Thanks Chip; At last some constructive comments. I'll bear these in mind. The issue for me though isnt really protection of my work, its about the future of Wikipedia, and what it stands for. To me its not about creating freedom for corporations, or making profits by selling google ads or whatever, and it certainly isnt about producing some printed encyclopedia. To me the venture seemed to be about creating a location where private citizens could create a resource, instead of the commercial model of exploiting a resource. Reseeding the forest as it were, in a world where every word is copyrighted, every click of a mouse (thanks amazon) has a patent. Where McDonalds sues Mr MacDonald who runs a fish and chip van in glasgow, and dares to put his name on the top. By creating free images, and free text, I saw a way to break the grip of corporatocracy on the culture of our civilization; where indigenous knowledge is patented along with the plants they use. But there seems to be a strong belief among the wikiers that freedom isnt really freedom unless Bill Gates is allowed to take a cut. There isnt really any point in me putting up copyright images, unless they are free for all non-profit uses, "the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties." And as long as corporations like about.com are allowed to continue making profits, I still see a threat in this to the very idea of Wikipedia. I know its all hunky-dory now, with About.com subsidizing Wiki; but not all sharks will be as friendly. I see Google, for example, as the ten-billion dollar Gorilla hiding in the wings. As a biophysicist, aware of how things work generally, I have a nasty hunch that this dream will end up like so many before it. As long as predators sniff a free lunch, there's a threat. I see ways around this; by Wikipediers themselves distributing disks, or by themselves setting up a foundation to market copies, all profits going back to Wikipedia. By installing filters that different users are allowed to see different versions (commercial users are allowed only to use a weaker version, where some articles/photos are nc and not available to them. This means that Wiki remains the prime source. But if one day Wikipedia stabilizes into the final form some dream of (thankfully mythical in my opinion, as knowledge is never static); then on that day, or as reasonably practical, then someone like Google can step in, double the content, and create a proprietary front end, or something else. The content will remain technically free, but effectively users will migrate to the new platform, and Wiki will fade away as just another experiment. I need a place where I can provide my stuff somewhere where its available to everyone for free, but commercial companies have to pay to license its use. This money could go to support the project, or to save the rain forest, I dont care. But it removes the blood from the water, and sends the sharks elsewhere. I have seen how copyright law works in the modern world; and it usually doesnt favor civilization. Corporations rule the lawmakers. I hope I'm proved wrong; sincerely. But my instinct tells me that where there's a profit motive for corporations, another resource will end up destroyed. Where are CU-SeeMe? Netscape? Java? Fetch?