Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
regards, Gurubrahma.
--------------------------------- Jiyo cricket on Yahoo! India cricket Yahoo! Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.
On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:
Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the license...
Most countries have other means of protection if someone uses an image of you for things that are problematic, regardless of copyright.
Justinc
On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:
Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the license...
I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to resize using standard html commands. There's no permanence to the image created, so it's not a derivative work. What would be the fixed "size" of the image anyway? Numbers measured in pixels? I'd say there's no way such a resizing would be protected.
Anyway, to answer the original question, I think you need to look to what is the mission of Wikipedia. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." Does including clearly marked CC-ND images hinder that mission?
I suppose the answer that it does ever so slightly hinder the mission, because it provides less incentive to create works that people can legally modify, for instance to draw arrows or make some other sort of educational marks. These marks would probably be legal in the United States under the fair use doctrine, but maybe not elsewhere.
So maybe it's a matter of balance. If CC-ND were allowed, how many additional images would be available? How much more free access to the sum of all human knowledge would be given? Maybe the best way to answer the question would be to run an experiment. Temporarily allow such images for a month or so.
Anthony
G'day Anthony,
On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the license...
I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to resize using standard html commands. There's no permanence to the image created, so it's not a derivative work. What would be the fixed "size" of the image anyway? Numbers measured in pixels? I'd say there's no way such a resizing would be protected.
Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".
<snip />
So maybe it's a matter of balance. If CC-ND were allowed, how many additional images would be available? How much more free access to the sum of all human knowledge would be given? Maybe the best way to answer the question would be to run an experiment. Temporarily allow such images for a month or so.
There's a certain feeling in the air ... the people are whispering ... it's Wikipedia Experiment Season again!
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse
On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".
Tell that to 351,000 google hits. By that measure we should create [[HTML commands]] straight away.
Anyway, it's just a question of perspective. You could probably mount a case for saying that <IMG> is a command that loads an image from disk, resizes it, adds a border and displays it on the screen in a scrolly window!
Steve
G'day Steve,
On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".
Tell that to 351,000 google hits. By that measure we should create [[HTML commands]] straight away.
Oh, I have. You know what 351 000 people with their hands in their ears chanting "la la la" sounds like? It's not pleasant, I'll tell you that much.
Anyway, it's just a question of perspective. You could probably mount a case for saying that <IMG> is a command that loads an image from disk, resizes it, adds a border and displays it on the screen in a scrolly window!
You *could* probably mount such a case, but if you did I'd have to shoot Anthony. And he wouldn't like that. He wouldn't like that at all.
Cheers,
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse
"Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com wrote in message news:f1c3529e0603140537x739a1e9aq9e8df2e1ce3917c1@mail.gmail.com...
On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".
Tell that to 351,000 google hits. By that measure we should create [[HTML commands]] straight away. Anyway, it's just a question of perspective. You could probably mount a case for saying that <IMG> is a command that loads an image from disk, resizes it, adds a border and displays it on the screen in a scrolly window!
You would then be lynched by a rampaging mob of disrespectable C hackers who think it's disgraceful that HTML dweebs are allowed to call themselves "programmers".
HTH HAND
G'day Phil,
"Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com wrote in message news:f1c3529e0603140537x739a1e9aq9e8df2e1ce3917c1@mail.gmail.com...
On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".
Tell that to 351,000 google hits. By that measure we should create [[HTML commands]] straight away. Anyway, it's just a question of perspective. You could probably mount a case for saying that <IMG> is a command that loads an image from disk, resizes it, adds a border and displays it on the screen in a scrolly window!
You would then be lynched by a rampaging mob of disrespectable C hackers who think it's disgraceful that HTML dweebs are allowed to call themselves "programmers".
Being an HTML dweeb myself, I'm unsure whether to agree entirely (HTML is not programming), get irritated (only a very silly minority think of themselves as "programmers"), or sit in the corner and cry (I don't know C).
