[okfn-discuss] [open-science] Annotating Open Images with licence and authorship to prevent copyfraud
sanglorian at gmail.com
Wed Aug 7 10:27:58 UTC 2013
The original, unwatermarked images could also be archived elsewhere. People
who strip the attribution out of thoughtlessness or laziness would not
bother to go into the archive and download the original image. People who
are conscientious enough to source the original image are also likely
conscientious enough to attribute correctly after doing so.
**Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki <http://fossilbank.wikidot.com/> and the Living
Libre blog <http://www.livinglibre.com> and Twitter
On 7 August 2013 05:54, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Rafael Pezzi <rafael.pezzi at ufrgs.br>wrote:
>> I understand the problem, but also don't like watermarks. It will be
>> annoying to see the same watermark in all pictures and images of a paper, a
>> book or a website. In my view this would compromise the visual appeal of
>> open-licensed works.
> My primary intention was to stamp scientific (STEM) images - graphs, maps,
> photographs of scientific/medical objects etc. Here I believe the clarity
> of the science is much more important than visual appeal. Provenance and
> attribution are important and usually omitted.
> Submission a work that you do not have copyright, i.e. a free licensed
>> work, although much easier, is as bad as intentionally removing a
> I'm not proposing that I stamp free licensed work with *my* authorship but
> that it should be stamped as free licensed work. Again, my primary target
> is science, though I can see the value for cultural works.
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the okfn-discuss