Nicolas Guérin wrote: Maybe we should just rename Wikimedia Commons to you-are-free-to-reuse-it.org -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

Yeah its incompatible, SA license requires - *Share Alike*—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license. the is an exception that the copyright holder may waiver any condition of a SA license. The site licensing clearly isnt the same, similar or compatible. Interestingly if the images are individually licensed cc-by-3.0 then they are able to reuse without restriction or requesting a waiver. The image in http://euobserver.com/7/28830 is a cc-by-3.0 license while the attribution isnt correct the resue is compatible While the image in http://euobserver.com/7/28767 is a satalite photograph, which I have yet to locate on en:WP or Commons but the its either a PD license or its a government agency license either way attribution shouldnt be to WP the other are proving a little difficult to track down for the purpose of giving example in this email that the image may be reusable under a different license than cc-by-sa 2009/10/23 Py mouss <pymouss44(a)gmail.com> -- GN. http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/

----- "Yann Forget" <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote: 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 Andrew

2009/10/25 Daniel Kinzler <daniel(a)brightbyte.de> I can't force anyone, but I'll post my own contributions as PD, if allowed, and I encourage other to post their contributions as PD too, if they like. Alex

Meanwhile, here's a rather more prestigious reuser, with correct attributions and licenses: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2009/ - d.