<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://wiki.creativecommons.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Lazlo+Nibble</id>
		<title>Creative Commons - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://wiki.creativecommons.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Lazlo+Nibble"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lazlo_Nibble"/>
		<updated>2026-05-09T11:08:32Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.30.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Talk:Exif&amp;diff=4906</id>
		<title>Talk:Exif</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Talk:Exif&amp;diff=4906"/>
				<updated>2006-11-16T21:14:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazlo Nibble: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Why does the recommendation suggest embedding a URL to a third-party (non-creativecommons.org) site that mentions the image's license, rather than suggesting the inclusion of an explicit license statement?  This seems like an unnecessary indirection/dependency; if the URL goes offline for some reason, there's no way to tell how the image is licensed.  It also reduces the ability of search engines to detect how a &amp;quot;discovered&amp;quot; image is licensed; with an explicit license statement embedded in the image metadata the search engine can determine the license independently; if the license is only referenced via a URL the search engine has to be able to parse all the possible ways the license could be displayed on the referenced page.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazlo Nibble</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed>