try to prevent this unauthorised usage by means of electronic protection and ... As we have already mentioned, these contracts are mainly in paper and usually .... Right specifies an action or activity that a Principal may perform on, or using,.
Generation of Standardised Rights Expressions from Contracts: An Ontology Approach? Silvia Llorente1, Jaime Delgado1, Eva Rodríguez1, Rubén Barrio1, Isabella Longo2, Franco Bixio2 1
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Passeig de Circumval·lació, 8 - 08003 Barcelona, Spain 2 Associazione dei Fonografici Italiani, Via Vittor Pisani 10 - 20124 Milano, Italy {silvia.llorente, jaime.delgado, eva.rodriguez, ruben.barrio}@upf.edu, {europeanbranch, francobixio}@afi.mi.it http://dmag.upf.edu, http://www.afi.mi.it
Abstract. Distribution of multimedia copyrighted material is a hot topic for the music and entertainment industry. Piracy, peer to peer networks and portable devices make multimedia content easily transferable without respecting the associated rights and protection mechanisms. Standard and industry-led initiatives try to prevent this unauthorised usage by means of electronic protection and governance mechanisms. On the other hand, different organisations have been handling related legal issues by means of paper contracts. Now, the question is: How can we relate electronic protection measures with the paper contracts behind them? This paper presents an analysis of current contract clauses and an approach to generate, from them, standardised rights expressions, or licenses, in an as automatic as possible way. A mapping between those contract clauses and MPEG-21 REL (Rights Expression Language), the most promising rights expressions standard, is also proposed, including an initial relational model database structure. An ontology-based approach for the problem is also pointed out. If contract clauses could be expressed as part of an ontology, this would facilitate the automatic licenses generation. Generic contracts ontologies and specific intellectual property rights ontologies would be the starting point, together with the presented analysis.
1 Introduction Copyright information for the distribution of multimedia material is, in practice, usually expressed in paper contracts, which define the framework of usage of this material between the parties involved in the contract. This is specially important in the music industry, where many parties can be involved and a piece of music can have many different usages: addition to a film or an advertisement, public performance, distribution in the digital market, etc. Control of copyrighted multimedia material usage is becoming more and more important because of piracy and the easy distribution of this material by peer-to-peer networks and other electronic means. In this environment, using paper contracts for
implementing governance of multimedia content is not feasible and electronic means for providing protection and governance mechanisms are needed. These mechanisms are being currently defined by standardisation and industry initiatives, like MPEG-21 [1], OMA [2], DMP [3] or Microsoft [4]. They propose mechanisms for protecting and governing multimedia content, allowing automatic control of content usage. It is also worth mentioning the work being done in the Creative Commons project (http://creativecommons.org/), that has created a number of licenses and semantics for describing usage rights over content. Nevertheless, we still have the problem of how we can establish the connection from what is described in the paper contract and the electronic protection and governance means in a comprehensive and feasible way. In this paper we propose an initial approach to this problem, based on the study of the clauses present in current music industry contracts and the relationship of these clauses with a standardised rights expression language defined by MPEG-21: MPEG-21 REL [5]. Other parts of this standard, IPMP [6] and RDD [7], are also involved in the protection and governance of multimedia content as explained throughout the following sections. Based on the work we have done in the area of intellectual property rights (IPR) ontologies [8], and the work done elsewhere on contract ontologies [9], we could identify an ontology-based approach for better achieving our objectives.
