[Commons-l] Need Advice on Image Permissions

[Delphine Ménard]

On 8/21/07, David Blomstrom <webmaster at geobop.org> wrote:
[snip]

> It sounds like I could use images licensed under either Creative License
> or GNU on my political sites with virtually no fear of being sued.
> However, it's POSSIBLE that doing so could lead to me forfeiting
> ownership of material I created. In other words, if I write an article
> about the relationships between Bill Gates and George W. Bush and
> illustrate it with photos of both men derived from Creative or GNU, then
> it's possible that people could begin copying any text I wrote, claiming
> it is no longer protected by copyright.
>
> If I use such images on my educational/commercial websites, it similarly
> appears very unlikely that anyone would ever sue me - but the
> possibility exists. It's further possible that I could lose copyright
> protection of any text and images I created.

[snip]

I think you are misstating a very important point here. Yes, you have
understood what "could" happen should you use Wikimedia Commons images
in the contexts you describe. But allow me to correct you on one
important point. Never ever would you "lose" the copyright protection
of your text.

You would retain copyright (ie. ownership, the right to be credited,
and some other rights), but allow others to use your work under the
conditions listed by the GFDL or CC licences. To make a long and
complex story short, such licences as GFDL or CC-BY-SA

It is very important to understand that putting your work under a free
licence does not mean that you are "losing" anything. You are "giving
up" certain rights, while making sure others are exerted along terms
you have chosen and not by a default law.


> I think www.answer.com is an example of a website that makes abundant
> use of Wikipedia content (at least, text, but images, too, I believe).
> Of course, they probably have an attorney who has worked out an
> agreement with Wikipedia.

Answers.com (if that is indeed the site you're referring to) is
actually a very good example of a "collection". The Wikipedia content
is displayed (as are all other contents actually) completely apart
from all other content. (ie. with delimitations.). In short, the
restrictions discussed in this thread would not apply to the whole
page. It thus allows Wikipedia content to coexist on a page with very
proprietary content ;-)

On the side, Answers.com has been a partner and benefactor of
Wikimedia for the past 3 years.


Delphine
-- 
~notafish

La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. -- Boris Vian in
*Chroniques du menteur*

NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.