On 3/16/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/14/06, guru brahma <wikibra(a)yahoo.co.in>
wrote:
Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think
there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images
tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is,
take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be
photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in
using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would
apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I
want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any
thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be
used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
I don't see any need for this. If you take a picture of Eddie Van Halen, and
someone photoshops a beard and a corncob pipe onto it, you can be for damn
sure that this image won't be apperaing on Wikipedia.
Unless it gets picked up by some tabloid newspaper or made into a
Pokemon (or a million other scenarios).
And since people do
this stuff all the time anyway without any kind of legal permission, you
won't be any worse off by indirectly permitting it anyway. No one is going
to see the image except a few of the joker's friends.
Well, I agree with you that it probably doesn't make much of a
difference. But not for the reasons you're giving. Rather, I believe
it doesn't really matter because photoshopping a picture of Eddie Van
Halen to add a beard and a corncob pipe onto it, even without
permission, is probably fair use anyway.
The only place where this is really different is when
we are trying to
rework an image for legitimate purposes, and this license only introduces
barriers to that. There is no benefit to the project really.
There's a benefit if people are willing to release images under such a
license that aren't willing to release these images under a less
restrictive license. (This is true regardless of whether or not their
thought process is logically sound.)
The bottom line is that who are highly protective of
their intellectual
property probably should not be contributing it to Wikipedia.
CC-BY-ND is a fairly permissive license. It's much more permissive
than, for instance, the license Wikimedia provides for its own logos.
By your rationale Wikimedia shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia.
Anthony
