[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