On 6/11/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
So, I should print it out, frame it nicely, then glue the GFDL to the bottom of the frame before hanging it on my wall? Imagine there's a world outside of cyberspace....
If you hang it on your wall at home, you don't have to add anything to it. If you /redistribute/ it, then you have to give the license.
Though strictly not legal, I doubt anyone will come after you if you settle for license name and link in the image credits. If you're going to mass-print GFDL-based picture catalogs, you'll probably have a page ot two for the license anyway :-)
So, in other words, I have to break the law.
That is not what I said. Please read carefully what others write before putting words in their mouth.
In case you need a summary: * Legally, you have to give the license * Practically, many authors wouldn't mind you using their GFDL images with an "abbreviated" license. If your income really depends on using GFDLd images, have you considered asking the author to release the image under CC as well?
What I really do is just what everyone else does, ignore all the images with GFDL and search for ones with Public Domain releases.
So you personally know "everyone else"? Or do you have any usage statistics?
I personally know people I work with who deal with the issue of using images, and other editors on Wikipedia whom I've asked about this. All have offered the same solution: search for Public Domain images.
As to statistics once you've asked for the 6+billion, sampling the population just won't do.
So noone if using GFDL images at all? Hard to believe, somehow.
I'm an artist, so don't try telling me I can just download someon else's image and not comply with the licensing agreement, but it's absurd to allow one to be used that simply can't be used--and, again, imagine a world where images are used for things other than cyberspace communities.
Do you have a real-life example where it is impossible for you to comply with the license?
Impossible? The same example I gave, a 4" square image accompanied by a couple of pages of text. Impossible? I'm a starving artist, I can afford to frame a 4" square image, but can't afford the 24" by 24" frame, paper and matboard for the accompanying text.
Who said the license had to be on the picture? I appreciate the ridiculous idea, but it isn't very helpful in a discussion.
The whole image world on Wikipedia and escpecially Wikimedia Commons is so difficult and poorly thought out in so many ways that I seldom bother uploading images. Things like this, the common usage of a license which, if anyone ever read it, simply could not be understood to apply to images, is just one of many frustrating issues.
Licensing images under GFDL was a neccessity in the beginning, as it was the only copyleft license for non-software documents available at the time. I think its use as the only image license will decline. Personally, I dual-license all my files on commons GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5, to give the user the maximum of choices.
Magnus
Please don't tell people to simply violate artistic copyright.
Again, please don't put words into other people's mouth. It is neither nice nor helpful.
Magnus