[WikiEN-l] No derivatives (was: Would you like one of your videos posted on Wikipedia?)

Tue Sep 19 16:42:31 UTC 2006

> Consider what happens if we make a print version of Wikipedia with
> color images in black and white? Is that a derived work?   

Meh. Possibly a derivative work under some laws, I don't know.

Though CC-BY-ND, for instance, explicitly allows transfer to different media,
and modifications necessary for such.

> > For starters it isn't mentioned in the copyright FAQ at all.
> [snip]
> 
> The copyright FAQ is mostly written for users of content in Wikipedia.
> Not creators of Wikipedia content. 

Sorry, isn't that the case under discussion? By "user of content" we mean people
including someone else's content in Wikipedia, rather than people using
Wikipedia's content, right? Because the first question in the FAQ is, in fact,
"Can I add to Wikipedia something that I got from somewhere else?" 

The FAQ has a whole section on licenses. It even has a specific sub-section on
Creative Commons licenses. There is a general prohibition on that page against
non-commercial licenses, but nothing about non-derivative, not even in the
specific sub-section.

> See [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]] which states "You can prove that the 
> copyright holder has licensed the image under a free license."

I did in fact look at that page as well, and that is not the relevant section.
That section is about whether you can upload the media. For example it also has
the option "you own the rights to the image" and one for "fair use".

You then go down just a bit further to find what "free license" is acceptable.
Again, it explicitly forbids non-commercial use licenses, but is silent on
non-derivative licenses. You then go to another page for "acceptable image tags"
(WP:TAG). Again, a general prohibition on non-commercial license is stated
(sort-of... e.g. if you go all the way down under generic free licenses), but no
general prohibition on non-deriv. Of course, under the specific creative commons
section, you would not find no-deriv licenses. 

So I found it less than clear, even for "creators of content" rather than "users
for content", and rationale is not given in any case. 

> >We even allow "fair use" under some restricted circumstances. This
> > does not allow for derivative works either, and in fact poses downstream
> > problems.
> 
> Our intention of allowing fair use images is to fulfil our
> encyclopedic goals for material which can not be made available under
> another license.
> 
> The downstream implication is that if we have a valid fair use claim
> and they are doing something similar to us, then they should have a
> fair use claim as well.
> 

But if the downstream users are doing something different, then they might not,
and in any case a fair use claim is not a let to make derivative works
(notwithstanding media transfers, which as I say is allowed anyway).

It seems to me that CC-BY-ND, therefore, is intermediate between a copyleft and
fair-use. And we do, as you say, allow fair use, under some circumstances. We
should therefore allow CC-BY-ND under at least the same circumstances, and
probably more. No?

Regards,
Daniel