<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>Interesting - thanks for sharing this information.<br><br>Wikimedia UK is currently starting up a "workplace learning" project, which is going into companies - predominently media companies - and talking to them about issues such as how they can add to and re-use our content. One of the specific questions that we will be answering is how people like EU Observer can reuse Wikimedia Commons photos in a way that is copyright compliant. Note that the BBC, for instance, has a policy of not reusing our content specifically because no one can give them a clear answer to that question.<br><br>What we will say will be carefully worded to make sure people don't treat it as legal advice or some kind of permission beyond the terms of the license - important as we're not the copyright owners although some people may think we are! I was thinking of wording it along the lines of "here's the kind of things that other people do" (answers.com for instance).<br><br>Have you got any more information about the aggregate/weak vs derivative/viral argument? Am I right to presume the migration from GDFL to CC-BY-SA of wikipedia will strengthen the former argument? Are GDFL images on Commons migrating to CC-BY-SA at the same time?<br><br>Thanks for any help you could give.<br><br>Regards, <br><br>----- "Daniel Kinzler" <daniel@brightbyte.de> wrote:
<br>> From: "Daniel Kinzler" <daniel@brightbyte.de><br>> To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org><br>> Sent: Sunday, 25 October, 2009 09:19:23 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal<br>> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Wikimedia as stock photo source<br>><br>> Andrew Turvey schrieb:<br>> > <br>> > ----- "Yann Forget" <yann@forget-me.net> wrote:<br>> >> From: "Yann Forget" <yann@forget-me.net><br>> >><br>> >> Py mouss wrote:<br>> >> > The license of the site (http://euobserver.com/static/terms) seems<br>> > to be<br>> >> > incompatible with the use of pictures licensed CC-BY-SA, no ?<br>> >><br>> >> What the license of the site has to do with the image ?<br>> >> The site is certainly not a derivative of the image, so I don't see the<br>> >> relation.<br>> > <br>> > Whilst I'd never pretend to know anything about copyright, that would<br>> > also be my interpretation. The "SA" in CC-BY-SA refers to derivative<br>> > works - i.e. where you change, modify, etc the picture itself. Merely<br>> > putting the CC-BY-SA picture next to text doesn't create a derivative<br>> > work, so the text would not have to be CC-BY-SA'd<br>> <br>> This is a matter of much debate and disagreement, as old as copyleft licenses.<br>> It's "strong" or "viral" copyleft vs. "weak" or "soft" copyleft. Traditionally,<br>> the FSF takes teh side of strong copyleft with the GFDL, and the CC crowd tends<br>> more towards the weak variant, implying that the share-alike requirement does<br>> not apply to "aggregate" works, only "true" derivatives. To me, that makes more<br>> sense in practice, even though it may be less desierable in principle. The<br>> distinction is tricky, however.<br>> <br>> -- daniel<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Commons-l mailing list<br>> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org<br>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l<br>> </div></body></html>