 Hi everybody, it's 10.04, so I think even though it's a little bit early in the morning for everybody who had a lot of fun at the party last night, we're gonna go ahead and get started. My name is Meredith Jacob, and I work at American University's Washington College of Law, and I'm the public lead for the Creative Commons United States chapter. With me who's gonna come up and present about this a little bit and engage in the discussion is Ryan Merkley, who's the CEO of Creative Commons. So in this session, what we're hoping to talk about are sort of questions around the nuts and bolts of how the Creative Commons licenses work, primarily the attribution requirement, but also sort of how the license itself works within the context of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons broadly. Within the room, how many people here have read the CC licenses and feel like they're pretty comfortable with the attribution requirement and what it means. So for those of you in the live stream, that's about half. On the live stream, I can't see your hands, but I hope many of you have read the license and have thought a little bit about what the attribution requirement means. So here we're going to talk about sort of the black letter of what it says in the licenses and how that might be enforceable in a court. And then we're going to talk a little bit more about what that means more broadly for how the Wikimedia community engages with attribution and then also how they broadcast that attribution to the broader public. Because as you well know, the Wikimedia community, the people who come to this conference, the people who contribute, the people who watch the live stream are a tiny fraction of the people who interact with the content on Wikipedia and on the sister sites. And so it's really important to think not only about how we are understanding this and using it and communicating it within the community of people who edit and contribute, but also how it is communicated to the public who relies on Wikipedia and Wikimedians to understand how these licenses work. So the first thing we'll cover is the basics of the attribution requirement and how it works within the license. So the Creative Commons licenses, as you all know, I think at this point, are copyright licenses. So in addition to the very basic statement, the one liner of this requires attribution, it's the attribution share alike license, there is this document that is a functioning legal license. And what that means is all of the content that you think of as being on Wikipedia and being for free is free, but does have real legal requirements for using that content. And they are the attribution requirement and the share alike requirement. And they come into play at different places within the license and within the use of licensed objects. And so the attribution requirement is always a requirement if you are using the thing. And the question of what it means to use the thing is a question of when you're making a use under copyright law. So copyright law regulates a really broad variety of things. It says, if you make a copy, if you display, if you reproduce, if you distribute, if you perform, all of these things are covered by copyright law. So if you do those things, you need to comply with the attribution requirement of the license. And so that says that you have to attribute back the author and often where you found it, if it's possible to include that. The attribution requirement in the license lays out a number of steps. So you have to retain any identification of the creator, any copyright notice, the public license, a linked license materials if possible, and indicate if it's been modified. And so this is pretty simple if you haven't modified it and if you're displaying it online, right, you include the title, the author, the source and the link. But often as materials get taken and combined and changed format, we lose track of sort of how to do that basic attribution requirement. Are there any situations here where you've found materials that you've had questions about how to properly include attribution in a specific format or in a specific way? I'm going to repeat your questions just so they show up on the live stream. Sure. So the question is if you have a data set about, I'm going to paraphrase, but a data set about sort of geographical information about oceans, sea floor, and a data set about municipal transportation. And you combine those two data sets, municipal, you're making a face, a land area, boundaries. So geographical features and then legal boundaries, so state or town or municipality boundaries. And in that situation, so we'll assume we'll have listeners from different countries here. If you're in the US, those data sets may not have copyright at all, so you don't need to worry about the license. But if you're somewhere where the CC licenses are applied because there is IP protection in the data, then what you could do is sort of whatever your best descriptive answer, what would be useful to a user. So you could say, I use this data set link by this person, author, found at this location for this type of material, and I combined it with this data set. And in that situation, clearly labeling each individual data point is probably impracticable. And so you would, in that situation, label it sort of early and often, right? Label it on the title page when you're saying, hey, as you use this data set, these two are combined. And then on the results page, you could include that too. But generally the attribution requirement doesn't require you to do impossible things. So it shouldn't