Arctos licensing is currently passed on to GBIF, but for various reasons I don't think that makes much sense.
- Arctos and DWC are very different things and should not be restricted to using the same license.
- Data in DWC possibly can't be licensed in the US; it could perhaps be argued that only 'facts' remain at that point.
- GBIF requires very specific licenses: https://www.gbif.org/news/82812/licensing-milestone-for-data-access-in-gbiforg
- GBIF requires one license per collection, which probably isn't compatible with the "rights module" we've been discussing.
Arctos generates EML ("DWC Metadata") files, and @dbloom has agreed that pulling the license data from there, rather than from collection, is possible. That is currently hard-coded to CC0 for all collections.
Please let me know ASAP if this causes any concerns; we could fine-tune several aspects of this on the Arctos end.
@ArctosDB/arctos-working-group-officers this needs communicated to The Community.
dustymc
All 91 comments
Thanks for organizing this!
Jegelewicz
on 26 Mar 2020
The following is very good for background on the theme. The conclusion is
that, in the US, try to license as you desire, but the only thing that is
defensible in the end is the CC0 waiver.
It's not strictly correct that GBIF requires one license per collection. It
requires one license per data set. The collection can be divided up into
distinct resources (data sets) by licenses if there is some reason for it.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:36 PM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer <
[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for organizing this!
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-604500416,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADQ72ZUATKNTKTJZOVPCHLRJNY7PANCNFSM4LUJZDPA
.
tucotuco
on 26 Mar 2020
the only thing that is defensible in the end is the CC0 waiver
I remain unconvinced that Arctos does not meet the "minimum of original creativity" bar. Even DWC is much more "creative" than a phone book. Of course the only way we're ever going to know is if someone lawyers up, which doesn't seem very likely.
The reality, I think, is that we're just trying to get credit for usage (and maybe not have data used as clickbait - "commercial" use). Licensing probably isn't quite the right tool for that job, and CC0 explicitly allows WHATEVER. I have no idea at all what might better serve that purpose.
The collection can be divided up into distinct resources
Yea, I was wondering what 3.8M new collections might do to GBIF....
https://www.idigbio.org/wiki/images/9/96/RepositoryIntegration_Courtney.pdf was a great talk; I even understood some of the words he used!
dustymc
on 26 Mar 2020
AWG: add explicit "dwc_license" to table collection
dustymc
on 2 Apr 2020
AWG: make collection.license NOT NULL - need a default for those that don't have one
UAM@ARCTOS> select guid_prefix from collection where USE_LICENSE_ID is null order by guid_prefix;
GUID_PREFIX
------------------------------------------------------------
APSU:Bird
APSU:Fish
APSU:Herp
APSU:Mamm
COA:Bird
COA:Egg
COA:Ento
COA:Herp
COA:Mamm
COA:Rept
DGR:Bird
DGR:Ento
DGR:Mamm
HWML:Para
MLZ:Herb
MSB:Fish
MSBObs:Mamm
MVZObs:Fish
NBSB:Bird
NMU:Ento
NMU:Fish
NMU:Herb
NMU:Herp
PSU:Mamm
UAM:Arc
UAM:Env
UAMObs:EH
UAMObs:Fish
UMNH:Ento
UMNH:Mala
UNM:ES
UNR:Bird
UNR:Egg
UNR:Fish
UNR:Herp
UNR:Mamm
USNPC:Para
UTEPObs:Ento
WNMU:Bird
WNMU:Fish
WNMU:Mamm
Suggestions:
default "Arctos license" (for those collections currently without one)-->Arctos Data Ownership and Use
default "DWC license" (for all collections, this will be a new NOT NULL field)-->CC BY-NC
As @campmlc mentioned the "Attribution-NonCommercial" part can serve as a plea even if it's not enforceable - it might help guide the people who want to do the right thing.
dustymc
on 3 Apr 2020
@ArctosDB/arctos-working-group-officers should I patch this in or wait for PG? I patched a bunch of EML-builder stuff in so I have an established pathway for that, I don't think it's overly difficult but it's still doing one thing in two places and two languages so there's some chance I can muck it up.
@dbloom @tucotuco the decision is to add "DWC license" to collection, so I can do WHATEVER with those data. Is using it to build EMLs sufficient for ya'll, or should I also map it to digir_query.occurrence.license?
dustymc
on 3 Apr 2020
Let's wait until the newsletter announcement goes out to the community.
campmlc
on 7 Apr 2020
Summary:
Arctos will have two licenses:
- The current license is available as "License" in Manage Collection. This will become a NOT NULL field, and collections with no value will be updated to "Arctos Data Ownership and Use." This license applies to data in Arctos, including the API. This is not a change, other than in making the default explicit. This license has no functionality; it is advisory and is supplied to users in downloads and listed in various places around Arctos.
- A second license will be added to Manage Collection, tentatively labeled "DWC License." This will default to "CC BY-NC" and may be changed at any time. This license will be applied to data packaged as DWC and shared through various portals. This license is functional in various portals; choosing a DWC license which isn't palatable to GBIF may result in data being excluded from GBIF, for example.
In addition to GBIF, the new "DWC License" will apply to VertNet, iDigBio, GGBN, and all other present and future "portals," however obscure, that get DWC from Arctos, even if they pull it from GBIF or elsewhere, and may influence how those portals process data.
dustymc
on 27 Apr 2020
I think given the confusion over the outage and the migration to PG, any discussion of post-PG changes should wait. We need to decide what we need to ask users to do now, if anything, to continue to publish to GBIF, under each of the following circumstances:
- the collection has no license selected
- the collection has Arctos Data Ownership and Use selected
- the collection has selected a license that is not one of the 3 accepted DarwinCore Creative Commons licenses
Currently, only a single license option exists in the production database, as below. We propose to eliminate "none" as an option. Users must log in to Manage Data ->Metadata ->Manage Collection, go to the bottom left of the form, and select a License from the dropdown.
