"Erik Zachte" e.p.zachte@chello.nl schrieb:
Thanks for the translation Bernd, very interesting.
The German press release has been really succesful, large articles in major newspapers, several TV shows. I wonder why we don't hear any stories like this from other Wikipedias. Has the press release really gone unnoticed eveywhere else?
In Dutch we got a short article in the Telegraaf (http://www.telegraaf.nl/i-mail/article8365111.ece). I don't know about any other newspapers or such; at least there has been noone who actually contacted us.
Andre Engels
Could somebody summarize me (in simple english if possible) the use potential of the Creative Commons Licence on Wikipedia ? I suppose that can relate to only the medias (pictures, sounds, etc.). Thanks.
Aoineko
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
Could somebody summarize me (in simple english if possible) the use potential of the Creative Commons Licence on Wikipedia ? I suppose that can relate to only the medias (pictures, sounds, etc.). Thanks.
Under Clause 7 of the GNU FDL, a compilation consisting of separate and independent documents or works (such as text and an image for example, which are inherently separate and independent by their nature) is considered an "aggregate" which permits different licenses for the different works therein, so long as the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit.
In plain language, this means that images may have a different license from the GNU FDL and this is no violation of the GNU FDL.
For our purposes, which are inextricably tied up with GNU-freedom, only those Creative Commons License versions which are "free" in the GNU sense are acceptable. The NonCommercial License, for example, is not acceptable.
The best license for images is probably ShareAlike.
--Jimbo
What about "Attribution" (by:) and "No Derivative Works" (=) ?
Aoineko
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimmy Wales" jwales@bomis.com To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Creative Commons Licence
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
Could somebody summarize me (in simple english if possible) the use potential of the Creative Commons Licence on Wikipedia ? I suppose that
can
relate to only the medias (pictures, sounds, etc.). Thanks.
Under Clause 7 of the GNU FDL, a compilation consisting of separate and independent documents or works (such as text and an image for example, which are inherently separate and independent by their nature) is considered an "aggregate" which permits different licenses for the different works therein, so long as the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit.
In plain language, this means that images may have a different license from the GNU FDL and this is no violation of the GNU FDL.
For our purposes, which are inextricably tied up with GNU-freedom, only those Creative Commons License versions which are "free" in the GNU sense are acceptable. The NonCommercial License, for example, is not acceptable.
The best license for images is probably ShareAlike.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Not sure what's *horrible* about no derivative works. Wikipedia doesn't need to alter most images. I'd take cc-nd over copyrighted with fair use. If cc-nd is completely unacceptable, then so is fair use, right?
A
It seems obvious to me that No Deriviative Works is completely unacceptable. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:25:47PM -0500, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Not sure what's *horrible* about no derivative works. Wikipedia doesn't need to alter most images. I'd take cc-nd over copyrighted with fair use. If cc-nd is completely unacceptable, then so is fair use, right?
Right. "Fair use" is completely unacceptable.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:25:47PM -0500, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Not sure what's *horrible* about no derivative works. Wikipedia doesn't need to alter most images. I'd take cc-nd over copyrighted with fair use. If cc-nd is completely unacceptable, then so is fair use, right?
Right. "Fair use" is completely unacceptable.
Tomasz is speaking for himself, not for me, nor the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the FSF, nor in the true spirit of freedom.
Under Tomasz's interpretation, it would be impossible for us to even quote from a copyrighted book in an article about the author of that book. This is not freedom, this is copyright paranoia.
We do need to be careful about "fair use", because it does raise some potential issues for some re-users. And we should strongly prefer freely licensed alternatives where they are available. But fair use (or "fair dealing" as it is called in most other countries and under the Berne convention) is acceptable.
--Jimbo
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 06:14:13AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:25:47PM -0500, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Not sure what's *horrible* about no derivative works. Wikipedia doesn't need to alter most images. I'd take cc-nd over copyrighted with fair use. If cc-nd is completely unacceptable, then so is fair use, right?
Right. "Fair use" is completely unacceptable.
Tomasz is speaking for himself, not for me, nor the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the FSF, nor in the true spirit of freedom.
Under Tomasz's interpretation, it would be impossible for us to even quote from a copyrighted book in an article about the author of that book. This is not freedom, this is copyright paranoia.
We do need to be careful about "fair use", because it does raise some potential issues for some re-users. And we should strongly prefer freely licensed alternatives where they are available. But fair use (or "fair dealing" as it is called in most other countries and under the Berne convention) is acceptable.