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Phil,
"Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com wrote in message news:f1c3529e0603140537x739a1e9aq9e8df2e1ce3917c1@mail.gmail.com...
On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".
Tell that to 351,000 google hits. By that measure we should create [[HTML commands]] straight away. Anyway, it's just a question of perspective. You could probably mount a case for saying that <IMG> is a command that loads an image from disk, resizes it, adds a border and displays it on the screen in a scrolly window!
You would then be lynched by a rampaging mob of disrespectable C hackers who think it's disgraceful that HTML dweebs are allowed to call themselves "programmers".
Being an HTML dweeb myself, I'm unsure whether to agree entirely (HTML is not programming), get irritated (only a very silly minority think of themselves as "programmers"), or sit in the corner and cry (I don't know C).
HTML dweebs can become programmers if they learn PHP or Javascript... :)
On 3/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Being an HTML dweeb myself, I'm unsure whether to agree entirely (HTML is not programming), get irritated (only a very silly minority think of themselves as "programmers"), or sit in the corner and cry (I don't know C).
HTML dweebs can become programmers if they learn PHP or Javascript... :)
Ah, but 'tis a fine line between programming and "mere scripting", is it not?
FF
It goes like this
HTML dweeb = people who have just learned how to use the <table> tag. Programmers = People who can program in a Turing complete language Developers = People who can actually make applications Insane people = People who still program C
and finally
Übermensch = People who can program atleast C++, Java, PHP, Lisp, Prolog, SQL, Assembly and has read and understood at least 60% of Knuth's TAoCP
Personally, I fail only the last criteria for Übermensch (<jonstewart type="Throws fists up in air>damn you Knuth!!!!</jonstewart>)
On 3/15/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Being an HTML dweeb myself, I'm unsure whether to agree entirely (HTML is not programming), get irritated (only a very silly minority think of themselves as "programmers"), or sit in the corner and cry (I don't know C).
HTML dweebs can become programmers if they learn PHP or Javascript... :)
Ah, but 'tis a fine line between programming and "mere scripting", is it not?
FF _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 14 Mar 2006, at 12:19, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the license...
I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to resize using standard html commands. There's no permanence to the image created, so it's not a derivative work. What would be the fixed "size" of the image anyway? Numbers measured in pixels? I'd say there's no way such a resizing would be protected.
I was thinking of say for print, where a rescaled, colour adjusted and screened version might be considered derivative.
Justinc
On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2006, at 12:19, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the license...
I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to resize using standard html commands. There's no permanence to the image created, so it's not a derivative work. What would be the fixed "size" of the image anyway? Numbers measured in pixels? I'd say there's no way such a resizing would be protected.
I was thinking of say for print, where a rescaled, colour adjusted and screened version might be considered derivative.
Justinc
"The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats."
Anthony
The definition of "derivative" in the license seems to refer to only very "large" derivatives (i.e., translating it into another language) rather than small modifications. But I agree that the notion of a derivative work is vague enough to make me uncomfortable. For example, syncing music to a moving image is explicitly a "derivative work" in this instance, which seems to imply that you can't use a no-deriv work as part of another work, which would seem to rule out the idea of taking an image from Wikipedia and using it practically anywhere else.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode :
"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, 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. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
FF
On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:
Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the license...
Most countries have other means of protection if someone uses an image of you for things that are problematic, regardless of copyright.
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually -- I now see (right after sending the last one, of course) that I must qualify this considerably. An encyclopedia is listed as a "collective work", in use in the context of a collective work is not considered derivative. So that's not a problem, I suppose.
FF
On 3/14/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
The definition of "derivative" in the license seems to refer to only very "large" derivatives (i.e., translating it into another language) rather than small modifications. But I agree that the notion of a derivative work is vague enough to make me uncomfortable. For example, syncing music to a moving image is explicitly a "derivative work" in this instance, which seems to imply that you can't use a no-deriv work as part of another work, which would seem to rule out the idea of taking an image from Wikipedia and using it practically anywhere else.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode :
"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, 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. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
FF
On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:
Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the license...
