Table of Contents
Introduction
Ownership is often more complicated than a single individual acquiring an object and immediately having both physical possession and the legal right of ownership. This section deals with the description of shared ownership of an object, contested ownership, looting, theft and subsequent sale of the stolen object, as well as other legal claims such as copyright or restricted rights of reproduction.
Claims of Rights
In order to describe these situations, we introduce a new class called 'LegalClaim'. This Claim is for a particular Right, such as ownership or copyright, and is claimed by an Actor within a legal jurisdiction modeled as a Place. This class can then be used to describe any claim, valid or not, of any right.
The Claim is a Man Made Thing, rather than the activity of asserting the claim. As such it can be created and destroyed. It is not a physical thing, although there may be physical evidence such as a contract described using other parts of the model. It is also not the same as a ConceptualObject which cannot be destroyed once conceived. It is the beginning and ending of the Claim that gives the period of asserted validity, rather than as properties of the Claim itself.
The Right that is instantiated by the Claim is then associated with the object for which it applies, and is consistently used for all claims of that type for the object. Thus, the basic Claim model has the following structure:
{ "@context": "https://linked.art/ns/v1/linked-art.json", "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/0", "type": "LegalClaim", "label": "Claim of Ownership", "instantiates": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/Right/2", "type": "Right", "label": "Ownership right for Example Painting", "applies_to": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/object/79", "type": "ManMadeObject", "label": "Example Painting", "classified_as": ["aat:300033618"] } }, "claimed_by": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/person/23", "type": "Person", "label": "Owner of Example Painting" } ], "jurisdiction": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/place/12", "type": "Place", "label": "Legal jurisdiction of Claim" } ] }
JSON-LD (Raw) | JSON-LD (Playground) | Turtle (Raw) | Turtle (Styled)
Effective Period
The LegalClaim class does not have any relationship with a period or time span over which it is claimed. This is because it is modeled as a Thing, rather than a passive Activity. Things are, instead, brought into and out of existence by Activities, and this is the pattern we use to determine the period in which the claim is in effect. The claim is in effect from the moment it comes into existence to the moment it goes out of existence. Those events can then be part of some larger, more human-centric, activity such as an Acquisition.
{ "@context": "https://linked.art/ns/v1/linked-art.json", "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/1", "type": "LegalClaim", "label": "Claim of Ownership", "claimed_by": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/person/24", "type": "Person", "label": "Owner of Example Painting" } ], "taken_out_of_existence_by": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/event/5", "type": "EndOfExistence", "timespan": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/time/16", "type": "TimeSpan", "begin_of_the_begin": "1821-11-27T00:00:00", "end_of_the_end": "1821-11-28T00:00:00" } }, "brought_into_existence_by": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/event/4", "type": "BeginningOfExistence", "timespan": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/time/15", "type": "TimeSpan", "begin_of_the_begin": "1743-05-12T00:00:00", "end_of_the_end": "1743-05-13T00:00:00" } }, "instantiates": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/Right/3", "type": "Right", "label": "Ownership right for Example Painting", "applies_to": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/object/80", "type": "ManMadeObject", "label": "Example Painting", "classified_as": ["aat:300033618"] } } }
JSON-LD (Raw) | JSON-LD (Playground) | Turtle (Raw) | Turtle (Styled)
Why isn't this just an E30 Right?
CIDOC-CRM Arcana
You almost certainly do not want to read this section. Just skip ahead.
The basic problem with E30 Right is that it is a Conceptual Object, and Conceptual Objects cannot be destroyed. While there is any carrier of the object, including the CIDOC-CRM description of it or even within someone's memory, then the concept still exists somewhere. As it cannot be written down without persisting it, it cannot be destroyed and instead it can simply pass out of all knowledge. This means that the existence of the Right is not the same as the validity of the Right: the concept of slavery in America still exists, but it is no longer legally valid. There are no terms within the CRM to express the effective dates, and the CRM-SIG clarified that the right's effectiveness would be a different sort of resource. In particular that an E30 Right "is the formulation of the right, the terms", and not whether the right had any legal standing in any jurisdiction at any point in time.
