Some sources of photographs are available under "editorial purposes only" licenses, often with an explicit "Not for use in advertising." An example is photographs from the United Nations.
We have decided that "noncommercial-only" images are not acceptable, but I don't see anywhere that a decision has been made about this category. Editorial-only images are usable by commercial users as well as noncommercial in an encyclopedia context, so their use would not prohibit commercial redistribution of Wikipedia. On the other hand, it's a less free license than many we use.
Is there a pre-existing decision here, or somewhere it should be hashed out?
This has come up on [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images]].
-Matt (User:Morven)
I keep getting this error message while trying to use Wikipedia. It's been occurring for the last two days or so, off and on:
Fatal error: Call to a member function on a non-object in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-new/includes/LoadBalancer.php on line 111
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
Rick wrote:
I keep getting this error message while trying to use Wikipedia. It's been occurring for the last two days or so, off and on:
Fatal error: Call to a member function on a non-object in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-new/includes/LoadBalancer.php on line 111
RickK
Rick,
You've written the above in response to a message about '"Editorial purposes only" images', presumably by hitting reply and then changing the subject line. On many newsreaders this causes your message to appear as a reply to that thread which is confusing. Would you mind hitting "New" rather than "Reply" when starting a new topic?
Ed Poor - I seem to have the opposite problem with you :) Often a new thread with a new subject line continues a discussion already ongoing, which can be confusing!
Thanks for listening,
Pete/Pcb21
I'm not sure what the right long-term decision is, but we should allow such images to be uploaded and at least kept in quarantine, while deciding on a long-term policy.
+sj+
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:58:36 -0700, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Some sources of photographs are available under "editorial purposes only" licenses, often with an explicit "Not for use in advertising." An example is photographs from the United Nations.
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:58:36 -0700, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Some sources of photographs are available under "editorial purposes only" licenses, often with an explicit "Not for use in advertising." An example is photographs from the United Nations.
We have decided that "noncommercial-only" images are not acceptable, but I don't see anywhere that a decision has been made about this category. Editorial-only images are usable by commercial users as well as noncommercial in an encyclopedia context, so their use would not prohibit commercial redistribution of Wikipedia. On the other hand, it's a less free license than many we use.
And, crucially, a less free licence than the one our content is distributed under; IANAL, but I think technically this gives us two options: restrict our distribution licence along similar lines; or, exclude these images. Or of course both: give the reuser the choice between our freer licence (which we have to offer most of the text of Wikipedia under anyway, else we break our contributors' copyright) and a more restricted version with the extra images.
Unlike with noncommercial-only images, a lot of us might not mind incorporating some of these extra restrictions anyway, but since to comply with our existing licencing obligations it would mean offering two copies of the database, I think anything that cannot be distributed under the GFDL should be avoided.