Well, I'm glad the copyright issues have been cleared up. Thank you everyone for your responses. Is any work being done to allow the tagging of images as copyrighted or GFDL? I would like to see this happen before we have millions of copyrighted images on wikipedia. Otherwise, it could be a lot more work trying to find the copyrighted images to tag them. It concerns me that some of our free (as in freedom, not beer) content is dependent on non-free content. However, if we can draw a clear line between copyrighted and GFDL content on the database side of things, I think this will help keep the free and non-free content separate, allowing anyone to use our free content freely, without a risk of accidentally including non-free content.
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:07:14 +0200, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hi,
Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 08:49, Michael Snow a écrit :
(...)
But online content is not that big of an issue really, because anyone who says we're infringing on their copyright has to give us a takedown notice first, and we can remove the offending image. The real problem is print. And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a separate and independent work from the article text. The one kind of print version for which I might entertain this argument is if the images are segregated as is done in many books, on separate glossier facing pages or in a batch of illustrations in the middle of the book. But in the routine print version, where the image is printed out on the same page as the article, they look like part of one document and I don't see how you can make much of a case that they're not. As a result, I think the article as a whole, _including_ associated images, is the smallest Document to which we can legitimately atomize the GFDL.
I would agree with you on the interpretation of the GFDL, but I think that the online and paper projects have to be treated differently. Some people even say that the WMF should never publish a paper edition on its own, and they may have some good points, but IANAL.
Anyway, I think it's the responsibility of the publisher of the paper edition to remove fair use images. So it is important that images are clearly tagged, so they can be easily removed with a simple SQL query.
And I can imagine another scenario where an organisation could buy the rights of copyrighted images to include them in a paper edition. But I can't say if this would be valid under the GFDL.
--Michael Snow
Yann
-- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi,
Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 16:56, mbecker a écrit :
Well, I'm glad the copyright issues have been cleared up. Thank you everyone for your responses. Is any work being done to allow the tagging of images as copyrighted or GFDL? I would like to see this happen before we have millions of copyrighted images on wikipedia. Otherwise, it could be a lot more work trying to find the copyrighted images to tag them. It concerns me that some of our free (as in freedom, not beer) content is dependent on non-free content. However, if we can draw a clear line between copyrighted and GFDL content on the database side of things, I think this will help keep the free and non-free content separate, allowing anyone to use our free content freely, without a risk of accidentally including non-free content.
On fr:, we are doing it now. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Tipiac/images and the list is getting smaller every minute.
We use the following tags whenever possible: {{GFDL}} {{DomainePublic}} {{FairUse}} {{LicenceInconnue}} (unknown)
So later on, we can either clarify or remove the unknown licence images.
Yann
Hi,
On fr:, we are doing it now. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Tipiac/images and the list is getting smaller every minute.
We use the following tags whenever possible: {{GFDL}} {{DomainePublic}} {{FairUse}} {{LicenceInconnue}} (unknown)
So later on, we can either clarify or remove the unknown licence images.
If find this a very good approach and advance.
However, I might suggest to additionally offer at least the Creative Commons license types as further options / choices for a picture publisher (for images only) in WP. Its as easy as with Gnu Fdl to link the license info to the Creative Commons (CC) full text license text of the CC-Website.
I suggest to consider it, because CC use is growing especially for media types of content. And CC should therefore be not left out since more and more picture databases grow under CC which can be used for WP too. And they should not be put under "LicenseInconnue" (rest of the pack) only because there is no other option for the CC licenses available.
Dietrich
Hi,
Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 18:31, Dietrich von Hase a écrit :
Hi,
On fr:, we are doing it now. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Tipiac/images and the list is getting smaller every minute.
We use the following tags whenever possible: {{GFDL}} {{DomainePublic}} {{FairUse}} {{LicenceInconnue}} (unknown)
So later on, we can either clarify or remove the unknown licence images.
If find this a very good approach and advance.
However, I might suggest to additionally offer at least the Creative Commons license types as further options / choices for a picture publisher (for images only) in WP. Its as easy as with Gnu Fdl to link the license info to the Creative Commons (CC) full text license text of the CC-Website.
We do whenever this license is used, but that's not very often. I personally put my images under both licenses, GFDL and CC-BY-SA. There are also a few other cases: * http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Drapeau_quebec.png (authorized by the government of Quebec under some restrictions); * non commercial only.
I suggest to consider it, because CC use is growing especially for media types of content. And CC should therefore be not left out since more and more picture databases grow under CC which can be used for WP too. And they should not be put under "LicenseInconnue" (rest of the pack) only because there is no other option for the CC licenses available.
"LicenceInconnue" means the license _is unknown_. Sorry if I was not clear. Usually it means the source is unknown. If the author of a picture is known, it's usually easy to find the license.
Dietrich
Yann
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org