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@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@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l