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-metadata mailing list
metadata creativecommons.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata
|