On 10/25/06, Chris Picone <ccool2ax(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Well, if I'm printing Wikipedia, I have to
print it under the GFDL,
right? So I can't use the image. Besides, couldn't some crazy lawyer
in the future consider the article used by an image "derivative work"?
There is no problem in printing a page with bout CC-BY-SA and GFDL on
it. Aslong as you follow both licenses when you redistibute it. The
images and text just have different licenses, that's all. If you
follow them, you'll be fine.
And no, when you include a picture of an image in an article, you are
not making a derivative work of it. You are redistributing it. That's
it.
Yeah, this has been debated on and off, and the consensus (but shaky
consensus) is what you say.
An argument can be made that illustrating a text with images is
producing a new work that is derived from both the text and images,
rather than merely aggregating them, but it's unclear whether that would
hold up in court. In particular, Wikipedia usually "just" displays
images---we don't "illustrate" our articles in the integrated sense that
a children's book does.
-Mark