On 8/21/06, Mike Linksvayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 22:03 -0400, Luis Villa wrote: > > [I'm not on cc-metadata, and it is deleting all my mail instead of > > holding it for moderation, FWIW, which may explain some of my missing > > context.] > > Belatedly I've added you to a list of always accept addresses for > cc-metadata. All public Creative Commons lists are set to reject email > from non-subscribers -- their moderation queues became nearly 100% spam > at some point.
Oh, suck. Anyway, thanks for fixing. > > On 8/18/06, Mike Linksvayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Let me prefix this by saying I hate embedded metadata and would be happy > > > if nobody ever included a CC license notice in it but there's a there > > > there so some people feel a need use embedded metadata to note license > > > status AND there is a longstanding desire from CC to mitigate against > > > people adding fraudulent license claims to say madonna.mp3 and having > > > that be people's introduction to CC ... thus this onerous scheme. > > > > Hrm. Interesting problem, but the reaction to it smells like premature > > optimisation to me. Now that wide-scale CC-enabled services like > > flickr have existed for a couple years, do we have any examples of > > this happening on any wide scale? I've never seen or heard an example > > of it, but I've certainly not been paying wide attention to it. > > There wouldn't have been as nobody is putting any CC license info in > image files, direct or indirect. But they're claiming CC license on images by uploading to flickr. I can scan Madonna's book, upload to flickr, and claim it is CC- is anyone doing that? > The main problem with use of CC licensed images found on Flickr seems > lack of attribution (another reason to prefer a reference to the > copyright holder, not the license, which does not provide attribution). Urgh, attribution, yeah. Hrm. > MP3 files found in the wild (meaning not directly downloaded from > archive.org or similar) that have some sort of CC license indicator in > embedded metadata -- as far as I can tell, mostly artists that I have no > reason to think have CC licensed anything. Just very casual > observation, no data. OK. Fair. If it is a real, already occuring problem... well, that just sucks all around. :/ <discussion of what happens if flickr or other website goes away> > > Oops, all your data suddenly > > has no valid license. > > No! A CC license is "valid" for a work because a copyright holder has > offered it to the public. [Non-]conformance with a technical > recommendation for annotating a work with license info does not make a > license [in]valid. The best annotations can do is provide additional > context as to whether a valid offer was made. But if the only license information is on the web, and not in the file itself, then I have no way of knowing what the license is. So, you're right, technically it isn't invalid, but it is useless. :) (This is again all relative to what I thought your original proposal was; if I'm arguing with a straw man just let me know and I'll shut up.) > I'm not sure how a bare > license URL would be enough for anyone who actually cares about > copyright status to feel comfortable using lost and found material. <shrug> works all the time out here in free software world :) I think in large part that may be because we tend to have more robust sharing *communities*, as opposed to floating-off-in-the-ether individuals, which seems to be more how most CC-related sharing happens right now. So perhaps you're right that the free software/CC mapping here is not a good one. > > > and there's no (or precious little) attempt to make > > > printed copyright notices or license headers/COPYRIGHT.txt accompanying > > > code machine readable. > > > > Which is a mistake, but tangential to this discussion :) > > > > > However, an alternative is to make embedded metadata less machine > > > readable. > > > > Nonono! Machine-readable licenses lower the barrier to remix and > > reuse- which should be a critical goal for CC. > > Good, that's the conclusion I cam to regarding the silly "Copyright ... > verify at ..." English sentence CC once recommended for MP3/ID3 awhile > back. Which seem to be what others in the thread made it sound like mp3/id3 had settled on? I would have assumed you would have signed off on that :) Luis _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