2 Extraction of Clauses from Current Contracts Nowadays, there are many kinds of contracts in the music and entertainment industry. As we have already mentioned, these contracts are mainly in paper and usually define a framework of how two companies want to work together. Our first aim is to study the clauses existing in current contracts in order to define its structure using a relational database. This will facilitate the semi-automated extraction of clauses from current contracts and also the creation of new contracts and licenses, as we will explain later. The first extractions should be done by a person, before any automation. Then, by implementing tools using pattern matching techniques, other contracts could be analysed and the clauses already stored in the system could be recognised. A human operator should check that the found clauses are correct, in order to add them to the contracts database. Missing clauses should be added by the human operator, in order that they could be found in further uses of the tool. Another possible approach for the contract description could be the use of ontologies. In this way, we could define contract structure, including clauses, participants and other elements and their relationships, being able to use other related ontologies defining contractual terms and conditions applicable to the corresponding sector. In our research group, DMAG [10], we have already worked with ontologies for describing IPR and rights associated to multimedia content. We developed IPROnto [8], an ontology for IPR [11]. We have continued this work, by defining RDDOnto [12], that is an ontology that translates the MPEG-21 RDD (Rights Data Dictionary)
specification into a hierarchical set of definitions with semantic content included. RDDOnto translates the RDD specification into a machine-readable semantic engine that enables automatic handling of rights expressions. Other initiatives in the definition of ontologies for contract representation exist. For instance, [9] mentions the concept of upper layer for contract ontologies. This upper layer could be used as a basis to describe any kind of contract, and, specifically, those related to entertainment and music industry, that are the ones of our particular interest.
3 Relationship among Contracts, Rights Expressions and Clauses We want to make several uses of the clauses extracted from contracts. The first one is to extract clauses and generate relationships among them with other contracts, as explained in section 2. The second one is to generate new contracts and rights expressions from these clauses. The objective of generating new contracts and rights expressions is to help users in the creation of new contracts that are formed by the clauses found. The more clauses recognised, the more kinds of contracts that can be created. This will be very helpful for the process of creating contracts and rights expressions derived from them, that is usually very complex for those that are not experts in legal issues. Nevertheless, contracts and rights expressions creation is not the only use we can make of the clauses extraction functionality. The ability to create standardised rights expressions from contracts gives us the possibility of interchanging contract information in a standardised way, allows verification of contracts by using automatic and standardised mechanisms and may improve the understanding of legal clauses.
4 Description of a Relational Model of Standardised Rights Expressions Standardisation of rights expressions, specially those that describe usage and distribution of multimedia content, is currently an important issue that involves both industry and standards bodies. There are mainly two initiatives for the description of rights expression languages: MPEG-21 REL and ODRL [13]. Both languages follow the same axiomatic principles, although they slightly differ in the functionality they provide. This similarity could permit working with both of them without major inconveniences. We are currently working with both languages, implementing tools and performing research about their interoperability [15], [16]. However, we have first considered MPEG-21 REL to define a relational model for representing rights expressions. This section briefly describes MPEG-21 and the relational model we have defined for storing licenses expressed in MPEG-21 REL.
4.1 MPEG-21 The MPEG-21 standard defines different mechanisms and elements needed to support multimedia information delivery and management, and the relationships and operations supported by them. In the different parts of the standard, these elements are elaborated by defining the syntax and semantics of their characteristics. In the MPEG-21 context, the information is structured in Digital Items, which are the fundamental unit of distribution and transaction. A Digital Item [14] is constituted by the digital content, plus related metadata, such as information related to the protection tools (IPMP, Part 4) [6] or rights expressions (REL, Part 5) [5]. The protection and governance of digital content are specified in IPMP Components, REL and RDD MPEG-21 parts. IPMP Components provides mechanisms to protect digital items and to associate rights expressions to the target of their governance, while MPEG-21 REL specifies the syntax and semantics of the language for issuing rights for users to act on digital items. Finally, MPEG-21 RDD (Part 6) [7] comprises a set of terms to support the MPEG-21 REL. As we have already mentioned, MPEG-21 REL specifies the syntax and semantics of a Rights Expression Language (REL). RELs have been proposed to express rights and conditions of use of digital content and can be used for example to describe an agreement between a content provider and a distributor, or between a distributor and an end user. Moreover, RELs can be used to express the copyright associated to a given digital content by specifying under which conditions the user is allowed to exercise a right.
