[Note: This is crossposted to <wikitech-l> and <wikipedia-l> for continuity. Replies should go to <wikipedia-l>, since it's a policy discussion.]
Axel Boldt wrote on <wikitech-l>:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I have not seen your response to my analysis that conluded that quotations are more problematic than images.
If I understood correctly, you argue that quotes are embedded in the text while images are kept in separate files, thus GFDL is not inherited by the photo but is inherited by the quotes. This is incorrect. Derivative work are required to be under GFDL; what constitutes a derivative work is defined by copyright law. The technical detail that text and images are typically kept in separate files is irrelevant; illustrating an article by adding a picture is a classical case of a derivative work. Moving quotes out of the main text and then "including" them somehow is a technical gimmick that doesn't change anything: adding a quote also creates a derivative work.
Including quotations would indeed be a technical gimmick, and our server would provide a single HTML file, a derivative work. That images are separate, however, is more than a technical detail; it's an important feature of HTTP that's used in other ways. Our copyright notice at the bottom of the page even refers only to "text"; a result of this feature is that the text is easily separated.
-- Toby
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Toby Bartels wrote:
[Note: This is crossposted to <wikitech-l> and <wikipedia-l> for continuity. Replies should go to <wikipedia-l>, since it's a policy discussion.]
As a reminder, none of us are real lawyers, and nothing in this discussion is going to get anyone anywhere. May I suggest we all agree to disagree and keep our options open until such time as the project receives professional advice?
Axel Boldt wrote on <wikitech-l>:
Derivative work are required to be under GFDL; what constitutes a derivative work is defined by copyright law. The technical detail that text and images are typically kept in separate files is irrelevant; illustrating an article by adding a picture is a classical case of a derivative work.
This is the primary concern, which needs to be answered by a professional with a firm knowledge of the law, the licenses involved, and the precedent set by other cases.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Toby Bartels wrote:
Including quotations would indeed be a technical gimmick, and our server would provide a single HTML file, a derivative work.
Careful there -- someone will suggest using an <iframe> tag to pull the quote from a separate file. ;)
Our copyright notice at the bottom of the page even refers only to "text"; a result of this feature is that the text is easily separated.
As we've heard before, saying something in a copyright statement doesn't make it true.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
As a reminder, none of us are real lawyers, and nothing in this discussion is going to get anyone anywhere. May I suggest we all agree to disagree and keep our options open until such time as the project receives professional advice?
Sometimes I wonder whether or not the lawyers are the biggest part of the problem. ;-) You want to make sure that you choose a lawyer who supports the correct POV. :-) Do NPOV lawyers even exist?
Ec
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
As a reminder, none of us are real lawyers, and nothing in this discussion is going to get anyone anywhere. May I suggest we all agree to disagree and keep our options open until such time as the project receives professional advice?
Sometimes I wonder whether or not the lawyers are the biggest part of the problem. ;-) You want to make sure that you choose a lawyer who supports the correct POV. :-)
That's half the battle!
Do NPOV lawyers even exist?
They're called judges, in theory. You can get in trouble for trying to "hire" them, though... :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote in part:
As a reminder, none of us are real lawyers, and nothing in this discussion is going to get anyone anywhere. May I suggest we all agree to disagree and keep our options open until such time as the project receives professional advice?
But there does seem to be an emerging consensus for separating the free pictures from the fair ones, with checkboxes on upload and so forth. So we could well get something out of this.
But you're right, of course, that WANL.
Toby Bartels wrote:
Our copyright notice at the bottom of the page even refers only to "text"; a result of this feature is that the text is easily separated.
As we've heard before, saying something in a copyright statement doesn't make it true.
Er ... yes, but my point here is that it's *not* saying something. It's not saying that the image is avaialble under the GFDL, hence it's not lying about the images (not that bit, at least).
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org