Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Authoring vs. Ownership #46

Closed
1 task done
lrosenthol opened this issue Feb 21, 2024 · 5 comments · Fixed by #70
Closed
1 task done

Authoring vs. Ownership #46

lrosenthol opened this issue Feb 21, 2024 · 5 comments · Fixed by #70
Assignees
Labels
pending-pr-review Resolved, pending PR review
Milestone

Comments

@lrosenthol
Copy link
Collaborator

lrosenthol commented Feb 21, 2024


One of the items that appears to have come up multiple times in the first CAWG meeting was around "ownership". I would like to suggest that the WG NOT focus on ownership, but instead on authorship. Ownership implies rights and legal standing with respect to the asset, while authorship does not - it simply declares the involvement of the party in the creation/editing of the content of asset.

@andyparsons
Copy link
Contributor

I agree and lean strongly toward authorship, which may imply ownership, but does not necessarily indicate it. Given the fraught, contentious field of copyright during current times we should delay or entirely avoid rights.

@talltree
Copy link

Authorship would indeed be a much simpler assertion to tackle initially. Could "ownership" (e.g., copyright, other rights) be tackled by other C2PA assertion types (pardon my ignorance, I'm new to C2PA specs).

@jcollomosse
Copy link

I agree with all the above. C2PA did a good job focusing exclusively on creation provenance i.e. authorship and avoided ownership and rights - not just for cleaner scoping but because other ecosystems do a good job focusing on them. It would be good to continue this tight scoping, and 'link out' e.g. via assertions to those other ecosystems. An example would be linking to ownership provenance in NFT, which we made some initial prototypes of in our paper. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.04639 There we used the Asset reference assertion (ARA) but there's some reasonable question over whether that is entirely the correct thing to have used.

@puhley
Copy link

puhley commented Feb 26, 2024

To me, "ownership" is the step after "authorship". For instance, with "authorship," you are saying that, "I created this." With ownership, you are saying, "I created this and I am claiming legal protections for this content". However, you could also release something under "creative commons" where you state, "I authored this, but people are free to use it." I agree with stopping at "authorship" to keep the spec focused versus going down all the possible "ownership" paths.

@scouten-adobe
Copy link
Contributor

Per 26 February 2024 meeting, @scouten-adobe to draft a PR to clarify that identity assertion intends to convey authorship and not copyright or ownership.

@scouten-adobe scouten-adobe added the pr-needed Action item to create a PR label Feb 26, 2024
@scouten-adobe scouten-adobe added this to the 1.0 milestone Feb 28, 2024
@scouten-adobe scouten-adobe removed the pr-needed Action item to create a PR label Mar 8, 2024
@scouten-adobe scouten-adobe added the pending-pr-review Resolved, pending PR review label Mar 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pending-pr-review Resolved, pending PR review
Projects
None yet
6 participants