Andre Engels wrote:
Having said that, I think requiring that the image must be usable for anyone might be overdoing it. I would say, the article including the image should be usable for anyone. That is, having the image with a text equal to or derived from the Wikipedia text should be ok, just taking the image alone out need not be.
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. We are licensing them to modify the document, and potential modification includes stripping out all the text and just leaving the image. We cannot restrict downstream modification--that's essential to copyleft.
--Michael Snow
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.
The same is valid for copyrighted texts everybody is allowed to cite--again, this does not mean readers are allowed to rip off the surrounding sentences and republish the cited texts as a standalone work.
We are licensing them to modify the document, and potential modification includes stripping out all the text and just leaving the image. We cannot restrict downstream modification--that's essential to copyleft.
If "they" create something new, they must check carefully whether they still comply with the law. IANAL.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org