It also means that for every combination of Right+Object+Actor, there are many instances, all of which exist at the same time. The Right of Ownership of the Mona Lisa has at least one instance per Actor that ever actually owned it, and given the conceptual nature of E30, there could be many Rights for Actors that never actually owned it.
There is also no way to distinguish jurisdiction or legal code under which the right would exist, if it was ever in force. The discussion of the SIG was inconclusive as to whether a Right can be conceived by anyone, or only by Actors with the potential to make them legally enforcable even if they never do so. In other words, if I conceive of the terms of a Right of ownership, that applies to the Mona Lisa, and is possessed by myself ... is that an E30 Right, or is it just a Conceptual Object that quacks like a Right. If I cannot concieve Rights into existence, what are the properties of agents that can?
In summary, CIDOC-CRM lacks the expressiveness to state what is required and the current definition of E30 Right is insufficiently clear for use at all. There was little enthusiasm in the SIG to take up the modeling effort, despite some reasonable suggestions from several parties. As such, we have added this extension to allow the description of effective rights, not just conceptual ones. If you're not convinced, you can read the email thread that starts here.
Ownership Rights
The base provenance model and the LegalClaim extension are completely compatible. The activities that are described at that level have the beginning and ending of existence of the claims as parts. The assertions that make up the LegalClaim structure can be automatically generated to ensure a consistent model.
In particular, the Production of the object would consist_of the BeginningOfExistence of the LegalClaim. If the object is destroyed, then that activity would consist_of the EndOfExistence of the last LegalClaim around the object's ownership. In between, any Acquisition would include a Transformation of the previous owner's LegalClaim into the new owner's LegalClaim. Transformations end the existence of the "input" to the process (the claim that is transformed) and begin the existence of the "output" of the process (the claim that the process results_in). Thus, Transformation is a shortcut for a pair of beginning and end of existence events that occur at the same time.
We classify the Right as being one of Ownership (aat:300055603), as opposed to any other Right that might be applied to the object.
{ "@context": "https://linked.art/ns/v1/linked-art.json", "id": "https://linked.art/example/activity/54", "type": "Acquisition", "label": "Purchase of the Example Painting on Jan 1, 2010", "classified_as": ["aat:300077989"], "transferred_title_from": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/person/25", "type": "Person", "label": "Seller" } ], "timespan": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/time/17", "type": "TimeSpan", "begin_of_the_begin": "2010-01-01T00:00:00Z", "end_of_the_end": "2010-01-02T00:00:00Z" }, "consists_of": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/Transformation/0", "type": "Transformation", "resulted_in": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/2", "type": "LegalClaim", "label": "Claim of Ownership by Buyer", "instantiates": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/Right/4", "type": "Right", "label": "Ownership Right of Example Painting", "classified_as": ["aat:300055603"], "applies_to": "https://linked.art/example/object/81" }, "claimed_by": ["https://linked.art/example/person/26"] } ], "transformed": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/3", "type": "LegalClaim", "label": "Claim of Ownership by Seller", "instantiates": "https://linked.art/example/Right/4", "claimed_by": ["https://linked.art/example/person/25"] } ] } ], "transferred_title_of": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/object/81", "type": "ManMadeObject", "label": "Example Painting", "classified_as": ["aat:300033618","aat:300133025"] } ], "transferred_title_to": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/person/26", "type": "Person", "label": "Buyer" } ] }
JSON-LD (Raw) | JSON-LD (Playground) | Turtle (Raw) | Turtle (Styled)
Multiple Owners
A change in ownership might involve more than two parties, resulting in a state where multiple actors together own some share of the object. Examples of this situation include when art dealers share the costs of purchasing an object and then share the proceeds of sale in the same proportions, when a donor gives part of the value of an object to an institution, or when a marriage is dissolved and the value of the object is split between the individuals.
