[cc-licenses] Changes to attribution: your attention wanted
zotz at 100jamz.com
Fri Oct 5 09:25:16 EDT 2012
On Thursday 04 October 2012 21:37:39 Dj Everette wrote:
> We must be specific and include the title otherwise too muddy to trace if
Surely all copyrighted works do not have titles so do you mean that we must
include the title where the work has a title?
> On Oct 1, 2012 7:44 AM, "jonathon" <jonathon.blake at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 09/29/2012 04:02 AM, Kat Walsh wrote:
> > > Removing title of work:
> > > The title of the work is no longer a requirement for proper
> > > attribution,
> > though it is encouraged that licensees preserve it if it is given.
> > Without the title, how is one to know which content by the specific
> > content creator is meant?
> > By way of example, suppose I do a derivative of Da Vinci's _The Last
> > Support_ as a 3D sculpture. Except instead of labelling it as such, I
> > simply say: "Derived from a study by Da Vinci".
> > > "You may satisfy the conditions [..] in any reasonable manner based on
> > > the medium, means, and context":
> > >
> > > This is a new aspect, expecially "context".
> > "Context" is going to be misunderstood by those that are not familiar
> > with the norms of the format they are using.
> > > flexibility and ease of compliance--proper attribution may be given by
> > providing a URI that contains all of the required attribution
> > information.
> > Is as much as the half life of the typical webpage is less than 18
> > months, by allowing a URI, rather than requiring it to be included in
> > the content, means that both the license terms and conditions will be
> > for all practical purposes, _All Rights Reserved_, within four years of
> > the release of the content. (Try proving that the license data on the
> > page that one accessed is identical to the license data that the
> > original creator used.)
> > It also makes due diligence much harder. As it is, there are half a
> > dozen sites, such as Scribus, that, as a matter of course, relicense
> > ARR content, and CC-BY-NC content to CC-BY, or PD.
> > > opinion on: "if You Share Adapted Material, You must indicate the
> > Licensed Material was used and describe the changes made." (This would
> > also be "reasonable to the medium, means, and context", as the other
> > attribution information would be.)
> > Whilst I appreciate the thought behind this requirement, adhering to it
> > is a nightmare, unless one uses something like subversion to distribute
> > the content.
> > > 1. What existing uses of the licenses would this break or make
> > extremely difficult, and how could it be improved?
> > ODF_Authors has a policy of identifying the general changes to
> > documentation they produce for OpenOffice.org, LibreOffice, NeoOfice,
> > and Apache Open Office that they create. Sometimes it is as short as
> > "updated for LO 3.6". Other times the description is much more detailed.
> > > 2. What kind of description should be required: should a verbal
> > description be required, or is the ability to see and compare the
> > changes enough?
> > Identify the general changes, but not require each and every specific
> > change to be documented within the content
> > > 3. Is this desirable to put in the license at all, or should it simply
> > be a best practice?
> > Maybe "Best Practice".
> > jonathon
> > _______________________________________________
> > List info and archives at
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
> > In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> > in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> > process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
More information about the cc-licenses