[cc-community] wrong license info / logo

Mike Linksvayer ml at creativecommons.org
Thu Feb 15 20:47:44 EST 2007


On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 00:51 +0100, tomislav medak wrote:
> 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 ?
>
> having encountered frequently websites with license buttons containing
> no metadata and sitting locally on the website, i would assume that many
> web-site owners/masters/designers just copy the button as an image and
> don't nest the code.

If they copy the image to their own server there's nothing to be done
other than to send an email gently asking them to add a link.

Practically the same is true even if they've included an image hosted on
cc.org in their pages without a link.  In theory we could serve a
different image for pages lacking a license link, but it would be very
expensive and would almost certainly generate false positives and not a
high correction rate.

In other words I don't have a solution better than reaching out to
licensors who should be providing more precise notice.  Please do reach
out when you have the opportunity. :)


> On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 02:17 +0100, tomislav medak wrote: 
> > Claude Almansi wrote:
> > > Then some content hosting sites offer you the possibility to license 
> > > your content without going to creativecommons.org/license: flickr, 
> > > blip.tv, archive.org; blogging tools too: for instance the blogs at 
> > > digitaldivide.net, but other ones too.
> > 
> > oh, i was thinking of mentioning that, but forgot - suboptimal lisensing
> > on sites like flickr with no metadata.

Generally services like Flickr at least link to the specific license being
used.  Some could publish better metadata, but that's a different problem.

If you know of sites that facilitate publishing lots of CC licensed content
that don't even link to or otherwise specify the exact license used please
ask them to fix.  If you (anyone reading this) is not sure exactly what to
ask a specific site to do feel free to post here or contact me directly.

> > > In these cases, the result is a button linked to the deed for humans, 
> > > but you do not actually get a full registration code with the name of 
> > > the author, the title of the work etc.
> > > 
> > > Does this mean that these licenses linking to the deed, but without 
> > > registration info, are invalid?
> > 
> > i guess indicating the licese choice even without linking should qualify
> > as valid. it indicates the author's choice, but doesn't point the user
> > to the explanation putting the burden on him and doesn't make use of the
> > technological opportunities offered by CC licensing technology.

It is valid so long as it is clear which license is being offered.  Linking
is the easiest way to do that. :)


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



More information about the cc-community mailing list