Development of Creative Commons licenses

[John Hendrik Weitzmann <jhweitzmann AT mx.uni-saarland.de>]

My impression is: As far as this is a problem, it has been around for
quite some time.

3.0 says "provide ... (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the
URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work,
unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing
information for the Work;". That as well might - by the same folks that
you describe - be read as satisfied by a URI linking to a history page
of the Wikipedia.

my 2c
John


Am 31.10.2013 19:58, schrieb Cc:
> On 31/10/2013 00:51, Diane Peters wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> We've updated the html on the staging server to reflect a few changes,
>> none of which should be controversial:
>>
>>   * Updated the definition of Share to specifically reference
>>     importation. This is an exclusive right granted authors in many
>>     countries.  While we believe it ought already be construed as a
>>     permission granted under all six licenses, upon close inspection
>>     we've decided to make it unambiguous.
>>   * Language improvements (miscellaneous) to the introductory section on
>>     Using Creative Commons licenses.
>>   * In section 2, we separated and made independent the requirements
>>     that you retain a link to the license and retain a disclaimer of
>>     warranties, to avoid any argument that the requirements were
>>     interdependent.
>>
>> Updated html:
>>
>>     http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
>>     http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
>>     http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode
>>     http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode
>>     http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/legalcode
>>     http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode
>>
>>
>> With this, we will be formally closing the public comment period on 4.0
>> this Friday, November 1st, subject only to a final hard proof reading
>> here at HQ.  We will be sharing our launch plans for 4.0 then.
>>
> 
> Super, I think that in order to clarify the attribution bit, you may 
> have screwed up the whole thing. As I understand it section 3.2:
> 
>        You may satisfy the conditions in (1) above in any
>        reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and
>        context in which the Licensed Material is Shared.
>        For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the
>        conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a
>        resource that includes the required information.
> 
> means that you don't have to display all the information
> on the page where the work (image) is displayed but that
> a link to the information will suffice. Something like how on
> Wikipedia the images link to the copyright information, no
> problem there.
> 
> The problem arises as the idiots over on wikipedia now seem
> to think that they can delete the attribution and original
> title, and still be in compliance with the license given
> that the stuff will remain in the deletion history.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_147#Wikipedia_image_summaries_are_used_to_advertise_things
> 
> They are already cloning out watermarks, now they seem to think
> that attribution is satisfied by a chain of links.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>