Erik Moeller wrote:
The simple fact is that a photo by itself is not
likely to be modified
much, especially if it's of very high quality to begin with. That's
why I think it's important that we establish a clear and unambiguous
reciprocity when images are used in larger works. Perhaps the
movie-specific phrase in the current SA license text could be
"For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is semantically combined
with another (a film with time-synchronized music, an article with
pictures, and so on), the combined Work will be considered a
Derivative Work for the purpose of this license."
This would be problematic for our own uses unless the CC-BY-SA / GFDL
compatibility issues are resolved. The wording of the cc-by-sa requires
any derivative works to be distributed "only under a license identical
to this one", but our own encyclopedia is licensed under a non-identical
license, the GFDL. So we wouldn't be able to use CC-BY-SA images within
Wikipedia under that license change, unless they're dual-licensed under
the GFDL as well...
foundation-l mailing list
IANAL, but this shouldn't be an issue except possibly in print, because
unlike text, images are a single file that will at most be reuploaded,
and the only thing that would be a "derivative work" would be another
image based on the original one. Therefore, the text of an article using
CC-BY-SA images wouldn't have to be covered under that license, but
anywhere where the image wasn't a discrete component (ie, print, or any
format that distributes the entire pages as images (PDF?) it might apply.
Legal counsel could probably advise further on this, but I don't think
it's too big of a deal.