How to Incorporate Pic Attribute for CC lic

[Turtle91]

That's crazy! Maybe take a screenshot of the image and license and store for your records?!?!?

Well, good luck to you!

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by Trane

From what I read at CC on the CC0 "Public Domain" license, there are two types of CC0 and therefore 2 different logos... one is a C with a slash line through it.... this is the "Public Domain mark" intended for works with "no known copyright" such as very old works, etc. Libraries or museums might use this mark when posting certain materials.

Just for reference, these are the two you are discussing:

* * *



Public Domain Mark (PDM): https://creativecommons.org/share-yo...ic-domain/pdm/

The Public Domain Mark is really just a helpful nice little icon to try to quickly show Public Domain status of a work... but it really means bupkis.

* * *



CC0: https://creativecommons.org/share-yo...ic-domain/cc0/

* * *

Side Note: Wow, I missed this article about a week ago on Techdirt, The Met Goes Public Domain With CC0, But It Shouldn't Have To. It covers some of the potential legal problems that can occur with those two marks.

Originally Posted by Trane

Imo it is not false information to include the author's license info. ? (Edit: Maybe you were thinking of the "Public Domain mark" and no, I would not use works with that mark as I don't know if the person who assigned it knows if the copyright has expired or not... plus the pictures I need are current pictures taken by the creators of the work, so the CC0 0-slash license applies.)

Ahhh... I understood incorrectly. I was thinking you were sticking it on images willy nilly... not those released specifically under the CC0.

As an example, if you grabbed the Sample Image I created above (no easily identifiable copyright on it), included it in your book, and smacked a CC0 on it. THAT is what I meant by "no information would be better than false information". My mistake.

Originally Posted by Trane

I might be willing to chance it with a smaller book and fewer pics, but not with this particular project. I am probably being overly cautious but I prefer that to being wrong later.

I would be interested to know what kind of project this is with so many images in it. Art book? Maps? Encyclopedia? Tutorials?

Originally Posted by Turtle91

However, I don't think you need to worry about 'revisiting' the work if they change the standard in the future. The images are released under a specific version of the license... I think the latest for CC SA is version 4. As long as you comply with the requirements of the version under which it was released the author cannot take back - or change - those licenses.

I agree.

Side Note: Sort of reminds me a little bit like if you were preemptively worrying about changes in the MLA or APA citations. MLA8 came out... *GASP*... now I must redo all my older MLA citations!!!

Originally Posted by Trane

Funny you mention this b/c I read a blog post the other day from a woman who was using a CC BY SA image on her website, and she was contacted by the copyright owner telling her she was in violation of the license. It turned out he changed the CC license type at some point, long after she had started using it. She made the point it's hard to prove the image was posted with a particular license when the owner can change the license type anytime they want (I don't know if that's true, just repeating what she said).

I would be interested in a link to that.

Side Note: Here is a similar article that was posted on Techdirt in 2013, Why Using Creative Commons Licensed Materials Is Not As Easy As It Looks:

She then goes on to detail what happened, and how it was finally resolved, but here I want to focus on a couple of points raised by this episode. First, on the issue of changing licenses. Perhaps because CC licenses give creators a flexibility missing in copyright itself, there is a belief in some quarters that things can be changed after a work has been published under one of them. Although the licence attached to the work on Flickr, say, might indeed be altered "with the click of a button", the Creative Commons FAQ says the old one cannot be taken away:

However, proving that something was originally available under a CC license when its owner claims that it is only available under restrictive conditions is more problematic. Interestingly, there are services that try to address this problem by keeping "dated, independently verified copies of license conditions associated with creative commons images," which suggests that this is an issue faced by quite a few people.

Originally Posted by Turtle91

That's crazy! Maybe take a screenshot of the image and license and store for your records?!?!?

Or see if Archive.org has a copy of the page at that date. Have no idea what sort of evidence would hold up in a court of law though.

[Trane]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

That's crazy! Maybe take a screenshot of the image and license and store for your records?!?!?

Well, good luck to you!

Thanks. I did considered screenshots but not worth the trouble as the normal way it would likely go is I would be contacted, I'd replace the image with another from another source, and move on.

Anyway.... I'm good. And I've appreciated everyone's feedback, so thanks to all!

[Trane]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

I would be interested to know what kind of project this is with so many images in it. Art book? Maps? Encyclopedia? Tutorials?

