[Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Mon Jan 15 14:50:39 UTC 2007

Yes indeed, no derivatives. My intention is to allow logos of 

What I suggest is not necessarily to accept ND photos, but maybe also 
accept ND photos. The point of ND is that it does not allow to change 
material in such a way that they do not accurately reflect what was 
originally there. When for editorial reasons a picture is changed, 
typically there does not need to be a problem. One reason why I would 
insist on ND is to prevent the barbarism of people changing the colours 
in art.

Any way, for me this is a different discussion. Consequently, the 
criticism does not necessarily apply.


teun spaans schreef:
> 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.
> teun
> On 1/15/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> "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.
>> Thanks,
>>      GerardM
>> 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

More information about the foundation-l mailing list