Re: Attribution

Hi Brendan,

That's great!  However...

Did you take a look at the link I gave for Creative Commons and examples of
Attribution elements?
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Attribution-specific_elements
Attribution can contain copyright notices.
Everything in your example picture is an existing element in Attribution.

TASL is the common term used.  Attribution should contain:  *T*itle, *A*uthor,
*S*ource, *L*icense
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/best_practices_for_attribution

In general, Attribution is the broader of just saying "a copyright notice",
which is just one of its possible elements.
And why Attribution is needed in Schema.org; to allow publishers to provide
structure for not only simple Text string for Attribution, but have single
property on CreativeWork to expect that new Type, and show relationships
for those mentioned Attribution properties.

If you inject a "legal" aspect here... you could say that Attribution is a
legal requirement under many kinds of licenses.  But it is not a structured
element itself of a license, but instead a condition or requirement.

Different:  describing a License with structured data and describing
Attribution with structured data.
For describing a License, we have those existing Types and Properties in
Schema.org available.
For describing Attribution, there exists already RDF vocabulary in
https://creativecommons.org/schema.rdf  (Examples:
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC_REL)

We just need to add Attribution to Schema.org to complete the picture. ;-)

Thad
https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/


On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:52 AM Brendan Quinn <brendan@cluefulmedia.com>
wrote:

> Hi Thad, and all,
>
> This might tie in well with some work we're kicking off to map IPTC Photo
> Metadata fields (the ones embedded in image files) to schema.org. Quite a
> few fields relate to attribution and licensing.
>
> Plus we have been working with Google on the Licensable Images feature (
> https://iptc.org/news/announcing-googles-licensable-images-developer-release/
>  /
> https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/image-license-metadata)
> which uses both schema.org properties and embedded photo metadata fields.
>
> [image: google-images-mockup-closeup-with-labels.png]
>
> Right now the creator, copyright and credit line fields only come from
> embedded photo metadata fields, whereas the licence links are in both: the
> "license details" link is "licence" in schema.org / "Web Statement of
> Rights" in IPTC and "get this image" link is schema.org
> "acquireLicensePage" / "Licensor > Licensor URL" in IPTC).
>
> So we've been looking at how to map the creator, copyright notice and
> credit line fields to schema.org properties. We would like to eventually
> map *all* IPTC fields to schema.org equivalents, we have a draft already
> but we need to go through it in detail.
>
> We have noticed that "credit line" and "copyright notice" don't have
> immediate equivalents (splitting out "copyright year" and "copyright
> holder" is partly, but not quite, equivalent to "copyright notice": for
> example, some copyright notices have extra information in them, some
> lawyers insist on the copyright symbol and/or the word copyright, some
> include "All rights reserved" or "some rights reserved", and some include a
> range of years rather than a single year)
>
> So perhaps we do need new schema.org properties to cover credit line and
> copyright notice.
>
> Whether all of these fields fit best in a separate Attribution type or as
> individual properties is something I don't have a strong opinion on yet. An
> initial thought is that the word "attribution" doesn't necessarily cover
> licensing information and usage instructions.
>
> (Also I don't think "disclaimer" is the best word for something on a
> CreativeWork. A disclaimer of warranty fits better for software or physical
> goods, where something can go wrong and the creator is disclaiming
> responsibility for fixing the problem. "Usage instructions", "usage
> information" or "usage restrictions" probably fits better.)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Brendan (mdirector@iptc.org, but subscribed to this list through my
> personal email)
>
>
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 21:42, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Team!
>>
>> Attribution for Creative Works is often seen as a simple Text string.
>> Wikidata.org acknowledges this and so added a new property that holds the
>> value of an Attribution.
>>
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P8264
>>
>> For those not familiar with what an Attribution itself typically looks
>> like in the wild...
>> It is credit, typically a Text string, given to an author which consists
>> of many elements.
>> It's often unstructured text or semi-structured text.
>>
>> For example:
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>> If we break down that text into structured elements, then the Attribution
>> text might hold:
>>
>> 1. A copyright (date typically, but other details as well sometimes)
>> 2. A author/creator/copyright holder
>> 3. A license
>> 4. A disclaimer notice
>>
>> If we map those elements into Schema.org we have:
>>
>> 1. https://schema.org/copyrightYear
>> 2. https://schema.org/author OR https://schema.org/creator or
>> https://schema.org/copyrightHolder
>> 3. https://schema.org/license OR https://schema.org/acquireLicensePage
>> 4. https://schema.org/usageInfo  (although no mention of disclaimer of
>> warranty within its existing definition, this is typically implied with
>> usageInfo.  However, 'disclaimer of warranties' could be added to the
>> description of usageInfo for better alignment)
>>
>> We can then see how we also could introduce a new Attribution Type into
>> Schema.org vocabulary that could be used on a CreativeWork via a new
>> property introduced.  The proposed new property 'attribution' could expect
>> a simple Text string, or an Attribution made up of those listed elements.
>>
>> Further examples of Attribution elements can be seen at
>> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Attribution-specific_elements
>>
>> I'm most interested in seeing a new 'attribution' property expecting Text
>> on a CreativeWork.
>> But further discussion on a new Attribution Type would also be encouraged
>> to fill out our Schema.org hierarchy
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thad
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
>>
>