In some ways this is part two of the “walking the tools” rant. I still see a rather low awareness of the power of making use of creative commons licensed content ad I put out the call to fellow edubloggers to be more vigilant on demonstrating the use of CC content…. and being a model of providing overt attribution. It is such a pay-it forward thing that, to me, is not yet over the hump of critical mass.
So first a story. This comes on the heels of some blog post/comment exchanges with Beth and a decision to make by CC licensing simpler and more clear by jumping to the “By” Attribution. So far, it’s been a month, and I have yet to be exploited by a Big Company.
This started when Tim Lauer noted a photo of my satellite internet dish was used in a post over at infinite thinking. Hey, that is cool! I say, feeling my ego bone tickled. But while my picture is there (and techinically is linked by hyperlink back to the original), it does not seem like a clear attribution. I posted a comment, not trying to growl and bark.
Since I started plundering the flickr creative commons cc licensed images 2+ years ago for presentations, etc, I make it a point to provide a textual attribution, with link to the original. Giving this attribution a link (what I call, and hardly anyone else does, a Linktribution) is not only in the spiriting of spreading the love via attribution, it should make it easer for someone to locate where their images are used, it says more clearly, that “This is how this groovy notion of creative commons work– I get to use this cool image, and Mary is even cooler for letting me use it”.
The point is not that I crave the ego puffing, and would have had just as happy as a week if I never knew about the image. I do not seek obtuse credit, but I am more interested in ed tech leaders in modeling strong attribution messages.
That said, the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license reads:
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
But flickr is the one who specifies the manner specified; there is no option for me to request a textual credit– so this means that when Mark followed the options listed on the image download page, that is sufficient to satisfy the CC license. He did the right thing. But it is really hard to catch from just a hyperlink that an image is attributed, and in print form, the attribution is gone.
But that is really a a bare minimum, and I think 2007 should be the year we really light a fire on the culture of content use, re-use, and do so by being more than “sufficient” in providing attribution. Join the Linktribution bandwagon, and give credit by text link where you blog, comment, hang web content.
So give credit, overt credit, where credit is due. It will surely boomerang around to you in the sphere of good karma.