be that I cannot do this because I cannot attribute. Does that seem like it would be a reasonable solution? So in that question, is the source field limited to a single source data set? I would just do that, yeah. And I think this is one of the reasons that there has always been a hesitance to apply copyright licensing to data, because it can lend with the situations where there is this sort of, you know, as data gets combined, it becomes very hard to do that. So this is a policy note of why, when possible, if you are creating data, if you're not using pre-existing data, or if you're working with a program that does, to use a CC0 license on that data so that you don't impose these attribution requirements. Often people have, I think, correctly want attribution for their work in research, and that can lead them to use a CCBI instead of a CC0 license. But I would really encourage people to use CC0 licenses for data exactly to avoid this problem of having data sets where you have to be like, well, you know, I use this data set and this data set, and I'm actually not using either of them in this specific data point, but that can be a problem that builds in a way that copyright doesn't usually. Any other questions about attribution at this point? So the other legally enforceable part of the license that's used for much of Wikipedia is the Sherra Lake condition. And so this is primarily about attribution, but just to touch on Sherra Lake, unlike attribution, you don't always have a sort of affirmative thing you have to do to comply with the Sherra Lake license term, and that's because it only comes into play when you're making a derivative work. In this group, have you ever thought about the derivative work problem? Any questions about what is or isn't a derivative? People thought about it. So what are the cases that you think about when you're making a derivative? What examples have come up for you? So the question is, for example, in Wikimedia Commons, often things people are doing because Wikimedia Commons fundamentally only contains digital images, right? They can represent sculptures, buildings, performances, but the image is what you're taking, right? So the question is, if I take a picture of a sculpture, am I making a derivative work of that sculpture? That's the example? So those are interesting, I think, questions about when you need to worry about the copyright on the original thing. And in that situation, right, the question is, am I making a derivative work? Would be a question of, can I take this picture and post it to Wikimedia Commons? And then I think there's a second level of question, which is, if I'm an artist and I go to Wikimedia Commons and I say, I'm going to take this picture in Wikimedia Commons and I'm going to change it and edit it and include it in my art, what do I need to do to comply with the license that you put on it? And so the question is for the derivative, there's a couple of things to think about. One is whether or not you're making a new copyrightable work. And the other is whether or not your changes are sort of changed the copyrighted nature of the first thing. So under U.S. law, for example, you're not making a derivative when you take an excerpt of something, generally. You're not making a derivative that would trigger the share a like term. The questions about whether or not you can take pictures of things in public come under both copyright law but then also questions about rights of panorama and then questions about fair use. So often you may have made a derivative but there's part of copyright law that permits you to do that. Sure, so the question is whether or not technical processing of something, resizing, reformatting, those sort of processing questions are making a derivative work. And for the purposes of the Creative Commons license, the answer to that is no, generally. So if I take a picture and I resize it, I have not made a derivative work, right? If I have taken something and even cropped it for sort of fit purposes, not for like changing the meaning of the image, generally those things aren't derivative works that need to be separately like re-licensed. The derivative requirement under the CC license, I think, is really something that is intended to sort of say, have you substantially changed this and are you using it in a way that a new user can't sort of separate your use from the original copyrighted object? So one example that we talk about a lot in the education space is, you know, when you're taking, well, let's take about Wikipedia articles themselves. Wikipedia articles themselves are not derivative works of the photographs contained within them, right? So if I have a Wikipedia article, for example, this article in anatomy, right? So we look at this and we say this is an article here, but it is not a single copyrighted thing, right? It is an article, there's one copyright there, but then there are these images. And the images have their own separate copyright. So including them in the article, placing them with that context is not making a derivative work of them. This is often a question we have, I'm saying if I take images and I set them alongside new text, is there now a requirement if the images share alike, that that text be share alike also? The answer to that is generally no. You're not making a derivative of the image by including it in the article with the text. Does that make sense? So that really depends on whether the pieces that you've... The question is when you take different pieces of CC license to work and you combine them into a new thing, a new article, a book, a lesson