[Foundation-l] Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice

Wed Aug 11 14:36:13 UTC 2004

Michael Snow wrote:
> Clause 7 of the GFDL is predicated on aggregating the GFDL content with 
> "separate and independent documents or works". Are images actually 
> separate and independent?

Except in some hypothetical cases which are hard to even dream up, I
would say yes, absolutely.  The authorship of the image is different,
the process by which the image is authored is completely different, it
is stored in a separate file "in or on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium", etc.  It is hard to see how the image is somehow
a "derivative work" of the article or vice-versa.  They are simply a
compilation.

> It does not look very "separate and independent", nor does the image
> give any indication that it may be under a different license than
> the GFDL.

In order to make things more clear, it seems likely to me that some
indication of licensing status of images could be displayed as part of
the caption.  

> And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
> argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
> separate and independent work from the article text.

Can you point me to any case law on this point?  Law review articles?

Consider the implications of your argument for traditional licensing
of images for book publications.

Imagine the following scenario.  I write a book, under traditional
copyright.  For my book, I license some images from you, under a
traditional licensing scheme for such, i.e. you tell me that I can use
the images for my book, only for my book, and for no other purposes.

After the book has been published, I decide that I want to license a
portion of the text to a magazine.  Can you then object, saying that
the text is now a "derived work" of the photograph?  That the two are
no longer separate and independent?

I don't see how that could be so.

Now, clearly, I can't exceed the bounds of my license from you by
telling the magazine that they can use the photos.  But this is one of
the key reasons why the license includes Clause 7, to make it
abundantly clear that compilations of this sort *are* permitted.

--Jimbo