On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 08:18:15AM -0800, Michael Snow wrote:

Karl Eichwalder wrote:

...

Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net writes:

...

Sorry, but if we start conceding that in effect, we are combining an article with an image into a single document under GFDL, downstream users have to be able to use the image alone.

Sure, but they are responsible for actions they are doing. It is okay to take pictures of public buildings with logo for big companies attached. Readers are allowed to modify those pictures--but they are surely not allowed to cut out the logo and use it at will.

Use of the logo is really a trademark issue, not copyright. GFDL allows people to modify, but it doesn't mean they can create modifications that are illegal for other reasons.

The point of the Free content is to make available something that is as legal as if it was created by the receiver. It's impossible to be more legal than that. The patent, trademark, libel, censorship and other laws may make it impossible to use Free content in some situations, but equivalent content created by user would be equally affected.

Example 1: You can't take a logo from a GFDL photo of Coca Cola headquarters and put it on soft drinks you're producing, but you couldn't if you made the photo yourself. Therefore it still qualifies as Free.

Example 2: You can't take "fair use" Britney Spears picture and put it into a book about Britney Spears. But if you made the photo yourself, you could. Thus, not Free.