On 8/21/07, David Blomstrom webmaster@geobop.org wrote: [snip]
It sounds like I could use images licensed under either Creative License or GNU on my political sites with virtually no fear of being sued. However, it's POSSIBLE that doing so could lead to me forfeiting ownership of material I created. In other words, if I write an article about the relationships between Bill Gates and George W. Bush and illustrate it with photos of both men derived from Creative or GNU, then it's possible that people could begin copying any text I wrote, claiming it is no longer protected by copyright.
If I use such images on my educational/commercial websites, it similarly appears very unlikely that anyone would ever sue me - but the possibility exists. It's further possible that I could lose copyright protection of any text and images I created.
[snip]
I think you are misstating a very important point here. Yes, you have understood what "could" happen should you use Wikimedia Commons images in the contexts you describe. But allow me to correct you on one important point. Never ever would you "lose" the copyright protection of your text.
You would retain copyright (ie. ownership, the right to be credited, and some other rights), but allow others to use your work under the conditions listed by the GFDL or CC licences. To make a long and complex story short, such licences as GFDL or CC-BY-SA
It is very important to understand that putting your work under a free licence does not mean that you are "losing" anything. You are "giving up" certain rights, while making sure others are exerted along terms you have chosen and not by a default law.
I think www.answer.com is an example of a website that makes abundant use of Wikipedia content (at least, text, but images, too, I believe). Of course, they probably have an attorney who has worked out an agreement with Wikipedia.
Answers.com (if that is indeed the site you're referring to) is actually a very good example of a "collection". The Wikipedia content is displayed (as are all other contents actually) completely apart from all other content. (ie. with delimitations.). In short, the restrictions discussed in this thread would not apply to the whole page. It thus allows Wikipedia content to coexist on a page with very proprietary content ;-)
On the side, Answers.com has been a partner and benefactor of Wikimedia for the past 3 years.
Delphine