Consider what happens if we make a print version of Wikipedia with color images in black and white? Is that a derived work?
Meh. Possibly a derivative work under some laws, I don't know.
Though CC-BY-ND, for instance, explicitly allows transfer to different media, and modifications necessary for such.
For starters it isn't mentioned in the copyright FAQ at all.
[snip]
The copyright FAQ is mostly written for users of content in Wikipedia. Not creators of Wikipedia content.
Sorry, isn't that the case under discussion? By "user of content" we mean people including someone else's content in Wikipedia, rather than people using Wikipedia's content, right? Because the first question in the FAQ is, in fact, "Can I add to Wikipedia something that I got from somewhere else?"
The FAQ has a whole section on licenses. It even has a specific sub-section on Creative Commons licenses. There is a general prohibition on that page against non-commercial licenses, but nothing about non-derivative, not even in the specific sub-section.
See [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]] which states "You can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under a free license."
I did in fact look at that page as well, and that is not the relevant section. That section is about whether you can upload the media. For example it also has the option "you own the rights to the image" and one for "fair use".
You then go down just a bit further to find what "free license" is acceptable. Again, it explicitly forbids non-commercial use licenses, but is silent on non-derivative licenses. You then go to another page for "acceptable image tags" (WP:TAG). Again, a general prohibition on non-commercial license is stated (sort-of... e.g. if you go all the way down under generic free licenses), but no general prohibition on non-deriv. Of course, under the specific creative commons section, you would not find no-deriv licenses.
So I found it less than clear, even for "creators of content" rather than "users for content", and rationale is not given in any case.
We even allow "fair use" under some restricted circumstances. This does not allow for derivative works either, and in fact poses downstream problems.
Our intention of allowing fair use images is to fulfil our encyclopedic goals for material which can not be made available under another license.
The downstream implication is that if we have a valid fair use claim and they are doing something similar to us, then they should have a fair use claim as well.
But if the downstream users are doing something different, then they might not, and in any case a fair use claim is not a let to make derivative works (notwithstanding media transfers, which as I say is allowed anyway).
It seems to me that CC-BY-ND, therefore, is intermediate between a copyleft and fair-use. And we do, as you say, allow fair use, under some circumstances. We should therefore allow CC-BY-ND under at least the same circumstances, and probably more. No?
Regards, Daniel
On 9/19/06, dmehkeri@swi.com dmehkeri@swi.com wrote:
Consider what happens if we make a print version of Wikipedia with color images in black and white? Is that a derived work?
Meh. Possibly a derivative work under some laws, I don't know.
Though CC-BY-ND, for instance, explicitly allows transfer to different media, and modifications necessary for such.
CC-By-ND leaves a lot of things unanswered.. not as vague as NC, but it's still ugly.
You didn't comment on my other examples. :)
For starters it isn't mentioned in the copyright FAQ at all.
[snip]
The copyright FAQ is mostly written for users of content in Wikipedia. Not creators of Wikipedia content.
Sorry, isn't that the case under discussion? By "user of content" we mean people including someone else's content in Wikipedia, rather than people using Wikipedia's content, right? Because the first question in the FAQ is, in fact, "Can I add to Wikipedia something that I got from somewhere else?"
By "users of content" I mean people who want to use Wikipedia content elsewhere. I thought, reading the whole thing, that it was pretty clear.. but it seems we need to make it more clear.
The FAQ has a whole section on licenses. It even has a specific sub-section on Creative Commons licenses. There is a general prohibition on that page against non-commercial licenses, but nothing about non-derivative, not even in the specific sub-section.
Yes, because these are licenses that you'll see used and discussed in wikipedia. Really the only part the covers adding things in Wikipedia is "Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?" and it's woefully incomplete.
See [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]] which states "You can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under a free license."
I did in fact look at that page as well, and that is not the relevant section. That section is about whether you can upload the media. For example it also has the option "you own the rights to the image" and one for "fair use".
...
I'd like to know how you plan on getting a piece of -ND media into Wikipedia without someone uploading it! :)
You then go down just a bit further to find what "free license" is acceptable. Again, it explicitly forbids non-commercial use licenses, but is silent on non-derivative licenses. You then go to another page for "acceptable image tags" (WP:TAG).
I'll fix that so it doesn't create any impression of being a complete list.
[snip]
But if the downstream users are doing something different, then they might not, and in any case a fair use claim is not a let to make derivative works (notwithstanding media transfers, which as I say is allowed anyway).
I think you misunderstand how fair use is supposed to be used on enwiki because it is so widely misused.
Our intention with permitting fair use is so that we can excerpt from copyright works in order to discuss them... which is the entire purpose of fair use in any case.
As such, someone who copies our article would in almost all cases carry the same argument.
See [[WP:FUC]].
It should also be noted that most language Wikipedias reject fair use as well.
It seems to me that CC-BY-ND, therefore, is intermediate between a copyleft and fair-use. And we do, as you say, allow fair use, under some circumstances. We should therefore allow CC-BY-ND under at least the same circumstances, and probably more. No?
We should and do allow CC-BY-ND if we could legally claim fair use of the material.
However, if we are claiming fair use we should make no mention of CC-BY-ND because we do not want to make the impression that we are using the work under CC-BY-ND, that we approve of the license, or that we would encourage anyone to release content under it.
It's also worth mentioning that CC-By-ND prohibits cropping which we may actually be required to perform to strengthen our case of fair use (cropping to minimize our excerpting and avoid taking the core of the work or to avoid impact on the commercial value of the work).
On 9/19/06, dmehkeri@swi.com dmehkeri@swi.com wrote:
Consider what happens if we make a print version of Wikipedia with color images in black and white? Is that a derived work?
Meh. Possibly a derivative work under some laws, I don't know.
Though CC-BY-ND, for instance, explicitly allows transfer to different media, and modifications necessary for such.
I'm not sure you realize how all-encompassing the definition of derivative work is. Having a ND means that any use not directly specified is going to probably put you into a "fair use" zone.
It is not a free license in any respect. It is really just a notice which says, "feel free to print out some more copies of these and distribute them if you want without charge." That's not within the definition of free content at all — it's the wrong type of "free."
FF