On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 20:59 -0400, Rob Litzke wrote: > Mike - > > I see what you're saying - linking to, say a flickr or archive.org > page with the original image. This is a great idea, but it doesn't > really give any idea what the licensing is, especially if one of those > sites disappears. (Also, if someone wanted to claim false credit for > an image, all they need to do is upload it to flickr.com and claim > that way. It still doesn't seem to prove who created the image)
There is at least a possibility that a photo illegitimately posted the Flickr or another web page can be removed. > These are flaws with linking to, say, > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Which there is no possibility of removing and says nothing about the content at hand. > which is what I was proposing. I think that the copyright field at > least needs to say what the license is - "Creative Commons 2.5 > Attribution" or something like that. Otherwise, without access to the > site there is no way for people to tell what what the license actually > is. Not that "Creative Commons 2.5 Attribution" is significantly more > descriptive, but I think it's a step up. Thus it might be a better > idea to have this in the copyright tag (using your example): > > "http://www.flickr.com/photos/miak/216141670/ (Creative Commons 2.0 > Attribution-ShareAlike)" > > But the problem with this seems, to me, that certain programs might > not be able to determine the original location. Using ccPublisher as > an example, if you upload to flickr or archive.org, you can include > the link. But if you choose local hosting, or simply want to put an > Exif license in the image, you might be in trouble. Other programs > could have an even more difficult time. So you'd have to leave that > out and end up with a non-standard Creative Commons tag. Which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. No photos have a "standard CC tag" now and people get by. > I'm looking forward to your thoughts on this - I don't think there's a > definite solution, or a solution any better than embedding RDF data in > an ebook or however else you might show the license for a creative > commons document. In an ebook or similar the human-visible notice is more important. One of the things that makes image and sound files special is that there is no place for human-visible notice. In any case one can use XMP if one wants to embed RDF in an image. And there is specific facility for including a "WebStatement" as well as a license URL and a sentence, see http://wiki.creativecommons.org/XMP Mike p.s. I appreciate your and Luis' criticism on this. I'm the first to admit it is fairly loopy. -- http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