What happens if they do not do this, under the current scenario? This is what needs to be announced to the community.
campmlc
on 29 Apr 2020
For more information, see:
https://data-blog.gbif.org/post/gbif-occurrence-license-processing/
http://vertnet.org/resources/datalicensingguide.html and
https://blog.vertnet.org/post/17390654524/creative-commons
campmlc
on 29 Apr 2020
confusion over the outage and the migration to PG, any discussion of post-PG changes should wait
OK, I can get behind that. In that case the collection license is irrelevant; @dbloom can pull from the EML, so just confirm you like what's in there (CC0) and let him know, or modify it to whatever you want and pass that on. I'm happy to help.
dustymc
on 29 Apr 2020
Document for newsletter has been edited. Please review.
campmlc
on 29 Apr 2020
Thanks Mariel! I'll take a look.
ewommack
on 29 Apr 2020
I put CC-BY-NC in the newsletter blurb. Is that OK with everyone?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:26 PM dustymc notifications@github.com wrote:
- [EXTERNAL]*
confusion over the outage and the migration to PG, any discussion of
post-PG changes should waitOK, I can get behind that. In that case the collection license is
irrelevant; @dbloom https://github.com/dbloom can pull from the EML, so
just confirm you like what's in there (CC0) and let him know, or modify it
to whatever you want and pass that on. I'm happy to help.—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-620981901,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBE4XHYEOM6V7NAP3DTRO6T7DANCNFSM4LUJZDPA
.
campmlc
on 29 Apr 2020
Where is the blurb?
Jegelewicz
on 29 Apr 2020
Hi @Jegelewicz I think you found it? I saw a bunch of great comments on it.
ewommack
on 30 Apr 2020
Sorry, jumping in here late. Seems like we need to separate (as we did for VertNet) the license from the norms of use.
License should be machine readable, i.e., CC license. What we have on the website (https://arctosdb.org/data; and referred to as Arctos Data Ownership and Use) is norms of use, not a true license. Same for individual institutional policies which may differ from the one on arctosdb.
And we also need to be clear here that we're talking about licensing of data, not media which is different. So maybe two fields but I would suggest the followiing:
DwC License --> CC license options, default = CC-BY-NC if that's what's agreed.
"Use Policy" ---> default = Arctos Data Ownership and Use (arctosdb.org/data), option to have individual institutional one.
ccicero
on 1 May 2020
Seems like we need to separate (as we did for VertNet) the license from the norms of use.
Is there any reason the "norms" can't be Arctos-wide? (If not I think perhaps it's a second new field in collection; if it can, maybe it's just a document somewhere.)
License should be machine readable
I agree that's better, but I still don't think it's something "Arctos" can impose on users; that's up to the collections, and defending it is up to their lawyers. That's not Arctos' problem, and we can't (definitely don't want to !!) make it be.
"Use Policy" ---> default = Arctos Data Ownership and Us
See above
- If the XYZ:ABC collection wants an "in-Arctos" license then I think we need to accommodate that (which our current structure does).
- If "norms" aren't global for some reason then I agree with this, but as a new field, not a replacement.
So we'd end up with three things:
- "local" license (as now)
- "DWC license" (as proposed)
- norms (either as a new field, or as a site-wide policy statement)
dustymc
on 1 May 2020
Norms should be a site-wide policy statement - the MOU says that the institution agrees to those norms, so that shouldn't be an issue.
Jegelewicz
on 2 May 2020
I agree, norms should be site-wide and that's the intent of
https://arctosdb.org/data/
Machine-readable CC license: I think we can/should require it. Since GBIF requires that (https://www.gbif.org/terms), and publishing to GBIF (and other data aggregators) is an expectation, why can't we?
ccicero
on 2 May 2020
why can't we?
Because Arctos is also a collection management system - people are doing more in here than at GBIF. In Arctos it is THEIR data, at GBIF it is like a journal paper that the institutions have published.
Jegelewicz
on 2 May 2020
I think we can emphasize that a machine readable license is better - but I don't see how we can dictate that.
Jegelewicz
on 2 May 2020
why can't we?
Because various institution's lawyers may not let them use a CMS that can't also use their license.
dustymc
on 2 May 2020
publishing to GBIF (and other data aggregators) is an expectation
I definitely do not see this as within our jurisdiction. A collection may not be willing to license data in a way GBIF will accept, agree to https://www.gbif.org/terms/data-publisher, have data GBIF is interested in, be legally allowed to use a CC license, etc. That's between them and GBIF (et al.) - Arctos can provide a conduit, that's it.
I worry that any other approach would mean many (perhaps most) collections could not consider Arctos as a CMS, and that Arctos taking an active role in licensing would find a way to make us legally responsible for enforcing licenses, which is well beyond our resources.
dustymc
on 2 May 2020
I get that, but the other non-CC options in the drop down aren't licenses, they are policies. Definitely institutions can have their own policies.
How about this:
1) site-wide norms = https://arctosdb.org/data
Make this more viewable to users, other than on the website, perhaps as part of the download statement - e.g., "By downloading these data, you agree to the Arctos Terms of Use" or something like that, and repeat what's on the website (which we can modify) rather than just have a link?
2) DwC_license = CC license for exporting to data aggregators, and for including with Arctos downloads. Default = CC-BY-NC. Can't be NULL.
3) Institution_policy = Whatever people want. Can be NULL.
If you have two "license" fields that mean different things, that's confusing.
ccicero
on 2 May 2020
1) I'm fine with that
2) "and for including with Arctos downloads" is a significant change to this, and again I think would limit who could legally join Arctos, or would control what data we could present. This is another form of forcing collections to choose from a limited set of legal documents.
3) I don't like this because I don't believe "aren't licenses, they are policies" is necessarily true. Your institution can develop some legally-binding whatever-you-want-to-call-it; calling that a "policy" implies to me that it's something you'd like, not something you're willing or able to legally enforce, which may not be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License: an official permission or permit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy: a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions
dustymc
on 2 May 2020
Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I propose we provide default
options for norms and licenses that are covered under some version of
Arctos data ownership and use so that collections that have no preference/
don't care/ don't have the lawyers and resources to deal with this can
select default options and still have something available on data
downloaded and can get their data published to GBIF. I see that Dusty
doesn't want to make decisions for collections, but there are many
collections without the resources to make these decisions for themselves.
