discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

Xavier Caballe Grebol wrote:
> > The only current workaround is to add a second, redundant statement 
> > concerning the current document.
>
> but... is this correct? Then it would seem that the licensed work is the 
> web page, and not the MP3, wouldn't it?

It isn't strictly correct, but the convention is already used for other 
media.  For example, many CC-licensed photologs do not have a statement 
for each licensed image, rather for the current document, preferably 
also with a data type statement.  So you have

<Work rdf:about="">
   <dc:type rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage"; />
   <license 
rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/"; />
</Work>

Obviously the current document isn't an image, it is an HTML page.  So 
the search engine takes this as meaning that CC-licensed images may be 
found at the URL of the current document.  In your case, replace 
'StillImage' with 'Sound'.

This convention is far from ideal, however I suspect it would be very 
hard to get licensors to publish license statements for each licensed 
object.  Mostly because they'd have to think about it, and probably even 
write some code.  As it is, one gets metadata for the current document 
when selecting a license, no awareness required.  That all probably 
smells bad, but consider that the aim of CC metadata is to encourage 
finding and [re]use of licensed works, not to lock down specific works a 
la DRM.

--
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21