[Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

[Robert Rohde]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM, <wiki-lists at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> wiki-lists at phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>> David Gerard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies
>>>> leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has
>>>> made Wikipedia a top-ten website and must be doing all right from it
>>>> isn't enough to convince them ... it goes so much against everything
>>>> they think they know about the world.
>>>>     >> And in turn there are those of us that will not give anything to these
>>> media companies. I'll see a company like News International rot in hell
>>> first.
>>>
>>
>>
>> a properly viral licence will constrain the commercial
>> publisher with the requirement that any use by him will also render his
>> new context for that photograph just as available for free use as the
>> photograph itself.
>>
>
> No it does not. The viral (SA) part of the CC license only applies to
> derivatives. It does not apply to collections, it does not apply if
> used to illustrate an article or advertising flier, ...

It does not apply to collections of truly independent pieces.

Whether SA applies when you merge an image into an article, or vice
versa, is less than clear.  At some point the merger of multiple works
into an interdependent whole should logically and legally be
considered a derivative work rather than merely a collection of
"separate and independent works" (quoting the license definition of a
collection).  Where the line between collection and derivative lies
however tends to be a fuzzy concept not well defined by existing
licenses.

-Robert Rohde