Using short text quotations places few limits on use, modification and distribution of a work.
The same can't be said about using "fair use" images - you can't use them for commercial purposes, you can't distribute them if it involves some profit, and the same applies to any modifications of them.
Please don't confuse these two cases just because they fall under single principle in the US law. I'm not in any way against quotations, but most of the "fair use" images put on English Wikipedia aren't any more Free than "non-commercial use, download from official site only" kind of software.
Well, I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, believe me. But it only clouds the issue to make blanket statements like you did. :-)
I'm sorry that I sounded so harsh.
--Jimbo
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 06:14:13AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:25:47PM -0500, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Not sure what's *horrible* about no derivative works. Wikipedia doesn't need to alter most images. I'd take cc-nd over copyrighted with fair use. If cc-nd is completely unacceptable, then so is fair use, right?
Right. "Fair use" is completely unacceptable.
Tomasz is speaking for himself, not for me, nor the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the FSF, nor in the true spirit of freedom.
Under Tomasz's interpretation, it would be impossible for us to even quote from a copyrighted book in an article about the author of that book. This is not freedom, this is copyright paranoia.
We do need to be careful about "fair use", because it does raise some potential issues for some re-users. And we should strongly prefer freely licensed alternatives where they are available. But fair use (or "fair dealing" as it is called in most other countries and under the Berne convention) is acceptable.
Using short text quotations places few limits on use, modification and distribution of a work.
The same can't be said about using "fair use" images - you can't use them for commercial purposes, you can't distribute them if it involves some profit, and the same applies to any modifications of them.
Please don't confuse these two cases just because they fall under single principle in the US law. I'm not in any way against quotations, but most of the "fair use" images put on English Wikipedia aren't any more Free than "non-commercial use, download from official site only" kind of software. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Jimmy-
We do need to be careful about "fair use", because it does raise some potential issues for some re-users.
The truth is that since I created [[Wikipedia:Fair use]], to develop a process to sort out fair use images where we can come up with free replacements, nothing has changed. People are still uploading fair use images of actors, politicians etc. where I believe it would be possible to obtain free images.
I do think we need to put some more emphasis on the process detailed on [[Wikipedia:Fair use]], and possibly be a bit more strict in deleting images which do not comply with that process. However I think letting sysops delete images without due process is not a good idea. We just need to develop a better feel of what is acceptable and what is not. As long as long-time regulars keep uploading questionable fair use pictures the newbies can't learn the boundaries either.
Personally I think that the more information content or historical value an image has, the easier fair use can be justified. I wasn't very fond of seeing a promotional poster from "The Passion of the Christ" on the frontpage, though, and not just because it's a pornographic movie.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Jimmy-
We do need to be careful about "fair use", because it does raise some potential issues for some re-users.
The truth is that since I created [[Wikipedia:Fair use]], to develop a process to sort out fair use images where we can come up with free replacements, nothing has changed. People are still uploading fair use images of actors, politicians etc. where I believe it would be possible to obtain free images.
I think part of the problem is that it's hard to get licensing, because nobody understands the GFDL. It's easy if Wikipedians submit their own photographs, which should be encouraged (it saves a lot of hassle, and lets us get exactly what we want), but often that's not possible.
To raise one example, a few weeks ago I emailed Red Hat's licensing department asking about the copyright status of their "hat" logo. I essentially asked if we may, solely as regards copyright law, use that particular drawing (which I assume is copyrighted, being an original drawing) under either the GFDL or some other permissive license. I went to some length to indicate that we're not asking for any trademark license or any sort of trademark permission at all, and will expect to be held to the standard permitted uses of trademarks.
So far, haven't gotten a response... if even a GPL-friendly company like Red Hat doesn't know what to do about it (unless I just hit the wrong people), then I don't see why we'd expect most others to do so.
Though in this particular case, it may be worth it to not bother, as 99% of the thing with logos is probably the trademark, not the copyright on a particular drawing that comprises the logo.
-Mark
I agree with this completely. I think we should switch to CC-by-sa for images. This would certainly be compliant with the spirit of the GFDL, and according to the same arguments as fair use it is compliant with the letter of the GFDL.
Anthony
Delirium wrote:
I think part of the problem is that it's hard to get licensing, because nobody understands the GFDL. It's easy if Wikipedians submit their own photographs, which should be encouraged (it saves a lot of hassle, and lets us get exactly what we want), but often that's not possible.
