On Sunday 01 June 2003 14:44, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Marco Krohn wrote, quoting Axel Boldt:
"Illustrating an article by adding a photo
creates a derivative
work, therefore the whole has to be put under GFDL, therefore it cannot
be fair use material (or anything besides public domain or GFDL)."
This is not valid reasoning. If accurate, then we can't even quote
from copyrighted sources, not even one sentence of quotation, because
all such use is done under a "fair use" doctrine.
Sorry, but what has the reasoning to do with the consequences? Only because
the results are bad for us does not mean that the reasoning is not valid.
(Apologizes if I misunderstood you, but I don't see an argument for your
statement that "this is not valid reasoning", please note that I am
non-native speaker).
Suppose we have an article about a book by Noam
Chomsky. We wish to
explain the thesis of the book, and toward that end, we quote a
relevant sentence from the book. This is perfectly valid, and it is
fair use.
Please, nobody doubts that this is "fair use". But others and I doubt that the
result is compatible with the GFDL, in fact it is my opinion that the result
violates the GFDL because we start mixing GFDL content with "fair use"
content, and the latter has a lot more restrictions than GFDL.
What is the situation in German law?
I think we shouldn't discuss what the situation is in other countries. IMHO
this is irrelevant. The only question it comes down to is:
Is adding "fair use" content to the GFDL Wikipedia compatible with GFDL or
not.
It is my understanding that GFDL is not compatible with "fair use". I'll
write
an email to the gnu organization now and ask for help with interpretation.
best regards,
Marco
--
Marco Krohn
Theoretical Physics
University of Hannover