Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Tuesday 30 January 2007 08:39 am, Bryan  Rasmussen wrote:
> That would be up to a court to decide I suppose.
>
> If you had such a screenshot and presented it to the court the argument
> would no doubt be:
>
> I made this screenshot and then got the work.
>
> however the counterargument could be you got the work later, got in trouble
> went ahead and got a screenshot somehow from someone else who had a
> license. This would then become an argument about the perpetuity of the
> license.
>
> However the counterargument could also be: nope, never had this and all he
> had to do was to fake the screenshot.
>
> So how do you prove that this is an actual screenshot. I suppose a third
> party archive of creative commons licensed material would be sufficient
> authority to defend against arguments of faking the screenshots.

Perhaps the Internet Archive (or some other interested party) would do 
something like the wayback machine for license verification. Perhaps even 
take it a bit further.

Submit a link to the page showing the license, the link from there to the 
license and the link from there to the "content" - the machine would pull 
down the first link and verify that the second two links were in the first. 
If they were, and the license was one that they dealt with, store the page, 
the license, and the "content" and the date in a searchable database.

Tweak as needed.
>
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen

all the best,

drew
>
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org]På vegne af Mathias Klang
> Sendt: 29. januar 2007 13:47
> Til: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
> Emne: Re: [cc-licenses] Slashdot Thread On "Proving Creative Commons
> Licensing of a Work?"
>
>
> This is a difficult question to answer generally (and definitively). In
> the question of proof all information you can provide to the court to
> prove your argument is good.
>
> The question you pose is really one of: how much is enough. In my
> opinion there can be no real answer.
>
> Mathias
>
> rob AT robmyers.org wrote:
> > An interesting thread at Slashdot:
> >
> > http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/07/01/27/1737236.shtml
> >
> > "I recently posted a few Creative Commons licensed photographs from
> > Flickr
>
> on
>
> > one of my websites. I later noticed that one of the photographers had
> > retroactively switched all of his photos from the Creative Commons
> > license
>
> to
>
> > an 'All Right Reserved' notice. When I saw this I went ahead and removed
>
> his
>
> > photo (even though I understand that CC licenses are perpetual unless
> > violated), but this begs the question: How does one prove one obtained a
>
> work
>
> > under a Creative Commons license, should there ever be a dispute between
> > a creator and the licensee? Is a simple screenshot of the webpage where
> > it
>
> was
>
> > offered proof enough? Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated."
> >
> > - Rob.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954