As their cms, we should provide an option for collections who don't want to
wade through these murky details.
On Fri, May 1, 2020, 5:14 PM dustymc notifications@github.com wrote:
[EXTERNAL]*
- I'm fine with that
- "and for including with Arctos downloads" is a significant change
to this, and again I think would limit who could legally join Arctos, or
would control what data we could present. This is another form of forcing
collections to choose from a limited set of legal documents.- I don't like this because I don't believe "aren't licenses, they
are policies" is necessarily true. Your institution can develop some
legally-binding whatever-you-want-to-call-it; calling that a "policy"
implies to me that it's something you'd like, not something you're willing
or able to legally enforce, which may not be true.—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-622606484,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBG76ED6P7TKAXE2TBLRPNJVDANCNFSM4LUJZDPA
.
campmlc
on 2 May 2020
2 - We include that now in Arctos downloads. It's the first column in the download. ???
3 - I think this is a semantic issue. How about "institution_terms" ? I just think it's confusing to have 'license' in two fields that may mean different things, and people who don't know/care about the details aren't going to understand that they are different. "Permission"is equivalent to terms, i.e., how the data can be used.
Terms can/should be null, so if you want something more specific than Arctos, fine. If not, just go with the Arctos site-wide terms.
ccicero
on 2 May 2020
@campmlc all agreed. I can't imagine how "We like BLA because REASONS, but do whatever you want" could be seen as anything other than a benefit of the community.
I think there are now three main goals here
- Provide "norms" to help the folks who want to do the right thing accomplish that.
- Provide a way to "license" DWC data and "in Arctos" data separately.
- Provide a way for institutions to pass on their "license," whatever the contents.
Nothing would prevent someone from choosing the same document for both "licenses" - eg, collections that can CC0 (or whatever) license can just do so for Arctos and DWC data.
@ccicero we include the "local" license in downloads, and will continue to do so. I see no reason a collection couldn't keep https://arctosdb.org/data/ as their "license" if they wanted to.
"institution_terms" seems reasonable to me.
can/should be null
I'm not sure I care, someone in the AWG call wanted it NOT NULL and I think that made sense at the time... https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-608009092
Perhaps the DWC license should be NULL as well - that would be a convenient way for collections to opt out of publishing to GBIF.
dustymc
on 2 May 2020
Perhaps the DWC license should be NULL as well - that would be a convenient way for collections to opt out of publishing to GBIF.
I like that.
Jegelewicz
on 2 May 2020
And wahtever Denver has as a license is their license. We cannot tell them what to do with their stuff! Well, we can, but then they can also say so long suckers.
Jegelewicz
on 2 May 2020
This all sounds like denormalized chaos that will come back to haunt us
when we have to respond to endless queries as to " why isn't my stuff in
GBIF"? I think we should strongly urge a standardized, Arctos default
unless collections have a serious reason not to, eg lawyers. Then when GBIF
changes rules again , we just update the single Arctos policy and not 400
different versions by collection.
On Fri, May 1, 2020, 6:41 PM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer notifications@github.com
wrote:
- [EXTERNAL]*
And wahtever Denver has as a license is their license. We cannot tell them
what to do with their stuff! Well, we can, but then they can also say so
long suckers.—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-622632713,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBFR3RY5VS3BCONSZ4LRPNT2JANCNFSM4LUJZDPA
.
campmlc
on 2 May 2020
denormalized
??
dustymc
on 2 May 2020
Sure, just that "local" license is now "institution_terms" and that seems fine to be in the download from Arctos.
Maybe "institution_terms' should be not null if that's what's downloaded with Arctos data. Seems like every Arctos record dowloaded should come with something - either the Arctos terms, their own institution terms, or a CC license.
For data going to GBIF, I think we need to make it not null since it's a requirement, and if we nullify it then we won't be able to enforce that. Could that be done on a collection-specific basis? i.e., some collections don't publish to GBIF (e.g., cultural) so it's NA, or maybe they want to opt out although I don't think that's ever been an issue. What about something like this in the collection metadata: Publish to GBIF flag = yes/no. If Yes, then DwC_license = XXXX. Is that feasible?
ccicero
on 2 May 2020
I agree. Some MSB collections did not choose a license, so if I download
across collections I get a mishmash of different things and spaces in that
column. Not because of any differences in institutional policy, but because
there was no consistent option or guidance, so people chose whatever or
nothing at all.
On Fri, May 1, 2020, 11:27 PM Carla Cicero notifications@github.com wrote:
- [EXTERNAL]*
Sure, just that "local" license is now "institution_terms" and that is
what's in the download. I think that's fine.Maybe "institution_terms' should be not null if that's what's downloaded
with Arctos data? Seems like every Arctos record should come with something
- either the Arctos terms, their own institution terms, or a CC license.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-622671946,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBB322R4K7JJBJOKT4LRPOVKRANCNFSM4LUJZDPA
.
campmlc
on 2 May 2020
That why I suggested earlier that Arctos Data Ownership and Use with CC BY
NC be default.
On Fri, May 1, 2020, 11:32 PM Mariel Campbell campbell@carachupa.org
wrote:
I agree. Some MSB collections did not choose a license, so if I download
across collections I get a mishmash of different things and spaces in that
column. Not because of any differences in institutional policy, but because
there was no consistent option or guidance, so people chose whatever or
nothing at all.On Fri, May 1, 2020, 11:27 PM Carla Cicero notifications@github.com
wrote:
- [EXTERNAL]*
Sure, just that "local" license is now "institution_terms" and that is
what's in the download. I think that's fine.Maybe "institution_terms' should be not null if that's what's downloaded
with Arctos data? Seems like every Arctos record should come with something
- either the Arctos terms, their own institution terms, or a CC license.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-622671946,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBB322R4K7JJBJOKT4LRPOVKRANCNFSM4LUJZDPA
.
campmlc
on 2 May 2020
That seems fine to me. So here's where I think we are with this - ?
site-wide norms = https://arctosdb.org/data
Make this more viewable to users, other than on the website - e.g., as part of the download statement: "By downloading these data, you agree to the Arctos Terms of Use" or something like that, and repeat what's on the website (which we can modify) rather than just have a link which people will ignore (they may not read it either, but at least they don't have to click!).DwC_license = CC license for exporting to data aggregators, and for including with Arctos downloads. Default = CC-BY-NC. Collections can choose a different one if they want, as long as it's accepted by GBIF (so limit to those options). Can't be NULL. Note: doesn't hurt do put this in for every collection, even if they don't export to GBIF.