To raise one example, a few weeks ago I emailed Red Hat's licensing department asking about the copyright status of their "hat" logo. I essentially asked if we may, solely as regards copyright law, use that particular drawing (which I assume is copyrighted, being an original drawing) under either the GFDL or some other permissive license. I went to some length to indicate that we're not asking for any trademark license or any sort of trademark permission at all, and will expect to be held to the standard permitted uses of trademarks.
So far, haven't gotten a response... if even a GPL-friendly company like Red Hat doesn't know what to do about it (unless I just hit the wrong people), then I don't see why we'd expect most others to do so.
Though in this particular case, it may be worth it to not bother, as 99% of the thing with logos is probably the trademark, not the copyright on a particular drawing that comprises the logo.
-Mark
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 21:25:47 -0500 From: Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out014.verizon.net from [4.63.108.33] at Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:25:42 -0600 Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Sender: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on orwen.epoptic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_RFCI, RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no version=2.61
Not sure what's *horrible* about no derivative works. Wikipedia doesn't need to alter most images. I'd take cc-nd over copyrighted with fair use. If cc-nd is completely unacceptable, then so is fair use, right?
The GFDL states that third-generation copiers can alter the work, so long as they maintain its history. If you say that about work you only have cc-nd or fair use rights to, you're in violation.
Sean Barrett wrote:
Not sure what's *horrible* about no derivative works. Wikipedia doesn't need to alter most images. I'd take cc-nd over copyrighted with fair use. If cc-nd is completely unacceptable, then so is fair use, right?
The GFDL states that third-generation copiers can alter the work, so long as they maintain its history. If you say that about work you only have cc-nd or fair use rights to, you're in violation.
Not according to Jimbo, you're not.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Not sure what's *horrible* about no derivative works. Wikipedia doesn't need to alter most images. I'd take cc-nd over copyrighted with fair use. If cc-nd is completely unacceptable, then so is fair use, right?
The GFDL states that third-generation copiers can alter the work, so long as they maintain its history. If you say that about work you only have cc-nd or fair use rights to, you're in violation.
Not according to Jimbo, you're not.
This is not really an accurate representation of my position, actually. Anthony is onto something, but my position is more complex that his simple statement would make it out to be.
Clause 7 of the contemplates aggregation with independent works. Some paradigm cases of this would be combining different essays in a book, or combining photos with text. If the independent works in the aggregate are not themselves derivative works of the Document, and when the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to lmit the legal rights of the compilation's users _beyond_ what the individual works permit, all is well.
Fair use is a completely separate matter, having nothing to do with clause 7.
Here's a handy table:
our GFDL text + nonfree photo = not a license violation, but not appropriate for Wikipedia
our GFDL text + free photo = not a license violation, VERY appropriate for wikipedia
our GFDL text + fair use photo = not a license violation, should be used sparingly for Wikipedia (more sparingly than what we've done to date, in my opinion, but first we're working to catalog everything so we can do some appropriate analysis)
-------
As to why CC-ND (=No derivs) is bad, well, it's not GNU free. The right to make derivative works is an important right. It might be viewed by some as less important in the context of a photo or text, as opposed to software code, but I personally don't think so. I think it's very important in our medium.
Would I prefer to have a CC-ND photo to one which is licensed to Wikipedia for our use only? Not really. Both are unacceptable.
--Jimbo
Jimmy-
As to why CC-ND (=No derivs) is bad, well, it's not GNU free. The right to make derivative works is an important right. It might be viewed by some as less important in the context of a photo or text, as opposed to software code, but I personally don't think so. I think it's very important in our medium.
Maybe, but there's another side. I've just tried to get permission to use some example webcomics on Wikipedia in the respective articles. I received one positive and three negative replies. The main problem was that people are worried about third parties modifying their work.
And I can understand that concern. If you have an example comic which features the main characters, someone else can easily rip off these characters and create their "fork" of the strip, even market it commercially, as long as it's copylefted.
What does it do for us to have it modifiable though? We're an encyclopedia, our purpose is not the creation of new artwork but the improvement of encyclopedia articles. The purpose of the comics is to illustrate these articles. Modifying them does not further that purpose (except for resizing, converting etc. which are probably allowed anyway).
I think there's an argument to be made to allow something like "no derivative works" for *some* images. It doesn't really hurt our purpose as a "free encyclopedia", IMHO.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Jimmy-
As to why CC-ND (=No derivs) is bad, well, it's not GNU free. The right to make derivative works is an important right. It might be viewed by some as less important in the context of a photo or text, as opposed to software code, but I personally don't think so. I think it's very important in our medium.