plan, what license to use on the final one. And that really depends on whether what you've created is still separate copyrighted works that are set alongside each other or whether they're inextricable. But here they're not, right? Because the author of that image is not the author of the article and the author of the article is not the author of the image, right? They are still one thing. If you took this article and you rewrote sections of it and you kept this sentence and then you edited out two clauses and then you added in another sentence, then you have made a derivative of the article but the images themselves are not a part of that because you haven't altered the images. So the copyright for those still belongs to their original author. Usually you have to be adding some sort of new copyrightable content. So if you make a collage and if you resize them and you juxtapose them and you recolor them and they become one thing where it becomes really hard for the viewer to pick out the things that you've created and the things that were there before, if they're really mashed up, then yes, that's a new derivative of work and you need to have a single license for that. If you've just set them alongside each other and sort of a playlist or a syllabus or, as in this case in an article, then no, you don't need a single license. Does that make sense? So this is an important term that we get to here. It's why the Sherrill Lake term has power. The Sherrill Lake term says anything that you create that is a derivative work of this object needs to be licensed under the same license. And that clause is important. It's not a Creative Commons license. It is this same license. So the Sherrill Lake license term there would require you to put that whole thing under the Sherrill Lake license with the caveat that that can only apply to the stuff that is protectable by copyright. So if you had included something that was actually in the public domain that new public domain work, you could still say this is all under a Sherrill Lake license except for these pieces which are in the public domain. Because you can't reclaim things out of the public domain through the power of the license. Occasionally this will mean that there are things that cannot technically be remixed under the CC license terms because if you have something that's under a Creative Commons attribution Sherrill Lake license and something that's under a Creative Commons attribution Sherrill Lake in C license, a non-commercial license if you had those two, in theory both of those licenses say you have to use my license for any derivative work. And so in that situation it's actually not possible to relaysence those things in a single derivative work. In practice, way fewer things are actually derivatives than people think. So most examples when you're putting something in Wikipedia or when you are collecting something for teaching in those situations you're not actually creating a single derivative and so this license incompatibility I think is more theory than practice in most situations but that is true there. Any other questions about the sort of basics of attribution in Sherrill Lake? Anyone in the back? Okay, next to the slides. So we've sort of covered the basics of the attribution requirement and the Sherrill Lake requirement and it's important to know that they are requirements and so the meaning of that is that if you don't do these things you haven't complied with the license terms. So the license gives a grant of all these copyright rates to the public but it is actually in exchange for something concrete which is that you will attribute back and that in the case of Wikipedia content that you will follow the Sherrill Lake license term. And so we've seen some cases where people have come and said wait, you used my photo from Wikipedia and you didn't attribute it back and I'm going to send you a demand letter and say even for my copyright you owe me $3,000 or I'm going to take you to court. And for better and for worse those are legally enforceable claims and I think that's fundamentally a good thing, right? Like we want the Creative Commons licenses to have meaning. We want, for example, that when people put something out under a Creative Commons license they can't suddenly change their mind and claw it back. We want that license to mean that the public can use the content and rely on it. But the flip side of that is that they are enforceable and so a question of when you've done sufficient attribution is a part of that. I mean sort of a number of cases about whether the licenses are enforceable and whether the attribution requirement is and the answer has generally been yes, the attribution requirement is an enforceable part of the license and at the same time the court has been fairly flexible in allowing people to attribute in different ways. And so there's been one case in the U.S. for example where a map company was using an image on the cover of a map booklet and they had put the attribution information I think in the front cover of the book but not on the cover of the book itself and the court said, you know, no, you've done that in a reasonable manner. The image was put out under the license, you can use it. And so I think we see two good things there. One is these are real licenses, they're really enforceable and two, they're not meant to be a trap for the unwary. And this has come up somewhat in the Wikipedia context because there's been a series of cases where photographs that are used in Wikipedia have been used in other third-party publications, I think both print and online, and the author of the photograph has come and either sent to man letters or sued in those cases. And that brings up, I think, two or three different levels of questions. One is sort of, do we believe the licenses should be enforceable? And the answer to that's pretty clearly yes, right? We want them to mean something for both the licensor and the licensee. And the second question is, what, if anything, should the Wikipedia community do about situations where a lot of the public comes to Wikipedia and says, okay, I can take things from here for free and go use them in any way I want to, are we doing a good job on the image pages of communicating to the public that the material here is free of cost but not free of requirements? And then I think, finally, a question is, to the extent that we see a small number of people who upload or contribute to Wikipedia using more aggressive enforcement tactics than the norm, is that something that Wikipedia wants or Wikipedia as a community wants to flag or note or discuss and sort of whether that's a good sort of healthy part of the ecosystem saying we're out here for the public to use but not without them paying attention to our terms? And so I just want to have a chance for sort of community questions and discussion about that. Has anyone sort of heard about these cases where photographs are being used from Wikipedia and then later there's demand letters or lawsuits? So you're saying that for many contributors who are trying to sort of build up a professional practice, the attribution is really important. And so it's not just a question of do we want attribution because it's the rule, but it's do we want attribution because attribution really incentivizes people to contribute to Wikileves monuments and that attribution really matters to them as their professional motivation to do that. I think that's a really important point to keep in touch. Anyone else have a comment? I saw a hand earlier. So do you think sort of in your experience working there, how many people here think it would be useful to include more information on, for example, an image page in Wikimedia Commons about the requirements for attribution? Do you think it's clear? Do you think most, because my experience is that most users think things on Wikipedia are free without sort of limitation. Has anyone ever, has anyone who talked to you ever said anything different? How many people here talk to the public about Wikipedia? I see a hand. Yes. Which is so many, there's so many different parts of that statement that are only partly true. Right, and I think, you know, one of the things that's different about, so this, the statement from the audience buzz, I found it on Google images so it's in the public domain. Which is possibly true, but not usually true. And an important part of that is the statement of I found it on Google images, right? So Google themselves, this is a comp, there's some lit layers to this, but they primarily don't host the images for presentation to the public themselves. They fundamentally, though they have a copy of them, rely on that they are linking through to an image on a third party site. With the, with Wikimedia, that's different, right? So we actually host the images. And so to the extent that that is the page that someone clicks through to, I think it's important to say, like, whether or not we are setting both them up for success, whether we're giving the credit that is, you know, required to sort of incentivize contributors, and whether we're communicating to people what they need to do to avoid potentially getting a nasty letter or worse later on for not attributing. And so I think it's worth, like, my hope in this session is to talk through whether or not there's a way to improve how we tell people that. So, like, right now the notice is definitely there, but it's not, this is public domain. So a question to me is whether or not, you know, with the sort of default assumption being that things in Wikipedia are free, whether this page here, which is where you, if you do the extra step of clicking through to the image, which obviously many people don't do, but if you click through because you're going to get the high res version and you want to use it and you want to embed it in something, this is what you get. And I think it's worth a conversation of whether or not this landing page really communicates to the public what they need to do to reuse that outside of the context of Wikipedia. And I think that brings up two questions. One is sort of the superficial question of do we want more notice, like an FAQ or a link or some explanatory text? And then the other, I think, comes into a larger question of whether or not people see Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons as a one-directional source of information or as sort of a part of their practice of creating new things. Because if people are only going to view things within Wikipedia, it doesn't really matter, right? Looking at something is not a use under the Copyright Act. You don't need a license to look at something. You don't need to comply with a license to look at something, to read it. And so if we view the public at large as just consumers of content, then we don't get to this point of do they need to understand the licenses? Do they need to think about where things came from? But if we view as sort of, you know, Wikimedia broadly moves from just being Wikipedia, which is in large part something people read, to being this repository of images and of data and of source material, then you suddenly have a question of how are people going to take that and