[Foundation-l] An argument for strong copyleft

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When Carrie buys a license for the photo and merges it with the "share
alike" article, she has to buy a license for the photo to be released under
this "share alike" article. When she fails to do this she will effectively
violate the rights of the photographer.

Alternatively Carry buys a license for the photo AND acquires an appropriate
license to use the article from the copyright holder. This is in my opinion
the only correct way to do this. Because it can even be argued that an
edition of a newspaper is a derivative work of all the items that make that
newspaper.

When Carry asks Andrew for a license for her article it can be ANY license
even commercial licenses that do not give any downstream rights. The one
thing Bill cannot do is retract a previous publication under the "share
alike" license.

When Carry buys the correct license from Bill for the photo, it may mean
that she buys a license to publish under a free license. As a consequence it
is irrelevant afterwards what he thinks.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >  >  I don't want someone to modify it and put a non-free copyright on
> the
> >  >  derivative of my photograph.
> >  >
> >  >  But I don't believe in purity tests either, that seek to dictate the
> >  >  copyright status of work I had no hand in, and whose only connection
> >  >  to my photograph is that they might appear on the same page.
> >  >
> >  Work that you had no hand in cannot be a derivative of your work, so
> >  there's really no question about that.  However, if your photograph
> >  appears in a newspaper article, then you *did* have a hand in that
> >  newspaper article.
> >
> >  Maybe this is a matter of semantics, but if I look at a newspaper I'd
> >  say it generally consists of articles which have pictures in them.  I
> >  wouldn't say that it has articles and pictures which just happen to
> > appear on the same page.
> >
> Let me expand on that.  Say Andrew creates an article, Bill creates a
> photo, and Carrie puts the two together into a newspaper article.
> Andrew sells the article to Carrie under a restrictive license.  Bill
> releases his photo under a free, strong copyleft, license.
>
> We have two independent works, an article and a photo, and we have a
> newspaper article which is, at least in my opinion, a derivative of
> both works.  Now I agree that it's unrealistic to expect Andrew to
> give away his copyright.  He probably makes a living writing newspaper
> articles.  On the other hand, most Bill's would find it unfair that
> Carrie gets to profit of his work without giving anything in return.
> This is the reason the Noncommercial-only license (which I dislike) is
> so popular.
>
> But there's a simple solution.  Carrie can simply buy a license from
> Bill to use the photo in her newspaper article.
>
> For those Bill's who don't mind Carrie's using their work in this way,
> there's always CC-BY or some other non-copylefted free license.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>