|
I’m an idiot. Someone please explain “Attribution” to me [Creative Commons]December 19th, 2007 at 12:58 pmSource:Valleywag
Noncommercial: This one’s easy. No making money off the work. Don’t even try. No Derivatives: Use the work as is only. No remixes, mashups, or 100-word-versions. Sharealike: Um, I smell GPL here. This means if I use the work in another work, I have to license my work the exact same way. Which probably means forget it, but understood. Attribution: The problem word. penguin07 summarized the confusing wording in the license for the above comic: The comic itself is on a website that says, ‘Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.” So, how am I supposed to attribute the work in the manner specified by the author, if the author doesn’t specify a manner? Does that just mean I link to the same CC license page, and everyone’s supposed to know that? It’s the best guess, but if I’m wrong I could expose Gawker Media to exciting courtroom opportunities. I could email the author to ask, but one of the comic’s main points is that CC saves everyone from having to do exactly that. I went to the Creative Commons website and found this description: Attribution. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work — and derivative works based upon it — but only if they give credit the way you request. See the problem? There’s no default value for the way you request for works where the author doesn’t actually request a way. You CC people need to come up with a default “manner of attribution” and then, just as important, spell it out in the default license. Do that and I’ll happily promote outstanding CC works on this 100,000-pageviews-a-day site without wincing. Except those also marked “Noncommercial,” “No Derivatives” or “Sharealike.” Simple!
|
I don’t
Creative Commons is supposed to be easy. As commenter 























