David Gerard wrote:
On 08/02/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
How does ND exclude and fair use not? What does fair use enable? If done well, the same image in the same way can be used in the same article and also in changes to the article provided they are not major. If there were not a fair use image, but an ND one, you could do that AND MORE.
Define "derivative" for the purposes of "no derivatives." e.g. Resizing is a derivative. "ND" is deeply flawed.
I suppose that so too would using only part of a photograph, as when you trim a full-length photo of someone down to a head shot. The problem with these licensing restrictions is that they reflect conditions that we don't need to accept, and which would be difficult to control. If we were to accept them they would still need to follow a standard agreement, or we could be stuck with a all sorts of subtle conditions that nobody knows about except the individuals involved with drafting the licence. These could come back to haunt us years from now. Do we really want to start tracking masses of licensing agreements for a century or more?
At least with fair use there is accessible law there that can be used in a legal argument. That law may not be the best possilble, but you avoid the pitfalls that can come out of writing contracts.
Ec