use that, and are we preparing them to succeed? So we've sort of gotten to the end of the talking I have to do to you. I'd be happy to talk a little bit with you, Ryan, about your experiences communicating this at CC, but also happy to hear if there were any questions from the audience or problems that you've dealt with or whether you have ideas about, like, should we do more to tell the public about how to comply with the licenses and how if you take content from Wikimedia and you use it in other situations that you do actually have a two-way obligation? Is there a microphone? Maybe not. Oh, there I am. Yeah, I mean, it's also a thing that we think a lot about at Creative Commons, and so Meredith is at Creative Commons USA, which is the national chapter in the US. I'm at Creative Commons HQ, so we work with all of the various chapters around the world and also have an organization that is also based in the US. We work really closely together. And for those of you that are, you know, from all over the world, you probably have Creative Commons communities in your own country, and there there are very likely legal experts that can be your go-to friends and partners on some of the complexities of these issues because they're really, they can be complex, especially things like derivative works and how that turns. So one of the things that we've acknowledged is that, you know, this is harder than it needs to be, especially for regular folks. And so, you know, we built a project called CC Search, which is meant to be an index of the Commons and eventually a sort of front door to that. And one of the first things we built into it was one-click attribution. And the idea was if we just give people a thing and immediately click the pre-formats attribution with all the links correctly formatted, maybe they're more likely to do that. And it's really the most popular thing in the entire service, the thing that people love the most about it because it makes easy a thing that people stress about. One of the really interesting things we learned from our user research with Creative Commons users was there's actually a lot of anxiety and stress amongst people who respect the licenses and are afraid to do attribution wrong. We ran across users who would actually not use a work because they knew they were obliged to attribute, but they didn't know how, and they didn't want to do it wrong. And so they would not use the work. I was like, oh, that's the worst outcome of all, is that somebody who wanted to use the work and respected the license instead did nothing. And so, one thing to think about in Commons would be what would it look like to offer one-click attribution in the tool that said, you know, right after, on the bottom left, where we have the credit to the author, it said, click here to grab attribution for this work when you reuse it or something simpler and more elegant that was, you know, designed for users that would convey to them that you have an obligation and also make it super easy for them to meet that obligation. There's lots of stuff that we might do on that. You know, one of the other things, and the reason we talked about share alike is because I think it's a thing that people get frustrated at about in the Wikimedia community because there's a reason this community chose share alike. Share alike is the license you choose because you think people are definitely going to reuse your work and you want to make sure that the types of reuses that happen propagate the sharing of the work. And so when that breaks down or when it doesn't work the way people think it does and so they look at the knowledge graph on Google and say, why aren't they sharing alike all this other stuff or I see these things in other places, it's frustrating for them. And so, I think you're right that there's this, that the vast majority of the people who visit Wikipedia are consuming Wikipedia. They're using the thing they came to learn and then they're moving on. But there is a significant and important subset which is the people who are going to reuse Wikipedia into other things. And, you know, when you look at the 2030 strategy and there's this conversation about knowledge as a service, the only way you actually reach that goal is if many, many different players come to the table and reuse these works. And so we really want that to work well. So thinking about how we do that really well, especially in ways that we can automate it or make it really clear so that people don't have to guess, or don't have to consult a lawyer, which like the fundamental first principle of Creative Commons licenses is you shouldn't require a lawyer to use one. How do we make that for people easier and more possible? Now that just, those are a couple of things that stick out for me, but... Yeah, I mean, I think, like... Sure, please. Can I do it? Yeah. Just open on your top. I will show you. You had other comments. Why don't you go ahead and I'll dig this up. Yeah, I think, so education for users is a huge piece and it's one of those things that both the community that works on Commons and also the community that works on Wikipedia and the way it represents images would need to work together and think about what is that user experience? Who are our core users? Because I think Meredith's point is really well taken that the basic user of Wikipedia is someone looking for information. And yet we also want to make sure that right there is also that kind of reuse information, which may or may not be what they're looking for. So to answer your earlier question, this is just an image I searched for on CCsearch. And