[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 ]

"David Monniaux" a écrit:
> In some instances, this is a case of protection of image: they don't
> want their image to be associated with products or political campaigns
> without their authorisation, and it's much easier for them to act on
> grounds of copyright infringement than on other grounds (especially
> since in some cases they cannot claim trademark protection).

GFDL is in fact really strong. If a GFDL image was used to advertise Coke, 
then the whole advertisement could be claimed to be under GFDL. Now think 
about the legal issues a company could have putting their logo next to the 
GFDL image... I highly doubt to found in my snail mail an ad saying "Buy 
XYZ", with three GFDL pages appended. Would be a nice paper to keep though 
;)

It's more a matter of license-knowing, so instead of accepting material 
under such _irregular_ license (what would decide the use limits?), it'd 
better to inform the copyright holders and ask them to free it. Plus, not 
allowing fair use, thus saying "the only way to have this on wikipedia" is 
also a good wayy of receiving images that would be otherwise forced to the 
fair use. 

• 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 ]