Sherool wrote:
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:44:02 +0200, Fastfission
<fastfission(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
I don't think copyrights work on a "per
file" basis — they work on a
"per work" basis. To my understanding of it, you can't GFDL only a
low-res version of something and not have it also covered by a
high-res version. At least I'm pretty sure there's nothing in current
caselaw which would imply that different resolutions of the same image
have independent copyright status.
Ok, IANAL, but my understanding is "yes and no".
Copyright is granted for the work, no question about it. Anyone create
something creative have full copyright for that work and any derivatives.
HOWEVER the copyright holder is fully within his right to *licence* one
spesific version (or copy) of the work under a free licence without
loosing any sort of controll over source work.
A number of of software companies base theyr entire business model on
this principle. They offer one version of theyr code for free under the
GPL licence (or whatever), and one version under a commercial licence
where people can pay a fee in exchange for not beeing bound by the GPL
terms (release source code, licence result under GPL etc).
Indeed. I would expect the commercial image libraries to get an endless
source of commercial sales leads for their high-resolution works, in
exchange for free (as in freedom) use of the low-resolution versions of
their images throughout the GFDL-sphere.
Note that by doing this, the libraries would _not_ be making the
low-resolution versions of their works available for use outside the
GFDL, so they should lose very little in sales from the low-res
versions, and no loss at all from the high-res versions, which would not
be released to anyone at all, other than under normal commercial terms.
They could even watermark the GFDL'd images with a special watermark, if
they wished, signifying "this low-resolution image copyright X, year,
licenced under the GFDL only", so they can catch unlicenced commercial
non-GFDL reusers of the low-res images and chase them for payment.
Everyone wins.
Best of all, the libraries can dip a toe in the water by trying this on,
say, a few hundred of their images first, which would be only a tiny,
tiny fraction of their library, so their loss is limited even if this
strategy turns out to be a bad idea.
-- Neil