Institution_terms = default is same as site-wide norms, but collections can select their own terms/policy. Can't be NULL.
ccicero
on 4 May 2020
mishmash of different things
That's what GBIF is trying to prevent.
and spaces
That's what making this all NOT NULL would prevent.
institution_terms
That should actually be "collection_terms" - this is set by collection, not "institution" (which doesn't really exist in Arctos).
site-wide norms
Sure, we can do whatever.
DwC_license....and for including with Arctos downloads
No, Arctos data may be licensed differently than DWC. This will not be visible anywhere public in Arctos and does not apply to Arctos data; it's only relevant for data packaged as DWC.
Institution_terms...but collections can select
See above, suggest "collection_terms" for the label.
dustymc
on 4 May 2020
So as follows?
-
site-wide norms = https://arctosdb.org/data
Make this more viewable to users, other than on the website - e.g., as
part of the download statement: "By downloading these data, you agree to
the Arctos Terms of Use" or something like that, and repeat what's on the
website (which we can modify) rather than just have a link which people
will ignore (they may not read it either, but at least they don't have to
click!).
-
DwC_license = CC license for exporting to data aggregators, and for
including with Arctos downloads. Default = CC-BY-NC. Collections can choose
a different one if they want, as long as it's accepted by GBIF (so limit to
those options). @dustymc says this CAN be NULL for collections that do
not export - But then, how do we enforce a value for collections that do?
-
Collection_terms = default is same as site-wide norms, but collections
can select their own terms/policy. Can't be NULL.
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:07 PM dustymc notifications@github.com wrote:
- [EXTERNAL]*
mishmash of different things
That's what GBIF is trying to prevent.
and spaces
That's what making this all NOT NULL would prevent.
institution_terms
That should actually be "collection_terms" - this is set by collection,
not "institution" (which doesn't really exist in Arctos).site-wide norms
Sure, we can do whatever.
DwC_license....and for including with Arctos downloads
No, Arctos data may be licensed differently than DWC. This will not be
visible anywhere public in Arctos and does not apply to Arctos data; it's
only relevant for data packaged as DWC.Institution_terms...but collections can select
See above, suggest "collection_terms" for the label.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-623618127,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBGBF66GX4RV3OBHT2TRP372ZANCNFSM4LUJZDPA
.
campmlc
on 4 May 2020
DwC_license...and for including with Arctos downloads
Still no.
this CAN be NULL for collections that do not export - But then, how do we enforce a value for collections that do?*
That's not quite what I was getting at. If a collection chooses a license that GBIF will accept (and meet GBIF's other requirements) they'll get published. If a collection doesn't want to be in GBIF they can just choose a non-compliant license. Allowing NULL would accomplish that, but might lead to the confusion mentioned above so maybe I halfheartedly retract my support for NULLability.
dustymc
on 4 May 2020
Sorry, yes - "collection_terms" is right.
For download with Arctos data, that should be "collection_terms"
For DwC_license, I agree that this should not be NULL, otherwise hard to enforce. My point is that if we set default to CC-BY-NC, why not do that for all regardless of whether they export or not? They won't automatically get published if they have something in that field, right?
Alternatively, what about my earlier suggestion of adding a GBIF_fg = yes/no (1, 0). Default =1, but collections can change it to 0 if they don't want their data published. If flag=1, then choose a DwC_license.
so.....
site-wide norms = https://arctosdb.org/data
Make this more viewable to users, other than on the website - e.g., as part of the download statement: "By downloading these data, you agree to the Arctos Terms of Use" or something like that, and repeat what's on the website (which we can modify) rather than just have a link which people will ignore (they may not read it either, but at least they don't have to click!).
DwC_license = CC license for exporting to data aggregators. Default = CC-BY-NC. Collections can choose a different one if they want, as long as it's accepted by GBIF (so limit to those options). Can't be NULL. (alternatively, add a GBIF_fg so only those with flag=1 need to choose a license?).
Institution_terms = default is same as site-wide norms, but collections can select their own terms/policy. Can't be NULL. Included with Arctos downloads.
ccicero
on 4 May 2020
GBIF_fg
That would actually need to be a "DWC_flag" - we publish via vertnet, we have no control over who picks that up nor what they do with it. I'm not opposed to this, seems potentially useful, but I think currently collections have to coordinate something with Dave before their data are pulled so maybe it's a bit of a moot point for now. Maybe we should do it while we're changing stuff anyway.
as long as it's accepted by GBIF (so limit to those options).
This seems like Arctos Thou Shalt-ing again; I don't think that's anywhere near our domain. Collections can license their DWC data however they want, and the various aggregators can do whatever they want with that. We can advise, that's it.
Institution_termscollection_terms
Note that many collection already have this - only those mentioned in https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-608009092 would get "defaulted."
dustymc
on 4 May 2020
One of the services we provide to the Arctos community is to make sure that
collections data get published to GBIF. I can attest with considerable
certainty that most collections do not have the legal or staffing or other
resources to spend a lot of time following these terms or this discussion.
We need to make sure not only that collections that need their data
published via DwC get set up correctly at the time of migration, but that
all required settings etc are updated as needed (as in the current
situation where GBIFs terms have changed). We have made an announcement to
the community about this change. Now we are responsible for ensuring that
all collections that currently publish to GBIF continue to do so. I don't
want to be in the position of doing damage control on a case by case basis
for all those collections that are not paying attention to this discussion
during a pandemic and then find out later that their data are no longer at
GBIF.
I think the flag idea would ensure this. If a collection checks yes to
upload DwC data to repositories, then they should be given a popup box that
only provides CC licensing options that are compatible with DwC/GBIF. If
they click no, then, they can enter whatever they like. But later, if a
collection changes their preference to yes for GBIF/DwC, then they must
redo their licensing choice if it is not compatible.
