Would someone please explain to me (I've asked before, so I'm pretty sure no one can/will, and it won't matter) how the GNU Free Documentation License can possibly apply to images? It seems that, by the words of the license, you have to modify the image itself to conform to the license, because none of the images have the copyright attached to them. Then, once you've attacked the copyright notice, why the hell would you want to use the image, other than to demonstrate how it can't possibly be applied to images, in which case images uploaded under GNUFDLBLAHBLAHBLAH are completely worthless, because no one else can ever use them except under limited and crippling conditions.
2. VERBATIM COPYING You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.
So, you copy a tiny image of the Internet and you have to add 3 pages of licensing text? That's BS. It means essentially that for all the uploaders generosity in uploading the image it can't be used by anyone else because it can't meet the requirements of the license because meeting the requirements would destroy the usability of the image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sweetbay1082.jpg
Why are images uploaded under a license that obviously doesn't apply to images?
Is this one of those cases where I should know to just ignore the title and the words because they mean something else, in which case the license is meaningless....
KP
On 6/11/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Would someone please explain to me (I've asked before, so I'm pretty sure no one can/will, and it won't matter) how the GNU Free Documentation License can possibly apply to images? It seems that, by the words of the license, you have to modify the image itself to conform to the license, because none of the images have the copyright attached to them. Then, once you've attacked the copyright notice, why the hell would you want to use the image, other than to demonstrate how it can't possibly be applied to images, in which case images uploaded under GNUFDLBLAHBLAHBLAH are completely worthless, because no one else can ever use them except under limited and crippling conditions.
Condtions are not too crippling online and offline well. Collect enough together and you have a decent amount of radition shielding.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSFDL
for an attempt to fix this.
K P schreef:
Would someone please explain to me (I've asked before, so I'm pretty sure no one can/will, and it won't matter) how the GNU Free Documentation License can possibly apply to images? It seems that, by the words of the license, you have to modify the image itself to conform to the license, because none of the images have the copyright attached to them.
According to Richard Stallman, who heads the FSF, who are the authors of the GFDL, this is not necessary. See for example this discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_frm/thread/d04e3fc6... .
Quote by RMS: "A work can consist of multiple volumes, so the GFDL could be in one volume while the other volume is as short as you need it to be." In this case, one volume of the work can be the image; the other the GFDL.
When combining such an image with another GFDL'ed work (e.g. wikipedia), one can just include a single copy of the license. Which is how we do it at wikipedia, and how other people can use the image as well.
So, you copy a tiny image of the Internet and you have to add 3 pages of licensing text?
According to the above logic, a link to the GFDL wherever the image is displayed is likely to be enough.
RMS's interpretation of the GFDL is not the only possible one, and one should really ask the contributers of a GFDL'ed image for their interpretation of the license... if you're really strict about it.
Which is a pain, yes. As other people have said, the GFDL is not really a convenient license for wikipedia or images, or anything else really. But it is possible to use GFDL'ed content without bending the rules too much.
Eugene
G'day Eugene,
K P schreef:
Would someone please explain to me (I've asked before, so I'm pretty sure no one can/will, and it won't matter) how the GNU Free Documentation License can possibly apply to images? It seems that, by the words of the license, you have to modify the image itself to conform to the license, because none of the images have the copyright attached to them.
According to Richard Stallman, who heads the FSF, who are the authors of the GFDL, this is not necessary. See for example this discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_frm/thread/d04e3fc6... .
Quote by RMS: "A work can consist of multiple volumes, so the GFDL could be in one volume while the other volume is as short as you need it to be." In this case, one volume of the work can be the image; the other the GFDL.
Excuse me, but does that pass WP:RS?
<snip/>
Which is a pain, yes. As other people have said, the GFDL is not really a convenient license for wikipedia or images, or anything else really. But it is possible to use GFDL'ed content without bending the rules too much.
It strikes me that, for those of us who are not Richard Stallman, GFDL is quite poor for any purpose you'd care to name. But we're stuck with it, I suppose.
Cheers,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
K P schreef:
Which is a pain, yes. As other people have said, the GFDL is not really a convenient license for wikipedia or images, or anything else really. But it is possible to use GFDL'ed content without bending the rules too much.
It strikes me that, for those of us who are not Richard Stallman, GFDL is quite poor for any purpose you'd care to name. But we're stuck with it, I suppose.
I don't think that there is anything satisfactory in the licensing regimes. There probably won't be in the absence of testing in the courts. With CC 3.0 being desperate to make allowances for moral rights, I can't see any resolution coming soon.
