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

[mbecker]

Well, I'm glad the copyright issues have been cleared up. Thank you everyone for your responses.
Is any work being done to allow the tagging of images as copyrighted or GFDL? I would like to see this happen before we have millions of copyrighted images on wikipedia. Otherwise, it could be a lot more work trying to find the copyrighted images to tag them. It concerns me that some of our free (as in freedom, not beer) content is dependent on non-free content. However, if we can draw a clear line between copyrighted and GFDL content on the database side of things, I think this will help keep the free and non-free content separate, allowing anyone to use our free content freely, without a risk of accidentally including non-free content.


On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:07:14 +0200, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 08:49, Michael Snow a écrit :
> 
> (...)
> > 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.
> 
> I would agree with you on the interpretation of the GFDL, but I think that the
> online and paper projects have to be treated differently.
> Some people even say that the WMF should never publish a paper edition on its
> own, and they may have some good points, but IANAL.
> 
> Anyway, I think it's the responsibility of the publisher of the paper edition
> to remove fair use images. So it is important that images are clearly tagged,
> so they can be easily removed with a simple SQL query.
> 
> And I can imagine another scenario where an organisation could buy the rights
> of copyrighted images to include them in a paper edition. But I can't say if
> this would be valid under the GFDL.
> 
> > --Michael Snow
> 
> Yann
> 
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
> http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 


-- 
Michael Becker