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:13 PM dustymc notifications@github.com wrote:
- [EXTERNAL]*
GBIF_fg
That would actually need to be a "DWC_flag" - we publish via vertnet, we
have no control over who picks that up nor what they do with it. I'm not
opposed to this, seems potentially useful, but I think currently
collections have to coordinate something with Dave before their data are
pulled so maybe it's a bit of a moot point for now. Maybe we should do it
while we're changing stuff anyway.as long as it's accepted by GBIF (so limit to those options).
This seems like Arctos Thou Shalt-ing again; I don't think that's anywhere
near our domain. Collections can license their DWC data however they want,
and the various aggregators can do whatever they want with that. We can
advise, that's it.Institution_terms collection_terms
Note that many collection already have this - only those mentioned in #2566
(comment)
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-608009092
would get "defaulted."—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-623651576,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBB47B2G5CUYHGDR66DRP4HUZANCNFSM4LUJZDPA
.
campmlc
on 4 May 2020
I agree with everyone that Mariel said.
ccicero
on 4 May 2020
Hey guys - would just like to point out that data published via the VertNet IPT transmits this:
Note the VertNet norms (underlined in red) and that although UTEP:Inv carries a CC BY 3.0 license in Arctos, it ends up with a CC0 1.0 at GBIF (underlined in purple).
Jegelewicz
on 6 May 2020
Current list of collections with no license:
UAM@ARCTOS> select guid_prefix from collection where USE_LICENSE_ID is null order by guid_prefix;
GUID_PREFIX
------------------------------------------------------------
APSU:Bird
APSU:Fish
APSU:Herp
APSU:Mamm
COA:Bird
COA:Egg
COA:Ento
COA:Herp
COA:Mamm
COA:Rept
DGR:Bird
DGR:Ento
DGR:Mamm
HWML:Para
MLZ:Herb
MSB:Fish
MSBObs:Mamm
MVZObs:Fish
NBSB:Bird
NMU:Ento
NMU:Fish
NMU:Herb
NMU:Herp
PSU:Mamm
UAM:Arc
UAM:Env
UAMObs:EH
UAMObs:Fish
UMNH:Ento
UMNH:Mala
UNM:ES
UNR:Bird
UNR:Egg
UNR:Fish
UNR:Herp
UNR:Mamm
USNPC:Para
UTEPObs:Ento
WNMU:Bird
WNMU:Fish
WNMU:Mamm
41 rows selected.
AWG: default for dwc_license will be collection_license
dustymc
on 7 May 2020
AWG: another new field "collection_norms" - exported in additional metadata in EML files
dustymc
on 7 May 2020
collection_norms = Access rights in https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-624367204
Jegelewicz
on 7 May 2020
I'm a little confused as to what is being proposed- I just want to be sure
that images of art objects aren't accidently put under a creative commons
license because that would infringe on the rights of the copyright owners
and open us up to lawsuits. Are you talking about a default license for
everything? Just making sure I'm on the same page and understanding what is
being discussed.
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:59 AM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer <
[email protected]> wrote:
collection_norms = Access rights in #2566 (comment)
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-624367204—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-625437883,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJKSRR32E5XPOQENK3N74CLRQMAIJANCNFSM4LUJZDPA
.
--
Mareca Guthrie
Curator of Fine Arts & Associate Professor of Art
University of Alaska Museum of the North
1962 Yukon Drive
P.O. Box 756960
Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960
[email protected]
University of Alaska Museum of the North: www.uaf.edu/museum
UAF Art Department: https://www.uaf.edu/art/ https://www.uaf.edu/art/
Colors of Nature: http://www.colorsofnature.org/
marecaguthrie
on 12 May 2020
@marecaguthrie this is the overall "data license" for each collection. Just to let people know how they can use the words/numbers they find in each collection.
Media licenses (photos, recordings, videos, etc.) will be a separate code table to be applied on an individual basis.
We apparently also have a mechanism for licensing the data in a particular record (e.g., if there is a story included in the remarks field that is protected under copyright or traditional cultural rights, etc.) but I need to have someone show me how to do that. Presumably you can just add the person to the Copyright Holder agent and then describe it more fully? More to come on that...
AJLinn
on 12 May 2020
@marecaguthrie none of this applies to Media, which has its own license.
I will not change any existing values in collection, I will only (potentially - I'm not sure if there's agreement on that or not at the minute...) update NULL values, and only after we beg and plead for the collections to do so themselves. I'll run that query again below.
We'll also add new fields:
"external license" will begin life as a replication of the current single license (https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-625422609). We'll then work with collections so everyone knows what's required to publish to GBIF et al.
"collection norms" (="you're not required by the license, but please do this" document) will be https://arctosdb.org/data/ unless a collection asks for something else, and may be changed at any time.
@AJLinn "licensing the data in a particular record" currently includes
http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTCOLLECTOR_ROLE&field=copyright%20holder and http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTATTRIBUTE_TYPE&field=copyright%20status (and probably some other stuff). https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2450 will (probably) be a function that just gathers all of those data (and collection-wide license and permits and WHATEVER) up into one easy-to-digest place.
Here's collections without a license:
select guid_prefix from collection where USE_LICENSE_ID is null order by guid_prefix;
GUID_PREFIX
------------------------------------------------------------
APSU:Bird
APSU:Fish
APSU:Herp
APSU:Mamm
COA:Bird
COA:Egg
COA:Ento
COA:Herp
COA:Mamm
COA:Rept
DGR:Bird
DGR:Ento
DGR:Mamm
HWML:Para
MLZ:Herb
MSB:Fish
MSBObs:Mamm
MVZObs:Fish
NBSB:Bird
NMU:Ento
NMU:Fish
NMU:Herb
NMU:Herp
PSU:Mamm
UAM:Arc
UAM:Env
UAMObs:Fish
UMNH:Ento
UMNH:Mala
UNM:ES
UNR:Bird
UNR:Egg
UNR:Fish
UNR:Herp
UNR:Mamm
USNPC:Para
UTEPObs:Ento
WNMU:Bird
WNMU:Fish
WNMU:Mamm
Thanks for explaining!
