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(a)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(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
