On 9/13/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Brian McNeil wrote:
Going back to Wikinews, and our CC-BY license, we've been using GFDL images from Commons for ages - am I missing some subtle distinction between licenses that means we're not in the wrong doing this? Some of the comments in this discussion have suggested that if you use any GFDL content the document containing it must also be GFDL.
The short answer is that nobody knows. It depends on whether an article containing an image is a "derivative work" of the image. The FSF takes the position that it is; the Creative Commons folk take the position that it isn't; neither position has ever been tested in a court.
You must be misexplaining the question, because it's quite obvious that an article containing an image is a "derivative work" of the image. I seriously doubt the Creative Commons folk take the position that it isn't.
Has the FSF ever been asked if an article containing an image is a "derivative work" of the text? Because it's quite obvious that that is true as well.
If you consider each body to be authoritative in interpreting their own license, that would indeed mean that Wikinews can't use GFDL images in non-GFDL articles. That does seem to be the intent of some (but not all) authors who license their images under the GFDL: to prohibit the use (without separate arrangements) of their works in non-GFDL media, like proprietary-licensed newspapers. Whether this interpretation is enforceable and/or should be respected is a matter of debate.
-Mark