[cc-devel] Exif metadata
robert.litzke at gmail.com
Fri Aug 18 20:59:11 EDT 2006
I see what you're saying - linking to, say a flickr or archive.org page with
the original image. This is a great idea, but it doesn't really give any
idea what the licensing is, especially if one of those sites disappears.
(Also, if someone wanted to claim false credit for an image, all they need
to do is upload it to flickr.com and claim that way. It still doesn't seem
to prove who created the image) These are flaws with linking to, say,
which is what I was proposing. I think that the copyright field at least
needs to say what the license is - "Creative Commons 2.5 Attribution" or
something like that. Otherwise, without access to the site there is no way
for people to tell what what the license actually is. Not that "Creative
Commons 2.5 Attribution" is significantly more descriptive, but I think it's
a step up. Thus it might be a better idea to have this in the copyright tag
(using your example):
" http://www.flickr.com/photos/miak/216141670/ (Creative Commons
But the problem with this seems, to me, that certain programs might not be
able to determine the original location. Using ccPublisher as an example, if
you upload to flickr or archive.org, you can include the link. But if you
choose local hosting, or simply want to put an Exif license in the image,
you might be in trouble. Other programs could have an even more difficult
time. So you'd have to leave that out and end up with a non-standard
Creative Commons tag.
I'm looking forward to your thoughts on this - I don't think there's a
definite solution, or a solution any better than embedding RDF data in an
ebook or however else you might show the license for a creative commons
(Apologies if you recieve this twice)
On 8/18/06, Luis Villa <luis.villa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/18/06, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
> > A web notice gives one the level of assurance that one normally gets
> > from the web ... as opposed to zero.
> Ah! yes. We raise it from zero to... practically zero :) Seriously,
> this buys no protection against any serious/meaningful attempts at
> fraud, while making it incredibly onerous for the vast, vast majority
> of the population that can't guarantee a permanent web presence.
> > > That seems incredibly onerous.
> > It may be, but if I may repeat myself, embedding a reference to a
> > license itself is incredibly worthless.
> You're demanding a higher level of accountability with this than with
> any other licensing system I've ever seen. When I publish my code
> under GPL, I don't include a link in the source saying 'this is a link
> to a webpage 'proving' that the code is under GPL', I just do it.
> People publish books under CC all the time which just say 'the license
> is foo', even though PDFs, HTML, and text are all editable- just like
> the exif fields. I'm really not clear why EXIFs, as opposed to any
> other editable content format ever, deserve this special publisher
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-devel