Most people have no clue what the term "derivative work" means, but I would assume that most people who do have a clue would agree that a newspaper article which contains both photos and text is a derivative work of both the photos and the text. The FSF has confused this point by trying to claim that in some instances the text is a derivative work of the photos. That part's generally nonsense. But the *combined* work is pretty clearly a derivative work. Of course, there's very little case law on this, because it almost never matters.

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com> wrote: Being an "aggregation" under the GFDL does not preclude being a "derivative work", so far as I can tell. Do you disagree with this?

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com> wrote: Which is this? [[Image:Jimbo_and_friends.png]] What part of the definition of the other does it fail?

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well, it's pretty assuredly a derivative work - in fact it's currently used as Wikipedia's example of what a derivative work is. And believe it or not, all those characters are either GFDL or public domain. Anyway, I think I figured out the answer to my own question. It's a derivative work, and it's not an "Aggregation", because it fails the "separate" test. OTOH, that gives me an idea of an image which clearly passes the "derivative work" test and probably also passes the "Aggregation" test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png A rare case, but only because I wanted the answer to the "derivative work" test to be so obvious.

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote: That may be, although I have doubts that "volume" implies "functionally independent" here. However, it's a word that's ill-defined here and so I have no evidence to cite one way or the other. No, this cannot possibly be true. For example, let's say you have a document, A, that is GFDL. I have a picture, B, over which I maintain a non-free copyright. You cannot make document C = A + B, and say that C is GFDL, because that violates my copyright on B. You either need to invoke fair use, or else C must be an aggregate that does not affect the licenses on either A or B. Comparing sizes, just because A > B doesn't mean that the copyright for A is more important then the copyright on B, or that A's copyright license "wins" because it's more substantial. Including my image B in a large composite work C that is mostly comprised of GFDL text A does not make C a GFDL document. From the GFDL itself: "A 'Modified Version' of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it". If C = A + B, and C is GFDL, then B is a portion of C, and therefore B is GFDL too. However, this is impossible, because I hold exclusive non-free copyright over B and never released it under the GFDL. C, therefore, cannot be a GFDL document because all it's parts are not GFDL documents (unless, again, we invoke fair use). --Andrew Whitworth

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote: Unless C is an aggregate. You can only talk about "winning" in this sense if you have two different licenses present in a composite work. If A and B are both GFDL, then C is also GFDL. If A is but B isn't, then C can't be either. The viral clause of A does not supersede the license restrictions on B. The viral clause only manages to prevent C from being GFDL, and prevent A from changing to any other license. The license of B is not affected in any way. Again, unless C is an aggregate. --Andrew Whitworth

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote: This may be, and I apologize for my part if this is the case. I'm not entirely sure here that just because two documents "augment" each other that they are somehow violating the idea of "separate and independent". Ostensibly, if two works are being combined together in the first place, they augment each other in some way. Just because two independent works have some sort of synergistic relationship or emergent value does not mean that they are dependent on one another. I can have a news article with no pictures, and you can have pictures of the crime scene, and it would certainly be helpful to put the two together. However, saying that the two works compliment or augment one another is not the same as saying that they are dependent on one another. In the case of our news article and pictures, C can be an aggregate because the two components can stand apart (even if it's significantly less helpful to the reader to do so). I guess it all comes down to trying to define things like "dependent", "independent", and "inter-dependent". I would venture to guess that works by different authors which are released under different licenses would always be "independent". --Andrew Whitworth

original authors rights) Note also that the paragraphs are not complete, but I guess the text is sufficient. Djiiisezzzz, this translation stinks..! John § 4. Opphavsmannen kan ikke sette seg imot at andre benytter hans åndsverk på en slik måte at nye og selvstendige verk oppstår. Opphavsretten til det nye og selvstendige verk er ikke avhengig av opphavsretten til det verk som er benyttet. § 4. Original author can not oppose (?) others use of his work such that new and independent work emerges. The (copy)right to the new and independent work is not dependent on the (copy)right for the original work. http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#4 In short, a license (even GFDL) can not block others use of the work to create a new and independent work. § 5. Den som ved å sammenstille flere åndsverk eller deler av åndsverk skaper et litterært, vitenskapelig eller kunstnerisk samleverk, har opphavsrett til samleverket, men denne rett gjør ingen innskrenkning i opphavsretten til de enkelte verk som samleverket består av. § 5. The one who by combining/collecting other works or parts of works creates a litterary, scientific or artistic collected work, has the (copy)right to the combined/collective work, but this right creates no limitatuions in the (copy)right for the individual works in the combined work. http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#5 In short, norwegian law does not support a notion that a copyleft article with a license in itself taints the new and independent work. This can be covered if the license is a binding _contract_, but then, you get into troubles if you change that contract. Anthony skrev:

On Monday 07 April 2008 23:47:43 geni wrote: ...which has nothing to do with what I said. Actually, it would rather be the other way around (unless the article is about my work). I do not draw the line. I am aware that there are use cases that are inbetween. Yet most of the cases fall in two clearly separate categories: one for which I do want the enhancement to my work to be freely reusable, and one for which I am content with my work illustrating an unrelated work. No, they are in fact rather above it. A GFDL image does not require that you release text that includes it under GFDL.

On Tuesday 08 April 2008 21:05:40 geni wrote: Yes, really. Perhaps I should clarify: fair use does not require that I release my work under the same conditions as the work I am fairly using; therefore I think I shouldn't request such a thing in a free license of my work. I believe it is obvious to everyone. Yes I can. I just did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy Link? No, in most cases it is a much more restrictive requirement.

On Tuesday 08 April 2008 23:16:34 geni wrote: I don't think so. And anyway, it doesn't matter: the moment I create it, my work is released under nearly all copyright laws. Your replies are getting more senseless as time passes. I don't need to define it, and I won't withdraw it. I don't see why is it relevant or important anyway. Yes they do. Especially as you are drawing the line completely outside of the grey area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) These two examples have nothing in common. Requirement to print the license with the work is easily fulfilled in a number of cases, if not in the New Scientist. Requirement to change the license of the work is something most people will not accept.

On Wednesday 09 April 2008 00:20:50 geni wrote: None of it matters. Being used to illustrate a text on unrelated subject is NOT an enhancement to my work, I don't see the need to affect the copyright of the text, and that is all that I am saying.

On Wednesday 09 April 2008 12:55:13 geni wrote: No, that doesn't either.

On 09/04/2008, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: Ah no. Consider I want to claim fair use but I release the work in jurisdiction covered by English law. Not going to get very far am I? So to use fair use I have to release the work under US law. -- geni

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk(a)eunet.yu> wrote: Hello, my name is Bill. Both in principle and in practice, the scenario that Anthony describes is exactly what I strive for with my images. I do believe that my copyleft work should influence other people's actions. I see copyleft as a form of barter: I give you free content, but you are obligated to give me (and usually the rest of the world) something back in exchange by way of creating more free content. For me, that doesn't just mean derivative images, but whenever your publication benefits materially by including the work I created, you should "pay" for that by giving something back. So, yes, I believe that the copyleft on images should influence text, and vice versa, whenever they are combined in a single, interdependent work that you are expecting to profit from. (Incidentally, I also allow lots of NC use, with or without copyleft.) If I want my work to unrestricted, I can easily choose to make it that way, and sometimes do. However, I am not eager to grant the commercial publishing industry the ability to profit from my work while being under no obligation to give anything back. As with Carrie in Anthony's example, if the publisher is unable or unwilling to create free content, but still really wants to use my work, then we can talk about a fee or some other form of compensation. I know a lot of people think of "free content" in terms close to public domain content, i.e. free for any use, anytime, by any one. However the "free content" movement as expressed through copyleft is really something different. Perhaps it shouldn't even be called "free" at all. The reality is that copyleft, by its viral nature, creates a payment-in-kind economy. You get something without financial cost, but you also have to give something away. Not everyone desires to manage "free content" that way, and that is fine. Some people believe much more strongly in a gift-economy, where free content comes with no expectation of reciprocity. That is your right. However it is important that our diversity of opinions be able to coexist, and that the author's intent be clearly expressed by whatever system of licenes is put in place. The most important audience is the reusers who need to clearly understand requirements and expectations being placed on them. Beyond that, it is their choice whether to use free content or not. Right now the GFDL, in particular, is largely deficient when it comes to clearly explaining obligations to reusers. Especially when it comes to combining works. Clearly this is an area that is now receiving a lot of attention, so hopefully it will be greatly improved in the future. As has been discussed on a variety of forums, the free content community probably needs to develop some form of a clear differentiation between a Strong Copyleft that attaches liberally across media (i.e. copyleft attaching to the text of a newspaper article using a copylefted image), and a Weak Copyleft that deals only with derivatives in the same media. Obviously, I favor the former, but the statements from Nikola and Pharos seems to favor the latter. It would be nice to have licenses that clearly addressed these two types of sentiment that seem to be common in the community. -Robert Rohde