On 12/21/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Images shouldn't have a special status. The attribution of the authors should be part of the article too. That's what the GFDL requires, not that the attribution be "a click away".
You've not actually read the GFDL have you?
I've read it many times.
... I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence. K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.
In any case, the technological nuance of Wikipedia's user interface isn't really a matter for the licenses.. It is normal on wikis for attribution to be kept out of the working document.
Then it is normal on wikis to not follow the GFDL. The section entitled history *is part of the document*.
To claim that the license wouldn't permit it would be equivalent to claiming that every page or even every chapter in a book had to relist the authors.
No, I haven't made that claim at all.
The CC attribution (2.0) terms used on the flickr images which have caused this discussion, which are simmlar...
"If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work;"
"reasonable to the medium or means" Which is exactly what the image page is intended to be...
Obviously not everyone agrees with you that it is reasonable. The way I see it the image page is for internal use, not part of the work itself. So I'd say no, it isn't reasonable.
By the way, you cut out the end: "and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit."
Is the credit being displayed for the image in the same place as the text? No, it isn't. Is the credit for the images at least as prominent as the credit for the text? Once again I'd say no.