I have another question then-
If we have listed the artist's name as the copyright holder for a
particular object does that now also imply that they hold the copyright for
the metadata about that object?
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:06 AM dustymc notifications@github.com wrote:
@marecaguthrie https://github.com/marecaguthrie none of this applies to
Media, which has its own license.I will not change any existing values in collection, I will only
(potentially - I'm not sure if there's agreement on that or not at the
minute...) update NULL values, and only after we beg and plead for the
collections to do so themselves. I'll run that query again below.We'll also add new fields:
1.
"external license" will begin life as a replication of the current
single license (#2566 (comment)
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-625422609).
We'll then work with collections so everyone knows what's required to
publish to GBIF et al.
2."collection norms" (="you're not required by the license, but please
do this" document) will be https://arctosdb.org/data/ unless a
collection asks for something else, and may be changed at any time.@AJLinn https://github.com/AJLinn "licensing the data in a particular
record" currently includeshttp://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTCOLLECTOR_ROLE&field=copyright%20holder
and
http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTATTRIBUTE_TYPE&field=copyright%20status
(and probably some other stuff). #2450
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2450 will (probably) be a
function that just gathers all of those data (and collection-wide license
and permits and WHATEVER) up into one easy-to-digest place.Here's collections without a license:
select guid_prefix from collection where USE_LICENSE_ID is null order by guid_prefix;
GUID_PREFIX
APSU:Bird
APSU:Fish
APSU:Herp
APSU:Mamm
COA:Bird
COA:Egg
COA:Ento
COA:Herp
COA:Mamm
COA:Rept
DGR:Bird
DGR:Ento
DGR:Mamm
HWML:Para
MLZ:Herb
MSB:Fish
MSBObs:Mamm
MVZObs:Fish
NBSB:Bird
NMU:Ento
NMU:Fish
NMU:Herb
NMU:Herp
PSU:Mamm
UAM:Arc
UAM:Env
UAMObs:Fish
UMNH:Ento
UMNH:Mala
UNM:ES
UNR:Bird
UNR:Egg
UNR:Fish
UNR:Herp
UNR:Mamm
USNPC:Para
UTEPObs:Ento
WNMU:Bird
WNMU:Fish
WNMU:Mamm—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-627534987,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJKSRR4DHH5A4RSR66KZTMLRRGM43ANCNFSM4LUJZDPA
.
--
Mareca Guthrie
Curator of Fine Arts & Associate Professor of Art
University of Alaska Museum of the North
1962 Yukon Drive
P.O. Box 756960
Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960
[email protected]
University of Alaska Museum of the North: www.uaf.edu/museum
UAF Art Department: https://www.uaf.edu/art/ https://www.uaf.edu/art/
Colors of Nature: http://www.colorsofnature.org/
marecaguthrie
on 12 May 2020
imply that they hold the copyright for the metadata
No.
Agent holding copyright to physical material.
If that's not what you want, now (while there's limited usage) is a really great time to discuss the terminology, tighten up the definition, etc.
dustymc
on 12 May 2020
Thanks again for explaining!
We are good with it as it is. :)
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:55 AM dustymc notifications@github.com wrote:
imply that they hold the copyright for the metadata
No.
Agent holding copyright to physical material.
If that's not what you want, now (while there's limited usage) is a really
great time to discuss the terminology, tighten up the definition, etc.—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-627558829,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJKSRR4DCF7XZIQQ5AUIP7DRRGSR5ANCNFSM4LUJZDPA
.
--
Mareca Guthrie
Curator of Fine Arts & Associate Professor of Art
University of Alaska Museum of the North
1962 Yukon Drive
P.O. Box 756960
Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960
[email protected]
University of Alaska Museum of the North: www.uaf.edu/museum
UAF Art Department: https://www.uaf.edu/art/ https://www.uaf.edu/art/
Colors of Nature: http://www.colorsofnature.org/
marecaguthrie
on 19 May 2020
I've incorporated the edits, added something about copyright holder, and resolved/added some comments. Let's try to finish this document so I can update the website. Any other comments or edits? Is there more to add for media? Are people ok with the diagram? Anything else to add for cultural collections?
Still to resolve: change 'media_license' to some other term (I suggested 'media_use') because what's in the Code Table may or may not be a license in the legal sense?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/163zoOJ8og4yEj4JQU1dRJU5cCiRC2AWgprMZSbWKWxU/edit?usp=sharing
ccicero
on 26 May 2020
I've incorporated the latest edits from Mariel.
@ewommack let's add this to the agenda for the next Issues meeting so we can finalize and resolve some questions (e.g., recommended CC0 or CC-BY-NC?).
ccicero
on 26 May 2020
Ok I've added it onto the agenda.
ewommack
on 27 May 2020
From https://docs.google.com/document/d/163zoOJ8og4yEj4JQU1dRJU5cCiRC2AWgprMZSbWKWxU/edit are we agreed on the following as Phase One:
- add to table collection internal_license NULL FKEY-->ctdata_license
- add to table collection external_license NULL FKEY-->ctdata_license
add to table collection collection_terms NULL FKEY-->ctcollection_terms- add to table collection collection_terms NOT NULL DEFAULT "Arctos Data Use Policy" FKEY-->ctcollection_terms
[ edited to require exactly one "terms" document, not require one site-wide and allow for a second ]
and two new code tables
- ctdata_license, initially a copy of https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctmedia_license
- ctcollection_terms, also a copy of https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctmedia_license
Then update collection.internal_license to the existing use_license_id.