Title Inventory Principal Right Res ource Condition Grant Iss uer OtherInfo
License
Fig. 1. REL License
MPEG-21 REL defines the License, a container of grants that are formed by a principal that has the permission to exercise a right against a resource under some conditions that must be previously fulfilled. Its structure is shown in Figure 1. Inside a REL license, the most important element is the Grant. A Grant is an XML structure that is formed by four elements:
•
Principal represents the unique identification of an entity involved in the granting or exercising of Rights. • Right specifies an action or activity that a Principal may perform on, or using, some associated Resource. • Resource represents the object against which the Principal of a Grant has the Right to perform. • Condition represents grammatical terms, conditions and obligations that a Principal must satisfy before it may take advantage of an authorisation conveyed to it in a Grant. A Grant expresses that some Principal may exercise some Right against some Resource, subject, possibly, to some Condition. MPEG-21 REL makes use of the Rights Data Dictionary, part 6 of the MPEG-21 standard, that comprises a set of clear, consistent, structured, integrated and uniquely identified terms. The structure of the RDD is designed to provide a set of well-defined terms for use in rights expressions. 4.2 Relational Model for Licenses Figure 2 shows the entity relationship model we have defined for storing MPEG-21 REL XML-based licenses into a relational database. Some of the fields, specially those expressing conditions, are XML structures that have to be parsed after getting them from the database.
Fig. 2. Entity relationship model for MPEG-21 REL licenses
The main aim of using a relational database for modelling licenses is to improve license searches in order to authorise operations over content to users, applying the authorisation model described in MPEG-21 REL standard. The description of a common relational model that may be followed by different rights expression languages also facilitates the translation of rights expressions be-
tween the languages selected [15], [16], authorisation [17] using licenses described in different languages or even those generated from paper contracts.
5 License and Contracts Analysis This section presents an analysis of current contracts and licenses, describing their structure and their main elements. Then, licensing models for the music sector will be outlined and compared with rights expressions described in MPEG-21 REL. 5.1 Elements in Licenses and Contracts The assignment of copyright is essentially a transfer of rights, that is, a sale of rights. In this way, a rights holder should be aware that assigning rights usually implies that ownership (and possibly control) is transferred. In order to allow usage of rights but maintaining the ownership and control, licensing of rights is used. A license agreement may have the following elements: • Parties describe the persons or companies involved in the contract. • Recitals describe the purpose of the contract, but they are not really part of it. • Definitions element is very important from a legal point of view as precise wording is required. Thus, where concepts are complex or it might take some time to explain it in a short phrase, a word is chosen as shorthand to signify them. Any change in the meaning of a definition can have a significant impact through the whole contract. • Agreement’s purpose is the main part of the contract and summarises what is being provided for the price. Anything which is not included on the agreement should be separately negotiated for an extra fee. • Rights granted under the license. • Usage restrictions define what cannot be done with the licensed materials. • Territory describes where the material will be exploited. This allows the licenser to license or retain rights over certain territories. • Term defines duration of the contract. • Exclusivity – non-exclusivity, defines if it is possible that several parties exercise the same rights or not within the same territories. • Delivery and access to the licensed materials has to be described in the contract in order to avoid later dispute. It includes the approximate date of delivery, the format, the media, etc. • License fee depends on the circumstances and it could be a royalty, a fee, a combination of both or other possibilities. In any case, the choice of the fee (amount and condition) depends on the sort of deal. • Licensee’s undertakings and obligations. When included, they compromise licensee or his users will not infringe copyright or proprietary rights of the licensed materials. Moreover, it also compromises the licensee and his users to use licensed materials according to the license.