There are some very good underlying principles to free licensing, but trying to reconcile it to an international patchwork intellectual property laws leaves everybody tied up in knots. As a result people tend to lose sight of principles. Wikipedia, to its disadvantage, tends to bend over backwards for the sake of being legally compliant; this often leaves me wondering when it will have the courage to resist anything. Resistance should never come recklessly, but there are still times when it is appropriate.
Ec
Mark Gallagher schreef:
G'day Eugene,
Quote by RMS: ...
Excuse me, but does that pass WP:RS?
It's not a definitive answer, at least not for non-FSF works. But it's an example of a reasonable way to interpret the GFDL. (I can't believe I just called RMS reasonable...)
It strikes me that, for those of us who are not Richard Stallman, GFDL is quite poor for any purpose you'd care to name. But we're stuck with it, I suppose.
I agree, on both counts.
Eugene
On 6/11/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Eugene,
K P schreef:
Would someone please explain to me (I've asked before, so I'm pretty sure no one can/will, and it won't matter) how the GNU Free Documentation License can possibly apply to images? It seems that, by the words of the license, you have to modify the image itself to conform to the license, because none of the images have the copyright attached to them.
According to Richard Stallman, who heads the FSF, who are the authors of the GFDL, this is not necessary. See for example this discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_frm/thread/d04e3fc6... .
Quote by RMS: "A work can consist of multiple volumes, so the GFDL could be in one volume while the other volume is as short as you need it to be." In this case, one volume of the work can be the image; the other the GFDL.
Excuse me, but does that pass WP:RS?
<snip/>
Which is a pain, yes. As other people have said, the GFDL is not really a convenient license for wikipedia or images, or anything else really. But it is possible to use GFDL'ed content without bending the rules too much.
It strikes me that, for those of us who are not Richard Stallman, GFDL is quite poor for any purpose you'd care to name. But we're stuck with it, I suppose.
Cheers,
-- Mark Gallagher "'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/
Precisely why are we stuck with it? If it were an article it would be up for deletion.
On 6/11/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Precisely why are we stuck with it? If it were an article it would be up for deletion.
Because all our writen content is under the GFDL and there isn't mush we can do about that.
The only get out at the moment appears to be the GSFDL
Please comment at
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gsfdl-draft-1.html#1820:2141:2161:2341:2701:32...:
Which should have more effect than comments on this list.
On 11/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Precisely why are we stuck with it? If it were an article it would be up for deletion.
We have a choice:
a) Drop the GFDL and pick a better license (ABL). The problem here is that we cannot legitimately use anything that is licensed under GFDL, unless we convince its author(s) to relicense their work under ABL.
Net effect: 98% of Wikipedia articles or so - including virtually every single significant one - have to be abandoned and started again from scratch. We'd only get to keep the ones where we could contact all the contributors (well, all as of a certain revision whose material had not been removed in that revision, and you might have fun arguing that last clause) and get them to relicense their work - in effect, only single-author articles by currently active users.
b) Live with it.
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 11/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Precisely why are we stuck with it? If it were an article it would be up for deletion.
We have a choice:
a) Drop the GFDL and pick a better license (ABL). The problem here is that we cannot legitimately use anything that is licensed under GFDL, unless we convince its author(s) to relicense their work under ABL.
Net effect: 98% of Wikipedia articles or so - including virtually every single significant one - have to be abandoned and started again from scratch. We'd only get to keep the ones where we could contact all the contributors (well, all as of a certain revision whose material had not been removed in that revision, and you might have fun arguing that last clause) and get them to relicense their work - in effect, only single-author articles by currently active users.
b) Live with it.
or:
c) since all existing articles are licensed under "Version 1.2 [of the GFDL] or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation", lobby the FSF to make the next version of the GFDL _be_ that better licence.
-- Neil
On 11/06/07, Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
We have a choice:
a) Drop the GFDL and pick a better license (ABL). ...
b) Live with it.
or:
c) since all existing articles are licensed under "Version 1.2 [of the GFDL] or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation", lobby the FSF to make the next version of the GFDL _be_ that better licence.
This is true, but requires a) a long-term incremental approach and b) the FSF not going mad :-)
On 6/11/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/06/07, Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
We have a choice:
a) Drop the GFDL and pick a better license (ABL). ...
b) Live with it.
or:
c) since all existing articles are licensed under "Version 1.2 [of the GFDL] or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation", lobby the FSF to make the next version of the GFDL _be_ that better licence.
