[Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

Mon Jan 15 15:07:50 UTC 2007

You intention of allowing logos is one, but the means you suggest open
a far wider array of possibilities.

And what you suggest about editorial reasons is not covered by the license text:
""Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License"

So an assembly with some other works is allowed (contrary what i
assumed in my previous post), but adaptions for editorial reasons are
not.

So I do keep my reservations on your suggestion.

kind regards,
teun

On 1/15/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Yes indeed, no derivatives. My intention is to allow logos of
> organisations.
>
> What I suggest is not necessarily to accept ND photos, but maybe also
> accept ND photos. The point of ND is that it does not allow to change
> material in such a way that they do not accurately reflect what was
> originally there. When for editorial reasons a picture is changed,
> typically there does not need to be a problem. One reason why I would
> insist on ND is to prevent the barbarism of people changing the colours
> in art.
>
> Any way, for me this is a different discussion. Consequently, the
> criticism does not necessarily apply.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> teun spaans schreef:
> > ND=No Derivatives. (and not: no deviations)
> >
> > This means no derivative is allowed. For example, you can not combine
> > the image with another.
> >
> > Most press photos are ND: they can be freely distributed, but not
> > altered. What you suggest is to accept a large category of images
> > which can be used as the illustration of an article, and which
> > seemingly can be distributed freely, but for which the copyright
> > holder keep the claim to full copyright, and which can not be
> > combined, modified at the borders to suit to a particular layout,
> > where it is not allowed to take a cut of it and use that, and so on.
> > Freedom will be much more restricted than you at first imagine.
> >
> > teun
> >
> > On 1/15/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> "Fair use" is a construct that exists under the US-American law. It does
> >> not exist in exactly the same way under another law. In the Netherlands
> >> for instance there is the more restrictive "citaatrecht". When you
> >> compare "fair use" with "non commercial", you are comparing two things
> >> things that cannot be compared as they are so different.
> >>
> >> The argument that "NC" is the freest that you can get makes no
> >> difference really. It puts a restriction to the distribution to our
> >> content. Distribution of our content is what we aim to do.
> >>
> >> To me the argument would be different for "ND" or no deviations. This is
> >> a restriction that does not prevent distribution of our content. The
> >> purists will argue that it restricts what you can do with it. That is
> >> true, however what they ignore is that there is content where it is not
> >> possible to have it made to us available. Trademarked logos for instance
> >> cannot be made available under anything but a ND restriction and
> >> probably some other restrictions as well, doing otherwise would destroy
> >> the rights of the trademark holder. At this moment logos are published
> >> under "fair use" or something like this.
> >>
> >> Personally I do think that the dogmatic way in which this issue is
> >> ignored is ridiculous. I know of several organisations including the WMF
> >> itself that would be helped with a license that would recognise this and
> >> that would be acceptable on Commons.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>      GerardM
> >>
> >>
> >> Marco Chiesa schreef:
> >>
> >>> David Strauss wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's
> >>>> content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we
> >>>> allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute*
> >>>> for fair-use media?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a
> >>> copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the
> >>> justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the
> >>> problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media
> >>> because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that
> >>> you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC
> >>> tag because fair use is helpless to me.
> >>>
> >>> I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you
> >>> shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if  you
> >>> need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you
> >>> may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What
> >>> is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence
> >>> which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)?
> >>>
> >>> Marco
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>