Yes, a tutorial that's a little encyclopedic.

Side Note: Here is a similar article that was posted on Techdirt in 2013, Why Using Creative Commons Licensed Materials Is Not As Easy As It Looks:

That is, in fact, exactly what I read, only I came across it on her original site rather than in Techdirt. (Glad you found it b/c I visited dozens of sites that day looking into CC and had no idea how to find it again.)

All very good info. Thanks for your help.

[Trane]

I guess I wasn't "as good" as I thought!

After everything said here, I decided to lighten up and make life easier on myself by using some CA BY SA images, since they are far easier to find than CC0 for many things I need.

So mentally taking this to the next step, I imagined a reference page for the images... now the question is, should each pic have an internal link to its CC attribution on this separate page? If so, I will have to create dozens of backlinks so the reader can return to where they were reading when they clicked on the picture. (This is a 73k-word book!) Or can I count on e-readers to have a back button and use it? That doesn't seem wise or user-friendly.

OTOH if the page is unlinked and more like an acknowledgements page, then I guess the attribution page will list the name I give each picture as the way to show its attrib info... author, author's given title, and CC BY SA hyperlinked to the license.

Which way were those of you who suggested this thinking to do it?

[DaleDe]

For copyright issues like this a simple statement at the beginning saying "unless otherwise stated this ..." for the most and I would simple put the rest in the caption for the image.

Dale

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by Trane

So mentally taking this to the next step, I imagined a reference page for the images... now the question is, should each pic have an internal link to its CC attribution on this separate page?

Do you mean a link from Image Caption <-> "CC Acknowledgments"?

Back to my example code, something like this?

Spoiler:

<div class="entirefigure" id="Figure1">
<div class="figureimage"><img alt="Figure 1: Sample Title" src="..\Images\Figure1.png"/></div>

<p class="figuretitle">Figure 1: Sample Title</p>

<p class="caption"><i>Sample Photo</i> by Sample Person.<br /><a href="../Text/CopyrightCCPage.xhtml#Figure1">Detailed Copyright Info</a>.</p>
</div>

[...]

<h2>CC Acknowledgments</h2>

<p id="Figure1"><a href="../Text/Chapter1.xhtml#Figure1">Figure 1</a> is released under the CC-BY-SA 4.0... blah blah blah</p>

I personally wouldn't do it this way, but I don't see why that couldn't work.

Personally, I would just do what was discussed previously. Include a little bit of info in the caption (CC0, CC BY-SA, [...]), and then include the fuller details on the separate "CC Acknowledgments" page.

No need to go cross-linking and re-back-linking or any of that crazy stuff. Imagine you wanted to create a physical copy of this book in the future, now you are just causing yourself extra headaches.

Side Note: And to stress again what JSWolf mentioned... linking a clickable image is probably not the best idea:

<a href="LinkToSomewhere"><img [...] /></a>

Readers wouldn't be able to pinch/zoom or pan/scan. In many readers you wouldn't even know there was a clickable link there. And there were many versions of ADE that wouldn't allow you to click those types of links (I have no clue if that was fixed in later versions).

Originally Posted by Trane

If so, I will have to create dozens of backlinks so the reader can return to where they were reading when they clicked on the picture. (This is a 73k-word book!) Or can I count on e-readers to have a back button and use it? That doesn't seem wise or user-friendly.

You may also want to consider a List of Illustrations. It's exactly like a TOC... just points directly to Images instead of Chapters. I think that would be more useful/helpful than a nest of links... and anyone with an older e-ink reader who REALLY wanted to get to a specific image could easily jump to the List of Illustrations directly to any image they need.

If you use meaningful HTML ids + good Numbering Schemes + consistent captions, it shouldn't take long at all to just Regex the entire thing. But this all depends on the specifics of your book + code.

Originally Posted by Trane

That is, in fact, exactly what I read, only I came across it on her original site rather than in Techdirt. (Glad you found it b/c I visited dozens of sites that day looking into CC and had no idea how to find it again.)

I guess that's what happens when you read about this stuff for years and years: "Hmmmm sounds similar to X, Y, Z." Crazy that I was able to pinpoint that from some random article I read 4 years ago.

[Trane]

@ Dale and Tex:

Many thanks. Great to know I don't need to supply backlinks and also good to know not to hyperlink images. Appreciate all the advice. I'll work out a plan now that fits the needs of the project.