This is true, but requires a) a long-term incremental approach and b) the FSF not going mad :-)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Or phase it out. Deprecate its usage, stop allowing it on new images (where the real problem lies) when they're uploaded.
Leaving problems alone because fixing them would be too much work, doesn't make the problem go away, or make it easier to fix later.
KP
On 6/11/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Or phase it out. Deprecate its usage, stop allowing it on new images (where the real problem lies) when they're uploaded.
Given certian interpriations of the GFDL and other free content licences no. See the issues is an article really an aggregation?
Given the wording of the FAL would FAL images even be usable as part of an aggregation?
On 6/11/07, Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
c) since all existing articles are licensed under "Version 1.2 [of the GFDL] or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation", lobby the FSF to make the next version of the GFDL _be_ that better licence.
I've seen the proposed next version. It still sucks. GSFDL sucks less but still has issues.
On 6/11/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Precisely why are we stuck with it? If it were an article it would be up for deletion.
We have a choice:
a) Drop the GFDL and pick a better license (ABL). The problem here is that we cannot legitimately use anything that is licensed under GFDL, unless we convince its author(s) to relicense their work under ABL.
Net effect: 98% of Wikipedia articles or so - including virtually every single significant one - have to be abandoned and started again from scratch. We'd only get to keep the ones where we could contact all the contributors (well, all as of a certain revision whose material had not been removed in that revision, and you might have fun arguing that last clause) and get them to relicense their work - in effect, only single-author articles by currently active users.
b) Live with it.
I've long wondered what license we'd use if we had a chance to change it somehow. One of the main problems with free content licenses is their incompatibility and their inability to be retrospectively changed, which is important for a project like a wiki. Obviously we wouldn't want them to be changed towards a more-unfree direction.
The best solution I could come up with was what I thought of as a "Container" license. Basically the license would say, "This material is licensed under one of the below licenses, and you may pick any one of them for re-use: GFDL, CC-BY-SA. By contributing to Wikipedia, you agree to let the Wikimedia Foundation add additional licenses to this list as it sees fit, though they can never retrospectively remove licenses from this list. New licenses added to this list much share these basic components of free-content: <some agreed upon components go here.>"
Of course doing that retroactively would be tough, but it would be pretty flexible in the long term. It would basically be splitting the licensing issue into somewhat different zones for contributors and re-users, and contributors, by contributing, would agree to let the WMF have some general abilities to expand the acceptible licenses as the context of a later time allowed for. There would also be some guarantees built into it that would make sure the WMF would not be able to do something very un-free with it. The goal would not to be add an infinite number of licenses, but just to have the ability to dual- or triple-license as the changing copyright landscape felt fit. If CC became the common currency of free content, it'd be stupid if Wikipedia wasn't compatible with that.
Anyway, this is just a daydream, I know. Not going to happen.
FF
On 6/12/07, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I've long wondered what license we'd use if we had a chance to change it somehow. One of the main problems with free content licenses is their incompatibility and their inability to be retrospectively changed, which is important for a project like a wiki. Obviously we wouldn't want them to be changed towards a more-unfree direction.
If we were allowed to change it to anythign probably something CC-BY-SA 2.0 based with the wikimedia foundation haveing the ability to make changes as required.
On 6/10/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Then, once you've attacked the copyright notice, why the hell would you want to use the image, other than to demonstrate how it can't possibly be applied to images, in which case images uploaded under GNUFDLBLAHBLAHBLAH are completely worthless, because no one else can ever use them except under limited and crippling conditions.
Remember too, lots of our images are licensed under creative commons, public domain etc. I haven't done any analysis, but from experience I would bet GFDL-only images are a minority. (although there are of course quite a lot of them)
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
GFDL is at the very best a confusing and not very good license for images. At worst it is positively prohibitive -- unless you are publishing a large work as GFDL it is not a good license, and unfortunately most potential usages of Wikipedia images other than complete ports of Wikipedia don't work that way.
But this is not news -- people have been advocating using CC-SA-BY for images for a long time, as it doesn't require stapling an entire copy of a license to reproduce it in, say, a newspaper or something like that. You just need to indicate what the license is and maybe provide a URL. Good enough for me.