•
• •
• •
Warranties and indemnities. A warranty is a statement or representation that certain facts are true. For instance, a warranty may include that the goods and/or services will perform as promised in the agreement. An indemnity is one party's agreement to insure or compensate the other party against losses and expenses resulting from failures in performance under the contract. Force majeure is a condition beyond the control of the parties such as war, strikes, destruction of network facilities, etc. not foreseen by the parties and which prevented performance under the contract. Assignment and subcontracting elements gives the licensee the right to assign rights under the contract to third parties. As assignment cannot be easily done in most jurisdictions, many licenses clearly indicate that it cannot be performed without the prior written consent of the other party. Jurisdiction defines the applicable state law of the contract. Signature of the corresponding parties.
5.2 Licenses in the Music Sector In the previous section we have described the main elements of a contract or license. As all these elements may not be present in a specific scenario, we describe here the ones that are present in music sector. Nevertheless, inside this sector, licenses can be different depending on the licensor. Although we have analysed more cases, we just present the case where the licensor is a music publisher. Table 1 describes values for the main fields for this case. The rights that are granted to the licensee depend on the purpose of the contract. Also other conditions are described, like exclusivity, term and territory. Table 1. Scheme of contracts elements when the licensor is a music publisher
Licensee
Purpose
Granted Rights
Exclusivity Distribu- Sell the lyrics Print, publish, sell Yes tor / sheets SubForeign Print, publish, Yes publisher Country mar- sell; all rights ket exploita- under copyrights tion Aggrega- Digital mar- Sell, copy, subliNo tor ket distributor cense, distribute CD Rom / Use of text of Manufacture, sell, No DVD sheet / lyric distribute No On-line Sell Sell, copy, subliretailer cense, distribute, transmit Film Syncro Syncro with film No producer and related uses
Term 3 years
Territory One
3 years
One / More
5/7 years 3/5 years 1/3 years
World One World
Perpetu- World ity
Advertis- Syncro ing Multime- Syncro dia CD Rom Merchan- Sell dising
Publisher
Syncro connect only with the spot Syncro connect with other media
Use lyric / sheet music for manufacturing, advertise, distribution, sell Use of text of Print lyric / sheet lyric / sheets in a book or in a book magazine, sell, distribution
No
1 year
One
No
Perpetu- One ity
Yes
1 / more One / years world
No
Perpetu- One / ity world
5.2 Relationship between Music Contracts and MPEG-21 REL Licenses At first sight, the common point between music contracts and MPEG-21 REL licenses are the rights and the term and territory conditions. It is also possible to describe a fee condition on an MPEG-21 REL license, as several of them are considered. Taking these commonalities into account, a reasonable approach should be the creation of license templates with the usual conditions for them. In the case of conditions like exclusivity of rights transfer, that are not currently considered in the MPEG-21 REL standard, it should be needed to extend the current XML Schema to include this contract clause. Table 2 summarises the equivalences between the elements required in contracts and the elements currently defined in MPEG-21 REL. Other parts of MPEG-21 involved in the protection and governance of content, like IPMP and RDD are also indicated in the table. Table 2. Equivalences between contracts and MPEG-21 REL licenses
Contracts Contracting parties Media in which to use the licensed work The degree of exclusivity involved in the license or other grant of rights
MPEG-21 REL Licenses Principals, Issuers ExerciseMechanism condition Could be expressed in the otherInfo element of the license, if this element is only informative The term or duration of the license or Validity Intervals other grant The territory for which the rights are Territory granted The specific rights granted Rights in the RDD Any reserved rights If rights not granted, then reserved (no need to specify them in the license)
The remu- Flat fees neration Advances (payments method which apply against royalties) Royalties Option payments
Fee flat Fees prepay
