How are we allowed to use CC-BY-SA images on Wikipedia if our content is GFDL'd, which is entirely incompatible?
On 10/25/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
How are we allowed to use CC-BY-SA images on Wikipedia if our content is GFDL'd, which is entirely incompatible?
The *text* is GFDL, not all content. If we put a CC image in an article, we are just redistributing it, one of the cornerstones of the Creative Commons licenses.
Why would it be a problem?
--Oskar
Well, if I'm printing Wikipedia, I have to print it under the GFDL, right? So I can't use the image. Besides, couldn't some crazy lawyer in the future consider the article used by an image "derivative work"?
On 10/24/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/25/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
How are we allowed to use CC-BY-SA images on Wikipedia if our content is GFDL'd, which is entirely incompatible?
The *text* is GFDL, not all content. If we put a CC image in an article, we are just redistributing it, one of the cornerstones of the Creative Commons licenses.
Why would it be a problem?
--Oskar _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/25/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if I'm printing Wikipedia, I have to print it under the GFDL, right? So I can't use the image. Besides, couldn't some crazy lawyer in the future consider the article used by an image "derivative work"?
There is no problem in printing a page with bout CC-BY-SA and GFDL on it. Aslong as you follow both licenses when you redistibute it. The images and text just have different licenses, that's all. If you follow them, you'll be fine.
And no, when you include a picture of an image in an article, you are not making a derivative work of it. You are redistributing it. That's it.
--Oskar
Ok, so if I print out a set of articles, I just add to each image (or in the back somewhere) that Image X is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, right? got it.
On 10/24/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/25/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if I'm printing Wikipedia, I have to print it under the GFDL, right? So I can't use the image. Besides, couldn't some crazy lawyer in the future consider the article used by an image "derivative work"?
There is no problem in printing a page with bout CC-BY-SA and GFDL on it. Aslong as you follow both licenses when you redistibute it. The images and text just have different licenses, that's all. If you follow them, you'll be fine.
And no, when you include a picture of an image in an article, you are not making a derivative work of it. You are redistributing it. That's it.
--Oskar _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/25/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, so if I print out a set of articles, I just add to each image (or in the back somewhere) that Image X is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, right? got it.
On 10/24/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/25/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if I'm printing Wikipedia, I have to print it under the GFDL, right? So I can't use the image. Besides, couldn't some crazy lawyer in the future consider the article used by an image "derivative work"?
There is no problem in printing a page with bout CC-BY-SA and GFDL on it. Aslong as you follow both licenses when you redistibute it. The images and text just have different licenses, that's all. If you follow them, you'll be fine.
And no, when you include a picture of an image in an article, you are not making a derivative work of it. You are redistributing it. That's it.
--Oskar _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
For CC-BY-SA, you have to both tag or list its license info and the author info (BY), and whatever you're producing can't restrict further redistribution (if you're making a book, you can sell the book, but you can't keep people from scanning or copying the images and then redistributing them again).
On 10/25/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
For CC-BY-SA, you have to both tag or list its license info and the author info (BY), and whatever you're producing can't restrict further redistribution (if you're making a book, you can sell the book, but you can't keep people from scanning or copying the images and then redistributing them again).
Two questions:
1. Is the "no restriction on redistribution" not also true of the GFDL? 2. While you cannot restrict further redistribution of the pictures in the book, does the copyright status of the images impact that overall copyright of the document in which they are redistributed? (I'm guessing not).
On 10/26/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/25/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
For CC-BY-SA, you have to both tag or list its license info and the
author
info (BY), and whatever you're producing can't restrict further redistribution (if you're making a book, you can sell the book, but you can't keep people from scanning or copying the images and then redistributing them again).
Two questions:
- Is the "no restriction on redistribution" not also true of the GFDL?
- While you cannot restrict further redistribution of the pictures in the
book, does the copyright status of the images impact that overall copyright of the document in which they are redistributed? (I'm guessing not). _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that one can include CC-BY-SA in an otherwise copyrighted work, as long as you credit and don't restrict further redistribution of the CC-BY-SA parts. The key term here is that the book becomes a Collective Work, with the CC-BY-SA works (images, text, whatever) being component parts of a larger whole.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode
The problem is that GFDL really doesn't allow that kind of content-mixing. It's more strongly viral than CC-by-SA.
On 10/26/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/26/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/25/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
For CC-BY-SA, you have to both tag or list its license info and the
author
info (BY), and whatever you're producing can't restrict further redistribution (if you're making a book, you can sell the book, but
you
can't keep people from scanning or copying the images and then redistributing them again).
Two questions:
- Is the "no restriction on redistribution" not also true of the GFDL?
