Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: copyright - attribution

Expand Messages
  • Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
    ... The stuff marked (ii) only goes to the first semi-colon. It s a small part that covers sponsors and the like. When a college professor writes a paper he
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Den 01.02.2007 kl. 09:54 skrev Steve Watkins <steve@...>:

      > Thanks for the clarification. I find the wording of that to be a bit
      > odd though - I read it as saying that the stuff labelled (ii) is only
      > applicable if you mention the 3rd parties to be attributed in your
      > copyright notice?

      The stuff marked (ii) only goes to the first semi-colon. It's a small part
      that covers sponsors and the like. When a college professor writes a paper
      he could require sharers to mention his university as a part of the
      attribution. No big deal.

      > And that the requirement to include a URL is only
      > valid if that URI contains the license info for the work?

      Yes, of course. Makes sense to me. Otherwise you have a dead-end.

      --
      Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
      <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
    • Steve Watkins
      Thanks, I got it totally wrong, cheers for the clarification. Maybe I will now realise that my fixation with trying to understand all the wording and small
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks, I got it totally wrong, cheers for the clarification.

        Maybe I will now realise that my fixation with trying to understand
        all the wording and small detail of these licenses is not very useful
        compared to Jay and otehrs suggestions to do something.

        If I manage to sort my dysfunctional self out and do some creative
        commons animations, do people want them in high res or 320x240?

        Is there a need for any resources that would be a toolkit for creating
        your own animations? Like are all the creative commons smbols already
        available in formats that could be used as masks in video editing
        software and suchlike?

        Is there a good guideline for how many seconds people want cc
        animations to be?

        Are people going to try to do animations for most different license
        types, or just the most commons few?

        Am I right to think we do need to put the creative commons version
        number in the animation for it to be valid?

        Has anybody outside the US condiered the international angle? There
        seem to be regionalised versions of creative commons licenses for
        quite a few countries now, Ive no idea how much this matters, and I
        imagine most US-based hosting services will understandably not be
        catering for every permutation in a hurry?

        There I go, complicating things again with questions, oops

        Steve Elbows
        --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen"
        <solitude@...> wrote:
        >
        > Den 01.02.2007 kl. 09:54 skrev Steve Watkins <steve@...>:
        >
        > > Thanks for the clarification. I find the wording of that to be a bit
        > > odd though - I read it as saying that the stuff labelled (ii) is only
        > > applicable if you mention the 3rd parties to be attributed in your
        > > copyright notice?
        >
        > The stuff marked (ii) only goes to the first semi-colon. It's a
        small part
        > that covers sponsors and the like. When a college professor writes a
        paper
        > he could require sharers to mention his university as a part of the
        > attribution. No big deal.
        >
        > > And that the requirement to include a URL is only
        > > valid if that URI contains the license info for the work?
        >
        > Yes, of course. Makes sense to me. Otherwise you have a dead-end.
        >
        > --
        > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
        > <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
        >
      • Jay dedman
        ... so is the human readable license not true? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by
        Message 3 of 7 , Feb 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          > No, Jay. The human-readable version is watered down to the point where it
          > doesn't make any sense. The exact wording is in the actual license at
          > <URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode > section 4.b:

          so is the human readable license not true?

          http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
          "Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by
          the author or licensor. "

          Jay

          --
          Here I am....
          http://jaydedman.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.