Personally I always license mine a CC-SA-BY (always attributing to Commons, not myself personally) and then include the additional clause that if someone is using it for educational purposes they can use it without any conditions at all (basically PD-self). As a result my diagrams get pretty good representation in course lectures and handouts, which I find pretty flattering! I also always encourage those who want to use them in somewhat different licensing arrangements to contact me for other arrangements, and have gotten about a half-dozen requests to have my images in books and handouts and other sorts of arrangements -- again pretty flattering! And well, well within the spirit of the free content movement. And always linking back to Commons.
FF
On 6/10/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Would someone please explain to me (I've asked before, so I'm pretty sure no one can/will, and it won't matter) how the GNU Free Documentation License can possibly apply to images? It seems that, by the words of the license, you have to modify the image itself to conform to the license, because none of the images have the copyright attached to them. Then, once you've attacked the copyright notice, why the hell would you want to use the image, other than to demonstrate how it can't possibly be applied to images, in which case images uploaded under GNUFDLBLAHBLAHBLAH are completely worthless, because no one else can ever use them except under limited and crippling conditions.
- VERBATIM COPYING
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.
So, you copy a tiny image of the Internet and you have to add 3 pages of licensing text? That's BS. It means essentially that for all the uploaders generosity in uploading the image it can't be used by anyone else because it can't meet the requirements of the license because meeting the requirements would destroy the usability of the image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sweetbay1082.jpg
Why are images uploaded under a license that obviously doesn't apply to images?
Is this one of those cases where I should know to just ignore the title and the words because they mean something else, in which case the license is meaningless....
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/10/07, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
GFDL is at the very best a confusing and not very good license for images. At worst it is positively prohibitive -- unless you are publishing a large work as GFDL it is not a good license, and unfortunately most potential usages of Wikipedia images other than complete ports of Wikipedia don't work that way.
But this is not news -- people have been advocating using CC-SA-BY for images for a long time, as it doesn't require stapling an entire copy of a license to reproduce it in, say, a newspaper or something like that. You just need to indicate what the license is and maybe provide a URL. Good enough for me.
Personally I always license mine a CC-SA-BY (always attributing to Commons, not myself personally) and then include the additional clause that if someone is using it for educational purposes they can use it without any conditions at all (basically PD-self). As a result my diagrams get pretty good representation in course lectures and handouts, which I find pretty flattering! I also always encourage those who want to use them in somewhat different licensing arrangements to contact me for other arrangements, and have gotten about a half-dozen requests to have my images in books and handouts and other sorts of arrangements -- again pretty flattering! And well, well within the spirit of the free content movement. And always linking back to Commons.
FF
On 6/10/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Would someone please explain to me (I've asked before, so I'm pretty sure no one can/will, and it won't matter) how the GNU Free Documentation License can possibly apply to images? It seems that, by the words of the license, you have to modify the image itself to conform to the license, because none of the images have the copyright attached to them. Then, once you've attacked the copyright notice, why the hell would you want to use the image, other than to demonstrate how it can't possibly be applied to images, in which case images uploaded under GNUFDLBLAHBLAHBLAH are completely worthless, because no one else can ever use them except under limited and crippling conditions.
- VERBATIM COPYING
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.
So, you copy a tiny image of the Internet and you have to add 3 pages of licensing text? That's BS. It means essentially that for all the uploaders generosity in uploading the image it can't be used by anyone else because it can't meet the requirements of the license because meeting the requirements would destroy the usability of the image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sweetbay1082.jpg
Why are images uploaded under a license that obviously doesn't apply to images?
Is this one of those cases where I should know to just ignore the title and the words because they mean something else, in which case the license is meaningless....
KP
According to the above logic, a link to the GFDL wherever the image is
displayed is likely to be enough.
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....
What I really do is just what everyone else does, ignore all the images with GFDL and search for ones with Public Domain releases.
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.
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.
I will look at the Creative Commons license.
KP
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 :-)
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'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?
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
On 6/11/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Do you have a real-life example where it is impossible for you to comply with the license?
Useing GFDL images in videos.
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.
FAL Nupedia licence Open Publication License
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.
I think it depends on how the GSFDL works out.
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.
So... does that mean if you take a picture in your house with the GFDL picture in the background, its a derivative work and you have to glue a 1 pt font copy of the GFDL on the back of the 5x7s you are sending out in your Christmas cards? :)
Angela
On 6/11/07, Angela Anuszewski psu256@member.fsf.org wrote:
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.
So... does that mean if you take a picture in your house with the GFDL picture in the background, its a derivative work and you have to glue a 1 pt font copy of the GFDL on the back of the 5x7s you are sending out in your Christmas cards? :)
Yes, the same way you'll have to pay some sculptor if this photo of a photo happens to show one of his statues :-)
Magnus
Angela Anuszewski wrote:
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.
