik and colleagues (Xerox - though I haven't
read all of Mark's yet!), and trying to understand where they differ from
our original conceptual model;  this has led me to think further about the
idea of 'agreements' (aka Licences or Commpacts).

I think the model needs a separate idea of 'operations'.   Every operation
has a price for a given user (and setting/purpose);  that price may be zero
(because the operation is permitted without charge by the rights
owner/controller, OR because it is governed by an agreement which does not
require separate payments each time the operation is carried out);  or the
response may be 'not licensed'.   I don't think the operation itself (if
described in a sufficiently granular way) needs 'terms and conditions' other
than price - either it's allowed or it isn't.   (Whether or not it is
technically disabled is a separate matter for the rights owner to decide.)

Then 'agreements' consist of:
        Indication of the object or objects covered (as I suggested earlier,
this may be by means of an indicator of 'class' (generic) or 'group'
(subjective, assigned by the rights owner) rather than a listing (which, as
Helen Henderson pointed out, might need to be continually updated);  all
you'd then need to know would be who was in charge of assigning that
indicator.  I don't think there is a default case of all objects (?maybe if
there were universal agreement about Fair Dealing/Fair Use...)
        Indication of the user or users covered (again, class or group may
be an efficient way to do this on the same basis as above) - there is a
default case of 'all users' (see below)
        List of the operations covered, with a price for each.   If
operations are not listed they are not licensed.   No default.

This could work for ALL operations, whether or not the user was covered by a
'negotiated' licence.   The 'default' agreement would be the (very limited)
operations and (probably least favourable) prices allowed to anonymous
individuals;  there might well be incrementally more favourable 'defaults'
for individuals who identified themselves, or for individuals who were
members of a certain class or operating in a certain setting (the
licence-specified equivalents, for example, of Fair Use or Fair Dealing).
Certain agreements might well be negotiated between the parties, but by no
means all (you don't try to negotiate your bus ticket!).

All agreements need to be uniquely identified.  Where standard agreements
are offered, it would be efficient for the complete table of operations and
prices itself to be identified, so that it could easily be replicated in the
context of different object(s) and user(s).   However, the identification
might consist of the ID of the three 'pieces' - object(s), user(s),
operations/prices table - and simply point to where each of these resided.
Logs of transactions carried out might or not be kept - that's a matter for
rights owners to decide.

Another concept which I think we may need to accommodate is that of the
'Rights Controller' (or agent).   Some or all rights may be controlled on
the owner's behalf by a third party, but without transferring ownership
(clearly this relationship needs to be certified).   This is necessary
metadata because it will determine where (manual) requests, and possibly
payments, are directed.

I'd be very grateful if others (particularly the authors of the papers which
set me off!) can help to refine these ideas.


Sallyh

Sally Morris
Director of Copyright and Licensing
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Baffins Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1UD
Tel:    01243 770365     Fax:    01243 770429      Email:  smorris@wiley.co.uk