[Foundation-l] An argument for strong copyleft

Mon Apr 7 14:46:08 UTC 2008

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
>  When Carrie buys a license for the photo and merges it with the "share
>  alike" article, she has to buy a license for the photo to be released under
>  this "share alike" article. When she fails to do this she will effectively
>  violate the rights of the photographer.
>
The article is not released under "share alike".  If it was, there
would be no reason to pay Bill in the first place.

>  Alternatively Carry buys a license for the photo AND acquires an appropriate
>  license to use the article from the copyright holder. This is in my opinion
>  the only correct way to do this.

Yes, please reread my scenario, that's exactly what I present.
"Andrew sells [a license on] the article to Carrie under a restrictive
license."  "Bill releases his photo under a free, strong copyleft,
license."  "Carrie can simply buy a license from Bill to use the photo
in her newspaper article."

>  On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>  > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>  > > On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com>
>  > wrote:
>  > >  >  I don't want someone to modify it and put a non-free copyright on
>  > the
>  > >  >  derivative of my photograph.
>  > >  >
>  > >  >  But I don't believe in purity tests either, that seek to dictate the
>  > >  >  copyright status of work I had no hand in, and whose only connection
>  > >  >  to my photograph is that they might appear on the same page.
>  > >  >
>  > >  Work that you had no hand in cannot be a derivative of your work, so
>  > >  there's really no question about that.  However, if your photograph
>  > >  appears in a newspaper article, then you *did* have a hand in that
>  > >  newspaper article.
>  > >
>  > >  Maybe this is a matter of semantics, but if I look at a newspaper I'd
>  > >  say it generally consists of articles which have pictures in them.  I
>  > >  wouldn't say that it has articles and pictures which just happen to
>  > > appear on the same page.
>  > >
>  > Let me expand on that.  Say Andrew creates an article, Bill creates a
>  > photo, and Carrie puts the two together into a newspaper article.
>  > Andrew sells the article to Carrie under a restrictive license.  Bill
>  > releases his photo under a free, strong copyleft, license.
>  >
>  > We have two independent works, an article and a photo, and we have a
>  > newspaper article which is, at least in my opinion, a derivative of
>  > both works.  Now I agree that it's unrealistic to expect Andrew to
>  > give away his copyright.  He probably makes a living writing newspaper
>  > articles.  On the other hand, most Bill's would find it unfair that
>  > Carrie gets to profit of his work without giving anything in return.
>  > This is the reason the Noncommercial-only license (which I dislike) is
>  > so popular.
>  >
>  > But there's a simple solution.  Carrie can simply buy a license from
>  > Bill to use the photo in her newspaper article.
>  >
>  > For those Bill's who don't mind Carrie's using their work in this way,
>  > there's always CC-BY or some other non-copylefted free license.
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>