[cc-community] Attributing when there is no name
jonathon
jonathon.blake at gmail.com
Fri Oct 19 22:11:34 EDT 2007
Evan wrote:
> > For an image, my position is that if there is no attributable name in
> > the metadata, then the image is "All Rights Reserved".
> That's a startling and difficult-to-defend position, Jonathon, given the
> clear allowance in the license text. To quote again:
>
> "You must [...] provide [...] the name of the Original Author
> (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied"
> It sounds like your argument is that if there is no authorship information, it's a good chance the work is copied from somewhere else.
That is my basic premise.
I've seen several images where on one set it is ARR, and on a second
site it has no license, and a third site has a CC license. Invariable
the CC licensed work has no metadata, when the ARR work has complete
metadata.
> Do you accept that, if the licensee is _sure_ the work isn't copied somewhere else, that it's OK to use the work under the terms of the license?
Yes. (Depending upon what I want to use the image for, I may need
between one and ten other releases.)
xan
jonathon
More information about the cc-community
mailing list