On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 08:18:15AM -0800, Michael Snow wrote:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net>
writes:
Sorry, but if we start conceding that in effect,
we are combining an
article with an image into a single document under GFDL, downstream
users have to be able to use the image alone.
Sure, but they are responsible for actions they are doing. It is okay
to take pictures of public buildings with logo for big companies
attached. Readers are allowed to modify those pictures--but they are
surely not allowed to cut out the logo and use it at will.
Use of the logo is really a trademark issue, not copyright. GFDL allows
people to modify, but it doesn't mean they can create modifications that
are illegal for other reasons.
The point of the Free content is to make available something that is as
legal as if it was created by the receiver. It's impossible to be more
legal than that. The patent, trademark, libel, censorship and other laws
may make it impossible to use Free content in some situations, but equivalent
content created by user would be equally affected.
Example 1:
You can't take a logo from a GFDL photo of Coca Cola headquarters and
put it on soft drinks you're producing, but you couldn't if you made
the photo yourself. Therefore it still qualifies as Free.
Example 2:
You can't take "fair use" Britney Spears picture and put it into a book
about Britney Spears. But if you made the photo yourself, you could.
Thus, not Free.