The base provenance model does allow for ownership to be transferred to multiple actors, but it is impossible to then determine the share of the value that was owned by each party. The same is true for transfers of custody and for payments of monetary amounts. The use of the LegalClaim structure accommodates these cases.
In order to allow for the description of different proportions of the object to be owned by different actors, we need partition the LegalClaim into shares to be divided. These components are themselves LegalClaimss that are claimed by the respective parties.
In the same way as describing the physical extent of a physical object, we can use a Dimension to describe the logical extent of the ownership claim. At any given time, the total shares of an object should add up to the entire object. If this is not true, then it might signify either that the accounting is wrong (more than 100% of the object is claimed as being owned), theft (multiple claims of ownership at the same time, some of which are illegal), or just that it is now unknown what happened to the remaining value.
{ "@context": "https://linked.art/ns/v1/linked-art.json", "id": "https://linked.art/example/activity/55", "type": "Acquisition", "label": "Purchase of the Example Painting by two Art Dealers", "classified_as": ["aat:300077989"], "transferred_title_from": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/actor/15", "type": "Actor", "label": "Seller" } ], "consists_of": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/Transformation/1", "type": "Transformation", "resulted_in": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/4", "type": "LegalClaim", "label": "Total Claim of Ownership", "instantiates": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/Right/5", "type": "Right", "classified_as": ["aat:300055603"], "applies_to": "https://linked.art/example/object/82" }, "claimed_part": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/5", "type": "LegalClaim", "label": "Claim of 30% Ownership by Dealer 1", "dimension": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/value/8", "type": "Dimension", "value": 30, "unit": "http://qudt.org/1.1/vocab/unit/Percent" } ], "claimed_by": ["https://linked.art/example/group/16"] }, { "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/6", "type": "LegalClaim", "label": "Claim of 70% Ownership by Dealer 2", "dimension": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/value/9", "type": "Dimension", "value": 70, "unit": "http://qudt.org/1.1/vocab/unit/Percent" } ], "claimed_by": ["https://linked.art/example/group/17"] } ] } ], "transformed": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/7", "type": "LegalClaim", "label": "Claim of Ownership by Seller", "instantiates": "https://linked.art/example/Right/5", "claimed_by": ["https://linked.art/example/actor/15"] } ] } ], "transferred_title_to": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/group/16", "type": "Group", "label": "Art Dealership 1" }, { "id": "https://linked.art/example/group/17", "type": "Group", "label": "Art Dealership 2" } ], "transferred_title_of": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/object/82", "type": "ManMadeObject", "label": "Example Painting", "classified_as": ["aat:300033618"] } ] }
JSON-LD (Raw) | JSON-LD (Playground) | Turtle (Raw) | Turtle (Styled)
Transfer of Shares Amongst Owners
In some situations, the set of owners does not change, however they trade the proportion of ownership of the object amongst themselves. Two scenarios in which this occurs are when a group of dealers value without trading stock, and when individuals make partial gifts over time to a museum or other organization.
As the owners do not change, there is no new Acquisition. Instead, it is the reassignment of the proportions amongst the shares of the claimed ownership. A new LegalClaim is brought into effect with shares that include the new proportions, and the previous LegalClaim's effect ends. This process likely also includes other transfers, perhaps of currency via a Payment.
{ "@context": "https://linked.art/ns/v1/linked-art.json", "id": "https://linked.art/example/activity/56", "type": "Activity", "consists_of": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/Transformation/2", "type": "Transformation", "resulted_in": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/8", "type": "LegalClaim", "label": "Previous Total Claim of Ownership", "instantiates": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/Right/6", "type": "Right", "classified_as": ["aat:300055603"], "applies_to": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/object/83", "type": "ManMadeObject", "label": "Example Painting", "classified_as": ["aat:300033618"] } }, "claimed_part": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/9", "type": "LegalClaim", "label": "Claim of 30% Ownership by Dealer 1", "dimension": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/value/10", "type": "Dimension", "value": 30, "unit": "http://qudt.org/1.1/vocab/unit/Percent" } ], "claimed_by": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/group/18", "type": "Group", "label": "Art Dealership 1" } ] }, { "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/10", "type": "LegalClaim", "label": "Claim of 70% Ownership by Dealer 2", "dimension": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/value/11", "type": "Dimension", "value": 70, "unit": "http://qudt.org/1.1/vocab/unit/Percent" } ], "claimed_by": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/group/19", "type": "Group", "label": "Art Dealership 2" } ] } ] } ], "transformed": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/11", "type": "LegalClaim", "label": "New Claim of Ownership", "instantiates": "https://linked.art/example/Right/6", "claimed_part": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/12", "type": "LegalClaim", "label": "Claim of 40% Ownership by Dealer 1", "dimension": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/value/12", "type": "Dimension", "value": 40, "unit": "http://qudt.org/1.1/vocab/unit/Percent" } ], "claimed_by": ["https://linked.art/example/group/18"] }, { "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/13", "type": "LegalClaim", "label": "Claim of 60% Ownership by Dealer 2", "dimension": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/value/13", "type": "Dimension", "value": 60, "unit": "http://qudt.org/1.1/vocab/unit/Percent" } ], "claimed_by": ["https://linked.art/example/group/19"] } ] } ] }, { "id": "https://linked.art/example/activity/57", "type": "Payment", "paid_amount": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/money/10", "type": "MonetaryAmount", "value": 100000, "currency": "https://linked.art/example/money/11" }, "paid_from": "https://linked.art/example/group/18", "paid_to": "https://linked.art/example/group/19" } ] }
JSON-LD (Raw) | JSON-LD (Playground) | Turtle (Raw) | Turtle (Styled)
Theft
Objects can change hands illegally, such as via theft (aat:300055292) or looting (aat:300379554). This is modeled as a new LegalClaim that is marked as being actually illegal, via aat:300055289, that competes with the actual claim of the owner. This pattern means that when the thief then sells the stolen object to an unsuspecting buyer, the Acquisition is described the same way as any other. It also lets further claims of ownership be layered on top, where the situation is not so clear. If the object is part of reparations or was looted by a government under some oppressive regime, then the Acquisition might be considered legitimate in some contexts and not in others.
{ "@context": "https://linked.art/ns/v1/linked-art.json", "id": "https://linked.art/example/activity/58", "type": "Acquisition", "label": "Theft of Painting", "classified_as": ["aat:300055292"], "transferred_title_from": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/person/27", "type": "Person", "label": "Owner" } ], "consists_of": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/event/6", "type": "BeginningOfExistence", "brought_into_existence": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/LegalClaim/14", "type": "LegalClaim", "classified_as": ["aat:300055289"], "instantiates": { "id": "https://linked.art/example/Right/7", "type": "Right", "classified_as": ["aat:300055603"], "applies_to": "https://linked.art/example/object/84" } } ] } ], "transferred_title_to": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/person/28", "type": "Person", "label": "Unknown Thief" } ], "transferred_title_of": [ { "id": "https://linked.art/example/object/84", "type": "ManMadeObject", "label": "Example Stolen Painting", "classified_as": ["aat:300033618","aat:300133025"] } ] }
JSON-LD (Raw) | JSON-LD (Playground) | Turtle (Raw) | Turtle (Styled)
Alternative Model to CIDOC-CRM recommendation
A concern with the CIDOC model of using Transfers of Custody to model theft is that if an object is stolen and only custody transferred, and the object is subsequently sold (illegally) by the thief, then the thief cannot transfer ownership, only further custody in exchange for payment. If it is not known that the object was stolen, then the data would incorrectly record it as a sale, which is an Acquisition rather than Transfer of Custody.