On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 23:20 -0400, Luis Villa wrote: > > 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?
I don't know about the "claim it is CC" part, but I would be very surprised if it never happens. Flickr of course has a takedown procedure and does ask people to remove images they don't have the rights to publish. A quick "flickr takedown" query finds http://realgeek.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/09/24/404-images.html > > 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 do say that if there is only one url available that should be for a "web statement" rather than for a CC license directly, so it isn't entirely a strawman. I guess I'll have to figure out a second field to use in Exif. > > 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. I think that's about right. And even if a free software project is a one person effort you can generally get lots more info about it with an obvious web search. That just isn't the case for lots of non-software works. -- http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
