<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040810200651.D9F8C1950368@mail.wikimedia.org">
<pre wrap="">Andre Engels wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The real problem is not with putting them into Wikipedia, but with putting
them under the GNU/FDL license. Putting pictures into Wikipedia under fair
use will be okay if not done too extensively, provided we use relatively
low-resolution and specify the maker. But Wikipedia is not just a webpage,
it is a document under the GNU/FDL. Which means people may make derived
works and publish those. What if someone takes a Wikipedia page, and makes
a derived work from it by removing all but the copyrighted picture, then
publishes that under the GNU/FDL. We are currently permitting them to do
so. But we can't.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This is a common misperception, and one that I want to combat every
chance that I get. It is perfectly fine to aggregate independent
works under clause 7 of the GNU FDL. The sort of aggregation that is
contemplated by the license is *precisely* of the sort that we do.
I have a very high comfort level on this point. There are certain
ways in which some fair use images will be problematic. But the idea
that if a page is GNU FDL, it may not be aggregated with independent
works that aren't also under the GNU FDL is simply wrong.
It would be perfectly fine *under the terms of the license* for us to
put any sort of image in an article, for example, images that are
licensed solely to us, or images that the Foundation itself owns
(works for hire, say) and simply publishes under default copyright.
I have asked this question of prominent and knowledgeable people, and
they have assured me that there is no conflict between GNU FDL and
fair use. (They actually treated my question with some amusement.)
--Jimbo</pre>
</blockquote>
Clause 7 of the GFDL is predicated on aggregating the GFDL content with
"separate and independent documents or works". Are images actually
separate and independent?<br>
<br>
As files in the Image namespace, it's easy enough to say images are
separate and independent works from articles. But once the image is
used in an article, it gets fuzzier. When I view an article with an
image, the image shows up there with the rest of the article, and looks
to the reader like it is part of the article. It does not look very
"separate and independent", nor does the image give any indication that
it may be under a different license than the GFDL. You may point out
that in wiki syntax, the image is actually linked to rather than being
incorporated directly into the article, but that argument does not
instill much confidence in me. The law has been known to disregard such
attempts at technical distinctions and look at things from the simpler
practical perspective.<br>
<br>
But online content is not that big of an issue really, because anyone
who says we're infringing on their copyright has to give us a takedown
notice first, and we can remove the offending image. The real problem
is print. And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying
any argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
separate and independent work from the article text. The one kind of
print version for which I might entertain this argument is if the
images are segregated as is done in many books, on separate glossier
facing pages or in a batch of illustrations in the middle of the book.
But in the routine print version, where the image is printed out on the
same page as the article, they look like part of one document and I
don't see how you can make much of a case that they're not. As a
result, I think the article as a whole, _including_ associated images,
is the smallest Document to which we can legitimately atomize the GFDL.<br>
<br>
--Michael Snow<br>
</body>
</html>