So... does that mean if you take a picture in your house with the GFDL picture in the background, its a derivative work and you have to glue a 1 pt font copy of the GFDL on the back of the 5x7s you are sending out in your Christmas cards? :)
That's what some would have us believe. But as with any background item the "choses en scène" principle in copyright law should apply.
Ec
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.
This is what it says on the Wikipedia page about the license:
Burdens when printing The GNU FDL requires that licensees, when printing a document covered by the license, must also include "this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document". This means that if a licensee prints out a copy of an article whose text is covered under the GNU FDL, he or she must also include a copyright notice and a physical printout of the GNU FDL, which is a significantly large document in itself.
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.
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.
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.
KP
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
On 6/12/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
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.
This is actually a common interpretation. Common enough that RMS has explicitly disagreed with it: <blockquote>Someone mentioned the fact that the GFDL says the work must "include" the license where as the GPL says that the license must "accompany" the work. His assumption was that this distinction had major consequences, but on reflection I believe it does not make a difference. A work can consist of multiple volumes, so the GFDL could be in one volume while the other volume is as short as you need it to be.
So it seems that you could indeed make a reference card from a GFDL-covered manual. You would just have to distribute a little booklet along with the reference card. The booklet would include the license and any invariant sections.</blockquote>
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_frm/thread/d04e3fc6...
Now, granted, RMS can be just as wrong as the rest of us non-lawyers, but his argument does seem reasonable.
On 6/12/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/12/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
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.
This is actually a common interpretation. Common enough that RMS has explicitly disagreed with it: <blockquote>Someone mentioned the fact that the GFDL says the work must "include" the license where as the GPL says that the license must "accompany" the work. His assumption was that this distinction had major consequences, but on reflection I believe it does not make a difference. A work can consist of multiple volumes, so the GFDL could be in one volume while the other volume is as short as you need it to be.
So it seems that you could indeed make a reference card from a GFDL-covered manual. You would just have to distribute a little booklet along with the reference card. The booklet would include the license and any invariant sections.</blockquote>
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_frm/thread/d04e3fc6...
Now, granted, RMS can be just as wrong as the rest of us non-lawyers, but his argument does seem reasonable.
That's just it. It's not practical to distribute a booklet along with images in many cases. No magazine would ever use a GFDL image if they had to distribute a booklet with it, or even print a copy of the license with it. The requirements of the license make re-use a hinderance unless the entire work is already being licensed under GFDL. Which is not a strategy which encourages re-use by any except those who are already totally sold on the free-content idea.
What the GFDL needs is a requirement that says that you could just say, "(C) So-and-so, licensed under the GFDL (see gnu.org for details)." That's about as much as any non-internet-based content provider is going to be able to allocate to any single image, and it is not at all unreasonable.
FF
On 6/12/07, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
That's just it. It's not practical to distribute a booklet along with images in many cases. No magazine would ever use a GFDL image if they had to distribute a booklet with it, or even print a copy of the license with it. The requirements of the license make re-use a hinderance unless the entire work is already being licensed under GFDL. Which is not a strategy which encourages re-use by any except those who are already totally sold on the free-content idea.
Well, I doubt any magazine (except maybe those published by the FSF, etc.) would use a GFDL image even if they didn't have to reprint the full licence, since IIRC they'd have to publish the whole issue under the GFDL or something like that. It's probably the same with the Creative Commons sharealike licences.
Johnleemk
On 6/12/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/07, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
That's just it. It's not practical to distribute a booklet along with images in many cases. No magazine would ever use a GFDL image if they had to distribute a booklet with it, or even print a copy of the license with it. The requirements of the license make re-use a hinderance unless the entire work is already being licensed under GFDL. Which is not a strategy which encourages re-use by any except those who are already totally sold on the free-content idea.
Well, I doubt any magazine (except maybe those published by the FSF, etc.) would use a GFDL image even if they didn't have to reprint the full licence, since IIRC they'd have to publish the whole issue under the GFDL or something like that. It's probably the same with the Creative Commons sharealike licences.
You probably have this mixed up with *GPL* and linked files. You can include a GFDL image in a magazine without having to have the whole thing under GFDL.
Of course, if the text of the magazine consists of wikipedia articles, with just a single word changed, that would qualify as "derivative work", and the word you changed would have to be GFDL as well :-)
Magnus
On 6/12/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
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."
