13 Mar
2007
13 Mar
'07
1:51 a.m.
Bob has a patch in Trac for adding copyright notices and links to licences
for node images:
http://dev.openguides.org/ticket/179
You can see it in action here:
http://london.randomness.org.uk/wiki.cgi?Angel,_SE16_4NB
I'm going to be adding this to svn in some form, but it's been pointed out
on Flickr that the copyright symbol may not be the best one to use for
Creative Commons licensed images:
http://flickr.com/photos/skuds/91099796/#comment72157594585111841
What do people think?
Kake
13 Mar
13 Mar
2:25 a.m.
This one time, at band camp, Kake L Pugh wrote:
I'm going to be adding this to svn in some form,
but it's been pointed out
on Flickr that the copyright symbol may not be the best one to use for
Creative Commons licensed images:
CC's backwards copyright symbol notwithstanding, CC still gets its legal
force through copyright. Images licensed under a CC licence are still
copyrighted. The copyright symbol doesn't actually impart much though.
All works are, by default, copyrighted unless explicitely released to
the public domain.
I would have thought a link to the licence would be the way to go...
--
Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net>
www.rumble.net
"If we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty,
we encourage it, and involve others in our doom."
- Samuel Adams
10:57 a.m.
On Tue 13 Mar 2007, Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net> wrote:
The copyright symbol doesn't actually impart much
though. All works
are, by default, copyrighted unless explicitely released to the
public domain.
Well, what it imparts in this case is "this is the person who owns the
copyright". It's a shorthand for that, as I understand it.
I would have thought a link to the licence would be
the way to go...
At the moment, the image itself links to a webpage describing the licence.
Maybe it should instead have something like "(c) Kake - licence", with
"licence" linking to the webpage describing the licence?
Kake
11:06 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:57:51AM +0000, Kake L Pugh wrote:
Maybe it should instead have something like "(c)
Kake - licence", with
"licence" linking to the webpage describing the licence?
Or just the name being a link to the licence. I agree that one of these
options would be better than the image being a link to the licence.
Dominic.
--
Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)
11:13 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:06:33AM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:57:51AM +0000, Kake L Pugh
wrote:
In fact, I think that the flickr terms and conditions on linking to
their images means that the image MUST be a link to that photo on
flickr.
I haven't missed a bit of this conversation have I?
David
--
About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt
ax. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead.
-- Edsger Dijkstra
Maybe it should instead have something like
"(c) Kake - licence", with
"licence" linking to the webpage describing the licence?
Or just the name being a link to the licence. I agree that one of these
options would be better than the image being a link to the licence.
11:37 a.m.
On Tue 13 Mar 2007, David Sheldon <dave(a)earth.li> wrote:
In fact, I think that the flickr terms and conditions
on linking to
their images means that the image MUST be a link to that photo on
flickr.
Well, this shouldn't be Flickr-specific. 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? 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?
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).
Kake
11:43 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:37:35AM +0000, Kake L Pugh wrote:
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?
When we found it. Otherwise we could have the rug pulled from
underneath our feet.
s
1:11 p.m.
On 13/03/07, Kake L Pugh <kake(a)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.
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
3:53 p.m.
On 13/03/07, Kake L Pugh <kake(a)earth.li> wrote:
> 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?
On Tue 13 Mar 2007, Earle Martin <openguides(a)downlode.org> wrote:
If they've used a CC license, it's too late:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#What_if_I_change_my_mind.3F
Cool, thanks. That simplifies that case. (And actually, this isn't
really a dev issue, it's a guide admin issue, so I shall stop worrying
about it with my coder hat on.)
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.
This would be for field 4, the URL of the licence?
Where/how should we specify these common licence options?
Kake
18 Mar
18 Mar
6:57 p.m.
On Tue 13 Mar 2007, Earle Martin
<openguides(a)downlode.org> wrote:
> 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.
On 13/03/07, Kake L Pugh <kake(a)earth.li> wrote:
This would be for field 4, the URL of the licence?
Where/how should we
specify these common licence options?
Yes, it would. I was thinking of a dropdown menu, something like:
( ) Attribution
( ) Attribution-NoDerivs
( ) Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
( ) Attribution-NonCommercial
( ) Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
(*) Attribution-ShareAlike
( ) Other Compatible Licence
This would be displayed under the "Node Image Copyright" field.
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
6:58 p.m.
On 18/03/07, Earle Martin <openguides(a)downlode.org> wrote:
Yes, it would. I was thinking of a dropdown menu...
...er, ignore the ASCII art there, it was from an earlier revision of
that mail from when I was thinking about radio buttons.
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
13 Mar
13 Mar
1:03 p.m.
On 13/03/07, David Sheldon <dave(a)earth.li> wrote:
In fact, I think that the flickr terms and conditions
on linking to
their images means that the image MUST be a link to that photo on
flickr.
According to their TOS, "pages on other websites which display images
hosted on flickr.com must provide a link back to Flickr from each
photo to its photo page on Flickr." Of course, if you save the thing
locally instead, this ceases to be an issue (providing you comply with
the license terms, of course).
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
5924
days inactive
5929
days old
openguides-dev@lists.openguides.org
11 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
David Sheldon -
Dominic Hargreaves -
Earle Martin -
Kake L Pugh -
Rev Simon Rumble -
Stephen Gower