Re: Attribution

By the way, your "credit line" is basically:
cc:attributionName The name the creator of a Work
<https://creativecommons.org/ns#Work> would like used when attributing
re-use.

I.E.  Concepts of "credit line" and cc:attributionName are sameAs.  They
both answer the question of "Whom shall I give credit to if I re-use this?"

REF:  https://creativecommons.org/ns#

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


On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:37 AM Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/
>>>
>>