Here's ctmedia_license, which I'll use to seed the new code tables unless someone has a better idea. Note that we just store the key in collection, which lets us treat the license as a data object BUT somewhat complicates access - does anyone see a reason to change that?
arctosprod@arctos>> select * from ctmedia_license;
media_license_id | display | description | uri
------------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 | DMNS | Denver Museum of Nature and Science Conditions of Use | http://www.dmns.org/conditions-of-use
1 | CC0 | Public Domain | http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
2 | CC BY | Attribution | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
3 | CC BY-SA | Attribution-ShareAlike | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
4 | CC BY-ND | Attribution-NoDerivs | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0
5 | CC BY-NC | Attribution-NonCommercial | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0
6 | CC BY-NC-SA | Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0
7 | CC BY-NC-ND | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0
21 | MVZ Archive and Media Policy | MVZ policy on use of fieldnotes, correspondence, photos, audio, and other archives and media. | http://mvz.berkeley.edu/Policy_Archival_Matrls.html
61 | MVZ Terms of Use | MVZ General Terms of Use Statement. | http://mvz.berkeley.edu/PDFs/MVZ_terms_of_use.pdf
81 | Arctos Data Ownership and Use | General Arctos statement on ownership and use of data. | http://arctosdb.org/home/data/
141 | UAMN Fine Arts Image Use | General information about the UAMN Fine Arts collection image use policies and process for requesting high-resolution images. | https://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/fineart/collection/image-use-requests/
101 | UCM Image Reproduction Policy | UCM Image Reproduction and Permission to Photograph Policy | https://www.colorado.edu/cumuseum/research-collections/vertebrates/image-reproduction-policy
122 | Copyright Restricted | License is restricted to the copyright holder (see Comment). Arctos insitution cannot license the media. | https://www.loc.gov/duplicationservices/copyright/
161 | JSNM Acceptable Use | Jurica-Suchy Nature Museum at Benedictine University acceptable use policy. | http://www.ben.edu/information-technology/upload/Acceptable-Use-of-Technology-Resources.pdf
(15 rows)
I don't see a reason for that now, but not sure what "complicates access" means.
Jegelewicz
on 24 Jun 2020
"complicates access" -->join to and summarize a data object instead of just reading a string
dustymc
on 24 Jun 2020
I think that "join to and summarize a data object" is what we need...
Jegelewicz
on 24 Jun 2020
So to confirm, there would be three code tables:
ctmedia_license
ctdata_license
ctcollection_terms
Before populating ctdata_license and ctcollection_terms with values currently in ctmedia_license, it seems like we can/should clean things up now or it will continue to cause confusion.
I've created a spreadsheet with the current values and where it seems they best belong (obviously open to discussion). Not sure about DMNS and 'Copyright restricted'
ccicero
on 25 Jun 2020
Unless someone stops me in the very near future, I'm just going to do this as https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-648467489 and we can clean up the unused values after.
https://github.com/ArctosDB/documentation-wiki/issues/108#issuecomment-651306667
@campmlc @acdoll
dustymc
on 29 Jun 2020
Add copyright restricted to new media license?
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 1:32 PM dustymc notifications@github.com wrote:
- [EXTERNAL]*
Unless someone stops me in the very near future, I'm just going to do this
as #2566 (comment)
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-648467489
and we can clean up the unused values after.ArctosDB/documentation-wiki#108 (comment)
https://github.com/ArctosDB/documentation-wiki/issues/108#issuecomment-651306667@campmlc https://github.com/campmlc @acdoll https://github.com/acdoll
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-651316028,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBHVVM34OUA654J43I3RZDT5LANCNFSM4LUJZDPA
.
campmlc
on 29 Jun 2020
Add copyright restricted to new media license?
That should be a different issue; it would need discussed as all code table changes and doesn't affect this.
dustymc
on 29 Jun 2020
Sounds pretty good to me. I'm a little confused by how this would work:
[ edited to require exactly one "terms" document, not require one site-wide and allow for a second ]
To be clear, you saying each record must be tied to one "terms" document, but different records can be tied to different documents, correct?
acdoll
on 29 Jun 2020
No, I'm saying
- collection.collection_terms_id would be NOT NULL, and
- the default would be whatever resolves to
Arctos Data Ownership and Use | General Arctos statement on ownership and use of data. | http://arctosdb.org/home/data/
-- | -- | --
This does not change records being licensed by-collection rather than by-record.
This does not change anything at all about Media, which are licensed by-record.
An earlier version of the google doc created a situation where there was a site-wide "terms" document and also a potentially-conflicting collection-wide "terms" document. The change is meant to address that by allowing only one "terms."
The NOT NULL state of terms is meant to address some comments that I took to mean that being desirable.
I think the structure is correct.
I can easily drop the NOT NULL requirement; it would be very useful to resolve that immediately.
dustymc
on 29 Jun 2020
From https://docs.google.com/document/d/163zoOJ8og4yEj4JQU1dRJU5cCiRC2AWgprMZSbWKWxU/edit
The Collection Terms (URL) field is also downloaded with every Arctos record.
Current vague plan: semicolon-separated list "internal license; terms" eg http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0; https://www.colorado.edu/cumuseum/research-collections/vertebrates/image-reproduction-policy in existing field flat.use_license_url. Better ideas?
dustymc
on 29 Jun 2020
I think we agreed to keep not null. That is partly what started all this.
As for copyright restricted, what collections use this? I wouldn't want
that to be lost from their records during transition - we should preserve
it somewhere.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:58 PM dustymc notifications@github.com wrote:
- [EXTERNAL]*
No, I'm saying
- collection.collection_terms_id would be NOT NULL, and
- the default would be whatever resolves to
Arctos Data Ownership and Use General Arctos statement on ownership and
use of data. http://arctosdb.org/home/data/This does not change records being licensed by-collection rather than
by-record.This does not change anything at all about Media, which are licensed
by-record.An earlier version of the google doc created a situation where there was a
site-wide "terms" document and also a potentially-conflicting
collection-wide "terms" document. The change is meant to address that by
allowing only one "terms."The NOT NULL state of terms is meant to address some comments that I took
to mean that being desirable.I think the structure is correct.
I can easily drop the NOT NULL requirement; it would be very useful to
resolve that immediately.—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-651361665,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBD4VJOLI4G2GS4HO4LRZD56NANCNFSM4LUJZDPA
.
campmlc
on 29 Jun 2020
keep not null
Done; default will be NULL, a notice will need sent out when this goes to production, hopefully tomorrowish. It's easy to adjust later if necessary.
As for copyright restricted, what collections use this?