Most countries have other means of protection if someone uses an image of you for things that are problematic, regardless of copyright.
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
guru brahma wrote:
Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
AFAICT (and IANAL), a GFDL image that was photoshopped would have to include both a link back to the original image (so that you could see what it was photoshopped *from*) and would also have to credit you as the original author.
If we don't already (and I think we might have) we should have an image protection policy; you can't upload an image over one which already exists. IIRC this has been implemented already by making image overwriting a "protected" action, but YMMV.
HTH,
On 3/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
guru brahma wrote:
Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
AFAICT (and IANAL), a GFDL image that was photoshopped would have to include both a link back to the original image (so that you could see what it was photoshopped *from*) and would also have to credit you as the original author.
If we don't already (and I think we might have) we should have an image protection policy; you can't upload an image over one which already exists. IIRC this has been implemented already by making image overwriting a "protected" action, but YMMV.
HTH,
I don't think so unless that is a very recent change. Especialy since uploading opver the top provides both the name of the author of the previous image and a link to it.
-- geni
On 3/14/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think so unless that is a very recent change. Especialy since uploading opver the top provides both the name of the author of the previous image and a link to it.
What do you mean by uploading "over the top" ? There are lots of times when you want to replace an existing image with an updated version (notably to crop, recolour, change the image format etc).
Steve
On 3/14/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/14/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think so unless that is a very recent change. Especialy since uploading opver the top provides both the name of the author of the previous image and a link to it.
What do you mean by uploading "over the top" ? There are lots of times when you want to replace an existing image with an updated version (notably to crop, recolour, change the image format etc).
Steve
Well if you look at this page you have an image that has been edited to remove the black boarder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CanalCentreAmsterdamjpg.jpg
-- geni
On 3/14/06, guru brahma wikibra@yahoo.co.in wrote:
Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
I don't see any need for this. If you take a picture of Eddie Van Halen, and someone photoshops a beard and a corncob pipe onto it, you can be for damn sure that this image won't be apperaing on Wikipedia. And since people do this stuff all the time anyway without any kind of legal permission, you won't be any worse off by indirectly permitting it anyway. No one is going to see the image except a few of the joker's friends.
The only place where this is really different is when we are trying to rework an image for legitimate purposes, and this license only introduces barriers to that. There is no benefit to the project really.
The bottom line is that who are highly protective of their intellectual property probably should not be contributing it to Wikipedia.
Ryan
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On 3/14/06, guru brahma wikibra@yahoo.co.in wrote:
Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
I don't see any need for this. If you take a picture of Eddie Van Halen, and someone photoshops a beard and a corncob pipe onto it, you can be for damn sure that this image won't be apperaing on Wikipedia.
What!? You mean that Eddie Van Halen *didn't* have a beard and corncob pipe? I've been misled! :)
On 3/16/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/14/06, guru brahma wikibra@yahoo.co.in wrote:
Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
I don't see any need for this. If you take a picture of Eddie Van Halen, and someone photoshops a beard and a corncob pipe onto it, you can be for damn sure that this image won't be apperaing on Wikipedia.
Unless it gets picked up by some tabloid newspaper or made into a Pokemon (or a million other scenarios).
And since people do this stuff all the time anyway without any kind of legal permission, you won't be any worse off by indirectly permitting it anyway. No one is going to see the image except a few of the joker's friends.
Well, I agree with you that it probably doesn't make much of a difference. But not for the reasons you're giving. Rather, I believe it doesn't really matter because photoshopping a picture of Eddie Van Halen to add a beard and a corncob pipe onto it, even without permission, is probably fair use anyway.
The only place where this is really different is when we are trying to rework an image for legitimate purposes, and this license only introduces barriers to that. There is no benefit to the project really.
