Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] 'Attribution' condition human-readable summary misleading

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jonathon <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] 'Attribution' condition human-readable summary misleading
  • Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 23:42:01 +0100

Brianna wrote:

> I have noticed that the human-readable summary of the 'Attribution'
> condition has lead a few people to a belief about their 'right' to

The "Human Readable" summery of all of the licenses is misleading.
Maybe one of these days they will be corrected.

> This is how one user interpreted his 'right' to 'specify the manner' of
> attribution:

That user hasn't a clue as to either the rights he retained, or gave away.

I don't know the ground rules for Wikimedia, but his entire corpus
would be removed from Wikipedia, for copyright/license infringement
reasons. [Either the material is under CC-BY, or it is not. His
stipulations are incompatible with CC-BY.]

> His line of thinking is not totally unreasonable if you only read the human
> summary.

The Human Readable summary doesn't count. What matters is the
wording of the legal code. [Something I'll wager that the majority
of people have not read. I suspect that even fewer of them
comprehend how it affects their art.]

> IMO a 'reasonable manner' of attribution for a digital work presented
> in a digital form is caption/alt-text with a link and text stating the

Since it is a digital image, the most reasonable manner of attribution
is to include it in the metadata of the image. For printing of the
image, put it in a line.

The one thing that the user does do correctly, is define the words for
the attribution: "Photograph by name_of_photographer".

> Just wondering if anyone else had flagged this wording as a potential cause
> of confusion.

It gets brought up periodically. The wording might get changed for
newer licenses. [I don't pay attention to what the human readable
summary says.]

> "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work": does this mean if
> someone puts a watermark on their image "(C) Someone 2007
> SomeLicense", we are obliged to keep it? I hope not...

Yes you are. One does not give up copyright by using a Creative
Commons license. Furthermore, if the image does contain a watermark
"(C) somebody 2007", the attribution requirements for the image have
been met. That just leaves the user of the image with the
responsibility of adding the URL.

xan

jonathon




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page