Exif metadata

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.  See
discussion on this list probably starting in April 2003,
though it is
probably missing context from internal CC discussions.

On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 20:42 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 8/18/06, Mike Linksvayer <mlcreativecommons.org> wrote:
> > A web notice gives one the level of assurance that
one normally gets
> > from the web ... as opposed to zero.
> 
> Ah! yes. We raise it from zero to... practically zero

Seriously,
> this buys no protection against any serious/meaningful
attempts at
> fraud, while making it incredibly onerous for the vast,
vast majority
> of the population that can't guarantee a permanent web
presence.

1. Archive.org, flickr and the like provide permanent web
presence for
them.

2. A URI that dies is uncool.  The content musn't have been
that
valuable.

> > > That seems incredibly onerous.
> >
> > It may be, but if I may repeat myself, embedding a
reference to a
> > license itself is incredibly worthless.
> 
> You're demanding a higher level of accountability with
this than with
> any other licensing system I've ever seen. When I
publish my code
> under GPL, I don't include a link in the source saying
'this is a link
> to a webpage 'proving' that the code is under GPL',
I just do it.
> People publish books under CC all the time which just
say 'the license
> is foo', even though PDFs, HTML, and text are all
editable- just like
> the exif fields. I'm really not clear why EXIFs, as
opposed to any
> other editable content format ever, deserve this
special publisher
> burden.

Printed books and code have provide lots of other context by
which one
can judge provenance and there's no (or precious little)
attempt to make
printed copyright notices or license headers/COPYRIGHT.txt
accompanying
code machine readable.

However, an alternative is to make embedded metadata less
machine
readable.  The "Copyright" field could include a
sentence along the
lines of those discussed on this list long ago, like

        Copyright 2006 Joe Smith licensed to the public
under
        http://cre
ativecomons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ verify at
        http://example
.com/mypcituressuck.html

And any program that wants to make sense of that (and in
other
languages) is more than welcome to.  And someone can leave
out any part
if they so wish.




-- 
  
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer

_______________________________________________
cc-metadata mailing list
metadatacreativecommons.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata