On 13/03/07, Kake L Pugh kake@earth.li wrote:
What I was thinking was having four fields:
- URL of the (small) image that appears on the OpenGuides page.
- URL of where that image's canonical home is (if it's a photo by me, this could be a bigger version of the photo, hosted in my webspace; if it's a photo from Flickr, it would need to be the photo's Flickr page).
- Name of the person who owns the copyright.
- Link to the licence the photo is distributed under.
In the Flickr case, fields 2 and 4 would contain the same thing - or should field 4 link directly to the Creative Commons site?
I'd say field 4 should link directly to the CC "human-readable" version of the license.
What if the copyright owner decides to change the terms? Should we be linking to the licence the photo was under when we found it, or the licence it's under at the moment someone views the page?
If they've used a CC license, it's too late: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#What_if_I_change_my_mind.3F
"Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license."
So once they've offered a work under that license, you have the right to use it forever under the terms of that license. If the license field has been filled correctly, it will never need to be changed.
I'm thinking that four fields is a lot, and so maybe we should do some auto-hidey javascript stuff so the photo fields only show up when someone clicks a button to say they want to add photo data (obviously if photo data already exists for a page it should always show up, I'm talking about when you view the edit form for a page doesn't already have any).
Sounds reasonable. It would perhaps to be nice to have a menu of common license options or a field for "other", both selectable by single-option radio button.