[Foundation-l] CC attribution with cut'n'pasted text - Tynt's Tracer Tool - Wikimedia-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

[Foundation-l] CC attribution with cut'n'pasted text - Tynt's Tracer Tool

[Foundation-l] Dispute resolution...

[Foundation-l] Britain or Ukraine?...

David Gerard

24 Jul 2009 24 Jul '09

7:36 p.m.

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16060 Basically, if you cut'n'paste text, it appends a CC credit line to the pasted text. Obviously the paster can remove it, but it does remind them this is licensed, not PD. Worth using for our stuff? A bit obnoxious? What do you think? - d.

Reply

Show replies by thread

Brian

24 Jul 24 Jul

7:43 p.m.

We can't use this particular tool because it includes a tracking bug. However, I like the idea of automatically providing CC-BY-SA attribution. I think we should hold a projects-wide vote on this, probably it would go over well. Another area to consider automatic attribution is within EXIF data so that images are automagically attributed. Some people might find that too easy though, and I'm not sure if it's within the CC-BY-SA license. Can the attribution be embedded within the image that is being embedded, or must it be in the content that embeds the media? It seems that EXIF embedded attribution for images ensures that the license gets propagated. On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16060 Basically, if you cut'n'paste text, it appends a CC credit line to the pasted text. Obviously the paster can remove it, but it does remind them this is licensed, not PD. Worth using for our stuff? A bit obnoxious? What do you think? - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply

Thomas Dalton

7:46 p.m.

2009/7/24 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16060 Basically, if you cut'n'paste text, it appends a CC credit line to the pasted text. Obviously the paster can remove it, but it does remind them this is licensed, not PD. Worth using for our stuff? A bit obnoxious? What do you think?

I vote for "a bit obnoxious". What if they are using it as fair use, or under the GFDL? Or copy it to something which is already CC? Or something which is entirely personal use so attribution is pointless? Or to some large document where inline attribution is inappropriate?

Reply

Brian

7:49 p.m.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

2009/7/24 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16060 Basically, if you cut'n'paste text, it appends a CC credit line to the pasted text. Obviously the paster can remove it, but it does remind them this is licensed, not PD. Worth using for our stuff? A bit obnoxious? What do you think?

I vote for "a bit obnoxious". What if they are using it as fair use, or under the GFDL? Or copy it to something which is already CC? Or something which is entirely personal use so attribution is pointless? Or to some large document where inline attribution is inappropriate?

In that case they can highlight the attribution and press backspace!

Reply

Mohamed Magdy

7:50 p.m.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

2009/7/24 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16060 Basically, if you cut'n'paste text, it appends a CC credit line to the pasted text. Obviously the paster can remove it, but it does remind them this is licensed, not PD. Worth using for our stuff? A bit obnoxious? What do you think?

I vote for "a bit obnoxious". What if they are using it as fair use, or under the GFDL? Or copy it to something which is already CC? Or something which is entirely personal use so attribution is pointless? Or to some large document where inline attribution is inappropriate? +1

Reply

Thomas Dalton

8 p.m.

2009/7/24 Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu>du>:

In that case they can highlight the attribution and press backspace!

Sure, but we shouldn't make it unnecessarily difficult for people to reuse our content and tidying up after our crude attempt to force attribution would qualify as unnecessarily difficult.

Reply

Brian

8:05 p.m.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

2009/7/24 Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu>du>:

In that case they can highlight the attribution and press backspace!

Sure, but we shouldn't make it unnecessarily difficult for people to reuse our content and tidying up after our crude attempt to force attribution would qualify as unnecessarily difficult.

I believe the alternate usability interpretation is more persuasive. That by law they are required to provide attribution and yet many users are totally unaware a) that they are required to provide attribution b) that a "free" encyclopedia cares about attribution in the first place and c) of the specifics of providing attribution. If we consider the burdens that I have just outlined as compared with the burden of highlighting and deleting some text its clear that automatically solving the 90% case for users is the correct thing to do.

Reply

Thomas Dalton

8:07 p.m.

2009/7/24 Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu>du>:

I believe the alternate usability interpretation is more persuasive. That by law they are required to provide attribution and yet many users are totally unaware a) that they are required to provide attribution b) that a "free" encyclopedia cares about attribution in the first place and c) of the specifics of providing attribution. If we consider the burdens that I have just outlined as compared with the burden of highlighting and deleting some text its clear that automatically solving the 90% case for users is the correct thing to do.

Maybe, but not by overiding the standard behaviour of copy and paste. A link in the sidebar to details of how to attribute this article would be better.

Reply

Gregory Maxwell

8:17 p.m.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2009/7/24 Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu>du>:

In that case they can highlight the attribution and press backspace!

Sure, but we shouldn't make it unnecessarily difficult for people to reuse our content and tidying up after our crude attempt to force attribution would qualify as unnecessarily difficult.

(Disclaimer: I haven't looked at this, it's probably absolutely hideous for all kinds of technical reasons) Eh, backspace isn't much of a difficulty. It could probably also be made to only trigger for text over some particular size. You're not likely to have a legal obligation for a couple of words, but if you copy several paragraphs you'll have both a legal and an ethical obligation to provide some form of attribution. I could see more practical issues with it complicating moving text around in articles. The applicable principle of usability is that the default behaviour should be what is the usually the right behaviour and you should be able to override it when it isn't. Attribute on copy fits that principle. A while back I put in a JS kludge on commons that made right clicking on thumbnails remind you once and only once (via a cookie) that you can save a higher resolution version from the image page. Erik eventually removed it based on the completely reasonable complaint that it left the same kind of bad taste as sites that totally disable image saving. So, how does this solution avoid 'feeling' like sites that do obnoxious things? I notice that my browser spins busy whenever I highlight. Is that okay?

Reply

Thomas Dalton

9:01 p.m.

2009/7/24 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>om>:

Eh, backspace isn't much of a difficulty. It could probably also be made to only trigger for text over some particular size. You're not likely to have a legal obligation for a couple of words, but if you copy several paragraphs you'll have both a legal and an ethical obligation to provide some form of attribution.

I don't think it is a good idea to have a computer making judgements on substantiality.

Reply

5389

days inactive

5389

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

9 comments

5 participants

tags (0)

participants (5)

Brian
David Gerard
Gregory Maxwell
Mohamed Magdy
Thomas Dalton