right under the image detail, you'll see the image attribution and you can just copy the rich text and it would give you that attribution that you see in the top quote puppies by so and so is licensed under such license with some iconography. And so then it would just copy that and you can paste that into your PowerPoint or whatever. We used to offer plain text and rich text and our user testing said nobody wanted the plain text. They actually wanted the live links and so we've made that the default for that. So we bake that in. People really appreciate it and use it. The grander vision, I think, from a CC side would be no-click attribution, which comes with a lot of challenges including needing user consent in order for that information to follow them around. But imagine, for example, we've been working with a Google Summer of Code intern who built a WordPress plugin that talks to CC Search so that when you bring your image into your WordPress blog it automatically preformats and places in attribution. You can edit it if you want to change it, but if you don't want to think about it, it's done automatically for you. And I think there's a version of that that would actually be quite nice for a subset of users who are making stuff on the web in a particular workflow that would make that invisible to them or at least easy for them. So just drag it in and it all just happens for you. And I think users want that as well because one of the number one frustrations we hear is users who wish they got credited the way they wanted. The Italian photographer is contributing to Wiki Loves monuments. If you just troll the internet you would think that two of the most prolific creators on the web were creative commons in Wikipedia because everything is courtesy Wikipedia, courtesy Creative Commons. And I don't think that's malice because those people went to the trouble of crediting. They just did it wrong. They didn't really help them do it better. And ideally, frankly, take it out of their hands and just do it automatically. That would be optimal. Yeah. I think my other thing I would say is that information about how to attribute is always more powerful when it comes from people within the community of practice. So the way that attribution works, like a lot of the work I do is about open education and open textbooks. And so I have some good examples of how you'd attribute a textbook that contains parts of different textbooks and third-party images in that context. It's not going to be very useful to somebody who's doing mapping in GIS, right? They're going to be like, this doesn't map onto my examples. And so one of the things I think would be most powerful would be to the extent that there are communities within the community and community that focus on specific areas to say, okay, our community can identify these four situations where, like, in these four situations I really don't know how to do attribution or we know people are using our information in these four ways. Then that's something that policy people and legal people can help you with. I spend a lot of my time talking about how to understand the licenses and I, you know, to my dismay, I often answer a lot of made-up, so I go out and I'm like, I think these are the questions people have but I don't really know, and so I would say that those are the situations we're reaching out to people who are policy or legal. Once you have those four or five examples is the most powerful because, you know, a lot of the attribution questions are around images, but at the same time the context in which those images are used can really affect what is reasonable attribution in that situation. For example, if you were putting together images from Wikimedia to make an art textbook, you might have full-bleed color images and you don't really want to have to put your attribution somewhere in the middle because that just isn't sort of doesn't fit with the function and aesthetic of that project, so you'd say, okay, we're going to attribute on the facing page or we're going to attribute here, that might be totally reasonable. But in a different context, if you're making a textbook and you would normally do image attribution underneath, you do that there. We have a lot of questions about how to do image attribution in film, for example, how to attribute images and clips and films, and the answer is often, you know, in some situations you do it on like an intro title card, in some situations you could do it at the end, so having examples that come from the community I think is really important in building up a practice for attribution. And I think it is, as Ryan said, there are some people who are hesitant to even use stuff because they're afraid of the attribution requirement. We have a lot of people who are afraid, for example, of the non-commercial requirement and can sort of imagine this sort of taint of commerciality in situations where you're like, this is really a non-commercial use, it's okay, just because you are doing this for a degree where you think you might eventually make money, it's not commercial, don't worry. You know, there's this imagined sort of over-enforcement, and then you have this other large pool of people who do nothing, and so, you know, we have It's Free, and we have this sort of almost like quasi-religious searching for complexity, and I think what we would hope to say is do something in the middle. And the flip side of that would be, you know, for people who aren't getting credit to also start with sort of a middle road of saying, hey, this is mine, I'm glad you're using it, but you need to