There's a benefit if people are willing to release images under such a license that aren't willing to release these images under a less restrictive license. (This is true regardless of whether or not their thought process is logically sound.)
The bottom line is that who are highly protective of their intellectual property probably should not be contributing it to Wikipedia.
CC-BY-ND is a fairly permissive license. It's much more permissive than, for instance, the license Wikimedia provides for its own logos. By your rationale Wikimedia shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia.
Anthony
On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
CC-BY-ND is a fairly permissive license. It's much more permissive than, for instance, the license Wikimedia provides for its own logos. By your rationale Wikimedia shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia.
Oh come on. We all know this is a special situation. I am so *bored* with people saying, "But the Wikimedia logos are not licensed freely!" and implying that this is somehow has any implications for policy. They are the single and sole category of exception for a very straightforward and practical legal reason.
FF
On 3/17/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
CC-BY-ND is a fairly permissive license. It's much more permissive than, for instance, the license Wikimedia provides for its own logos. By your rationale Wikimedia shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia.
Oh come on. We all know this is a special situation. I am so *bored* with people saying, "But the Wikimedia logos are not licensed freely!" and implying that this is somehow has any implications for policy. They are the single and sole category of exception for a very straightforward and practical legal reason.
FF
My whole point is that there are exceptions. I do disagree with you though that Wikimedia is the *only* corporation which has practical legal reasons not to license certain images under a free license, though.
Anthony
On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
My whole point is that there are exceptions. I do disagree with you though that Wikimedia is the *only* corporation which has practical legal reasons not to license certain images under a free license, though.
I don't think Fastfission claimed that.
That other corporations also have good reason to not license images freely doesn't mean we /have/ to change our policy to accept less free images, though.
-Matt
On 3/17/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
My whole point is that there are exceptions. I do disagree with you though that Wikimedia is the *only* corporation which has practical legal reasons not to license certain images under a free license, though.
I don't think Fastfission claimed that.
That other corporations also have good reason to not license images freely doesn't mean we /have/ to change our policy to accept less free images, though.
-Matt
First of all, I agree. That other corporations also have good reason not to license certain images freely doesn't mean Wikipedia /has/ to change its policy to accept less free images.
You seem to be missing the context of my original comment though. It was in response to a statement "The bottom line is that who are highly protective of their intellectual property probably should not be contributing it to Wikipedia."
For further context, the example situation we were discussing was "If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license."
Anthony
On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 3/17/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
CC-BY-ND is a fairly permissive license. It's much more permissive than, for instance, the license Wikimedia provides for its own logos. By your rationale Wikimedia shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia.
Oh come on. We all know this is a special situation. I am so *bored* with people saying, "But the Wikimedia logos are not licensed freely!" and implying that this is somehow has any implications for policy. They are the single and sole category of exception for a very straightforward and practical legal reason.
FF
My whole point is that there are exceptions. I do disagree with you though that Wikimedia is the *only* corporation which has practical legal reasons not to license certain images under a free license, though.
I don't really know how you got the last sentence out of what I said, but nevertheless I suppose I will say that of course other corporations have practical reasons for not licensing things freely.
FF
On 3/18/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 3/17/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
CC-BY-ND is a fairly permissive license. It's much more permissive than, for instance, the license Wikimedia provides for its own logos. By your rationale Wikimedia shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia.
Oh come on. We all know this is a special situation. I am so *bored* with people saying, "But the Wikimedia logos are not licensed freely!" and implying that this is somehow has any implications for policy. They are the single and sole category of exception for a very straightforward and practical legal reason.
FF
My whole point is that there are exceptions. I do disagree with you though that Wikimedia is the *only* corporation which has practical legal reasons not to license certain images under a free license, though.
I don't really know how you got the last sentence out of what I said, but nevertheless I suppose I will say that of course other corporations have practical reasons for not licensing things freely.
FF
Then I really don't understand the point of your comment.
Anthony