- While you cannot restrict further redistribution of the pictures in
the
book, does the copyright status of the images impact that overall copyright of the document in which they are redistributed? (I'm guessing not). _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that one can include CC-BY-SA in an otherwise copyrighted work, as long as you credit and don't restrict further redistribution of the CC-BY-SA parts. The key term here is that the book becomes a Collective Work, with the CC-BY-SA works (images, text, whatever) being component parts of a larger whole.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/26/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that GFDL really doesn't allow that kind of content-mixing. It's more strongly viral than CC-by-SA.
FUD!
From the GFDL v1.2:
7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.
Of course you can argue that an image created specifically to illustrate an article, or that an article created specifically to elaborate an image is a derivative rather than an aggregation, there is no difference between the Creating Confusion - * licenses and the GFDL in this respect.
On 10/26/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/26/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that GFDL really doesn't allow that kind of content-mixing. It's more strongly viral than CC-by-SA.
FUD!
From the GFDL v1.2:
- AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.
Of course you can argue that an image created specifically to illustrate an article, or that an article created specifically to elaborate an image is a derivative rather than an aggregation, there is no difference between the Creating Confusion - * licenses and the GFDL in this respect.
I find the CC licenses to be very explicit and very clear about what constitutes a "collective" work (their equivalent of the GDFL's "aggregate" section) and full of copius examples of what sorts of things would be considered to be that. The GDFL's "aggregate" section doesn't really indicate whether they mean that a final printed page with mixed-licensing materials would be considered an "aggregate" or not, or give any indication of what the real boundary is between "aggregate" and "derivative," in my reading of it. I'd consider that a rather big difference, personally -- clarity can go a long way.
FF
On 10/26/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I find the CC licenses to be very explicit and very clear about what constitutes a "collective" work (their equivalent of the GDFL's "aggregate" section) and full of copius examples of what sorts of things would be considered to be that. The GDFL's "aggregate" section doesn't really indicate whether they mean that a final printed page with mixed-licensing materials would be considered an "aggregate" or not, or give any indication of what the real boundary is between "aggregate" and "derivative," in my reading of it. I'd consider that a rather big difference, personally -- clarity can go a long way.
The CC licenses 'solves' the legally unclear boundary of derivative works by claiming that anything which includes the work which doesn't meet their criteria of collective works is derivative:
"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."
I'm not so sure that doing so is wise: The boundaries of a derivative work are created by law, not the copyright holder. So while we can pretend to declare what a derivative work actually is, should our definition disagree with the law we will lose that argument every time.
Their definition of a collective work is similar to the GFDLs:
Compare
"in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole."
with
"A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works"
Notice the words 'separate and independent' ? This is the key criteria used define collective/aggregate works in both the licenses.
It's true that the CC licenses include examples, but the examples are potentially misleading. For example, if you were to publish a "periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia" in which the covered work has been combined with another other work, the result would be considered derivative because the covered and non-covered components are not 'separate and independent'.
This is, in part, a stylistic difference between CC licenses and some other licenses. The CC licenses are written in a way which combines non-binding narrative in the body of the license proper while most other licenses provide such content in separate documents or as part of a preface. The inclusion of such materials makes the license appear more friendly, but it could be argued that doing so may result in misunderstanding.
The aggregate works section of the GFDL v2 draft is unchanged from the GFDL v1.2 and after carefully examining the language of CC-By-SA licenses it seems apparent to me that they are almost functionally equal. As a result I wouldn't recommend a change to this section of GFDL v2.
On 10/27/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
The CC licenses 'solves' the legally unclear boundary of derivative works by claiming that anything which includes the work which doesn't meet their criteria of collective works is derivative:
"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."
I'm not so sure that doing so is wise: The boundaries of a derivative work are created by law, not the copyright holder. So while we can pretend to declare what a derivative work actually is, should our definition disagree with the law we will lose that argument every time.
It clearly says "for the purpose of this license," meaning that this is what it is referring to when it talks about derivative works in the rest of the license. I think you are misreading it.
Their definition of a collective work is similar to the GFDLs:
Compare
"in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole."
with
"A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works"
The full quote from CC-BY-SA-2.5 is:
"Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
Which is pretty clear, and gives some pretty practical examples. That's what I mean by "more clear". GDFL gives no real indication what it is referring to when it says "compilation".
Notice the words 'separate and independent' ? This is the key criteria used define collective/aggregate works in both the licenses.
Right. Except that one is much clearer in its use of them than the other one. The CC-BY-SA-2.5 clause makes it pretty clear what the authors of the license have in mind -- it is a nice mix of legalese and readable text. The GDFL clause does not make it very clear -- it is legalese. That's all I'm saying.