do these things to attribute back. And for the community, similarly to treat those opportunities, not as like, no, you're breaking the rules, this is horrible, but hey, we're glad you're doing this, but this is what you need to do to attribute correctly, or to comply with the Sheryl Lake license term. And so I think it does make sense for sort of, you know, Creative Commons as a global network is at a sort of point of reorganization where we do have these national chapters that are larger and that have in many cases more members than before, and for Wikipedia and CC local chapters to collaborate on, you know, do we have the guidance that we need? I actually am standing up and I do not know what is the guidance about the license terms on English Wikipedia. And you know, one question would be is there space for updated FAQs, for information like that, that at least if it's not linked to the individual resource pages can be something that teams know and can rely on? One thing I'll flag for folks here since you are interested enough in this topic to show up in the morning is that Creative Commons created a what we call the CC certificate program, so it's a 10-week online course with a certification at the end for people who are interested in that. Lots of you may think, wow, that's totally overkill. I don't need to take a certification course. But one of the nice things about it, no surprise, is that everything that's in that course is CC by. And you can download and read all of that at your leisure and your own interests. And it was authored by the community, including Meredith and many other folks from the legal community who wrote the best version for regular humans. We could write about how you use the licenses and how you apply them for people and practitioners. And in the work that all of you do, these kinds of things come up. Some sections or even the entire corpus of that may be quite useful to you and so I'd encourage you to seek it out. It's at certificates.creativecommons.org and you can find all the raw material and just download it and read it as you like. And also, of course, remix it for your own purposes. And so if that's useful for you in your own work or in your own community, that's really good raw material because we update it regularly. We run training cohorts every semester and at the end of every semester we make revisions on the things that the participants told us were confusing or out of date. And so that is right now always the best kind of regular humans version of how to do that work. And so I'd encourage folks to check that out. And if the certification interests you, we also run that. But the raw material I think would be really valuable for folks. Yes? Oh, the middle tab. This one? Under more details. Is that what you mean? This guy? Yes. And if I click that, got you. I'm... So I would definitely have never noticed it because I never take files from Commons that way. I always download the source file. I live in a world where misattributing causes me a lot of consternation and also generally public abuse. And so I generally don't mess up attribution. So what I usually do is download the file, name the file with the attribution, etc. The first time I ever spoke at Wikimedia was 2014 and I had a file in my presentation and all my tweets were from people correcting me on the misattribution in file 12. I learned my lesson very early. But yeah, I'm sure there's lots of stuff in here. So this becomes... Yeah, I know it's in there. There's stuff in there, for sure. Right? Well, I think the information that's lacking is not what to attribute. But it is noticed to the public of what that means. Right? So I don't think that it's hard to find the information that you need to attribute. I think it's hard to find the information that you are required to. Which to me is different, right? So I think that Wikimedia does a great job giving you information about the image. I think what in a collaboration between Wiki and CC we need is to give you more information about what you are required to do with that data. Yeah. Imagine if on this page, let's just play with this for a second. So this image is... I didn't check the license. What is the license on this one? Do we all recall? It was down on the last page. So it's by essay. So imagine if I went to this page and before I got to all these download links at the right at the top automatically generated, it said you must credit this image. Here is sample credit. First thing before any of the links right at the top. And then it said this image is share alike. If you make a new work with it, you must share it under the same license. For more information click here. Before you got to any of these links if that's sad at the top. That would tell the user directly what they're required to do and make it easier for them. I'm certainly not saying that efforts haven't made. I can click all over this page and find a bunch of stuff. If I actually want pre-formatted attribution, it's right here. I click here and there it sits right there. You see in the middle of the page, the attribution is right there. But that's three clicks from when I found the image. So can I get it closer to the user or could I even make it automatic? That's the only question. It's like refined criticism maybe amongst friends about how we can do better because we know it's the thing that fails and it's the thing that frustrates. So you're saying that users are frustrated and it's costing contributors because they're like well I don't want to share my images because I don't get credit. It's our experience is that people generally fail