[cc-licenses] Changes to attribution: your attention wanted

Dj Everette djeverette at gmail.com
Fri Oct 5 13:40:54 EDT 2012


Yes.
On Oct 5, 2012 10:57 AM, "drew Roberts" <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:

> 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
> > needed.
>
> Surely all copyrighted works do not have titles so do you mean that we must
> include the title where the work has a title?
>
> drew
> >
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20121005/0e5b9cdf/attachment.html 


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list