This is, in part, a stylistic difference between CC licenses and some other licenses. The CC licenses are written in a way which combines non-binding narrative in the body of the license proper while most other licenses provide such content in separate documents or as part of a preface. The inclusion of such materials makes the license appear more friendly, but it could be argued that doing so may result in misunderstanding.
I fail to see how articulating the intentions of the license will create more misunderstanding than resorting only to terse legalese, but I suppose this is a different of opinion.
FF
On 10/28/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
I fail to see how articulating the intentions of the license will create more misunderstanding than resorting only to terse legalese, but I suppose this is a different of opinion.
Yes it is, but for the benefit of the audience the argument against mixing non-binding text with binding text goes something like this:
Consider two people: Person A: No ability to understand the legalese at all. Person B: Able to understand the legalese without difficulty.
Both A and B are going to reprint a highly enhanced subset of a free encyclopedia where all the articles have been edited for accuracy.
We'll consider two licenses: X: "Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. Y: "Collective Work" means a work in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.
Lets assume the free encyclopedia is licensed under Y. Person A reads Y, decides he can't understand it.. and either gives up or consults an attorney. Person B reads Y, understands it, and realizes this section is not excusing him from conformance.
Now lets assume license X. Person A reads X. sees the word encyclopedia and can't understand the rest. He is either mislead into thinking that since he's printing an encyclopedia he's a collective work and doesn't have to distribute the whole under the terms of the license... Or he worries that he didn't quite understand it, and consults his attorney. Person B reads X, understands the legalese, and gets it right.
So the argument is that the explanatory language doesn't help the clueless because they are insufficient to covey the complete meaning of the license, so you must still always understand the rest and that the existence of null effect language can create confusion.
Of course, the world isn't so black and white and people exist on a continuous spectrum between A and B. There are pros and cons to each style, and either kind of language could be selected by a rational and informed license author.
In any case, I hope I've cleared up any confusion brought by The Cunctator's inaccurate claim about the GFDL as there isn't a material difference between the CC-By-SA and the GFDL in the permissions granted with respect to aggregations.
Who really knows what the GFDL actually means in a legal sense. It hasn't been tested. So all of our opinions are just that.
On 10/28/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/28/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
I fail to see how articulating the intentions of the license will create more misunderstanding than resorting only to terse legalese, but I suppose this is a different of opinion.
Yes it is, but for the benefit of the audience the argument against mixing non-binding text with binding text goes something like this:
Consider two people: Person A: No ability to understand the legalese at all. Person B: Able to understand the legalese without difficulty.
Both A and B are going to reprint a highly enhanced subset of a free encyclopedia where all the articles have been edited for accuracy.
We'll consider two licenses: X: "Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. Y: "Collective Work" means a work in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.
Lets assume the free encyclopedia is licensed under Y. Person A reads Y, decides he can't understand it.. and either gives up or consults an attorney. Person B reads Y, understands it, and realizes this section is not excusing him from conformance.
Now lets assume license X. Person A reads X. sees the word encyclopedia and can't understand the rest. He is either mislead into thinking that since he's printing an encyclopedia he's a collective work and doesn't have to distribute the whole under the terms of the license... Or he worries that he didn't quite understand it, and consults his attorney. Person B reads X, understands the legalese, and gets it right.
So the argument is that the explanatory language doesn't help the clueless because they are insufficient to covey the complete meaning of the license, so you must still always understand the rest and that the existence of null effect language can create confusion.
Of course, the world isn't so black and white and people exist on a continuous spectrum between A and B. There are pros and cons to each style, and either kind of language could be selected by a rational and informed license author.
In any case, I hope I've cleared up any confusion brought by The Cunctator's inaccurate claim about the GFDL as there isn't a material difference between the CC-By-SA and the GFDL in the permissions granted with respect to aggregations. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 10/25/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if I'm printing Wikipedia, I have to print it under the GFDL, right? So I can't use the image. Besides, couldn't some crazy lawyer in the future consider the article used by an image "derivative work"?
There is no problem in printing a page with bout CC-BY-SA and GFDL on it. Aslong as you follow both licenses when you redistibute it. The images and text just have different licenses, that's all. If you follow them, you'll be fine.
And no, when you include a picture of an image in an article, you are not making a derivative work of it. You are redistributing it. That's it.
Yeah, this has been debated on and off, and the consensus (but shaky consensus) is what you say.
An argument can be made that illustrating a text with images is producing a new work that is derived from both the text and images, rather than merely aggregating them, but it's unclear whether that would hold up in court. In particular, Wikipedia usually "just" displays images---we don't "illustrate" our articles in the integrated sense that a children's book does.
-Mark