File talk:Holden0006 328.jpg: Difference between revisions
imported>Stephen Ewen (Best Practices for Marking Content with CC Licensing) |
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 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 follow the work. It is stating that the copyright holder of the work has the right to state who or what entity the image should be credited to (e.g., themselves under their real name or a pseudonym, or their website or organization), its 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) | 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 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 follow the work. It is stating that the copyright holder of the work has the right to state who or what entity the image should be credited to (e.g., themselves under their real name or a pseudonym, or their website or organization), and that its 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 17:49, 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 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 follow the work. It is stating that the copyright holder of the work has the right to state who or what entity the image should be credited to (e.g., themselves under their real name or a pseudonym, or their website or organization), and that its 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)
