Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 20 January 2009 20:02:42 geni wrote:
> 2009/1/21 Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no>:
> > I think the core of your argument (that CC-BY-SA by removal
> > of byline is converted to CC-SA) is wrong.  A CC-SA license
> > does not exist.
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/
>
> > While the photo in this particular instance
> > appear without a byline, this  does not in any way remove the
> > obligation, imposed by the license, that proper credit must
> > be given to the author for all other instances of use.
> >
> > What this means is that Eve must credit the author if she
> > wants to legally use a photo under a CC-BY-SA  license.
> >
> > What the license clearly tells her is: 1) that this work is
> > not in the public domain; 2) that the author has used a license
> > where he or she makes credit a condition for use.
> >
> > Where Eve found it and whether or not it appeared with a
> > byline in that particular place does not matter.  The
> > license is clear, and whatever scheme Eva as engineered to
> > get the byline removed in one particular instance does not
> > change the license itself.
>
> The problem with that line of argument is that it becomes effectively
> possible to revoke the license by demanding the removal of credit from
> anything that uses your image. Since no one then knows how to credit
> you they can't use the image.

Does the removal of credit language prevent someone from telling the credit 
info "out of band"?

That is, credit does not show up where other credits for the work do, but if 
someone asks, is one forbidden to tell say on the phone or by email where the 
work is not in play?

all the best,

drew