[Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

Thu Feb 19 06:52:12 UTC 2004

Anthere wrote:

> But if I give the copyright to Wikipedia, then it is up to Wikipedia 
> to ensure that its rights as copyright owner are respected ? 

That is correct. But normally we only license our contributions to 
Wikipedia under the GFDL, we don't actually give Wikipedia the copyright.

> If I do transfer the copyright to Wikipedia, do I still stay the author ?
> If I do, and someone claim the pictures are his, who has the right to 
> say it is not true ?

First of all, you certainly remain the author. That's essentially a 
factual question, not a legal question. But Tomasz correctly points out 
that there is a legal concept of moral rights, part of which is the 
right to have authorship recognized. It can also include the ability to 
prevent distortion or mutilation of the work, and even the right to 
suppress the work (for example, if you are so dissatisfied with the 
picture that you don't want anybody to publish it, period).

Traditionally, US law does not recognize moral rights that are distinct 
from copyright, so you would have to own the copyright to complain. 
However, the Berne Convention does include a section about moral rights. 
The US resists this concept, and it was one of the big hang-ups over 
signing on to the Convention, so I would characterize the present legal 
situation as uncertain.

Based on the terms of the GFDL, even if moral rights apply, you may be 
giving up many of the restrictions on what people can do with your work.

--Michael Snow