Fees FeePerUse, feeFlat, feePerInterval, feeMetered, feePerUsePrepay. All with bank account, payment service, … The credit or billing to the author or ExerciseMechanism condition that owner of the underlying work forces to send an Event Report to the owner of the underlying work that includes the billing Intellectual property rights enforcement REL/RDD & IPMP Exclusive Reproduction rights Render, play, … Rights Distribution rights Issue, obtain Adaptation rights Adapt, modify, enhance, reduce, … Public Performance rights Express, perform, … Public Display rights Play, … Public Communication Say, express, … rights Private copying Right: Copy (adapt without constraints) Conditions: ExerciseLimit: 1 Destination: one of the user devices Public Domain ExerciseMechanism condition Exclusivity Requires the definition of a new condition WCT and Right of communication to Perform WPPT key the public provisions Reproduction right Render, play (rights) Right of distribution Issue
6 Conclusions Copyrighted multimedia material is licensed between parties by means of contracts. These contracts, mainly in paper format, are expressed by means of clauses. Trying to control what is being expressed in these contracts in the digital world is a very complex issue to solve. For this reason, we propose the extraction of clauses present in contracts and its description using standardised rights expressions, like the ones defined by MPEG-21 REL. In previous work in our research group DMAG [10], we have implemented several tools [18] that deal with MPEG-21 REL, including creation and validation of licenses and authorisation of multimedia content usage based on the authorisation model described in this standard. This is why we believe that connecting a standard rights expression language with current contracts clauses will facilitate the way contracts in the
music, and by extension the multimedia sector, will be created, validated and transformed into machine-readable formats, more suitable for interchange, translation and automation of control processes. Finally, we have also been working in the description of ontologies for expressing MPEG-21 parts 5 (REL) and 6 (RDD) [12], [19]. This work, together with the contract analysis and clause extraction, could give as a result the creation of a licenses ontology based on contract clauses, permitting the use of other existing ontologies, thus widening its scope.
Acknowledgements. This work has been partly supported by the Spanish administration (AgentWeb project, TIC 2002-01336) and is being developed within VISNET (IST-2003-506946, http://www.visnet-noe.org), a European Network of Excellence and AXMEDIS, a European Integrated Project, both funded under the European Commission IST FP6 program.
References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
MPEG 21, http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg-21/mpeg-21.htm Open Mobile Alliance (OMA), http://www.openmobilealliance.org Digital Media Project (DMP), http://www.dmpf.org/ Microsoft DRM, http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/drm/default.aspx ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC IS 21000-5 - Rights Expression Language ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC CD 21000-4 - Intellectual Property Management and Protection ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC IS 21000-6 - Rights Data Dictionary IPROnto, http://dmag.upf.edu/ontologies/ipronto Kabilian, V., Johannesson, P., Rugaimukamu, D.M.: Business contract obligation monitoring through use of multi tier contract ontology. In: WORM CoRe 2003, LNCS 2889. Distributed Multimedia Applications Group (DMAG), http://dmag.upf.edu Delgado, J., Gallego, I., Llorente, S., García, R., Regulatory Ontologies: An Intellectual Property Rights approach. In: WORM CoRe 2003, LNCS 2889. Delgado, J., Gallego, I., Garcia, R.: Use of Semantic Tools for a Digital Rights Dictionary. In: EC-Web 2004, LNCS 3182. Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL), http://odrl.net ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 2nd Edition FCD 21000-2 – Digital Item Declaration Prados, J., Rodríguez, E., Delgado, J.: Interoperability between different Rights Expression Languages and Protection Mechanisms. In: AXMEDIS 2005. IEEE CS Press. Prados, J., Rodríguez, E., Delgado, J.: A new Approach for Interoperability between ODRL and MPEG-21 REL. In: Second International ODRL Workshop (2005). Rodríguez, E., Llorente, S., Delgado, J.: Use of rights expression languages for protecting multimedia information. In: WEDELMUSIC 2004 Proceedings, IEEE CS Press. DMAG MPEG 21 Tools, http://dmag.upf.edu/DMAGMPEG21Tools Gil, R., Garcia, R., Delgado, J.: An interoperable framework for IPR using web ontologies. In: LOAIT Workshop 2005, http://www.ittig.cnr.it/loait/loait.html#top
