Re: Attribution

I was thinking in exactly this direction too :)

Would "/creditText" work?

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, 08:55 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/
>>
>