Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Draft 4 discussion period: license drafts and open issues

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Marketply <contact AT>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Draft 4 discussion period: license drafts and open issues
  • Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 03:56:12 -0400 (EDT)

We can turn the multiple attributes problem into an opportunity to make a central depository specifically for attribution.
Creative Commons can host it with other websites mirroring as backup.
It'd work by requiring licensees to assign attribution directly onto the Creative Commons database via a link. Then for remixes, each 'downstream' licensee only has to attribute the most recent licensor via that link and the CC database would organize every contributor old and new.
Also, let's have the database contain the original link to each licensed work. There are insight advantages in tracking how a remixable work has evolved and everyone who participated.
Costs would be covered in the same fashion as Wikipedia: a yearly donation request at top of the database web page. And some people donate out of support while others do because they have a stake in attribution.
Marino Hernandez
(just a founder of Marketply)

> On September 17, 2013 at 7:56 PM Cc <cc AT> wrote:
> On 17/09/2013 23:50, drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 September 2013 17:57:32 Sarah Pearson wrote:
> >> Is there a reason you think indicating a URI via terms of service is
> >> particularly problematic? Why is it worse than indicating a URI in a
> >> license notice, for example?
> > One a quick browse, I think his point is that a hosting provider could require
> > (via their terms of service) you to use a URI of their choosing on your work
> > rather than one of your choosing. I think it goes along with the point that
> > terms of service are generally take it or leave it deals and not the subject
> > of negotiations.
> >
> Surely it is up to the content creator whether she uses one particular
> web host or another? Additionally, there is nothing to prevent a creator
> placing the same content on multiple hosting sites. For example if I
> place content on flickr I don't think that Mr Maxwell can come along and
> ignore the URI requirement because he has a beef with Yahoo!, or indeed
> that I should be able to ignore the URI of content on Picassa becuase I
> have a problem with Google. If the URI is a problem we are both free to
> NOT use the relevant hosted content.

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page