Interesting - thanks for sharing this information.
Wikimedia UK is currently starting up a "workplace learning" project, which is
going into companies - predominently media companies - and talking to them about issues
such as how they can add to and re-use our content. One of the specific questions that we
will be answering is how people like EU Observer can reuse Wikimedia Commons photos in a
way that is copyright compliant. Note that the BBC, for instance, has a policy of not
reusing our content specifically because no one can give them a clear answer to that
question.
What we will say will be carefully worded to make sure people don't treat it as legal
advice or some kind of permission beyond the terms of the license - important as we're
not the copyright owners although some people may think we are! I was thinking of wording
it along the lines of "here's the kind of things that other people do"
(
for instance).
Have you got any more information about the aggregate/weak vs derivative/viral argument?
Am I right to presume the migration from GDFL to CC-BY-SA of wikipedia will strengthen the
former argument? Are GDFL images on Commons migrating to CC-BY-SA at the same time?
Thanks for any help you could give.
Regards,
----- "Daniel Kinzler" <daniel(a)brightbyte.de> wrote:
From: "Daniel Kinzler"
<daniel(a)brightbyte.de>
To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, 25 October, 2009 09:19:23 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Wikimedia as stock photo source
Andrew Turvey schrieb:
----- "Yann Forget" <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote:
From: "Yann Forget"
<yann(a)forget-me.net>
Py mouss wrote:
> The license of the site (
http://euobserver.com/static/terms) seems
to be
incompatible with the use of pictures licensed CC-BY-SA, no ?
What the license of the site has to do with the image ?
The site is certainly not a derivative of the image, so I don't see the
relation.
Whilst I'd never pretend to know anything about copyright, that would
also be my interpretation. The "SA" in CC-BY-SA refers to derivative
works - i.e. where you change, modify, etc the picture itself. Merely
putting the CC-BY-SA picture next to text doesn't create a derivative
work, so the text would not have to be CC-BY-SA'd
This is a matter of much debate and disagreement, as old as copyleft licenses.
It's "strong" or "viral" copyleft vs. "weak" or
"soft" copyleft. Traditionally,
the FSF takes teh side of strong copyleft with the GFDL, and the CC crowd tends
more towards the weak variant, implying that the share-alike requirement does
not apply to "aggregate" works, only "true" derivatives. To me, that
makes more
sense in practice, even though it may be less desierable in principle. The
distinction is tricky, however.
-- daniel
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l