Maybe, but there's another side. I've just tried to get permission to use some example webcomics on Wikipedia in the respective articles. I received one positive and three negative replies. The main problem was that people are worried about third parties modifying their work.
And I can understand that concern. If you have an example comic which features the main characters, someone else can easily rip off these characters and create their "fork" of the strip, even market it commercially, as long as it's copylefted.
Can't they just trademark the characters to prevent that?
-Mark
Jimmy Wales wrote:
This is not really an accurate representation of my position, actually. Anthony is onto something, but my position is more complex that his simple statement would make it out to be.
Here's a handy table:
our GFDL text + nonfree photo = not a license violation, but not appropriate for Wikipedia
our GFDL text + free photo = not a license violation, VERY appropriate for wikipedia
our GFDL text + fair use photo = not a license violation, should be used sparingly for Wikipedia (more sparingly than what we've done to date, in my opinion, but first we're working to catalog everything so we can do some appropriate analysis)
As to why CC-ND (=No derivs) is bad, well, it's not GNU free. The right to make derivative works is an important right. It might be viewed by some as less important in the context of a photo or text, as opposed to software code, but I personally don't think so. I think it's very important in our medium.
Would I prefer to have a CC-ND photo to one which is licensed to Wikipedia for our use only? Not really. Both are unacceptable.
--Jimbo
But fair use photos are also not GNU free. And what about photos which are fair use *and* CC-ND? Isn't this better than photos which are fair use with no license? I should note that CC-ND explicitly places encyclopedias under the category of a collective work. As long as you don't modify the image itself (beyond that allowed by fair use), you're fine.
It seems to me that CC-ND is better than fair use. It's global, rather than US specific. It's applicable to all reusers, instead of being potentially unusable for commercial reuse. And perhaps best of all, there's no arguing over whether the image is fair use. While it clearly should be deprecated in favor of free licenses such as CC-SA or CC-BY, I think it's much better than many of the "fair use" photos we currently have.
But maybe that's where I'm misunderstanding you, because maybe you only want to use "fair use" in the clear-cut areas, such as logos. But when it comes to an image of Dolly the Sheep, CC-ND is much more useful than fair use for the vast majority of reusers. Cropping is about the only useful modification I could see a reuser needing to make, and that's probably going to fall under fair use anyway.
Anthony
But maybe that's where I'm misunderstanding you, because maybe you only want to use "fair use" in the clear-cut areas, such as logos. But when it comes to an image of Dolly the Sheep, CC-ND is much more useful than fair use for the vast majority of reusers. Cropping is about the only useful modification I could see a reuser needing to make, and that's probably going to fall under fair use anyway.
Perhaps, but we aren't licensing Wikipedia images "cropping-only." If we publish an image of Dolly under the GFDL, we have claimed that anyone can take that image and do /anything/ to it, including make a picture of her kicking down the World Trade Center with George Bush cheering her on.
There are no provisions in the license we're using for specifying that some changes are okay and others aren't.
I once again refer everyone to my correspondence with HMSO. Many lawyer-wannabes on this list are happy to advise us to ignore the clearly-stated position of Her Majesty's Government. Of course, /they/ aren't the ones who will have to defend their opinions in court....
(I read all your post about this subject, but I'm not sure to have understood all)
Derivations are allowed on fair used image?
If the answer is "derivation is allowed as long as the derivation still fairs", I don't think it is a real freedom.
I don't want a freedom which could depend on the way in which an American court of justice could interpret the fairness of my work.
Fair use don't exist in many country, I really think it's a worse choice that CC-ND.
Furthermore, we can't use a high resolution picture as Fair use, isn't it? We may not have this kind of constraint with CC-ND.
In all case, GFDL must be privileged, but CC-ND may allow us to get legally some pictures that may never being released under GFDL (logo, celebrity, etc.).
Aoineko
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
But fair use photos are also not GNU free. And what about photos which are fair use *and* CC-ND? Isn't this better than photos which are fair use with no license? I should note that CC-ND explicitly places encyclopedias under the category of a collective work. As long as you don't modify the image itself (beyond that allowed by fair use), you're fine.
I think that's a very interesting question, actually. I'm very inclined to say yes.
What I'm firmly against is any images that we can use because of our special status. That is, images licensed just to us for just our use as an example. Images licensed under non-free terms as another example.