My bad, you were telling me to violate some other law than artistic copyright when we're discussing artistic copyright? What exactly is it that is "strictly not legal" that you're suggesting I do in this discussion of artisitic copyright, so I "don't put words in your mouth" like think you're suggesting I do something illegal when you lead the suggestion with the disclaimer that what you're suggesting isn't legal?
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?
Again, legally what I have to do conflicts with what you suggest I do, and you're the one who says is, or someone else in this thread does, and it isn't putting words in anyone's mouth--this is what is said, "Legally, you 'have to' give the license." but "Practically, ...."
These are all suggestions accompanying statements that what is being suggested isn't legal--that's not putting words in your mouth, it's going by what you've said.
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.
That's not hard for me to believe that people who license their artwork and want others to respect their licenses respect the copyrights of other creative people.
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.
Don't put words into my mouth, it isn't helpful in a discussion, I didn't say it had to be "on" the picture. I said it has to accompany the picture, which is what the license says.
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
My bad, please don't offer people suggestions you think or suggest are not legal ("Though strictly not legal," "legally" versus "practically") prefacing them with disclaimers about their legality, because people might thing you are giving them advice about doing something illegal like suggestions about how to violate artistic copyright. It's neither helpful nor nice.
KP
K P wrote:
On 6/12/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
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."
My bad, you were telling me to violate some other law than artistic copyright when we're discussing artistic copyright? What exactly is it that is "strictly not legal" that you're suggesting I do in this discussion of artisitic copyright, so I "don't put words in your mouth" like think you're suggesting I do something illegal when you lead the suggestion with the disclaimer that what you're suggesting isn't legal?
"Strictly not legal" usually means that it's not allowed under the strictest interpretation of the law. Anyone that sticks to that interpretation is in a constant state of paralysis. Most of us take decisions in our daily lives that are "strictly not legal". In places where jaywalking is illegal do people who want to visit their across-the-street neighbour in the mid dle of a block really go to the corner to cross the road? If your local ordinances limit the amount of garbage that you can put out for weekly pickup to 10kg, are you going to carefully weigh that garbage to make sure you are not over the limit?. Suggesting that you could cut legal corners is not the same as telling you to do something illegal. How we deal with the law is just another question of risk management.
So noone if using GFDL images at all? Hard to believe, somehow.
That's not hard for me to believe that people who license their artwork and want others to respect their licenses respect the copyrights of other creative people.
Putting something into a law is a joke if it can't be enforced. If GFDL is the "law" governing a transaction who is going to go to the courts to say "My GFDL rights were violated."? You may very well have personal moral and ethical standards about what it means to break the law, but if you fail to enforce a violation of your own rights you are condoning someone else's illegal act. In theory, when you grant a GFDL it's for as long as your copyrights are valid. If you live another 50 years from today that means in many places until the end of the year 2127. What provisions can you make now for posthumous enforcement for that long?
I very much believe that copyright law as we now know it is doomed, if only because it was based on grossly obsolete technologies.
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.
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.
My bad, please don't offer people suggestions you think or suggest are not legal ("Though strictly not legal," "legally" versus "practically") prefacing them with disclaimers about their legality, because people might thing you are giving them advice about doing something illegal like suggestions about how to violate artistic copyright. It's neither helpful nor nice.
It would take a great stretch of imagination to believe that he is telling anyone to act illegally. Anyone who draws that conclusion does so at his own risk. If someone gives you gratuitous advice and it is wrong or results in your acting illegally you can't blame the advisor. The disclaimer acts as a caution. Would you be better off if he suggested these same things without the disclaimer?
Ec
=snip=
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.
Don't put words into my mouth, it isn't helpful in a discussion, I didn't say it had to be "on" the picture. I said it has to accompany the picture, which is what the license says.
So cute. Yes, you're absolutely right about this one. I should have said "in the same frame" instead of "on the picture". Now that you had your distraction, maybe we could get back to the point?
Magnus
On 6/12/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
=snip=
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.
Don't put words into my mouth, it isn't helpful in a discussion, I didn't say it had to be "on" the picture. I said it has to accompany the picture, which is what the license says.
So cute. Yes, you're absolutely right about this one. I should have said "in the same frame" instead of "on the picture". Now that you had your distraction, maybe we could get back to the point?
Magnus
Sorry, but the distraction appears to be your only point in this e-mail, there's no point to get back to.
KP
KJI_=[p