W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > August 2010

Re: [LC Comment ONT] copyright/policy suggestions

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:41:07 -0700
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Marco Casassa Mont <marco_casassa-mont@hp.com>
Message-Id: <44508BA8-2750-4572-A084-F92CD8EE051B@apple.com>
To: Renato Iannella <renato@iannella.it>
well, the specificity is a virtue, I think, in that it matches what many metadata systems actually do (they carry, minimally, a copyright notice).

If I ask "is this work copyrighted and if so, by who?", I really don't want the answer "well, I have a general statement that says something about your or other people's rights I can give you".

So, is there a *problem* with having a very specific "a copyright notice goes here" attribute?  I don't see a problem with provision for more general rights expressions (not that I have ever seen them used), but matching what we find on the inside fly-leaf of every book seems a reasonable thing to do, doesn't it?

On Aug 12, 2010, at 22:45 , Renato Iannella wrote:

> On 13 Aug 2010, at 03:01, David Singer wrote:
>> could we not achieve the same effect by defining that the ma:copyright term matches this use:
>>> ma:policy[0].statement = "Copyright PLING Inc 2010. All Rights Reserved"
>>> ma:policy[0].type = "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/#copyright"
> This would then not allow a URI to be used for copyright?
> Also, "copyright" is a very specific policy - even Dublin Core has "dc:rights" - which is much broader.
> Cheers
> Renato Iannella
> http://renato.iannella.it

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 15:41:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:38 UTC