[Commons-l] Editorial use vs commercial exploitation

• Previous message: [Commons-l] Editorial use vs commercial exploitation
• Next message: [Commons-l] Editorial use vs commercial exploitation
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Sherool wrote:

>While such licences are free-ish I don't think they would fall fully  
>within the definition of free content (thouh IANAL). Either way they would  
>not be compatable with the GFDL licence, since it does not put any  
>restrictions on who can use a work or for what purpose, and unless I'm  
>mistaken GFDL compatability is the acid test for wether or not something  
>is allowed on Commons.
>  
>
Note that we already have "free" content on the Commons that is, really, 
unfree to use in some ways for reasons other than copyright. For 
instance, take a free photograph of somebody and use it in an 
advertisement; in many countries, you can get sued for abusive use of 
that person's image.

Whether content free for educational and informational usage but not for 
advertisement should be accepted on commons is a different question from 
whether they should be accepted in the projects. My personal point of 
view is that the projects should accept such content, for this content 
is on a much sounder legal ground than a lot of our "fair use" claims.

-- DM

• Previous message: [Commons-l] Editorial use vs commercial exploitation
• Next message: [Commons-l] Editorial use vs commercial exploitation
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]