[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] GFDL compatibility of image licenses

Mon Nov 28 15:36:24 UTC 2005

On 11/28/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Nyenyec N wrote:
> > What is the definitive source to read about which image licenses are
> > compatible with the GFDL?
> >
> > Or perhaps a GFDL text with non-GFDL images added doesn't count as
> > derivative work?
>
> There is a slightly related discussion on meta,
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Do_fair_use_images_violate_the_GFDL%3F Do
> fair use images violate the GFDL?
>
> In it Jimbo seems to argue that the addition of fair use images does not
> mean that the images become GFDL, but rather that the usage of the
> specific images in such a way become compliant with the GFDL.  At least
> that is my reading of the comments.  The position I base that upon is
> his argument:
>
> "The experts I have consulted on this (including Richard Stallman and
> Larry Lessig) find no merit in this argument. Remember that the GNU FDL
> works inside the framework of copyright law. The GNU FDL is a way for
> authors to conditionally give up some of the rights they have under
> copyright. It is not a claim to be able to impose additional
> restrictions above and beyond what copyright grants. Since fair use is
> legitimate in copyrighted works, an author may use fair use. But this
> doesn't preclude that author from releasing the work under the GNU FDL,
> because the GNU FDL does not pretend to impose ad"

Actually, it's pretty clear that Jimbo didn't properly explain the
argument to those experts.  Of course fair use is legal.  But if
sizeable portions of GFDL text are being taken and distributed without
permission then it is unlikely that that would be considered fair use.

There are two potential copyright infringements going on when GFDLed
text is mixed with copyrighted images.  There is the copyright on the
image, which might be excused by fair use, and there is the copyright
on the text, which might be excused by either fair use or the GFDL. 
Just because the image is being used under fair use doesn't mean the
text is as well.

I think relying on the aggregation clause of the GFDL is much more
appropriate here.  The fair use argument doesn't really make any
sense, and I doubt that Stallman or Lessig were presented with an
accurate description of the argument if they said they found no merit
in it.  Since AFAIK there are no direct quotes from them available
it's really hard to say, though.

Anthony