He just means that as a fair use claim, it would probably be totally safe when used in non-commercial circumstances, not that it is licensed under a non-commercial-use-only license. It would probably be safe in a number of for-profit circumstances as well, but our policy on that for a long time has been that in the case of fair use, it is up to the re-user to sort out their own circumstances.
FF
On 6/13/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 6/12/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Usually the courts give a lot of leeway to derivative works which do a lot of transformation, especially when pitted up against claims from works which don't do a lot of transformation.
Good example here is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons
Koons turned Rogers' photographic postcard into a sculpture, with a couple of tiny details changed, but the other details intentionally as close as possible. Courts held it to be copyright violation.
In the case of the inspired drawing, the details are intentionally as far as possible, given the reinterpretation in .. charcoal? The only carried over elements are compositional, and it's pretty transformed.
The lack of any commercial value of the derived product also makes it more likely to pass muster.
I would say, no worries, for using it on WP. It might be a marginal concern for commercial use of that drawing, but not for noncommercial use.
Provided we use it under fair use, I presume? Non-commercial-use only works have been verboten for quite some time.
John _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l