The definition of "derivative" in the license seems to refer to only
very "large" derivatives (i.e., translating it into another language)
rather than small modifications. But I agree that the notion of a
derivative work is vague enough to make me uncomfortable. For example,
syncing music to a moving image is explicitly a "derivative work" in
this instance, which seems to imply that you can't use a no-deriv work
as part of another work, which would seem to rule out the idea of
taking an image from Wikipedia and using it practically anywhere else.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode :
"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the
avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound
recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the
purpose of this License.
FF
On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack <justin(a)specialbusservice.com> wrote:
On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma 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?
Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
license...
Most countries have other means of protection if someone uses an
image of you for
things that are problematic, regardless of copyright.
Justinc
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l