What about "Attribution" (by:) and "No Derivative Works" (=) ? Aoineko ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales(a)bomis.com> To: <wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Creative Commons Licence can

Not sure what's *horrible* about no derivative works. Wikipedia doesn't need to alter most images. I'd take cc-nd over copyrighted with fair use. If cc-nd is completely unacceptable, then so is fair use, right? A

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: Tomasz is speaking for himself, not for me, nor the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the FSF, nor in the true spirit of freedom. Under Tomasz's interpretation, it would be impossible for us to even quote from a copyrighted book in an article about the author of that book. This is not freedom, this is copyright paranoia. We do need to be careful about "fair use", because it does raise some potential issues for some re-users. And we should strongly prefer freely licensed alternatives where they are available. But fair use (or "fair dealing" as it is called in most other countries and under the Berne convention) is acceptable. --Jimbo

Well, I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, believe me. But it only clouds the issue to make blanket statements like you did. :-) I'm sorry that I sounded so harsh. --Jimbo Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

Erik Moeller wrote: I think part of the problem is that it's hard to get licensing, because nobody understands the GFDL. It's easy if Wikipedians submit their own photographs, which should be encouraged (it saves a lot of hassle, and lets us get exactly what we want), but often that's not possible. To raise one example, a few weeks ago I emailed Red Hat's licensing department asking about the copyright status of their "hat" logo. I essentially asked if we may, solely as regards copyright law, use that particular drawing (which I assume is copyrighted, being an original drawing) under either the GFDL or some other permissive license. I went to some length to indicate that we're not asking for any trademark license or any sort of trademark permission at all, and will expect to be held to the standard permitted uses of trademarks. So far, haven't gotten a response... if even a GPL-friendly company like Red Hat doesn't know what to do about it (unless I just hit the wrong people), then I don't see why we'd expect most others to do so. Though in this particular case, it may be worth it to not bother, as 99% of the thing with logos is probably the trademark, not the copyright on a particular drawing that comprises the logo. -Mark

Right.

Sean Barrett wrote: Not according to Jimbo, you're not. Anthony

Jimmy- Maybe, but there's another side. I've just tried to get permission to use some example webcomics on Wikipedia in the respective articles. I received one positive and three negative replies. The main problem was that people are worried about third parties modifying their work. And I can understand that concern. If you have an example comic which features the main characters, someone else can easily rip off these characters and create their "fork" of the strip, even market it commercially, as long as it's copylefted. What does it do for us to have it modifiable though? We're an encyclopedia, our purpose is not the creation of new artwork but the improvement of encyclopedia articles. The purpose of the comics is to illustrate these articles. Modifying them does not further that purpose (except for resizing, converting etc. which are probably allowed anyway). I think there's an argument to be made to allow something like "no derivative works" for *some* images. It doesn't really hurt our purpose as a "free encyclopedia", IMHO. Regards, Erik

Jimmy Wales wrote: But fair use photos are also not GNU free. And what about photos which are fair use *and* CC-ND? Isn't this better than photos which are fair use with no license? I should note that CC-ND explicitly places encyclopedias under the category of a collective work. As long as you don't modify the image itself (beyond that allowed by fair use), you're fine. It seems to me that CC-ND is better than fair use. It's global, rather than US specific. It's applicable to all reusers, instead of being potentially unusable for commercial reuse. And perhaps best of all, there's no arguing over whether the image is fair use. While it clearly should be deprecated in favor of free licenses such as CC-SA or CC-BY, I think it's much better than many of the "fair use" photos we currently have. But maybe that's where I'm misunderstanding you, because maybe you only want to use "fair use" in the clear-cut areas, such as logos. But when it comes to an image of Dolly the Sheep, CC-ND is much more useful than fair use for the vast majority of reusers. Cropping is about the only useful modification I could see a reuser needing to make, and that's probably going to fall under fair use anyway. Anthony

(I read all your post about this subject, but I'm not sure to have understood all) Derivations are allowed on fair used image? If the answer is "derivation is allowed as long as the derivation still fairs", I don't think it is a real freedom. I don't want a freedom which could depend on the way in which an American court of justice could interpret the fairness of my work. Fair use don't exist in many country, I really think it's a worse choice that CC-ND. Furthermore, we can't use a high resolution picture as Fair use, isn't it? We may not have this kind of constraint with CC-ND. In all case, GFDL must be privileged, but CC-ND may allow us to get legally some pictures that may never being released under GFDL (logo, celebrity, etc.). Aoineko

Anthony DiPierro wrote: I've dual licensed my images under cc-by-sa (attribution, share alike). This seems to closest to the GFDL and I believe to be copyleft. Caroline/Secretlondon

This statement is right? License compatible with GFDL: - Public Domain - GFDL - GPL - LGPL - CC-AS (share alike) - CC-BY-AS (attribution-share alike) License witch compatibility with GFDL is discussed: - Fair use - CC-*-ND (no derivation) License no compatible with GFDL: - Copyright - CC-*-NC (non commercial) By the way, no one answer my question about if derivation is allowed with fair use image and who decide the fairness of a picture? Aoineko

GB> This statement is right? License compatible with GFDL: That depends on what you mean by "compatible". If you mean, "you can include works under license X with works under the GFDL", practically any value of X will work. If you mean, "You can re-license a work made under the license X under the GFDL", then X can only be "public domain", "GFDL", or something BSD-like (such as CC-BY). If you mean "You can re-license a work made under the GFDL under license X", then it's just the GFDL. If you mean, "You can dual-license a work under both license X and the GFDL," then it can be practically any license. HOWEVER, dual-licensing with copyleft licenses only lasts for one generation: people who make derivative works have to decide which license to choose, and license under only that. No current copyleft license allows you to re-license under a license with a similar spirit but different details. If it's not clear already, dual licensing is a lot of trouble. The idea is nice, but it makes for a lot of head-scratching. GB> By the way, no one answer my question about if derivation is GB> allowed with fair use image and who decide the fairness of a GB> picture? There's a good Web site here with info on fair use: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ Fair use (or fair dealing) is not a license. It is an exception to US and Commonwealth country copyright law that says that you can make unauthorized copies or excerpts of work under certain circumstances. Fair use is a _defense_ if you are sued for copyright violation. The courts decide if your unauthorized copying is excusable under the principle of fair use. In the US, it depends who you are, why you're using the copyrighted work, how much you're using, and what the effect is on the copyright holder and the market. It is a complicated and subjective decision. In other countries, the rules are different. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou <evan(a)wikitravel.org> Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide