[Foundation-l] RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 5/2/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > I think there's a big difference here between (most) images and (most)
> > text.
>
> I don't.
> Man, this discussion stuff is easy! I don't even have to think.
>
Well, I went on to explain the difference...

> > As Erik pointed out, for instance, a document which cannot
> > legally be translated is not a free document.  But translation doesn't
> > apply to most images.
>
> Well I've translated a few images from Dewiki, but translation isn't
> the only valid alteration of an image.  Derrived works are made
> frequently of free images on english wikipedia. If you'd like I can
> send you dozens of examples off list.
>
No, that's not necessary.  I can show you examples of public domain
content which was used without attribution.  That doesn't mean
Wikipedia should rely solely on public domain.

The question is whether or not something which *doesn't* allow for
unlimited modification should be allowed.  That something which *does*
allow unlimited modification is better is undisputed.

> > The same applies, although to a lesser extent,
> > for short quotes, which is the other place fair use is generally used.
> >
> > FWIW, I think the English Wikipedia should allow ND images as much as
> > it should allow "fair use images".  That is, much less than fair use
> > is currently used, but still sometimes, when there is no other choice.
>
> You've argued this before... Yet you haven't presented a situation
> where we'd get "ND images or no other choice".

What about a corporate logo released under the ND license, and only
the ND license?  What about a cartoon character released under the ND
license, and only the ND licence?  What about a movie poster, or a
magazine cover, or a painting, or a clip from a DVD?  Pretty much any
image under the ND license, when you are talking about that image
itself, and not the thing depicted by the image.

Anyway, we should be talking about principles here, not specific
examples.  The ND license itself isn't even the point, as it's only an
example.

Anthony