[cc-licenses] Slashdot Thread On "Proving Creative Commons Licensing of a Work?"
zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue Jan 30 14:56:09 EST 2007
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 10:09 am, Bryan Rasmussen wrote:
> >> However the counterargument could also be: nope, never had this and all
> >> he had to do was to fake the screenshot.
> >> So how do you prove that this is an actual screenshot. I suppose a third
> >> party archive of creative commons licensed material would be sufficient
> >> authority to defend against arguments of faking the screenshots.
> >Perhaps the Internet Archive (or some other interested party) would do
> >something like the wayback machine for license verification. Perhaps even
> >take it a bit further.
> Nope because you can tell the Archive to remove you from the archive. Also
> because I've had one experience with the Archive that suggested to me that
> subsequent changing of the robots.txt had caused the IA to retroactively
> remove all its archived material on the page without having been explicitly
> told to do so (this is just based on the IA response to a search which did
> not say content removed by owner request but content removed due to
> robots.txt forbids us crawling this site)
I was talking of using current archive functionality to accomplish the task,
rather suggesting that perhaps the archive or someone else could do something
similar to what the archive currently does, but geared specifically to
verifying the existance of works under various Free and CC licenses.
> >Submit a link to the page showing the license, the link from there to the
> > license and the link from there to the "content" - the machine would pull
> >down the first link and verify that the second two links were in the
> > first. If they were, and the license was one that they dealt with, store
> > the page, the license, and the "content" and the date in a searchable
> > database.
> This however could be a functionality offered by IA.
Exactly what I was talking about, them or someone else. Perhaps even the
copyright office? (Would it require a change of law?) Or perhaps some large
> The information that
> particular material had been archived could be retained without necessarily
> retaining material (maybe).
I would think you would want to retain the material. A CC license is supposed
to last after all.
> Bryan Rasmussen
all the best,
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
More information about the cc-licenses