File talk:Holden0006 328.jpg: Difference between revisions
imported>Stephen Ewen mNo edit summary |
imported>Stephen Ewen mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
See [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking Best Practices for Marking Content with CC Licensing]. Contrary to that, James's addition here is idiosyncratic. It is also based upon a peculiar interpretation (and misunderstanding) of 4(c) of the license, the summary of which is stated as "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." The 4(c) section is not talking about the right of someone to largely create their own version of a CC license or add peculiar language ''and call that'' "the copyright notice", which must then follow the work. It is stating that: 1) the copyright holder of the work has the right to state to whom or to what entity the image should be credited (e.g., themselves under their real name or a pseudonym, or their website or organization), and; 2) that manner of crediting plus | See [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking Best Practices for Marking Content with CC Licensing]. Contrary to that, James's addition here is idiosyncratic. It is also based upon a peculiar interpretation (and misunderstanding) of 4(c) of the license, the summary of which is stated as "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." The 4(c) section is not talking about the right of someone to largely create their own version of a CC license or add peculiar language ''and call that'' "the copyright notice", which must then follow the work. It is stating that: 1) the copyright holder of the work has the right to state to whom or to what entity the image should be credited (e.g., themselves under their real name or a pseudonym, or their website or organization), and; 2) that the specified manner of crediting, plus the source (URI), plus the CC terms (in this case http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/), cannot be removed upon re-uses of the work. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 18:47, 6 October 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 23:52, 6 October 2007
See Best Practices for Marking Content with CC Licensing. Contrary to that, James's addition here is idiosyncratic. It is also based upon a peculiar interpretation (and misunderstanding) of 4(c) of the license, the summary of which is stated as "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." The 4(c) section is not talking about the right of someone to largely create their own version of a CC license or add peculiar language and call that "the copyright notice", which must then follow the work. It is stating that: 1) the copyright holder of the work has the right to state to whom or to what entity the image should be credited (e.g., themselves under their real name or a pseudonym, or their website or organization), and; 2) that the specified manner of crediting, plus the source (URI), plus the CC terms (in this case http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/), cannot be removed upon re-uses of the work. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 18:47, 6 October 2007 (CDT)
