Copyright: Missing license link and support for different creative commons license versions

[mandrasch]

I'm not completely sure if this is the right place for an issue report or if I have to submit it to a general repository? Anyway, I encountered two problems:

1.) First of all creative commons licenses require a link to the license text ("provide a link to the license"). In the "rights of use" pop-up there is no such link:

2.) Creative commons license have different version numbers, e.g. the current one is 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ - but there is also 1.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ Problem is that there are legal changes and compatiblity issues: https://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses/ So the there is a need to specify a version of the license. Right now it is implemented like that:

Additionally it would be awesome if you could include a custom license with a license link.

Thanks for the great work on h5p! Best regards, Matthias

(This is a copy of https://github.com/h5p/h5p-wordpress-plugin/issues/34#issuecomment-202784718)

[falcon-git]

The core team have prioritized to design this in April and implement the fix for it in May. Thanks a lot for reporting.

[mvmagnussen]

Would this approach work you think? Any feedback would be great.

[falcon-git]

For existing content we would use "-" for version since we won't know the version number.

[mandrasch]

Thanks for the suggestion! I will get feedback from the german OER-Community as well and get back to you (https://www.facebook.com/groups/OERde/permalink/768379749964057/)

Quick problem that I find in this approach: Unfortunately only Version 4 is a global license, licenses below 4.0 exist in an unported (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.de) and ported versions, eg. for germany (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/de/).

Best regards!

[mandrasch]

Here is a list of the ports (taken from the license selector of creative commons): https://gist.github.com/programmieraffe/1acae7a3b407ebecfb131571f44f94a4

I see two solutions:

1. Add another select field for the license port if CC < 4.0 is selected in the version select field.
2. Let user submit the license hyperlink and don't use the version select field. The license is part of the link as well as the type of the creative commons (SA, NC, ...). So the first select field only needs to have a general "Creative Commons" field and then there would be a license link field which is mandatory.

I think the first option is more secure for people who are not familiar with creative commons licenses. Regarding usability the second option is better because imho its faster to just paste one license link. With this solution I don't have to select from three select fields which can be really annyoing for a lot of resources.

A third option - which I prefer - would be a search box similiar to that which has all license options: https://harvesthq.github.io/chosen/ (first one) The best way for usability would be if the user can search for a specific license type and version (e.g. "2.0 SA" for sharealike) in this OR just paste a hyperlink to the specific license which is detected automatically (shouldn't be a very hard to implement to detect the link). That would combine the two methods described above.

[mvmagnussen]

Thanks for the suggestions!

I'm no expert on this, so just checking: When I upload a photo to Flickr or Wikimedia Commons, I don't get to choose from a ton of versions and ports. Why is this?

[mvmagnussen]

I guess it's the Wikimedia Commons example that's most relevant, since Flickr assumes you own your photo and there's no reason to not use the newest license.

[mandrasch]

Hey, did not saw your answer right away / missed it. Yes, I would agree on your assumption about Flickr - they want to make it simple and think it is your content. Youtube does this at well unfortunately and forces Youtube Users to CC BY-SA 3.0 btw. (CC 4.0 brought some very good changes, so it would be really to good that people switch to 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/version4/)

For h5p you should go with the wikimedia commons example.

Best regards, Matthias

[falcon-git]

Hi, thank you for pitching in here :)

[otacke]

Just one more issue related: If you create derivates of CC licensed content, e.g. modify the image, you have to describe your changes/indicate that changes were made, so I think an additional text field is necessary. I was going to add this field to h5p-image, etc. but I don't want to interfere with changes that are underway anyway.

[falcon-git]

Ok, thanks for the heads up. Will add that to a big upcoming upgrade of the metadata system. (Everything in H5P will get a license field+++ not only multimedia)

[otacke]

Oh, that's great! I'll lie low then.

[mandrasch]

One quick note: In germany a link to the license is particulary important. So if there is a custom license or license field, links to the license text must be possible.

Thinking at the big picture a "copyright editor" for all media used in a content element would also be a nice feature, because sometimes I just add various media files to see if it looks good and then add licenses afterwards when I publish (and have to go through the whole content again).

[falcon-git]

Noted!