at credit not for malice but for ignorance. And so if we can make it easier, if we can help them, they're more likely to do it well and what I see on the web is a lot of wrong attribution more than I see incorrect attribution which tells me people were willing to credit they just did it wrong. So let's help them do it right or even take it out of their hands. I see a hand in the back there. So thank you for the comment. The comment from is about how one of the things we could do in order to make it easier for users is to essentially embed attribution information in the file so that travels with it. And the example that you gave was EXIF which is a metadata standard that's attached around formats like JPEG. There is a license field in the metadata standard and it largely is unused in the world. And so one of the things that we've actually done a little bit of work on that is around how you embed that. The question then is who sees that? So unless you're a user who understands EXIF and cares about it, you won't find it and so part of the challenge there is if you're the kind of person that's willing to get an EXIF reader in order to find out the license information you're probably also the kind of person that would have done attribution correctly anyway. And so those are challenges. One of the other things that we've struggled with for all of that kind of embedded attribution is that all of the big platforms strip that data. And so we've gone door to door and worked with them and looked at that. So Flickr for example strips associated metadata and what we do that is because it saves on the bytes on download. Because when you're doing millions and millions of downloads those few extra bytes on the size of the file image actually save you a lot of money. Facebook does the same thing and others do that and so that is not to say it's not a great idea it's to say that there are other challenges but the concept is a good one. It's like how can we make the stuff travel with the file in a way that it doesn't get lost? So we've looked at everything from watermarking to non-intrusive watermarking to sort of like a Polaroid watermark if you imagine like an extensive border and the attribution underneath so you're not actually kind of marring the image but it would be in the file in a way that a regular everyday user would see as opposed to just an advanced metadata reading user. All in is to say it's tough. It's tough to do really well. So I'm aware of not wanting to run over to the next session but I just wanted to say I think in closing that this is important because I think both Creative Commons and Wikimedia think about users and creators as a group that really highly overlap and that sort of in the increasing sort of closed off everything's on a platform, everything's licensed you are the consumer world that for people to be able to really sort of seriously and ethically and knowingly like take content and reuse it and be an author and also take seriously the authorship and contribution of other people is really important and that that is in some ways condensed down to do we take the licenses seriously do we help people understand them do we both sort of believe in the importance of the terms but also believe that there shouldn't be a barrier that people can understand them that they're easy to use and that we want the stuff that's put up on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons to be used and to be used like seriously and broadly then if we think all that stuff is true and it's part of what makes this special and worth contributing to then we need to work to make these things not barriers so towards that end I think I am hoping and volunteering to help if there are situations like if you have examples that you think you need to help figure out for your community to go forward I'm happy to talk about them I think there are CC chapters in most places that are and I would just sort of encourage you to reach out and build those bridges because I think licensing can be really boring but it is also in some ways the backbone of what makes this different than a lot of other free stuff is that there is this core of people contributing and being able to take back and be able to rely on those things and not have them be sort of at the pleasure of some corporate calculation and so I think that because of that you really do have to engage with this and we also want to just reach out and make sure that the sort of CC community is supporting and working with the Wiki community to do a good job of making that not a barrier but actually like an empowering thing I guess all I would just say is that there are probably I would say there are about two dozen countries country representatives from Creative Commons here at Wikimania right now and if you are having a challenge or an issue and you want to speak to somebody that works in your country or your region we're both happy to make connections warm connections to you either right here or follow up with us later and we're easy to find on the web and we'd be happy to do it we really do want to work in close partnership and there's also for questions there's a very active CC Slack community and you don't have to be any sort of formal member of the Creative Commons global network to get on Slack so if you're interested in having a large repository of people to ask for opinions and advice about how to do specific stuff that's another great resource and for those who don't Slack there's an IRC bridge so you can also IRC if you want to do that I don't know those things there you go thanks guys thank you nicely done