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

Dj Everette djeverette at gmail.com
Fri Oct 5 13:45:21 EDT 2012

The software world may seem to be a good reference standard. Howevrr in my
opinion the global media & entertainment industry standards regarding
copyright are fully industrialized and vetted and should be the guiding
principles. Seems like trying to develop the wheel  again.
On Oct 5, 2012 11:24 AM, "Luis Villa" <luis at tieguy.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 29/09/12 14:02, Kat Walsh wrote:
> >> Identifying changes to the work:
> >>
> >> This one does not appear in 4.0d2--it is a new suggestion in the
> >> current internal draft, and something we'd like to hear community
> >> 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.)
> >>
> >> This appears in several other free licenses, and helps distinguish the
> >> contributions of each authors or group of authors. For example, a
> >> translation might bear the note "translated into Spanish by X".
> >> However, we also see it potentially presents problems in complying.
> >>
> >> There are a few specific questions we'd really like to hear answers to:
> >>
> >> 1. What existing uses of the licenses would this break or make
> >> extremely difficult, and how could it be improved?
> >> 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?
> >
> > I don't see this as being practical. If I'm working on remixing an
> > artistic work am I expected to record every change I make? eg. changed
> > colour levels, applied Gaussian blur, etc.
> >
> > That would become impractical, let along being ambiguous in the actual
> > requirement ie. which level of detail describing changes is enough for
> > compliance: "edited the original image", "applied Gaussian blur",
> > "applied Gaussian blur with settings of omega=0.246?
> I'd add that in practice these requirements are completely ignored in
> the wild in the software world, even when they are very mild. e.g.,
> Apache and GPL only require notice that the material has been changed,
> rather than any information about the nature of the change, and yet
> that is only rarely complied with.
> Luis
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121005/4547bea4/attachment.html 

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list