Re: wrong license info / logo

Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>
> Do you have any ideas about where people are going in
Poland when they
> want to use a CC license apart from
creativecommons.org/license ?
>
>   
I'm guessing, but I imagine they do things like copy the
logo and the 
information from some other page, but not very carefully;
sometimes 
people don't even use the logo - they just write: "This
page is licensed 
under a Creative Commons license". And maybe link the
words "CC" to the 
CC webpage; etc.

I understand there is little that you can do about this on
the 
infrastructure side, but then a vision of myself trawling
through the 
internet and checking licenses sounds extremely unpleasant
and tedious. 
Hackers to the rescue? And CC as well? Would CC be intersted
in first 
estimating the scale of the problem - this would require
taking a sample 
of pages that use some common licensing phrase and checking
(with some 
smart script) whether they a. link properly b. provide
metadata. Cause 
maybe this isn't a big problem, only one visible to us...
If it is a problem, a similar tool could in general crawl
the net, find 
pages with problems - and then someone would just have to
find an email 
address and mail some standard request.

But I also think that this problem shouldn't just be left
alone or fixed 
- if it really is a problem, then it means that we maybe
need to rethink 
our 'education' strategy, since our key tool, the licensing
engine, is 
somehow being ignored by licensors.

best,

alek

ps. the issue with sites like flickr, revver, archive.org,
you name it, 
doing weird things with licensing is a different but big
issue. I'm not 
sure there's one site that conforms fully with the CC model.
What seems 
most annoying to me as a national lead is the inability to
use localised 
licensing. Let's face it, the big licensing work occurs
through sites 
like flickr. And what's the point of having localised
licenses if people 
there use the generic one? I think CC HQ should maybe push
harder for 
its partners to try to comply - it's a pity that even a
flagship project 
like archive.org doesn't do this.

-- 
koordynator / Public Lead
Creative Commons Polska / Poland

(+48) 889 660 444
http://creativecommons.pl
skype:alektarkowski


_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

2007. 2 16. -n, "Alek Tarkowski"
<alek.tarkowskicreativecommons.pl>
irta:
>Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>>
>> Do you have any ideas about where people are going
in Poland when they
>> want to use a CC license apart from
creativecommons.org/license ?
>>
>I'm guessing, but I imagine they do things like copy the
logo and the
>information from some other page, but not very
carefully; sometimes

I think this is the case in general for all misuse in
Hungary (and other
countries as well). I suppose it's because people are used
to just put
up or see a sign like "all rights reserved"
(though many don't know
what that means exactly either, it has just become a
standard in the
past so to speak). In this context using a code for the
copyright notice
is a "special" process. They assume that using a
cc logo is sufficient
and only the ones that take the time to read the
instructions thoroughly
use the lincensing tool.


>Hackers to the rescue? And CC as well? Would CC be
intersted in first
>estimating the scale of the problem - this would require
taking a sample
>of pages that use some common licensing phrase and
checking (with some
>smart script) whether they a. link properly b. provide
metadata. Cause
>maybe this isn't a big problem, only one visible to
us...

I have no idea how much of a hassle would this be, but it
seems a good
idea at least to get an estimation. Right now the only way
we learn
about these is when they ask about details on our mailing
list or when
we accidently bump into these pages.

I think one possible way to reduce its occurence is to bring
the users'
attention to the the importance of the licensing tool - make
it more
obvious on the national sites, using a different color for
the button,
including a separate answer in the FAQ with direct link and
referring to
it wherever it might be relevant, etc.
(On the main site I think it's pretty much solved by the
large
"publish" image, which takes you directly to the
tool).

attila
cc-hu
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 12:12 +0100, Alek Tarkowski wrote:
> I understand there is little that you can do about this
on the 
> infrastructure side, but then a vision of myself
trawling through the 
> internet and checking licenses sounds extremely
unpleasant and tedious.


This is probably the only viable approach, but perhaps a
little bit of
code can help, see below.
 
> Hackers to the rescue? And CC as well? Would CC be
intersted in first 
> estimating the scale of the problem - this would
require taking a sample 
> of pages that use some common licensing phrase and
checking (with some 
> smart script) whether they a. link properly b. provide
metadata. Cause 
> maybe this isn't a big problem, only one visible to
us...
> If it is a problem, a similar tool could in general
crawl the net, find 
> pages with problems - and then someone would just have
to find an email 
> address and mail some standard request.

Unfortunately I don't know of a good approach to doing a
directed crawl
looking for sites that claim to be under a CC license but
don't provide
a link or metadata.  If Google facilitated searching only
the non-CC web
(which wouldn't be a great thing, and they don't seem to
have done so
inadvertently; I've played with the URLs a fair bit), then
searching for
(made up syntax, and substitute your language's CC notice)

"This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
license" AND -cc

would be a start.  But not a great one, as people using a CC
image or
variation of one and no text, and people using the default
language from
the license chooser ... probably got it from the license
chooser. 


So the most likely way for a bad CC implementation to be
noticed is by a
human.  A bookmarklet could be provided (or equivalent built
into MozCC)
that you could invoke when you happen upon a bad
implementation.  The
code could do some basic sanity checks, attempt to detect
language, and
add page to a queue to be processed when volunteers who read
the
relevant language want to try to contact webmasters to
encourage them to
improve their CC usage.

> But I also think that this problem shouldn't just be
left alone or fixed 
> - if it really is a problem, then it means that we
maybe need to rethink 
> our 'education' strategy, since our key tool, the
licensing engine, is 
> somehow being ignored by licensors.
> 
> best,
> 
> alek
> 
> ps. the issue with sites like flickr, revver,
archive.org, you name it, 
> doing weird things with licensing is a different but
big issue. I'm not 
> sure there's one site that conforms fully with the CC
model. What seems 
> most annoying to me as a national lead is the inability
to use localised 
> licensing. Let's face it, the big licensing work occurs
through sites 
> like flickr. And what's the point of having localised
licenses if people 
> there use the generic one? I think CC HQ should maybe
push harder for 
> its partners to try to comply - it's a pity that even a
flagship project 
> like archive.org doesn't do this.

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure the archive.org does allow selection
of
jurisdiction licenses, though I haven't tested in ages.

Commercial sites nearly always want to minimize potential
for user
confusion and minimize engineering work -- they almost
always opt for
doing the simplest possible thing, i.e., offering the six
unported
licenses in a drop-down, although I always encourage them to
look at the
APIs we have available that facilitate choosing any
jurisdiction
license.

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

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community