I don't think any do, but I'm not sure how that's relevant so I feel like I'm missing something.
lost from their records
Nothing will be lost. Given nullable terms, this will essentially just be a renaming of collection.use_license and a couple new blank fields that can be used by those who want to.
dustymc
on 29 Jun 2020
I'm going to link to this issue for documentation unless someone wants to put something else together.
dustymc
on 29 Jun 2020
The EML generator is writing...
<additionalInfo>
<para>
Arctos Data Ownership and Use: http://arctosdb.org/home/data/
<para>
</additionalInfo>
Arctos Data Ownership and Use is collection_terms_display
http://arctosdb.org/home/data/ is collection_terms_uri
and
<intellectualRights>
<para>
License Description: MVZ General Terms of Use Statement.
<ulink url="http://mvz.berkeley.edu/PDFs/MVZ_terms_of_use.pdf"><citetitle>MVZ Terms of Use</citetitle></ulink>
</para>
</intellectualRights>
where
MVZ General Terms of Use Statement. is external_license_description
http://mvz.berkeley.edu/PDFs/MVZ_terms_of_use.pdf is external_license_uri
MVZ Terms of Use is external_license_display
dustymc
on 30 Jun 2020
2849
acdoll
on 30 Jun 2020
So how are you migrating the CT values? What about the suggestions in the spreadsheet I created? Seems better to get those figured out beforehand, rather than clean it up later and also potentially have collections use something that doesn't apply in that particular place.
ccicero
on 30 Jun 2020
how are you migrating the CT values?
Linking to the identical data object (which has a new name and new IDs).
suggestions in the spreadsheet
A bunch of used values were missing; it's easier to deal with that under the DB constraints.
later
We'll have to be fast!
Or I could delete unused values after I've made the switch, but I suspect that's more evil than cleaning them up manually.
dustymc
on 30 Jun 2020
This should be ready for production tonight; please test if possible. I'm still clearing up and rebuilding but I think the UI-stuff should mostly be in place now.
I found http://handbook.arctosdb.org/how_to/How-to-Manage-a-Collection-in-Arctos.html - manage collection is now linking to it, and I'll add/clarify what I can.
I will initially clone from https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctmedia_license; this is an opportunity to fix any issues in the documentation in one place, rather than the three that will be required in a bit.
dustymc
on 30 Jun 2020
This is in production.
Every collection should check licensing and the generated EML if it's being used.
Code tables can be cleaned up.
for https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctdata_license these values are currently not being used
arctosprod@arctos>> select display from ctdata_license where data_license_id not in (select internal_license_id from collection where internal_license_id is not null union select external_license_id from collection where external_license_id is not null);
display
-------------------------------
DMNS
CC BY-SA
CC BY-ND
CC BY-NC-ND
MVZ Archive and Media Policy
MVZ Terms of Use
UAMN Fine Arts Image Use
UCM Image Reproduction Policy
Copyright Restricted
(9 rows)
and nothing in https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctcollection_terms is being used.
/remind me to close this in a week
dustymc
on 1 Jul 2020
@dustymc set a reminder for Jul 8th 2020
![reminders[bot] picture](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/26350515?v=4&s=40)
reminders[bot]
on 1 Jul 2020
Every collection should check licensing and the generated EML if it's being used.
@ewommack maybe we need an email blast to announce this and get everyone to check their licenses?
Jegelewicz
on 1 Jul 2020
Edit current download acknowledgments:
These data are intended for use in education and research and may not be repackaged, redistributed, or sold in any form
without prior written consent from the Museum. Those wishing to include these data in analyses or reports must acknowledge
the provenance of the original data and notify the appropriate curator prior to publication. These are secondary data, and
their accuracy is not guaranteed. Citation of the data is no substitute for examination of specimens. The Museum and its staff
are not responsible for loss or damages due to use of these data.
campmlc
on 2 Jul 2020
How about:
These data are licensed by collection. Data are intended for use in education and research, and their use must follow the individual license and terms for each catalog record as specified in the download file. If required, those wishing to include these data in analyses or reports must acknowledge the provenance of the original data and notify the appropriate curator prior to publication. These are secondary data, and their accuracy is not guaranteed. Citation of the data is no substitute for examination of specimens. Arctos collections and their staff are not responsible for loss or damages due to use of these data.
campmlc
on 2 Jul 2020
These data are licensed by collection. Data are intended for use in education and research, and their use must follow the individual license and terms set by each collection as specified in the download file. If required, those wishing to include these data in analyses or reports must acknowledge the provenance of the original data and notify the appropriate curator prior to publication. These are secondary data, and their accuracy is not guaranteed. Please contact the individual collections with any data-related questions or to examine primary source material. Arctos collections and their staff are not responsible for loss or damages due to use of these data.
campmlc
on 2 Jul 2020
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2566#issuecomment-653171385 patched in to prod
dustymc
on 2 Jul 2020
We have a new page on Arctosdb.org: https://arctosdb.org/arctosdata-policy/
And will move the new Guidelines to the Handbook, where it is more appropriately for Arctos operators, but it is here for the moment: https://arctosdb.org/guidelines-arctosdata-terms/
Send comments to @mkoo and @ccicero
Will close once completed.
mkoo
on 3 Jul 2020
from https://arctosdb.org/guidelines-arctosdata-terms/
Data aggregators such as GBIF and VertNet provide options for both licensing and collection terms/norms in the eml file of collection metadata
Suggest this instead
Data aggregators such as GBIF and VertNet provide options for both licensing and collection terms/norms which each collection transmits to the aggregators in the collection metadata EML file. This file can be generated from the information in any collection's manage collection form by using the Arctos EML generator tool.
Jegelewicz
on 3 Jul 2020
:wave: @dustymc, close this
reminders[bot]
on 8 Jul 2020
@Jegelewicz @dustymc Will the EML generator tool put the external license in
ccicero
on 8 Jul 2020
It should but please confirm!
dustymc
on 8 Jul 2020
Seems like it is working. NMMNH:Paleo eml pulls this
and there is no license selected for external license, so that's good...
Jegelewicz
on 8 Jul 2020
Related issues
dustymc
·
4Comments
ebraker
·
8Comments
acdoll
·
4Comments
Jegelewicz
·
6Comments
alexkrohn
·
3Comments