[Foundation-l] Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice

[Michael Snow]

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Andre Engels wrote:
>  
>
>>The real problem is not with putting them into Wikipedia, but with putting 
>>them under the GNU/FDL license. Putting pictures into Wikipedia under fair 
>>use will be okay if not done too extensively, provided we use relatively 
>>low-resolution and specify the maker. But Wikipedia is not just a webpage, 
>>it is a document under the GNU/FDL. Which means people may make derived 
>>works and publish those. What if someone takes a Wikipedia page, and makes 
>>a derived work from it by removing all but the copyrighted picture, then 
>>publishes that under the GNU/FDL. We are currently permitting them to do 
>>so. But we can't.
>>    
>>
>
>This is a common misperception, and one that I want to combat every
>chance that I get.  It is perfectly fine to aggregate independent
>works under clause 7 of the GNU FDL.  The sort of aggregation that is
>contemplated by the license is *precisely* of the sort that we do.
>
>I have a very high comfort level on this point.  There are certain
>ways in which some fair use images will be problematic.  But the idea
>that if a page is GNU FDL, it may not be aggregated with independent
>works that aren't also under the GNU FDL is simply wrong.
>
>It would be perfectly fine *under the terms of the license* for us to
>put any sort of image in an article, for example, images that are
>licensed solely to us, or images that the Foundation itself owns
>(works for hire, say) and simply publishes under default copyright.
>
>I have asked this question of prominent and knowledgeable people, and
>they have assured me that there is no conflict between GNU FDL and
>fair use.  (They actually treated my question with some amusement.)
>
>--Jimbo
>
Clause 7 of the GFDL is predicated on aggregating the GFDL content with 
"separate and independent documents or works". Are images actually 
separate and independent?

As files in the Image namespace, it's easy enough to say images are 
separate and independent works from articles. But once the image is used 
in an article, it gets fuzzier. When I view an article with an image, 
the image shows up there with the rest of the article, and looks to the 
reader like it is part of the article. It does not look very "separate 
and independent", nor does the image give any indication that it may be 
under a different license than the GFDL. You may point out that in wiki 
syntax, the image is actually linked to rather than being incorporated 
directly into the article, but that argument does not instill much 
confidence in me. The law has been known to disregard such attempts at 
technical distinctions and look at things from the simpler practical 
perspective.

But online content is not that big of an issue really, because anyone 
who says we're infringing on their copyright has to give us a takedown 
notice first, and we can remove the offending image. The real problem is 
print. And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any 
argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a 
separate and independent work from the article text. The one kind of 
print version for which I might entertain this argument is if the images 
are segregated as is done in many books, on separate glossier facing 
pages or in a batch of illustrations in the middle of the book. But in 
the routine print version, where the image is printed out on the same 
page as the article, they look like part of one document and I don't see 
how you can make much of a case that they're not. As a result, I think 
the article as a whole, _including_ associated images, is the smallest 
Document to which we can legitimately atomize the GFDL.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040810/e453097e/attachment-0001.htm