Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-devel - Re: [cc-devel] Exif metadata

cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rob Litzke" <robert.litzke AT gmail.com>
  • To: "Luis Villa" <luis.villa AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org, discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work <cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-devel] Exif metadata
  • Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:59:11 -0400

Mike -

I see what you're saying - linking to, say a flickr or archive.org page with the original image. This is a great idea, but it doesn't really give any idea what the licensing is, especially if one of those sites disappears. (Also, if someone wanted to claim false credit for an image, all they need to do is upload it to flickr.com and claim that way. It still doesn't seem to prove who created the image) These are flaws with linking to, say,

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/

which is what I was proposing. I think that the copyright field at least needs to say what the license is - "Creative Commons 2.5 Attribution" or something like that. Otherwise, without access to the site there is no way for people to tell what what the license actually is. Not that "Creative Commons 2.5 Attribution" is significantly more descriptive, but I think it's a step up. Thus it might be a better idea to have this in the copyright tag (using your example):

" http://www.flickr.com/photos/miak/216141670/ (Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution-ShareAlike)"

But the problem with this seems, to me, that certain programs might not be able to determine the original location. Using ccPublisher as an example, if you upload to flickr or archive.org, you can include the link. But if you choose local hosting, or simply want to put an Exif license in the image, you might be in trouble. Other programs could have an even more difficult time. So you'd have to leave that out and end up with a non-standard Creative Commons tag.

I'm looking forward to your thoughts on this - I don't think there's a definite solution, or a solution any better than embedding RDF data in an ebook or however else you might show the license for a creative commons document.

Yours,

Robert Litzke

(Apologies if you recieve this twice)

On 8/18/06, Luis Villa <luis.villa AT gmail.com > wrote:
On 8/18/06, Mike Linksvayer < ml AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
> A web notice gives one the level of assurance that one normally gets
> from the web ... as opposed to zero.

Ah! yes. We raise it from zero to... practically zero :) Seriously,
this buys no protection against any serious/meaningful attempts at
fraud, while making it incredibly onerous for the vast, vast majority
of the population that can't guarantee a permanent web presence.

> > That seems incredibly onerous.
>
> It may be, but if I may repeat myself, embedding a reference to a
> license itself is incredibly worthless.

You're demanding a higher level of accountability with this than with
any other licensing system I've ever seen. When I publish my code
under GPL, I don't include a link in the source saying 'this is a link
to a webpage 'proving' that the code is under GPL', I just do it.
People publish books under CC all the time which just say 'the license
is foo', even though PDFs, HTML, and text are all editable- just like
the exif fields. I'm really not clear why EXIFs, as opposed to any
other editable content format ever, deserve this special publisher
burden.

Luis




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page