[Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects

[Delirium]

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>>I certainly don't see Wikimedia as producing "content".
>>    
>>
>
>What do you call images, sound, and video then? They are not documents. What
>word do you suggest we use to describe what we have? Is the free content
>movement operating under a bad name? If so what should it call itself? 
>
>'Media' *might* work but has some ambiguity issues. 'Publication' might also
>work. 'Copyleft' would be redundant. Any other ideas? 
>  
>
Well, I don't see it as one category.  If you're producing artwork, I'd 
call it 'artwork'.  If you're producing educational materials, I'd call 
them 'educational materials'.  Decomposing them into 'visual content' 
and 'audio content' or something like that smacks too much of a 
marketplace-oriented categorize-and-package-for-sale approach.  If a 
generic term is necessary, I'd prefer something really generic like 
"material".  I.e. "I produced some video-based material today".

I'm not sure what the "free content" movement should call itself.  
"Creative commons" is one term I rather like, as it emphasizes the space 
(a "commons") in which many different materials (or simply "stuff") can 
co-exist rather than grouping the materials themself under a single 
moniker, but the term seems to already be taken by a particular 
instantiation of the idea.

-Mark