[cc-community] Q: Image wrapper with auto-display of CC-Attributions?

Barry Hunter barry at barryhunter.co.uk
Mon Dec 2 07:53:53 EST 2013


>
> So, this converges with Gisle Hannemyr's question:
> is it actually enough to quote the real (or in some cases
> nick) name of the author,

Thats a given, the name as supplied by the user must be included.

>  i.o.w. I don't have to quote
> any URL of the source or of Creative Commons? Is cc-by-sa
> such a common place?

The idea there its easily findable,
https://www.google.com/search?q=cc-by-sa%2F2.0

but no its not strictly right. The legal code does specify "copy of,
or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License"

However it could be argued that its a URI reference, - being a
(almost) part of the full licence URI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_resource_identifier#URI_reference

The main issue is
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
is very long, so not ideal for 'stamping'.

Sadly
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2011-January/005816.html
this never went anywhere :(
I made geograph.org/cc-by-sa/2.0 but sure if that acceptable.

RewriteRule ^cc-(.*) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/$1 [L,R=permanent]


... so I don't know what the proper answer is :(


>
> Additionally, the creative commons community
> should be interested in hosting a meta search engine
> on cc-licensed pictures that can extract these informations
> by itself, shouldn't we?

As noted there are a number of search engines that can identify CC
licenced work. But dont AFAIK will automatically extract and provide
the licencing/attribution details - probably because its quite
problematic in the big wide web (no consistent attribution system).


More information about the cc-community mailing list