What is the legal distinction you're drawing
here? (I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating
your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your
legal rights.)
Actually, I'm purporting them to be violations of my moral rights.
How are you distinguishing between "moral rights" and "legal rights"?
A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
A moral right is a kind of legal right, in those
jurisdictions that
recognize moral rights.
Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the right
to attribution.
But the
distinction is pretty obvious - in one case the
page is a click
away, in the
other case it at least requires finding internet access and typing
in a url,
and quite possibly requires jumping through even more hoops than that.
So if you were unhappy that your attribution was at the back of a
book, because a reader has to turn to the end and read through a lot
of small print in order to find your name, that would give you a basis
for objecting to that form of attribution?
Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure. Just like a film
director has a basis to demand "the last solo credit card before the first
scene of the picture".
But an online
attribution on a separate page (or server) when the
article is offline is *not*
"direct"? What is the legal (or "rights") basis for this
distinction?
Common sense?
So you're saying your legal rights are defined by "common sense"?
To some extent, sure. Not entirely by common sense, of course, but legal
rights can't be understood without employing common sense.
Are you sure that's the direction in which you
want to take your argument?
I'm sure you'll take my comment out of context in any case.