But if we're using it under fair use, and it meets our guidelines for fair use (mainly that there's no possible free alternative, and that fair use would be fair use for almost anyone) so that we're comfortable using it, and it is *additionally* available under a semi-free or nearly-free license, that sounds good to me.
What we want to avoid, though, is a reliance on CC-ND in cases where if we tried, we could successfully "make the sale" to someone for a reallly free license.
--Jimbo
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Not sure what's *horrible* about no derivative works. Wikipedia doesn't need to alter most images. I'd take cc-nd over copyrighted with fair use. If cc-nd is completely unacceptable, then so is fair use, right?
A
It seems obvious to me that No Deriviative Works is completely unacceptable. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I've dual licensed my images under cc-by-sa (attribution, share alike). This seems to closest to the GFDL and I believe to be copyleft.
Caroline/Secretlondon
Mine are under CC-SA, which is about as copyleft as it comes.
Anthony
Caroline Ford wrote:
I've dual licensed my images under cc-by-sa (attribution, share alike). This seems to closest to the GFDL and I believe to be copyleft.
Caroline/Secretlondon
This statement is right?
License compatible with GFDL:
- Public Domain
- GFDL
- GPL
- LGPL
- CC-AS (share alike)
- CC-BY-AS (attribution-share alike)
License witch compatibility with GFDL is discussed:
- Fair use
- CC-*-ND (no derivation)
License no compatible with GFDL:
- Copyright
- CC-*-NC (non commercial)
By the way, no one answer my question about if derivation is allowed with fair use image and who decide the fairness of a picture?
Aoineko
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
This statement is right?
License compatible with GFDL:
Public Domain
GFDL
GPL
LGPL
CC-AS (share alike)
CC-BY-AS (attribution-share alike)
The only of the above licences compatible with GFDL are Public domain and GFDL.
Imran
"GB" == Guillaume Blanchard gblanchard@arcsy.co.jp writes:
GB> This statement is right? License compatible with GFDL:
That depends on what you mean by "compatible". If you mean, "you can include works under license X with works under the GFDL", practically any value of X will work.
If you mean, "You can re-license a work made under the license X under the GFDL", then X can only be "public domain", "GFDL", or something BSD-like (such as CC-BY).
If you mean "You can re-license a work made under the GFDL under license X", then it's just the GFDL.
If you mean, "You can dual-license a work under both license X and the GFDL," then it can be practically any license. HOWEVER, dual-licensing with copyleft licenses only lasts for one generation: people who make derivative works have to decide which license to choose, and license under only that. No current copyleft license allows you to re-license under a license with a similar spirit but different details.
If it's not clear already, dual licensing is a lot of trouble. The idea is nice, but it makes for a lot of head-scratching.
GB> By the way, no one answer my question about if derivation is GB> allowed with fair use image and who decide the fairness of a GB> picture?
There's a good Web site here with info on fair use:
Fair use (or fair dealing) is not a license. It is an exception to US and Commonwealth country copyright law that says that you can make unauthorized copies or excerpts of work under certain circumstances.
Fair use is a _defense_ if you are sued for copyright violation. The courts decide if your unauthorized copying is excusable under the principle of fair use. In the US, it depends who you are, why you're using the copyrighted work, how much you're using, and what the effect is on the copyright holder and the market. It is a complicated and subjective decision. In other countries, the rules are different.
~ESP
From what I have been able to see (but I only made superficial checks), these are the articles which followed the press release
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia%3AM%E9dias#Articles_publi%E9s
We have the usual articles in web sites related to free movement (linux...) (not all are listed in the above link)
We have a small article on LeMonde.fr (small) And one on LeFigaro.fr. Unfortunately, this article is not free, so I have no idea of its content.
Last, hum....if I dare say...someone made a mistake apparently, because some web sites (such as Linux), does mention that Wikipedia reached 200000 articles in february 2004.
Instead of 500000 articles...
Last, just 10 hours ago, the yahoo announcement was published http://actu.abondance.com/2004-10/yahoo-multimedia.html
Andre Engels a écrit:
"Erik Zachte" e.p.zachte@chello.nl schrieb:
Thanks for the translation Bernd, very interesting.
The German press release has been really succesful, large articles in major newspapers, several TV shows. I wonder why we don't hear any stories like this from other Wikipedias. Has the press release really gone unnoticed eveywhere else?
In Dutch we got a short article in the Telegraaf (http://www.telegraaf.nl/i-mail/article8365111.ece). I don't know about any other newspapers or such; at least there has been noone who actually contacted us.
Andre Engels
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org