Guys, this is a great article. I wonder if we could do attribution as follows:
"Photo by Squeaky Marmot on Flickr. Originally seen on Miss604.com"
And then hyperlink to Squeaky Marmot's original Flickr photo and then Rebecca's article that links to this. I know that this requires a lot of work, but you guys are really touching on something key and relevant. Good stuff.
Ddonat
· 1 year ago
Thanks Raul,
I think that language is very clear to readers.
Blaise Alleyne
· 1 year ago
I think that makes a lot of sense. I don't have a particularly methodology for attributed my sources (yet), but my general approach is to link generously, to try and link back to anyone who helped me find the information I'm sharing.
In terms of the specific terminology though, I usually just use "via" if I'm referencing a middle-man... e.g. "Photo by Squeaky Marmot (via www.miss604.com)"
He is bang on with the statement: "Nowadays, copying isn't always the core part of remunerative creative business. But accurate accreditation very much is."
This distinction is critical to understanding the copyright issues at hand.
Karen Murphy
· 1 year ago
At Strollerderby at Babble.com the policy was to credit the original source and then the secondary source. i.e.Photo Squeaky Marmot via Miss604. Linking to both.
Ddonat
· 1 year ago
Hi Karen,
Nice. You and Raul have the same approach, I think it is sound. It reads well and is clear to the reader how the content was sourced.
He points out that "non-commercial users don’t care about copyright. They know zero about it." He has a point there and a number of my friends have said similar to me in the past.
He states "[I]n practice the issue of attribution only has a real-world impact for derived works created by commercial entities. Source works which are licensed to allow both derivative works and commercial use are the ones we’re talking about."
I agree this is the critical case. He also proposes a stack framework as mark-up for providing an attribution trail. Give it a read.
I have to check the Trackback settings for the site.
...Maybe because my background in software is in development tools and call me Abraham Maslow but this problems looks very much like a nail to me.
Attribution, on both ends, has to be brain dead simple. We’ve simplified it as much as we could at ccM (given my limited imagination for such things) with a search function during the content submission process. (In fact, the ‘Submit’ button is inactive until the artist posting the remix has attributed somebody ;))...
xiongyn
· 13 hours ago
Our discounted Louis Vuitton replica outletlouis vuitton replica store provides you the latest news about LV handbags, wallets, designer replica bagspurses and shoes. In our Louis Vuitton sale online shop, various designer handbagsstyles such as hand bag, city bag, luggage, clutches of Louis Vuitton products with the most exquisite desrreplica louis vuittone waiting for your coming and choice. The favorable quality and cheap price advantage will cheap designer handbagsbring you much joy and pleasure. I recieved a bracelet that was as advertised and fairly priced. The braceletfake louis vuitton was in perfect condition and nicely packaged.
All Comments
Guys, this is a great article. I wonder if we could do attribution as follows:
"Photo by Squeaky Marmot on Flickr. Originally seen on Miss604.com"
And then hyperlink to Squeaky Marmot's original Flickr photo and then Rebecca's article that links to this. I know that this requires a lot of work, but you guys are really touching on something key and relevant. Good stuff.
I think that language is very clear to readers.
In terms of the specific terminology though, I usually just use "via" if I'm referencing a middle-man... e.g. "Photo by Squeaky Marmot (via www.miss604.com)"
Also, this reminds me of a Techdirt post on the importance of attribution.
He is bang on with the statement:
"Nowadays, copying isn't always the core part of remunerative creative business. But accurate accreditation very much is."
This distinction is critical to understanding the copyright issues at hand.
Nice. You and Raul have the same approach, I think it is sound. It reads well and is clear to the reader how the content was sourced.
He points out that "non-commercial users don’t care about copyright. They know zero about it." He has a point there and a number of my friends have said similar to me in the past.
He states "[I]n practice the issue of attribution only has a real-world impact for derived works created by commercial entities. Source works which are licensed to allow both derivative works and commercial use are the ones we’re talking about."
I agree this is the critical case. He also proposes a stack framework as mark-up for providing an attribution trail. Give it a read.
I have to check the Trackback settings for the site.