Delirium wrote:
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 generalized:
"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...
-Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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.
-Stephanie