views:

452

answers:

4

When a web site is licensed under Creative Commons, I use the rel-license microformat. When a web site is licensed under regular copyright, I have a boring paragraph element.

<p id="copyright">&copy; 2008 Example Corporation</p>

That id attribute on there is just for CSS styling purposes. I'm wondering if there's some better way to markup a copyright notice that is more semantic. Is this a job for Dublin Core metadata? If so, how do I go about it? (I've never used Dublin Core before.)

Some web sites advocate using a meta tag in the head element:

<meta name="copyright" content="name of owner">

Which might be seen by search engines, but doesn't replace the user-visible notice on the page itself.

A: 

Why not use the CC format, but indicate that no rights are granted?

In any case, the main problem with the use of the CC formats is that people do not clearly identify which elements of the webpage that they appear on they apply to.

Marcin
Even the most restrictive Creative Commons license allows to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work, which may not always be desirable.I am looking for a solution, not an alternative.
Scott
He means, use the way that CC do it, but with a different license in the anchor and different text.
Rich Bradshaw
Ok, I understand now, but for rel-license you need an href to link to. I suppose you could use http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ for the href.
Scott
That would be incorrect. Have an empty field (unless the convention treats that stupidly).
Marcin
A: 

Probably the most semantically correct way to mark it up is with a definition list.

<dl id="copyright">
    <dt title="Copyright">&copy;</dt>
    <dd>2008 Example Corporation</dd>
</dl>
eyelidlessness
This is one of those times I really wish SO required a comment with a downvote. Whoever downvoted this, please explain *why*.
eyelidlessness
Wasn't me. I'm sitting on the fence about this because I'm not sure what makes a definition list appropriate for this application.
Scott
From W3C: "Definition lists vary only slightly from other types of lists in that list items consist of two parts: a term and a description." In this sense, the copyright data "describes" the copyright relevant to the page.
eyelidlessness
I can't follow your interpretation; the term here isn't the `©` entity but the semantic information “copyright”. In that sense, I don't see a definition list apply here. Interesting idea, though.
Konrad Rudolph
© == "copyright", isn't the term the same?
eyelidlessness
The date and owner do not define the term "copyright" or the symbol.
Scott
Despite their name, definition lists aren't only a set of terms and definitions. W3C specifically lists "dialog" as another use of DL/DT/DD, where the "terms" are the people in the dialog and the "definitions" are the text content of the dialog.
eyelidlessness
I didn't agree at first, but I gotta go with @eyelidlessness on this one, at least until html5 is more accepted.
Bryan Ross
+4  A: 

Have you taken a look at RDFa? It was recently accepted as a W3C recommendation. I mention that just in case you want to take a look at other aspects of semantic structure it recommends. The licensing part is the same as the format you currently use. (So in that sense to answer your question, I think you're handling it correctly, assuming people adopt RDFa)

For lazy people who don't want to click links:

// RDFa recomendation and rel=license microformat
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"&gt;
  a Creative Commons License
</a>
Owen
I haven't looked at RDFa, but I will check it out right now.I know that I am doing Creative Commons correctly, but I'm wondering about ordinary Copyright.
Scott
What's "ordinary Copyright?"
Marcin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
Scott
ah great, for some reason i misunderstood the question to be if you were handling licensing "correctly". i somehow missed the part about how to handle "generic" copyright
Owen
Scott, you still seem not to understand what it is you are trying to describe. You should probably have a conversation with your employer's lawyers.
Marcin
+7  A: 

Thanks to Owen for pointing me in the direction of RDFa, I think I've got the solution now:

<div id="footer" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"&gt;
<p id="copyright" property="dc:rights">&copy;
  <span property="dc:dateCopyrighted">2008</span>
  <span property="dc:publisher">Example Corporation</span>
</p>
</div>

Depending on the situation, it might be better to use dc:creator instead of dc:publisher. From the Dublin Core web site:

If the Creator and Publisher are the same, do not repeat the name in the Publisher area. If the nature of the responsibility is ambiguous, the recommended practice is to use Publisher for organizations, and Creator for individuals. In cases of lesser or ambiguous responsibility, other than creation, use Contributor.

I will also be adding a meta tag to my head element for search engines that don't support RDFa yet.

<meta name="copyright" content="&copy; 2008 Example Corporation" />
Scott