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://cr
eativecommons.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://w
ww.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.creat
ivecommons.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-metadata mailing list
metadata creativecommons.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata
|