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