[Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
teun.spaans at gmail.com
Mon Jan 15 13:54:45 UTC 2007
ND=No Derivatives. (and not: no deviations)
This means no derivative is allowed. For example, you can not combine
the image with another.
Most press photos are ND: they can be freely distributed, but not
altered. What you suggest is to accept a large category of images
which can be used as the illustration of an article, and which
seemingly can be distributed freely, but for which the copyright
holder keep the claim to full copyright, and which can not be
combined, modified at the borders to suit to a particular layout,
where it is not allowed to take a cut of it and use that, and so on.
Freedom will be much more restricted than you at first imagine.
On 1/15/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Fair use" is a construct that exists under the US-American law. It does
> not exist in exactly the same way under another law. In the Netherlands
> for instance there is the more restrictive "citaatrecht". When you
> compare "fair use" with "non commercial", you are comparing two things
> things that cannot be compared as they are so different.
> The argument that "NC" is the freest that you can get makes no
> difference really. It puts a restriction to the distribution to our
> content. Distribution of our content is what we aim to do.
> To me the argument would be different for "ND" or no deviations. This is
> a restriction that does not prevent distribution of our content. The
> purists will argue that it restricts what you can do with it. That is
> true, however what they ignore is that there is content where it is not
> possible to have it made to us available. Trademarked logos for instance
> cannot be made available under anything but a ND restriction and
> probably some other restrictions as well, doing otherwise would destroy
> the rights of the trademark holder. At this moment logos are published
> under "fair use" or something like this.
> Personally I do think that the dogmatic way in which this issue is
> ignored is ridiculous. I know of several organisations including the WMF
> itself that would be helped with a license that would recognise this and
> that would be acceptable on Commons.
> Marco Chiesa schreef:
> > David Strauss wrote:
> >> While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's
> >> content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we
> >> allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
> >> Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute*
> >> for fair-use media?
> > To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a
> > copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the
> > justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the
> > problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media
> > because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that
> > you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC
> > tag because fair use is helpless to me.
> > I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you
> > shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if you
> > need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you
> > may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What
> > is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence
> > which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)?
> > Marco
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
More information about the foundation-l