On 7/29/06, Sherool <jamydlan(a)online.no> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:20:53 +0200, Anthere
<Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
The crime : it was uploaded as a non-derivative
license. So, it is
proposed for deletion.
And frankly, I can not ask Treanna any more if he would be nice enough
to change that license to make it free by wikipedia definition.
Sorry if I'm beeing an insensitive prick here, but why not simply ask his
family to change the license? With the author dead the family is the new
legal copyright holder (unless he left a will stating otherwise), and we
obviosly know how to get in contact with them. I mean by all means give
them some time to grieve before confronting them with the GFDL release
forms or whatever, but if we are planning to keep the image around
permanently it seems like the only real solution. It is what we would have
demanded of anyone else (people have literaly been banned for insisting on
using NC or ND images of themselves on theyr own userpage), and I for one
do not apreciate having double standards. Either we allow every unfree
image with a sufficiently compelling "sob storry" to stay, or we stay true
to our stated goals of free content even if it means that an image of
someone dear to us can not be used. Personaly I favour the later.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think it ignores an important sanity
check. Why does the image have to be free in the first place?
It's obviously not a legal reason, as the ND license means things are
perfectly legal. So why is just being legal not enough? The reason
is so that third parties can use the content.
Well, the image is ND, so third parties *can* use the content, "in all
media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised". Further,
they can "make such modifications as are technically necessary to
exercise the rights in other media and formats". And they can also
make any modifications which are permitted under the doctrine of fair
use. A third party could copy [[Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians]].
They could add other people to it. They could remove some. They
could change the text. They could probably enhance the image itself
under the doctrine of fair use. They could print out this new copy.
They could create an article on Bernard and include the image in it.
They could make a newspaper article out of that article. They could
broadcast a television show which included the picture in it.
I for one can't think of anything that a third party is going to want
to do with this image that they can't legally do, unless it's some
troll picking on this image just to make a point.
For me, it has nothing to do with a double standard. The only way I
think it could even be argued that it makes sense to ban this image
would be if the parents were contacted and they flat out refused to
license the image under a free license. Then I suppose you could
argue that we should refuse to include the image, basically as an
ultimatum. Even then though I tend to be of the opinion that CC-BY-ND
is "free enough", especially for an image in the Wikipedia namespace
of a person who is almost surely never going to have an article about
him.
Anthony