On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Ian Forrester <[email protected]> wrote:
> Licensing, > > I think we'll use something like CC-BY-NC (although I totally understand the > arguments against NC, Dave) CC-BY-NC-SA is tempting due to the nature of the > content. Could you explain the nature of the content and why NC is tempting for it? BY(-SA) includes non-endorsement now, like the Creative Archive licence, and explicitly asserts the moral rights of paternity and integrity. SA can be a sufficient disincentive to economic exploitation of work. So depending on what the concerns are these may be addressable without resorting to NC. > I do wonder how we keep the licence in tack even when the assets are broken > up and reused? Maybe we should be looking into watermarking or some adobe xmp > type system? This would also be useful for figuring out reach. Yes use XMP. CC have done a lot of work on metadata and have tools for working with it. - Rob. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
